Deconstructing Israeli Society

By Moshe Feiglin

The photo of homosexual soldiers on the IDF official website should have set off a lot of alarm bells for a lot of public figures. But they were all afraid. The heavy-handed 'politically correct' code paralyzes our representatives. They prefer to remain silent and let somebody else fend off the arrows that are sure to come. MK Uri Ariel (National Union) deserves our appreciation and admiration. He was the only MK to courageously state the simple truth, calling upon the IDF to conduct itself on this issue as it has in the past.

There is no question that a person's individual rights in the privacy of his own home must be carefully guarded. Nobody should harass homosexuals or people with any other types of deviations. But today the situation is reversed: Homosexuality harasses normalcy.  

Homosexuality represents a set of values. For a long time now, the issue has not been the right of those people with different inclinations to do what they please in their own homes. Instead, the issue is their demand that society recognize the values represented by their inclinations.

Israeli (and Western) society are in a perpetual state of conflict between the founding values that built them and the opposite values, which strive for deconstruction. The fundamental leftist ideal of "We will destroy the old world down to its foundations" is not a means to an end, but the end, itself. The Left always pronounces some utopia for which it is worthwhile to destroy everything (socialism, peace, democracy). But the simple truth is that at its foundation, the Left seeks to return the world to a state of chaos, anarchy and blurring of the differentiation with which G-d created the world. If you don't quite get it, sing a few lines of John Lennon's "Imagine."

How does the Left go about deconstructing the world? Any value that binds society is fair game for attack:

The Left attacks and undermines settlement in the Land of Israel, because it is the foundation of the renaissance of the Jewish Nation. They inject as many foreigners as possible into the veins of Israeli society: foreigners who do not share values with the Nation of Israel and who have no real intention of sharing its fate.

The Left also attacks the family because it is the foundation of society. The attack is not frontal; it is accomplished by empowering anti-family values; the invention of concepts like the single-parent family, meaning that any combination makes a family. And when anything makes a family, the family is really nothing.

Another tactic the Left uses to deconstruct the family is to invalidate the status of the man in the family, turning him into some sort of downtrodden creature that is to blame for everything, by definition. The woman is the home, but the man in the home turns the group into a family. Without a father, the family is completely unbalanced.

The Left promotes homosexuality as a value – as a barometer of "equality" and "liberty". It promotes feminism as a barometer of "women's

 rights." Any value that threatens or undermines the values of society and family becomes hallowed.

A prime example of this process is the appointment of MK Einat Vilef to head the Knesset's Education Committee. Vilef is a very intelligent person with an impressive security record. On the surface, she seems like a worthy choice. But the Knesset's representative now responsible for the education of Israel's children is married to a German journalist.

In the politically correct terror that exists today, you have to be crazy to claim that a Jewish woman who marries a non-Jewish man is not exactly a role model for Jewish children. After all, the Left dictates that religion doesn't matter. Nobody dared oppose the appointment – not even the religious MKs.

Another example is Labor chairman Shelly Yehimovitz, who until recently was head of the Knesset Committee on Children's Rights. Ms. Yehimovitz is also a highly intelligent woman, who worked honestly and energetically to improve life for children. But similar to Vilef, Yehimovitz's personal life contradicts the values represented by the position to which she was appointed. Every child has an elementary right to a family: a father and a mother. If a person has not managed to provide her children with this basic right, how can she be the standard bearer of children's rights?  

Is all this coincidence? Or is there a guiding hand ensuring that those who represent deconstructionist values acquire positions in which they are supposed to guard society's values?

Does this mean that we are anti-women? Anti-homosexuals? We are in favor of women and in favor of every good person (nobody says that homosexuals are not good people). We are in favor of society, family and our country and against all the attempts to deconstruct them.

Some people are captive to slogans about equality. But they don't understand how those slogans undermine basic values without which they, themselves, cannot live – even if they are homosexuals.