From my blog.
Israel, I have argued, is aptly viewed as a modern hybrid of ancient Athens and Sparta, and debate typically turns on which aspect to stress. However, something is missing in this characterization. Consider how a major Israeli daily wants the PM to address the world:
“What is it about us, the Jews, the few and persecuted, that arouses all these instincts of cosmic justice in you?” it read. “We are not hesitating, apologising or relenting.
“Gentlemen, it is time for you to understand: The Jewish state will no longer be trampled underfoot… I serve as a mouth today for six million bombed Israeli citizens, who serve as a mouth for six million annihilated Jews, who were burnt to dust by savages in Europe… And you, just as you did not take the matter seriously at the time, you are ignoring it now.”
If this tirade is indicative of Israeli public opinion, it is a disturbing mentality on the part of a nation engaged in two-front war against two neighboring populations involving large-scale razing of roads, bridges, water mains, power stations, hospitals, and housing quarters by means of tank shells, artillery rounds, cluster bombs, and guided missiles, killing nearly 1,000 civilians and driving many hundred thousands to flee. The eminent historian Tony Judt, in an outstanding essay from May called ‘The country that wouldn’t grow up’, pegs it as ‘macho victimhood’.
And the long cultivated persecution mania – “everyone’s out to get us” – no longer elicits sympathy. Instead it attracts some very unappetizing comparisons: At a recent international meeting I heard one speaker, by analogy with Helmut Schmidt’s famous dismissal of the Soviet Union as “Upper Volta with Missiles,” describe Israel as “Serbia with nukes.”
Serbia with nukes. What harsher indictment in Western ears? Even to its less hostile critics, Serbian nationalism remains predicated on a literally epic victim cult. The difference is that Jews can claim, to a greater extent, an actual history of massive collective persecution. However, Judt notes, to new generations of non-Israelis, this history is becoming just that:
Even the Holocaust can no longer be instrumentalized to excuse Israel’s behavior…. In the eyes of a watching world, the fact that the great-grandmother of an Israeli soldier died in Treblinka is no excuse for his own abusive treatment of a Palestinian woman waiting to cross a checkpoint. “Remember Auschwitz” is not an acceptable response.
In short: Israel, in the world’s eyes, is a normal state, but one behaving in abnormal ways. It is in control of its fate, but the victims are someone else. It is strong, very strong, but its behavior is making everyone else vulnerable. And so, shorn of all other justifications for its behavior, Israel and its supporters today fall back with increasing shrillness upon the oldest claim of all: Israel is a Jewish state and that is why people criticize it. This – the charge that criticism of Israel is implicitly anti-Semitic – is regarded in Israel and the United States as Israel’s trump card. If it has been played more insistently and aggressively in recent years, that is because it is now the only card left.
Judt knows only too well what he is talking about. Himself a declared ‘proud Jew’, he was nonetheless subjected to a scathing campaign of defamation upon his famous 2003 essay in The New York Review of Books. Here he concluded thus:
His recent essay in Haaretz reiterates this crucial point:
Nor does this apply only to Muslims. On the one occasion I have ever personally heard an ethnic Scandinavian express anti-Semitic views, the objects of his disapproval turned out to be Israeli occupation policies and the US pro-Israel lobby. A man of little formal education, he confused these with Jews as such, as he realized when pointed out. Ironically, however, garden-variety apologists for Israel would eagerly concur with his original self-identification as an anti-Semite.
In other words, this victim cult is doubly self-reinforcing. Not only does Israel’s contempt for human rights and international law antagonize a growing fraction of humanity, which rejects the tired image of a civilized oasis besieged by barbarians. In addition, helped by the efforts of Israel’s propagandists to stifle criticism, this enmity toward a state is increasingly redirected at ethnic Jews everywhere, boosting the irrational sentiment that made necessary the creation of a Jewish nation-state in the first place, long after such nationalist projects had been discredited in Europe.
This has got to end before it is too late. After all, a Serbia with nukes may eventually feel the need to use them.
Slipped down the memory hole is the fact that Sharon opposed the NATO intervention against Serbia (“brutal intervensionism”) which Israeli journalist Uri Averny noted was likely because:
If the Americans and the Europeans interfere today in the matter of Kosovo, what is to prevent them from doing the same tomorrow in the matter of Palestine? Sharon has made it crystal-clear to the world that there is a similarity and perhaps even identity between Milosevic’s attitude towards Kosovo and the attitude of Netanyahu and Sharon towards the Palestinians.” (fr. R. Fisk’s The Great War for Civilization, p. 508)
Sharon would have joined Milosevic in the docket for his war crimes in Lebanon if not for the US threatening to NATO HQ pull out of Belgium.
“Serbia with nukes” isn’t far off at all.
Here’s an interesting take on Qana, Israeli policy, & the Left, looking back in time to compare:
. . . the way a section of the Left, through the purges, the show trials, the Nazi Soviet pact, the Eastern bloc coups, persisted in seeing the USSR as the workers’ state that had bravely resisted foreign intervention in 1919, as the torch bearer of socialism, as the good guys.
Similarly, for many commentators it’s permanently 1947 – instead of being by far the most bloated military power in the region, Israel is a plucky little guerilla state fighting for its very existence. Which begs the question – what will be Israel’s Budapest 1956, the moment where they can’t be publicly excused without it seeming utterly absurd?
The US really threatened that? Wow.
.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
BRUSSELS (Telegraph UK) June 24, 2003 — Belgium’s political leaders have agreed to neuter the country’s war crimes legislation, which gave its courts a claim to jurisdiction over alleged violations of human rights committed anywhere in the world.
Donald Rumsfeld said
the law rendered
Belgium unfit to be a
host nation to Nato
The climbdown came days after Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, ordered a freeze on $350 million (£210 million) funding for Nato buildings in Belgium and threatened to pull the alliance headquarters out of the country unless the “absurd” law was scrapped.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
According to Gideon Levy in the Haaretz, all of Israeli is in the throes of a nationalist frenzy that seems to me fully equal to Serbia during the 1990s:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744061.html
Israel is becoming a pariah to every civilized nation and should be treated as such. Why not? Obviously there are no moderates left to alienate anyway. Let them get the South Africa treatment.
Breaking: Initial UNSC resolution calling for end to fighting is ‘close’ according to BBC.
This would mean that France has succeeded in insisting on a ‘phased’ approach where end of fighting precedes the establishment of a stabilization force. The key must have been a threat to withhold troops until such a resolution be passed.
This will be interesting, because Israel cannot quit now, no matter what the UNSC says. Of course, that Bolton votes for a resolution contradictory to Olmert’s aims is something I’ll believe when I see it.
The main difference is that the US will never recognize Israel as a pariah state.