The Loss of Self: Europe Should See Israel as One of Its Own

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Mon, 2006-07-17 08:18


Deutsche Welle has an interesting little roundup of European press reaction to Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, most of which appears to condemn the Israeli actions as “disproportionate.” As a corollary, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (of Spanish Flee fame) went on record stating that the results of the Israeli response to the agents of radicalization, fanaticism, conflict and instability will be “radicalization, fanaticism, conflict and instability.” The European reaction is instructive for several reasons: First, because it is indicative of the extent to which nationalism and national feeling has declined – there is simply little understanding of why a state would seek so dramatically to protect its own. Second, because it illustrates the European mindset on Islamism – that it is indestructible, and by implication, that its agents cannot be repelled or thwarted. Third, because it lets us know, again, that the Europeans do not see Israel as one of its own – even though, in the cultural and historical sense, it is – and that they blame Israel in a manner reminiscent of those who would blame a provocatively-dressed woman for her rape.

European received wisdom is wrong on all counts.

The first prejudice is a by-product of the European nations’ increasing sense of their own irrelevance. (See, for example, the idiot sub-genre of Falklands War cinema and literature in the UK, in which British artistes endeavor to re-cast that plainly just fight into their conception of Vietnam.) They recoil just the same when the United States seeks to protect its own. Its causes are many: a revulsion, perhaps, at the perception that nationalism slaughtered the generation of the Great War; perhaps a by-product of the ascent of the EU imperium; or perhaps a psychological means of coping with the still-recent loss of empire. Things are easier when you don’t care. The loss of pride is a pity, and the loss of honor still more: but the wound is only felt when others show virtues you’ve abandoned.

The second prejudice is a re-casting of an old Continental European pathology, which for the past century has rolled over and sought accommodation with the most dire threats to itself. First fascism appeared the wave of the future, and in its advance gained adherents of surprising vigor in much of Europe – or at the least acquiescence on a scale that some modern European polities, France chief among them, have been at pains to deny and forget. Then, when fascism evaporated, the new existential threat was communism: and it, too, wielded an enduring appeal to the politicized masses. And, like fascism, the romance with communism did not disappear until its fountainhead did. Now, for the third time in a century, we see the leading classes of Europe stand in defense of the latest existential threat to themselves: Islamism. All their prior fascinations would have annihilated them, and this one is no different. But as before, this threat is unstoppable; it is supported by the people; it is the wave of the future; and it must be accommodated. And as before, there is the combination of the sane remnant of European culture plus America to remind them of Simone Weil’s dictum: “Who were the fools who spread the story that brute force cannot kill ideas? Nothing is easier. And once they are dead they are no more than corpses.”

The third prejudice is commonly described as an updated anti-Semitism, exercising its cold grip upon the European psyche. It may well be: but it is also an indicator of the demise of European identity, and with it the fellow-feeling that commonly arises upon the sight of one’s own. The state of Israel is, it is true, unique in the world – there are no Jewish states elsewhere. It is also true that its population is drawn from all the corners of the world where Jews have been persecuted and exiled. But its political and social culture, mechanisms, and mores are explicitly drawn from European models. This is no Turkey, nor Jordan, wherein European institutions are an overlay on a culture fundamentally at odds with the values that animate those institutions. Israel is Western – and if the West condemns it, it is not because Israel has broken ranks with the West, but because the West fails to apprehend itself.

The Israeli war on Hezbollah will continue, as well it should. In a sane world, there would no longer be any reason for civilized societies to endure the mere existence of Islamist organizations like it, like Hamas – or like the Mahdi Army in Iraq. But this is not a sane world. And so, when plainly evil entities are subjected to crushing blows and punishing assaults, and when those under threat from those entities complain about it, those prosecuting the war should take note – and redouble their efforts.

Thinking simply #2

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-07-21 16:04.

@truth serum

Simplicity has its benefits, and I certainly agree with your basic message.  However, while there is no doubt about the veracity of your first statement (in bold letters), some might question your second sentence in 'bold'.  It is not certain that - if given the chance - Hezbollah and Hamas would kill all jews in Israel.  Perhaps, they would tolerate some in 'dhimmi' status, which would of course entail a denial of their basic human rights as individuals.  The fact that few Arabs enjoy such basic rights themselves in muslim countries does not make it 'easier'. 

Elsewhere on this website, in the context of a discussion on the violence of muslem youth from European multicul ghettos and of American blacks in innercity ghettos, I made the point that both are rooted in the propagation of a false culture of victimhood  by large parts of western academia and media.  Needless to say, no one has done a better jobs at propagating such a culture than modern Arabs.  Nothing makes it easier to avoid personal responsibility for one's actions than the notion of being a "victim".

Thinking simply

Submitted by truth serum on Fri, 2006-07-21 14:39.

I recently heard a radio/tv talk show host put the current Mid East crisis very simply:

 

Paraphrasing...

If the weapons of Hamas and Hezbollah were taken away would the Israeli's kill them?  No.

If the weapons were taken away from Israel would Hamas and Hezbollah kill them?  Yes.

