The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

A Message From The Jewish National Alliance—Hazit

Would a thoughtful person vote for a party that signed the March 2003 Likud Coalition Agreement committing the signatories to Oslo? That agreement led to the Evacuation Law which dispossessed and deported 10,000 Jews living in Gaza and Northern Samaria.

Do you know that two reputedly nationalist parties signed that agreement: National Union and the National Religious Party? (more…)

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it …” Thus begins the Hamas Covenant of Death officially known as “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” To grasp the true nature of the war that is being waged against the Jewish State of Israel, and not only by the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, let us examine this Covenant of Death.

In discussing Islam’s war against the Jewish state, the Covenant refers to the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza as but a single “squadron” of the “vast Islamic world.” “Our struggle against the Jews is very great,” and this struggle will go on “until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized.” (more…)

It’s the system, stupid!

• It gave us the crime of Oslo I.
• It gave us the crime of Oslo II.
• It keeps giving us Shimon Peres.
(more…)

To the editors of The Jerusalem Post:

The Jerusalem Post, as well as the so-called National Camp newspapers, Hotsofeh and Makor Rishon, are excluding any news on the Hazit Yehudit Leumit party headed by Baruch Marzel.

In the past two weeks, Makor Rishon has published the profiles of Kadima members but none of Hazit. (more…)

Hazit maintains, as would any candid military expert, that the most effective way of stopping Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel is to destroy the entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. But since Israel’s ruling elites—such as Ehud Olmert (Kadima), Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud), and Amir Peretz (Labor)—are not exemplars of wisdom and courage, Hazit offers another approach, perhaps equally unrealistic, but instructive. For this purpose we merely update various proposals which the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) made to the Bush administration: (more…)

1) Israel’s essence as a Jewish State must be the State’s paramount principle to which all other principles are subordinate.

2) Therefore, an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State is a precondition of participating in elections to, or holding any appointment in, any office of this State. (more…)

Unlike David Ben-Gurion, Benny Elon approves of Israel’s parliamentary electoral system. Let me offer a thumb-nail sketch of this system before citing Ben-Gurion.

Unlike 74 out of 75 democratic countries, Israel constitutes a single nationwide electoral district. Parties must therefore compete for Knesset seats on the basis of Proportional Representation. Since no party has ever won a majority of Knesset seats, the cabinet invariably consists of a multiplicity of rival party leaders, each with his own agenda.

Moreover, since Knesset Members are not individually elected by and accountable to the voters in regional or constituency elections, they can ignore public opinion with impunity. (more…)

The National Jewish Alliance (Hazit) has been accused of dividing the nationalist camp! Could anything be more absurd?

How can Hazit divide the nationalist camp when it’s the only party that represents the nationalist camp! Ponder these incontrovertible facts—really existential absurdities. (more…)

Ponder the significance of Hamas’ stunning victory in the “Palestinian” elections. Since Hamas has never concealed its genocidal intentions toward Israel, that victory means that a very large majority of the “Palestinians” are committed to Israel’s annihilation.

This should have been obvious when Yasser Arafat initiated his terror war against Israel back in September 2000. Polls indicated that as much as 85% of the “Palestinians” supported suicide bombers. Indeed, they have educated their children to emulate these “martyrs” and have used them as human bombs.

Nevertheless, the Olmert government was more disposed to suppressing Jewish youth protesting the destruction of nine Jewish-owned structures in Amona (more…)

[Based on the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, February 20, 2006].

A. Introduction

1. Nobel Prize laureate Professor Yisrael Aumann, a lifelong religious Zionist, has said that the ideology of the Satmars, which negates all ties with the State of Israel and all that it represents, including its institutions, may have been right after all!

a. What prompted this reassessment was Disengagement and Amona.

b. I would go further. For many years I have warned that the State of Israel or its government poses the greatest danger to the Jewish People—and have I said this not as a religious Jew but as a classical political scientist who has taught the works of such masters as Aristotle and Machiavelli. (more…)

Introduction:
One of my most thoughtful e-mail correspondents is a Hareidi mother—a journalist—quite knowledgeable about Israeli politics and the various factions of the Jewish world. The letter below was prompted by the government’s brutal treatment of the settlers in Amona. Even if one disagrees with the Hareidi critique of the State and its religious Zionist supporters on theoretical grounds, or deems their attitude toward abandoning Jewish settlements unapt on pragmatic grounds (as she does), nevertheless, the letter is worthy of serious study by both religious and non-religious Jews.

While reading this letter one should bear in mind that no less than Nobel Prize laureate Professor Yisrael Aumann, a lifelong religious Zionist, has said that the ideology of the chassidei Satmar, which negates all ties with the State and all that it represents, including its institutions, may have been right after all! The author of the letter, however, is not of the Satmar school. (more…)

A. The Jewish National Alliance (Hazit), has adopted a loyalty oath formulated by its partner, the Yamin Israel Party. The present writer drafted this loyalty oath several years ago. I have updated some of its provisions in view of the ascendancy of Hamas and its claim to represent the Arab citizens of Israel.

