Had the Jews believed in peace as a religious or
philosophical precept, Jesus Christ would have died of natural causes and not
by crucifixion. The fact is that the Jewish system of beliefs is built around
the concept of violent predation as shown on every page, going from cover to
cover in the Old Testament. The Jews always treated peace as poison, and
treated the peacemakers as carriers and distributors of that poison.
It is not surprising, therefore, to see that the Jews have
turned the word 'peace' into both an offensive weapon and a defensive shield.
It is that they had their ups and downs going from place to place the way they
did all over the planet, and throughout time. When down and facing powerful
opponents, the Jews sued for peace. When they had the upper hand and were
facing weak opponents, they imposed the peace of the grave on them.
It is useful to be aware of that history when reading the
article that came under the title: “How Did 'Peace' Become a Dirty Word in Israel ?”
written by Shmuel Rosner, and published on November 9, 2017 in the New York
Times. In fact, the piece reveals more than the attitude which the Jews
developed with regard to the concept of war and peace. It shows how they
constantly prevented themselves from gaining the escape velocity that's needed
to break away from the gravitational pull that's keeping them in orbit around
the black hole of nihilism.
The occasion prompting Rosner to write the article was the
assassination anniversary of then prime minister of Israel , Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli
Jew. The first indication that the content of the article may go beyond a
simple discussion about war and peace came early when the writer revealed the
following: “There was a debate over Rabin's true legacy and the proper way to
commemorate his assassination. In fact, this debate has become something of
annual Israeli tradition.” Here it is, in black and white, a mention of the
interminable Jewish haggling representing the black hole whose attraction the
Jews can never escape.
Rosner goes on to explain that Rabin genuinely wanted to
bring peace to the Jews of Israel. He was therefore a peacemaker that had a
number of followers. But he also had an opposition that disagreed with him so
vehemently one of its members assassinated him. Well, that's what you'd expect
of the Jews.
But the added value that Rosner brings to the debate is a
description of the Jewish use of both the word and the concept of peace. His
discussion of the subject matter demonstrates that the word represents not only
an event that the Jews manipulate to their advantage; it is also the topic of a
vast polemic they use against each other as a weapon. The following are the
three stages through which the writer explains that phenomenon.
Stage one deals with the expression of Jewish contempt for
peace. Rosner explains it like this: “Why would the organizers want to take
'peace' out of the rally? Most Israelis haven't believed in peace for a long
time. They support negotiations for peace, but only a small minority believes
this will lead to peace. As a goal, peace is out of fashion. It is quite
something to act as though mentioning a desire for peace in the public square
is unacceptable”.
Stage two deals with the Jewish dual use of the word “peace”
as both fake pleasantry and poison. Rosner explains it like this: “Jews include
the word 'shalom' in their prayers, and use it as a greeting regularly. But in
the political arena, many Israelis are no longer willing to say that peace is their
goal, because they fear that saying so will make them sound fainthearted or
deluded. Israelis have developed two strategies as they shun the politically
poisonous word 'peace.' The right avoids the subject entirely. The left has
replaced 'peace' with more technical terms. It is the way for leftist leaders
to avoid scaring away voters”.
Stage three is where Rosner gives a dispirited and
not-very-convincing recommendation to the leaders of Israel . Here it is: “Our leaders
should go to the habit of reminding Israel
and the world that Israel 's
goal is peace. 'Peace' should be a usable, mainstream word, and an aspiration
that everyone shares. That won't be easy. The left has gotten used to using
'peace' as a weapon against the right. The right has gotten used to using
'peace' as weapon against the left. But peace shouldn't be a political weapon
for either side”.