I wonder what Jews can seriously defend democracy for Israel. There is the straightforward issue that Arabs constitute 34 percent among Israel’s young, and so wield decision-making power over all legislative acts which require supermajority voting. Along with ultra-left Jews and some anti-Semitic non-Jews in Israel, the Arabs are close to being the majority. Arabs vote cohesively, while many Jews skip elections altogether. So the leftist-Arab block is slated to form a majority of those who actually vote in just ten to fifteen years as young Arabs reach voting age. Such a democracy dooms the Jewish state.

The submissive Exile mentality makes democracy very bad for Jews. Jewish masses are used to being oppressed, and don’t rush to counter the government which bluntly reneges on its pre-election promises or even puts hundreds of thousands of Jews in danger of Palestinian rocket attacks. Democracy is a system of governance for responsible people, and Jews just lost their sense of responsibility during their millennia without statehood.

Look at the Jewish leaders, who are better described as murderous traitors of Jews. Ben Gurion: did he not expect a war in 1947, despite the spiraling violence and clear declarations of intent by Arabs? But he rushed to arm the Jewish militia only after the war was well underway. Had Ben Gurion instituted mass military training of Jews and at least procured arms, then most of the 6,000 Jews who died in that war would be alive—and would have happy children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Instead, Ben Gurion directed his militia to fight other Jewish groups, like ETZEL and LEHI.

Ben Gurion did not want to upset the British—even at the cost of thousands of Jewish lives. The extent of his disregard to Jewish deaths was seen in the Holocaust: Zionist leadership refused to push the Western governments for visas for Jewish refugees, bombing the death camps, or absolution of European dictators who contacted the Allies asking for personal guarantees in return for sabotaging the deportation of Jews. Most infamously, Ben Gurion and his ultra-rich Jewish friends virtually ignored the German offer to spare the entire Hungarian Jewry for a very reasonable, militarily inessential number of trucks, cocoa beans, and other dual-use goods. And yet, Ben Gurion had the audacity to persistently deride Zeev Zhabotinsky as “Vladimir Hitler” even though Zhabotinsky was rushing about the burning pre-war Europe trying to convince Jews to flee. The very Ben Gurion, the conspirator of silence who bears full responsibility for the Holocaust and should have been hanged alongside Eichmann, was laughing at Zhabotinsky’s efforts to save Jews before the war and Hillel Kook’s efforts during it.

Ben Gurion, a complicit Nazi collaborator, took care to absolve the explicit ones. One Rudolf Kasztner, a “leader” of Hungarian Jewry, assisted the Nazis in deporting us to Auschwitz—12,000 Jews each day, every day. In recognition of his outstanding achievements in keeping the slaughtered flock quiet, the Germans allowed 1,700 of his rich proteg’es to escape. In 1955 an Israeli court found him guilty, literally, of “selling his soul to the devil” for failing to alert the Hungarian Jews to their fate. In those years of Soviet-style totalitarian control over the judicial branch, it took great courage for the judge to issue such a verdict, especially as Kasztner was represented by the government. Three years later, the Israeli Supreme Court acquitted Kasztner, who had thankfully been killed by then; no reasonable person in Israel has the slightest doubt that Ben Gurion heavily influenced the Supreme Court.

Israel’s other prime ministers missed the Holocaust, but otherwise had their hands in the mass murder of Jews. Golda Meir, fearful of the American reaction and procrastinating in the face of a Jewish holiday, did not preempt in 1973 when the Egyptian military buildup was unmistakable, though she could have deluded herself about its purpose. Compounding a grave error with a grave crime, Golda sent Jewish reservists to the slaughter, which resulted in 10,000 casualties—instead of employing nuclear weapons. Golda’s fear of world opinion greatly exceeded her concern with Jewish lives. That ugly character famously announced that she could forgive the Arabs for killing Jews, but not for making the Jews to kill Arabs. Likewise, her accomplice Moshe Dayan remarked during the early stages of the Yom Kippur war, “We’re witnessing the Third Temple’s destruction,” and reportedly was on the way to offer capitulation instead of nuking the Arabs.

