Posted on 05/17/2002 11:07:54 PM PDT by aconservaguy
Israel Morals Match Rand Ideology
By Orit Arfa
Dr. Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute, lectured on "The Moral Case for Supporting Israel."
If an individual, and a fictional one at that, can be a microcosm of a state, then Israel and Howard Roark, the legendary architect of Ayn Rand’s classic "The Fountainhead," may have a lot in common.
Sound far-fetched? Not according to the Ayn Rand Institute, which ever since Sept. 11 has undertaken significant efforts to morally defend Israel. The institute, based in Marina del Rey, was created in 1985 (three years after Rand’s death), to advance her philosophy of reason, individualism and capitalism as portrayed by the heroes in her novels.
"Israel represents the core values that the institute is fighting for — freedom and individual rights," says Dr. Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute, who lectured on "The Moral Case for Supporting Israel" at UCLA on April 17. "We believe that you have to care about Israel if you care about Western values."
Through lectures at university campuses across the United States, television and radio interviews, editorials and now a newsletter on their Web site, the Ayn Rand Institute seeks to influence public opinion, and particularly American policy, toward unequivocally siding with Israel.
The views of the writers and speakers are, in Israeli political terms, right wing but with rationale far different than that of, say, a religious settler. The institute views Israel as a battleground of ideas, where the battle is between two value systems: reason, individualism and self-interest versus mysticism, collectivism and self-sacrifice, respectively. This is not unlike the battle illustrated by the story of Roark, who was constantly, and in exaggerated proportions, denounced by contemporary intellectuals, the media and other architects for acting in his own self-interest and according to his independent reasoning.
Brook believes that the anti-Israel sentiment across the world does not necessarily stem from mere anti-Semitism or fear of Arab wrath, but the ideas espoused by modern intelligentsia, who embrace, what Rand liked to call, the ethical code of "altruism."
"Altruism tells you, as Christianity does, ‘The meek shall inherit the earth,’ and the biggest sin of altruism is acting in self-interest," Brook explains. "The weak and suffering, who must not have acted out of self-interest, are virtuous. Israel, by being strong and successful, must be the villain."
In modern terms, "altruism" is expressed in such trends such as "multiculturalism," which gives all cultures legitimacy, including totalitarian regimes, and "moral pragmatism," which applauds compromise between two disparate value systems as a means of reconciliation.
"If you don’t have moral absolutes, then what Israel does is viewed as bad as any terrorist act," Brook says. "An act of terror is termed ‘freedom-fighting’ because freedom doesn’t mean anything."
The Ayn Rand Institute is committed to undoing the moral sanction that world leaders, and even the United States, give to acts of Palestinian terror, but Brook believes that Israel is often its own worst enemy. He aims some of his harshest criticism at Israeli intellectuals and government leaders.
"Israel’s biggest enemies are in Israeli universities, just as America’s greatest enemies are in the university," Brook says. "Average Israeli citizens are much less morally assured as they were years ago, because what they’re being taught in schools is post-modern, post-Zionist revisionist."
Brook, who grew-up in Israel and moved to the United States in 1987, also lectures on the origins of Israeli left-wing ideology. A state under Yasser Arafat, in Brook’s opinion, will be a cruel dictatorship and, at worst, a terrorist state. "What Israel needs to be is Howard Roark," says Brook. "Roark did what he needed to do to preserve his self-integrity."
Is there a happy ending for Israel? Brook has some reservations.
"Philosophy drives the world. The reason why Rand’s heroes have a happy ending is because they were philosophically consistent. They suffered a lot, but their principles made them victorious. What Israel needs is a philosophical revolution."
Brook will address the Middle East in his lecture titled, "The World in Crisis," at UCLA on May 13 at 7:30 p.m., as part of a five-day event hosted by C-SPAN dedicated to Ayn Rand and "The Fountainhead." For more information visit www.aynrand.org .
"..."Democratic" in it's original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule ... a social system in which one's work, one's property, one's mind, and one's life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose. " -- Ayn Rand
Only thing which makes sense is the writer is viewing the state itself as an individual. In that sense, Israel is Randian. But the people are cogs in the Randian machine.
One bizarre aspect to this article is that atheistic Objectivists are supporting a "Jewish state" -- and then they lump Christians (among Israel's greatest supporters) into the camp of Israel's opponents.
A bizarre paradigm from a cult that is totally disconnected from reality.
Libertarians should take comforted that Ojectivists hate them so.
Ethnic pride? A disproportinately large number of Objectivists are ethnic Jews, even if they are atheists.
This is not mere speculation. In the mid-1980s, I attended a weekly Objectivist discussion group. Much God-bashing and religion-bashing went on in this group. There was talk of renting Monty Python's Life Of Brian for a group screening.
These Objectivists were mainly "ex-Jews," with many "ex-Catholics" (which mirrored the intellectual core of the libertarian movement in the late 1960s, 1970s). One man said he read Atlas Shrugged (or The Fountainhead -- one or the other) on an Israeli kibbutz. Upon finishing it he realized the evil of socialism, and immeadiately returned to the U.S.
The group leader was also an "ex-Jew." So you can imagine my surpirse when I called one day to ask about the next meeting, and was told that it was canceled as she would be celebrating Yom Kippur (or Rosh Shashana -- again, I forget which). This was no joke.
So, weekly, she would mock God, but then she'd celebrate the Jewish holidays. I didn't ask why (she was group leader, and those flirting with Objectivism learn not to question Randian authority). I can only assume that though she no longer believed in the Jewish religion, she still identified with the cultural/ethnic aspects.
A tribalist attitude, not in keeping with Objectivism's claimed "individualism," but it's the only explanation I can imagine. Anyway, instead of becoming an Objectivist, a joined the LP a few years later -- a group much hated by Objectivists.
There are lots of people who consider themselves Objectivists and Libertarian Party members. I am not one. But you should watch your blanket statements.
Objectivists are not all mindless disciples following Leonard Peikoff, as much as he may wish it. Your description sounds like the Nathaniel Branden Institute circa 1969. Times have changed.
Well, this Objectivist group was in L.A., ca. 1985.
And from what I see on TV, Piekoff's orthodox Objectivists seems even more cultist than Branden's. I hear David Kelly's sect is a bit more liberal, but that may only be because he was ex-communicated from the main body.
And yes, I think religious terminology is applicable to Objectivists. There's definiately something cultish about them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.