We have already become used to the sequence of events that repeats itself after any escalation on the border with the Gaza Strip, most recently last week, when over a dozen Palestinians were killed and over a thousand wounded. Once again, an act of aggression was perpetrated against Israel, Israel responded, and the Left reared up on its hind legs, recalling events of the 1930s or demanding a committee of inquiry out of shame. Even the mainstream media, which generally tends to lean to the Left on the political spectrum, has lost its patience. The feeling is that a red line has been crossed by showing solidarity with the enemy and by the blatant abandonment of our sovereignty, which the Left is supposed to be a part of.
This time, the claim made by the Left's representatives, that they acted in Israel's interest, failed to sound trustworthy. Every sovereign state has the absolute right to defend its borders. When thousands of terrorists stampede toward these borders, there is no room for palliative interpretation. Regardless, the Left has interpreted and brought shame upon itself.
To better understand this picture, we must make the connection between the Left's responses to the so-called "March of Return" and to the planned deportations of the illegal infiltrators who entered this country mainly from Africa, which have sparked mass demonstrations and polarized Israel's political climate. In both cases, Israel acts like every other Western country: according to international law, with the matter of sovereignty in the center, and with the foremost concern being protecting borders. In both cases, the Left has decisively positioned itself on the side of the lawbreakers and ignores the dangers posed to Israelis.
In many ways, the Israeli Left has aligned itself with the progressive Left in the West. Swedish anthropology professor Aje Carlbum, of Malmo University, wrote about the Left's peculiar Pavlovian response, saying the modern Left is a self-destructive organism because it will always identify the weak as the just and the strong as the sinner. Here the criteria are well-defined: The infiltrators are weak and Israel is strong; black is weak and white is strong; Arabs are weak and Westerners are strong, and so on.
Carlbum initially approached the problem because of the miserable situation of Swedish women, who require protection from the Muslim refugees who embitter their lives in the public sphere. Many Swedish women have left their homeland because of this. The Swedish elite has placed the rights of the "weak" over the rights of Swedes (primarily female Swedes) because even if the weak break the law or endanger lives, they are always right.
The implications of this uncompromising attitude alienate Israelis as well. Arabs will forever appear weaker, and therefore will always be seen as righteous. As a result of this attitude, even if a known Hamas operative charges the Israeli border with a Molotov cocktail intending to take lives, he should be seen as an innocent victim and his death should be mourned as the culmination of colonialist crimes by strong white men against weak Muslims.
This worldview has become so deeply rooted in the Left, both around the world and in Israel, that today almost no act of self-defense by Israel is perceived to be legitimate in its eyes. The wailing and rage against Israel following attempts by terrorists to penetrate state borders emphasized the harsh and shocking fact that as far as the Left is concerned, the room for Israel to respond has decreased to nothing.