 

That should tell you all you need to know on whom to support in this fight.

pvdh writes: Do you really

Submitted by Earl g on Tue, 2006-07-18 17:50.

pvdh writes: 'Do you really believe this yourself? What percentage of the European population is muslism? And what percentage of that is fundamentalist? Even stronger: How many Europeans still have a faith these days?'

What percentage do, or did, the Ba’athist’s of Syria or Iraq represent? In Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Algeria or any of these Middle-Eastern/African merdeholes what percentage of their relative population support the current regimes?

I presume PVHD your European, so tell me how many centuries have passed without some portion, significant/insignificant it hardly matters, of Europe’s population have decided it was well within their right - or even some divine inherit duty - to command the whole?

The left does see Israel as the West's own

Submitted by evan on Tue, 2006-07-18 16:50.

"The Loss of Self: Europe Should See Israel as One of its Own."

 

I once read a line in which someone said that the left does see Israel as the West's (and especially America's) own - free, democratic, cosmopolitan, comfortable with globalization.  This is why they hate it so. 

@ PVDH

Submitted by George2 on Mon, 2006-07-17 23:40.

"And so Israel keeps on playing solo slim. Not allowing anybody to interfere. But they are almost out of options. Violence and oppression are the only one’s left."

Sure there is someone who can interfere: the Palestinians. The only thing they have to do is stop the violence. The Israelies are dealing with people who are out of their minds: they blow themselves up. They destroy themselves to destroy as many other people. Do you really think reasoning with these people is an option? The Palestinians do not leave the Israelies but one option.

Funny

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2006-07-17 17:21.

@pvdh

 

The various admonitions in your contribution under the heading "Diplomacy" represent an incredible list of wishful thinking and fantasy.  

 

Take the one about the Hezbollah "war criminals" that Israel should have turned over to an "internatinal and objective court".  Who are those "war criminals"?  And why is that Israel's job?  If the Iranian President can stand before the UN General Aassembly and say that he wants to eliminate Israel, doesn't that make him a "war criminal"?  Why should he not there and then be arrested and brought before an international tribunal, instead of his surrogate foot soldiers in Lebanon?  In fact, instead of getting arrested, he gets the majority of the UN Assembly voting with him on most occasions.  Or, when the Russians and the Chinese demand "restraint" on the part of Israel, it is best not to go and have a look at their "restraint" in Tibet, Tsjetsjenie, etc....  And you expect that these people would be able to set up "independent courts"?  I won't comment on the comments of European leaders in Saint Petersburg, because their perfidy hasn't changed a bit since that of their (and mine) grandparents' generation.  

 

The survival of liberty rests in the institutions and will power of 'democratic' cultures and nation states, not in "international institutions", nor in "diplomacy" between cynics and totalitarians.   The contrast between the actual democracy of Israel and the empty rethoric of the "diplomacy" of the Arab League, is a perfect example of this reality and a lesson for the rest of the world.         

Israel & Europe

Submitted by yllen on Mon, 2006-07-17 21:45.

Marcfrans, finally a friendly soul. Europeans are getting too slack, too fat, too indulgent and building too many mosquees in their cities. London's subway attacks were barely a year ago. Do you think we do it out of some deeply masochistic thread or we simply do not care?

Grow up...!

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2006-07-17 16:49.

...and get beyond the simplistic slogans and generalisations: nationalism, diplomacy, European unification, etc..... before it is too late!  All these phenomena can come in positive and in negative forms.  Nationalism is 'good' when employed for the maintenance of humane and democratic values within nations.  It is 'bad' when it is used to promote or extent the lifetime of tyrannies and/or false utopias.  Similarly, diplomacy is good when it is a give-and-take between like-minded people, and it is bad when it becomes an excuse for doing-nothing in the face of a real problem or for putting one's head in the sand in the face of a gathering storm.  European integration was 'good' as an economic integration process that has enabled the removal of 'local' monopolies and promoted economic growth.  It became bad when it was used by cynical and selfish 'nationalists' to divide western civilisation (i.e. Europe as a 'counterweight' to the USA, instead of as a partner of the USA, in a very dangerous and 'undemocratic' world), when it lengthened the distance between rulers and the governed, and when it was used as a vehicle for ideological goals at the expense of 'democracy'. 

Internationalism and international institutions are like blank slates.  It all depends on what is written on them.  They can become instruments of tyranny in an immoral world and when western cultures are increasingly succumbing to absurd forms of extreme moral relativism.

As always it is empirical observation and fair historical analysis that are crucial.  Mr Trevino has exposed three prejudices, that are widespread in Europe, and for which there is ample evidence.  Empty rethoric (like "fighting nationalism through providing everyone with a better life") surely is not an answer to real world problems.   

   

 

diplomacy

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2006-07-17 10:37.

The Fighters and the Freeloaders
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR200607...

