Is Amos Oz the “conscience of a liberal and anti-Messianic Israel”? I do not know who Amos Oz is, nor have I read any of his works. His name is familiar, that is all. But those details are unimportant because Roger Cohen uses it merely to namedrop and to emboss a literary watermark upon his Op Ed.
Despite my admitted ignorance of Amos Oz, Roger Cohen has filled in all relevant blanks by his naming the former as the “conscience of a liberal and anti-Messianic Israel”. What Cohen has done is establish the equality of “liberalism” in regard to Israeli policies and “anti-Messianism”. Finally an honest liberal!
Utopian Statists have ripped off the word “liberal” and all its derivations. They succeeded to the point where one must add the caveat “Classical” to “Liberalism” to place John Locke in his proper category.
So, WHY does “Liberalism” (State Utopianism) equal Anti-Messianism?
Modern “Liberalism” is the drive to overthrow culture and nationality by the apparatus of State. Its stated aims are the creation of some mythic status of Social Justice and Equality of Outcome. Its unstated means is dictatorship by the “enlightened”, by those who have been given the “brilliance” to see through or to Deconstruct the entire edifice of organic societal norms as being arbitrary yet simultaneously conspiratorial in their tendency “to privilege” (as a verb) those “on top”.
Its enemy is Modernity. It does not name itself “anti-Modern” partially because the very act of “labeling” is dismissed as Bourgeois. But more insidiously it is the very exactitude and precision of vocabulary that it opposes.
John Locke espoused the view that the alternative to despotic authority is not necessarily anarchy. Unlike Hobbes, Locke saw that humans have a natural propensity to self-organization. That point of view, coupled with the explosion of literacy enabled the prescient to envisage a self-governing republican nation.
This Modern worldview is first encountered in the Anglophone world. Great Britain and its settler colonies seeded the world with pockets of Middle Class Protestants-in-ethics (if not theology) creating bourgeois societies. These societies created States in order to establish stability, and protect the individuals from criminals and foreign invaders. The Modern worldview perceives the State as a secondary creation, created by the Nation. And by “Nation” the Moderns mean the largest organizational level. The Nation is the totality of the all the individuals who share a large degree of cultural norms, including language, religion, and worldview including a sense of common history and literature. For instance there is without debate a German nation, a French nation, a Japanese nation etc. But when it comes to the American nation there one finds much debate. Is there an American nation? Those who say “Yes” are called “conservatives” at best, “racists” at worst. They are constantly confronted with Michael Stiviks fresh from the University. “Not so” they hear. And then the explanation of the many myths is begun: the “myth” of American exceptionalism, the “myth” that Liberty is truly the goal of the political system, the “myth” of history as told by “white males” etc and in such manner America is “deconstructed” into being the result of ravenous white men who having ravaged the native population, imported African slaves to build an imperialist exploitive machine to rape the earth and pillage the brown races of the world.
This, the toxic brew concocted in the Academy and exported to all the nations that made up that entity formerly known as “Christendom”, is Post-Modernism.
The West emerged onto the world stage as The West in its Christian faith. The deconstruction of the Rise of The West “demythologizes” the role of Faith in the motives of the Conquistadors. It mocks the Pilgrims’ motivating impulse, i.e. to build a New Israel upon actual Biblical concepts. It presumes the deliberate genocide of the Indians, although disease preceded the Mayflower and the Pilgrims decamped into a post-apocalyptic landscape they mistook for simple woodland pastoralism.
American History is never taught as a whole. The Big Picture of the unbelievably meteoric rise of America from a dozen isolated Atlantic colonies of Great Britain to Superpower in the historic blink of an eye is never shown.
America having grown to Superpower status has begun tippling from the Kryptonite Koolaid. It can do so and run on momentum for a relatively long time: far longer than the State of Israel will be able to run.
The State of Israel unfortunately has allowed itself to be seduced by the MTV University. The DECONSTRUCTION Of The State of Israel is ongoing.
If the Deconstruction of Christianity has destroyed Christendom, what can be expected in the Deconstruction of the Judaism to Israel? Judaism itself is under relentless attack from within. The entire Tanakh (the “Old” Testament) is being deconstructed. Though Zionism claimed to be a secular movement of progressive Jews, nevertheless it retains the Jewish component. To what can the Jewish component refer if the Tanakh is denied relevancy?
Amos Oz and Roger Cohen have nailed the essence of Judaism: and it is Messiah. Judaism without Messianic expectations is as dead as Christianity without the Resurrection. And handily we now have it on authority of the NY Times that Liberalism is based upon the demythologizing of the central tenets of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Liberalism is indeed the Anti-Christ.