B. The necessity of a loyalty oath for all citizens of the State of Israel is justified by the following facts:

1. Studies indicate that most Arab citizens of Israel identify themselves as “Palestinians.”
(more…)

Anyone who has studied Machiavelli knows that the modern concept of the “state” originates in The Prince. The state and the laws of the state are wholly a human product, based on the autonomy of human will. Louis XIV is reputed to have said “L’état c’est moi.” That autocrat may have read chapter 3 of The Prince.

Autocrats rule Israel. When Supreme Court President Aharon Barak said “everything is justiciable,” he thereby crowned himself Israel’s monarch. Barak can nullify any act of the Knesset. Without his imprimatur, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could not have trampled on Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom by expelling 8,000 Jews from Gaza, which Barak decreed “occupied territory.”

The arbitrary decisions of these two autocrats indicate that the so-called “Jewish State” is a contradiction in terms. (more…)

People in the National Camp wanted the so-called right-wing parties to form a joint list for the upcoming March elections. Forget about the Likud. Netanyahu is not opposed to further disengagements so long as there is “reciprocity,” a word foreign to Arab mentality.

But what about Ichud Leumi (National Union) and Mafdal (the National Religious Party)? Well, they formed a joint list, but what a list! Zevulun Orlev, the dovish chairman of Mafdal—a carbon copy of Meimad—outmaneuvered Benny Elon, head of Ichud Leumi!

All polls predicted 8 to 9 seats for National Union, and barely 2 or 3 for Mafdal. Mafdal looked like it wouldn’t reach electoral threshold. (more…)

[Asked some sixteen months ago what should be America’s war aims, here was my answer].

Impelled by 9/11, President George W. Bush told the American people “we are at war,” at war with an “axis of evil.” Mr. Bush defined the enemy as “international terrorism.” Given this amorphous enemy, America’s war aims are equally amorphous. However, since the recent 9/11 commission, Mr. Bush has defined the enemy as “militant Islam”—a tautology made current by Daniel Pipes. Unfortunately, the war symbolized by 9/11 is even more monumental: it is nothing less than a “clash of civilizations,” as eminent scholars like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have shown, and, in the case of Islam, a civilization animated by a world religion. (more…)

Introduction
This article, which was published nine days after 9/11, should be reviewed in the light of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and the “Road Map to a Palestinian state (as is done in the Epilogue dated June 13, 2003. I am publishing it again because American scholars persist in denying a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, a clash which Muslims, down through the centuries, have always emphasized. This clash must not be obscured for various reasons.

1. We are at war. Informed people in America know, and Muslims know, that the U.S. is extremely vulnerable—that if New York is closed down, the American economy would be devastated, racial and ethnic violence or urban warfare would erupt, which would put an end to American democracy and destabilize the entire world.
2. The anti-war movement regarding Iraq is little more than a manifestation of the adolescent and self-indulgent character of Americans society. This society is steeped in moral relativism, takes civilization for granted, and is abysmally ignorant of how many thousands of years were required for mankind to transcend barbarism.
3. At stake in the current war is the sanctity of human life, threatened by the murderous paganism latent in Islam. Only a rejuvenated Israel can overcome Islam.

PART I
America can’t win the war against international terrorism because the U.S. has failed to identify the enemy. (more…)

Our most fundamental problem is to relate our individual, temporal selves to that which is transcendent and eternal.

This why G-d creates nations as well as individuals. It is by being part of a nation that an individual may achieve some sort of transcendence. His life’s activities—his words and deeds—may find some meaning or purpose in a larger and more enduring collectivity. He belongs to a nation.

To belong to a nation is to possess a distinctive history, (more…)

With the approach of Israel’s March elections, diverse parties, especially those that form joint lists, will more or less compromise their principles.

Unfortunately, the function of compromise in politics is widely misunderstood. For example, countless historians and political scientists have called the American Constitution a “bundle of compromises.” They know not whereof they speak. They fail to distinguish between the compromises of politicians and those of statesmen; hence they trivialize the greatest philosophic statesman of the modern era, America’s founding fathers.

In my Philosophy of the American Constitution, I distinguish between different types of compromise. (more…)

1. So long as Israel believes it’s dependent on the U.S. for its survival, Washington will continue to mediate the Israel-Arab conflict to the disadvantage of the Jewish state.

2. American and Israeli politicians are ever saying that the shared moral values the U.S. and Israel is the basis of their friendly relationship. Ariel Sharon often said that his friendly relationship with President George W. Bush was Israel’s greatest strategic asset. No wonder Sharon repeatedly engaged in unilateral concessions to Israel’s Arab enemies! But this obviously renders Israelis servile and undermines the security of their country.

(more…)

Has the desire for peace given Israel peace? Has it not resulted in Israel’s truncation, humiliation, and emasculation? Has not the desire for peace, uttered ad nausea by Israeli politicians, rendered this country increasingly dependent on distant America and thus more vulnerable to war?

That anyone should expect peace from Arab regimes invariably ruled by force and fraud is a question for a psychiatrist. Consider. (more…)