Democracy versus Zion? Says who?

As Mahmoud Abbas attempts to push his anti-Zion agenda at the UN and at the International Criminal Court (ICC) (“Report: PA Files War Crimes Charges Against Israel in ICC”, Arutz Sheva, January 2, 2015), who will Israel’s media defend? Will it defend Abbas—or Israel?

It appears that the Times of Israel has decided who it will defend—and how it will frame that defense. The paper’s editor, David Horowitz, has written an editorial that defends Abbas in the name of ‘democracy’ (“Netanyahu set to lead a strikingly hardline Likud”, December 31, 2014). Specifically, he appears to argue that if you want ‘democracy’ in Israel, you must vote for politicians who will work towards a ‘two-state’ solution (to sign a ‘peace’ with Abbas).  But if you vote for pro-Zion politicians (who do not support ‘two states’), you vote against ‘democracy’.

That, Horowitz suggests, is what the upcoming March, 2015 national Israel elections are all about—the survival of democracy in Israel.  He seems to believe that the incumbent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has reshaped his Likud Party to the far-Right. For Horowitz, this means that Netanyahu would become, upon re-election, much more pro-Zion (pro-Israel). If this is what Netanyahu will do, he’ll be choosing Zion over ‘democracy’.

Are we missing something here? Since when do the principles of democracy obligate one to surrender ancestral homeland land to those who vow to destroy you? Since when is opposing your own destruction anti-democratic?

Democracy isn’t about surrendering to your enemy.  Democracy is about providing freedom to those who come to you in peace, to live with you in peace.

But with this election, editor Horowitz suggests, Netanyahu opposes democracy. Netanyahu, Horowitz claims, seeks to undermine the longtime “principled democratic voice of Likud (ibid).

Really?

Israel is at war. Hamas makes its war-goal of conquering Israel very clear (“(“Watch: Hamas Shows Off Army 'Ready to Conquer Jerusalem'”, Arutz Sheva, December 27, 2014; and, “Wiping out Israel would be easier from West Bank, Hamas official says”, Israel Hayom, October 7, 2014). Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority isn’t far behind (“Palestinian Incitement Spurs Terrorist Attacks”, AIPAC Memo, November 18, 2014).

This Summer and Fall, Arabs rioted against Jews in general and Jerusalem in particular. They painted swastikas on the Temple Mount (“Shocking: Muslims Daub Swastika on Temple Mount”, Arutz Sheva, October 19, 2014). They tried to burn Jews alive (“Arab Terrorists Try to Burn Jews Alive in Jerusalem”, Arutz Sheva, October 17, 2014).

Swastikas and Jew-burning aren’t associated with freedom or statehood. They’re associated with unadulterated Jew-hate—which, you may note, has nothing to do with freedom, independence, peace or statehood.

When Arabs rioted, Mahmoud Abbas didn’t call for calm. He didn’t call for peace on the Temple Mount (a focus for Arab anger). He didn’t call for peace in Jerusalem. Instead, he spoke against Jews. For example, he called Jews ‘cattle’ (“Abbas Calls Jews Visiting Temple Mount 'Herd of Cattle', Arutz Sheva, October 18, 2014). He spoke of a ‘declaration of war’ (AIPAC, ibid). He used inflammatory language that was uncannily similar to that used by his predecessor Yasser Arafat to ignite the 2000 Intifada (“Abbas Calls for 'Jerusalem Intifada' - Just Like Arafat Did”, Arutz Sheva, October 28, 2014). 

Jerusalem has been under siege (“Jerusalem Mayor: PA Trying to Create Havoc in Jerusalem”, Arutz Sheva, November 5, 2014). During that siege, Abbas’ Fatah didn’t call for calm. It called for rage (“Abbas's Fatah Calls for 'Day of Rage'”, Arutz Sheva, October 28, 2014).  Jerusalem suffered (“Mayor Reveals Jerusalem Went from 200 to 5,000 Monthly Attacks”, Arutz Sheva, October 27, 2014).

While some may forget this reality, Israel’s voters haven’t. They understand the truth, if some don’t: we are at war (“'This Isn't an Intifada, It's War'”, Arutz Sheva, November 6, 2014). The so-called ‘Palestinians’ can’t stop talking about it. They certainly don’t talk about ‘two states living side-by-side in peace and security’. They don’t talk about ‘coexistence’.

They talk about driving Jews out of Israel. They talk about denying us our rights (“MK Tibi: 'Jews Have No Right To Pray on Temple Mount'”, Arutz Sheva, October 31, 2014).

The state of Israel has the obligation to protect its citizens. Protecting one’s citizens is not contrary to ‘democratic principle’.

Telling Mahmoud Abbas we will not talk to him until he commits to peace isn’t contrary to ‘democratic principle’. Telling the world that Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is ancestral Jewish homeland—and will remain such--isn’t contrary to ‘democratic principle’.

One does not pursue a ‘democratic principle’ when one signs a peace agreement that surrenders land to a man (Abbas) who has a political logo that shows his Arab ‘Palestine’ replacing the entire Jewish state of Israel.

Supporting a ‘two-state’ solution has nothing to do with democracy. It has more to do with empowering a national suicide than any ‘democratic principle’.

If anything, the creation of a ‘two-state’ solution will hurt democracy in the Middle East, not help it.