The perversion gets worse. During the Lebanon war, the leftists demanded that Israel pull out, thus wasting over 600 Jewish lives lost to combat the terror on our northern border. The right-wing Likud demanded that the IDF stay put in Beirut, opening itself to still more casualties. No mainstream politician had the guts to do what has to be done to secure Norththern Israel: depopulate South Lebanon.

The appeasement of gentiles, a policy brought to the fore by Golda Meir, produced bloody fruit: the IDF was instructed to save Arab lives. In practice, that meant not firing at the civilians used by the terrorists as shields, so that Jews often operated without air support and suffered heavy casualties. No doubt the gentiles were concerned with the civilian death toll. These were the very gentiles who designed blockbuster bombs to rip away the roofs so that subsequently dropped incendiary bombs could set houses on fire more reliably; fried (and rightly so) Dresdners caused no public outcry in Albion.

The establishment’s answer to massive Jewish deaths was, well and good. The Peres-Beilin-Rabin gang launched the worst war of them all, the peace process which has killed and maimed more Jews than the Yom Kippur war. To give the murder a purpose, they coined the unimaginably cynical term, “victims of the peace process.” When else in history have thousands of people died to further peace negotiations? You die to win a war, not to procure media coverage for negotiators. It is critical to understand that the dead end of the peace process is not only the Left’s business: Rabin was as right-wing as it gets, the hysterical “Mr. Security” who ordered the breaking of the hands and legs of Intifada participants. Netanyahu continued the peace process, and Lieberman never even tried repealing it while in the government.

Sharon, a man with the brain of a bulldozer, had a proven history of disregard to Jewish lives, from the 1956 Mitla slaughter to the bloodthirsty destruction of Yamit. Who could think of electing him a prime minister? Sharon loved oppression. When oppressing the Arabs proved not to be a politically correct option, he turned to oppressing Jews, and turned thousands of Jewish refugees from Gush Katif into social corpses, broke and broken.

In horror thrillers, victims walk unaware into places full of danger. What makes the situation horrible is that the viewer knows of the danger. Israeli reality is worse than a horror thriller: voters know about the danger and step in it. We have seen them all: Peres, Barak, Netanyahu. We know that they are traitors. We know they have previously reneged on every electoral promise. But they still manage to come back to power, millions of voters still support them. What would it take for the voters to turn their backs on a politician? A sexual assault? Haim Ramon did that, and now he is back in the government, a top Israeli negotiator abandoning the Temple Mount to Arabs.

Democracy is extremely prone to subversion by demagogues and activists. It is not incidental that in every ancient state which has practiced it, democracy led either to final military defeat, or was superseded by tyranny and monarchy. Masses are easily fooled at least for a short time, and during that time the tyrant creates a sufficient power base to disregard subsequent popular opposition—which is mild anyway, so long as his policies are not outright murderous. People love shedding responsibility, even to tyrants. During the time of their unimpeded rule, Israeli leftists established control over the military, security, and educational establishments which no conservative government can break, no more than any state’s bureaucracy can be dismantled. Besides, there are just no conservative politicians of importance in Israel. Someone like Netanyahu is a political leftist, as that ex-business consultant believes in the cornerstone of leftism, the possibility of shaping society rather than merely going along with the traditions and waiting for them to evolve naturally.

The American example should have discouraged any supporter of democracy. Originally, theirs was only nominally a democracy, but actually an electoral aristocracy or meritocracy at most. Only educated—and by a large margin, moral and principled—people stood for the highest offices. The candidates were drawn from a narrow class, and could not imagine appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to win the most voters. Presidential candidates did not get many additional Northern votes by standing against slavery, but lost huge numbers of Souththern votes. Modern politicians would have no doubt quashed the issue of slavery in order to appeal to the largest possible number of voters.