A very sensible article can be found in this Washington post article by Sebastian Malaby, although he only sees faults at the other side. He’s right when he states that creating a new failed state on Israel’s northern border will only make a new breeding ground for terrorist groups. But he is also right when he states that diplomacy is crippled by the way mostly China and Russia, (but sometimes also Europe and the US) are using the UN Security Council for their own political agenda. The guidelines on which to take decisions for the council should be simple however. They are the generally accepted ethical rules. For the Hesbollah, it should have been the international community that pressed for disarmament, once Israel had left Lebanon. Of course it was stupid of Israel to keep the Sheba farms, giving the Hesbollah a pretext for keeping their arms. And if the Israeli would have turned over the Hesbollah war criminals to an international and objective court, that would have helped also. Here also, some pressure of the UN could have helped. But then the Americans are vetoing again. In the same way, the international community should take over the occupied territories from Israel. Fighting extremism with modernity is the only way. And the international community can provide that. Again the geopolitical rivalry of Russians and Chinese against Americans prevents the council from acting. And so Israel keeps on playing solo slim. Not allowing anybody to interfere. But they are almost out of options. Violence and oppression are the only one’s left. When is humanity finally gone a be able to create working international institutions? Shouldn’t that be the big challenge of this century. Rather then the stupid nationalism advocated above.

@pvdh

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2006-07-17 11:10.

Your soft, human approach is the kind of Chamberlain diplomacy which never worked in history.
Try to be concrete:
Which etical approach? Chinese communist ethics? Russian KGB (today FSB) ethics? Zionist ethics (every 2000 years they come back a couple of 100 years and shove the Palestinians aside until the next time they leave)? Hamas ethics? Hezbollah ethics?
Be realistic and regard the stakes:
Israel is supported by the U.S. through thick and thin. Why, because the U.S. is in love with Israel? Because they were teenage sweethearts? No, the U.S. supports Israel because Israel is the guardian and protector of the Saudi oilfields for the U.S. I hope you are not surprised. And for this reason Russia and China will secretly side with Iran because Russia would love for Iran to control the Middle East and the 2 countries together would control the world oil market and bring the U.S. and Europe to its knees. Is that what you want to solve in The Hague? Good luck to you and to all blind people.

@traveller

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2006-07-17 13:05.

And they reproach me to be cynical.
We in Europe have learned that “War” is no use. That’s why we created the European Union. That’s why we were doing so well in trying to solve our differences by diplomacy. And we proved it: Diplomacy works! Fighting nationalism and extremism trough providing a better life for everybody works! Of course there was a great “democracy deficit” in the EU. That wasn’t the fault of the advocates of more Europe though. If it had been for them, we would have had a decent elected parliament with a government and a president. It were the nationalist forces in the first place that wanted “a commission” where the nationalist interests could be defended trough the commissioner(s) of the country in question. Those same nationalists that now are crippling the EU on the pretext of that same lack of democracy. And of course we could start to build this dream thanks to the loss of our empires and colonies. And thanks to the safety umbrella against the USSR provided by the Americans. So what? The result is 60 years of no wars in Europe. If a few years back, you’d ask me if there was a chance we would ever be fighting again amongst Europeans, I would have said no. But with the nationalist right wing forces growing again everywhere, and the idée of a unified Europe declining, I’m not so sure anymore.

@pvdh

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2006-07-17 16:12.

I know that I am losing my time trying to have a concrete discussion with you but let me try a last time.
Europe didn't have wars for 60 years because of the cold war and the real fear of a nuclear war. This and this alone kept our politicians cautious. The E.U. came on the heels of the economic Coal and Steel Agreement, which was a real success. The political aftermath of this came because the french and the germans had their own agenda and they succeeded to convince the others which still could have been something good if they had stuck with the confederal idea of different nations, but the french had to impose their own desire for a centralised Europe preferrably under their control. And now what do we see: Jean Luc De Haene is a co-drafter of a constitution for 450 million people and 25 nations where he cannot even draft a law for the separation of Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, his own city.
The constitution of the U.S. is a 2 page piece of paper with the basic rights of the individuals clearly specified. The E.U. monster is a book with the basic rights of the state structure in the first place in a hopeless complicated form and you want the E.U. model to be an example for the world? Poor world.
The negotiations for peace in the Middle East MUST be carried out between Iran and the U.S. and that will take eithet a war with Iran or protracted fighting at the Israeli border to the last Palestinian, Lebanese and eventually Syrian. There is no talking alternative but between Iran and the U.S. and I don't believe it is even possible without first a war between the 2

leave

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2006-07-17 09:12.

"IDF warns Lebanese civilians to leave city's Shiite area."

Now that would be a stupid thing to do isn't it? Last time Arabs left their city out of fair of a war, they found out their was no way to return...

Islamism?

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2006-07-17 09:10.

Islamism. All their prior fascinations would have annihilated them, and this one is no different. But as before, this threat is unstoppable; it is supported by the people; it is the wave of the future;

Do you really believe this yourself? What percentage of the European population is muslism? And what percentage of that is fundamentalist? Even stronger: How many Europeans still have a faith these days?
Islamism is not a political movement, worth the name. It’s got nothing to do with fascism or communism. It’s not supported by the masses. Why does anybody wants to write such utterly nonsense, I wonder. Why this unstoppable need to demonise a part of our population.