The Final Solution to the Jewish State

Ilana Mercer, July 7, 2006

I‘ve always thought the concerted campaign to delegitimize Israel conducted over the pages of The American Conservative (TAC) Magazine was the result of minds ravaged by the rot of Lawrenthian romanticism. The great classical liberal Ludwig von Mises did, after all, warn that “Romanticism is man’s revolt against reason.”


It transpires I’ve been naïve. The magazine’s editor and publisher embarked on a magical mystical tour to the Middle East. From his account, a far more sinister angle has emerged.


Under the guise of bearing Christian witness, his sanctimonious little church group visited “Syria, Israel and Palestine,” but forgot to include Israelis (other than the radical left) in the “dialogue.”


Following a Panglossian portrayal of Syria, we are told that, “Half a million Palestinians dwell in slum-like refugee camps around Damascus, and they are a political wild card, a potentially volatile element in Syria’s politics.”


We aren’t informed that the U.N. High Commission for Refugees does not consider descendants of refugees to be displaced too. But the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, a shake-down subsidiary designed for Palestinians only, has conferred on all self-styled Palestinian refugees eternal and heritable dispossessed status.


Also missing from the pilgrim’s account is an elucidation to the effect that although Palestinians have been a “political wild card” and a destabilizing influence in the region, they enjoy far more freedoms in Israel proper than in the surrounding Arab countries and in their own “democracy.” In mitigation it must be said, however, that these omissions are standard in the press’s coverage of Israel.


Easily the more scandalous—yet cleverly concealed—development is that as the savage society adjacent to the civilized one implodes, Israel’s enemies (they include Jews of the left first and foremost) have begun floating solutions more final, so to speak.


In this, TAC’s publisher is especially clever. Since he continually reiterates an ostensible support for the two-state solution, one is led to believe he is deeply committed to the idea of adjacent Jewish and Palestinian countries.


The perceptive reader soon realizes someone is striking a disingenuous epistolary pose. TAC’s position is imminently revealed—but through surrogates. We hear that Assad has posited that the fractious Palestinian “refugees” in Syria “could return to a Palestinian state on the West Bank.”


TAC appears to think this is inadequate, and that Assad ought to have said something entirely different. So the author surreptitiously introduces the position he deems correct by framing it as something Assad did not say: Assad “postures not at all about their possible return to ancestral homes in Haifa.”


The writer is editorializing, of course. The quandary remains this: Why does TAC’s publisher pucker up in prayer at the thought of millions of self-styled Arab refugees swamping Israel proper?


Well, the Palestinian “right of return” and the “one-state solution” are very plainly (and quite objectively) euphemisms for the destruction of the Jewish state as we know it. By the writer’s own admission, “Palestinians could begin to agitate for voting rights in the country that governs them.” That would be “a way of abruptly reversing the tempo of a losing game,” he ventures.


Evidently TAC, which everywhere else defends the rights of nations to determine their national character and the type of people admitted to the polity, wants to see Israel immolated by Palestinian immigration.


The prospect of other western nations dissolving because they’ve adopted immigration policies—a global “right of return,” if you will—that are leading to their cultural destruction drives the author of The Death of the West (Pat Buchanan) and the writers at TAC apoplectic. Ditto the prospect of the historical majority’s demise in the U.S. Not so the Jewish state’s death by demographics. But what’s good for the American goose is clearly no good for the Israeli gander.


What makes this depravity so much more chilling—if not nihilistic—is that  we can predict with a degree of certainty what will transpire once the prescribed “right of return” or “one-state solution” is foisted on Israel and Muslims become a majority in Israel proper.


Considering Israel’s Arab citizens are reluctant to accept her Jewish-Zionist identity, and their brethren outside the Green Line believe Israeli real estate ought to be confined to the Mediterranean Sea, retaining a Jewish majority in Israel is a matter of life and death for Jews. For Israel, the lives of its citizens, and certainly the liberal nature of its institutions, depend on remaining numerically preponderant. 


Toward the end of the chronicle, TAC drops the façade of support for “the vanishing two-state solution.” The writer, who, understandably, isn’t keen to own his positions, is in the habit of introducing proxies that project his views. The surrogate here is a Palestinian Lutheran theologian who prates that:


“The whole project of Israel has … failed… If you read the Bible seriously, a project called Israel never succeeded. Its leaders sinned against God. A national state can never be the answer to people’s aspirations.” [Except for the Palestinians, presumably.]


(Warren Buffett, by the way, doesn’t think Israel is failing; he took the phenomenal 6.6% growth rate in the first quarter this year as a cue to heavily invest in the place.)


TAC’s editor and publisher has previously deployed this tactic to introduce readers to “Palestinian Liberation Theology.” He quoted his minister—never himself—as having alluded to Jesus’ mother Mary as “a poor Palestinian woman.” He then piously pretended to let the revolutionary concept “rattle around the mind for a while.”


“This Palestinian theology,” explains historian Bat Yeor, “strips away Jesus’ Jewishness and turns him into a sui generis Arab-Palestinian Jesus, a twin of the Muslim Jesus. Christianity, thus liberated from its Jewish roots, can be transplanted in Arab-Islamism. This would place Palestine, and not Israel, at the origin of Christianity, making Israelis usurpers of the Islamic-Christian-Palestinian homeland. This theory denies the historical continuity between modern Israel and its biblical ancestor, the locus of nascent Christianity.”


So when proponents of the increasingly popular Palestinian replacement theology at The American Conservative and elsewhere speak of the existence of Israel as a sin, and then smuggle in the concept of the Palestinian Jesus—know that they’re pirating ancient Jewish history by superimposing Palestinian fiction on it.


Know that these archetype Amalekites are engaged in the ultimate identity theft so as to bring about the end of the Jewish state as we know it.



© 2006 By Ilana Mercer

     July 7

CATEGORIES: Israel, Paleoconservatism, Palestinians

Leave a Reply