The nineteenth century saw many duels between US politicians on the slightest issues of honor. A century later, the candidates smear each other during the primaries, and afterwards endorse each other or launch a joint bid. The extent of the American presidency’s deterioration would be unbelievable if it had not follow the historical standard known from the examples of Classical Greece, Ancient Rome, and medieval Italy. At every presidential turn, we imagine that that is the lowest one can get, but the next president comes out still worse. Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II—they are really the human waste floated up to the crest of democracy. Unimaginably corrupt, unimaginably hypocritical, unimaginably immoral and cynical, and worst of all, unimaginably silly. It doesn’t take much brain to refrain from having sex with a White House intern.

Now we have the whopping combination of Clinton II and someone whose only political advantage is his skin color. Obama, to be sure, is not the first to exploit that dubious advantage: the incredibly stupid Rice did it already, even though her smile in photos is grotesque compared even to an orangutan’s. Rice, at least, sprouts some otherworldly academic nonsense, but Obama reminds me of an old Soviet cartoon where a Mickey Mouse-like figure was mumbling the same line, “Folks, let’s live peacefully.” Shouldn’t a presidential candidate be a bit more substantial than that? Nowadays one does not expect at the helm a man who can author the Federalist papers. After Bush II, who had trouble locating Afghanistan on the map before bombing it, what can we ask of Obama?

And I marvel at the insane Jews who support Obama with their votes and money. Is having monsters such as Carter and Brzezinski on his team not enough to qualify Osama as a pathological anti-Semite? Or do they need his friend Farrakhan’s endorsement to scratch their collective head? Of course, Jews gave money to Hitler before he confiscated the rest of it, and a Jew managed the Nazi Air Force during Goering’s extensive leaves. So the Jewish support for Obama is not out of the ordinary. Our people have always had their share of kapos.

Now, I don’t care about Obama’s intenttion to reform American politics for the better. He is bad for Israel, and bad for Jews. Incidentally, he is also bad for Americans. Does having the old-guard Brzezinski on board sound like an attempt to drastically reform American politics? To me, it only sounds like a direct route to a head-on collision with Russia, since Brzezinski, like most Poles, is viciously anti-Russian. Anti-Semitic, too.

Look at the amount of donations Obama has collected. Did the political donors suddenly feel charitable, and support someone who promises to do away with corrupt politics and lobbying? Or did they give money to Obama because he promised to repay them manifold through government contracts, concessions, and subsidies? Obama is a newcomer, investing in him is particularly risky, and he could only attract large donors with promises of unusually high returns.

Clinton II is a disgrace to America. Is this country a monarchy now? Where are these dynasties coming from? Lady, you were the bad wife of a bad president. You couldn’t keep your husband in check. And now you want to handle Iran’s nuclear threat? Give me a break.

Like Rice, Hillary is the sort of the Portrait of Dorian Gray. All her moral ugliness translates into her expression. If that is the face of America, pity the country.

What are Hillary’s presidential qualifications? She is a political schemer. Bismarck created political schemes; that is very different from being a schemer. Clinton II never tackled any serious political issue. Her stance on Iran amounts to hysteria: maybe bomb, maybe talk. Her talks with Assad undermined the US efforts against his terrorist regime, and gave him carte blanche for renewed involvement in Lebanon. Her position on Israel is well-known: her husband the sex maniac had already arranged with Barak to give up Jerusalem to the Arabs. Clinton II, who poses as sort of a Christian, prefers ripping the holy city away from Jews and giving it to Muslims.

Clinton’s domestic prescriptions are simple: tax more, steal more. Vast pork-barrel programs are her trademark. Now she wants universal health coverage for the illegal immigrants and criminal mothers who neglect their children to the point of refusing to buying them $50-a-month medical insurance.

Any random mobster would make a better US president than the Clinton-Obama duo.

Judenrat and other rats