Defend Israel, defend the white man

Among the many reasons for staunch Western support for the Zionist project in Palestine — from the Balfour Declaration to today's contortions to defend the indefensible in Gaza and elsewhere — is a pretty basic racism. The Zionists, after all, were mostly Europeans, and even as second-class Europeans, they ranked a notch or two above the natives of Palestine. This has long been an implicit part of the Western posture towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Middle East in general.

In the last decade or two, this has become more explicit, with rallies to Israel's defense being made for the sake of Western civilization against the Mahommedan hordes and much talk about "Judeo-Christian" values among the conservative pro-Israel community, particularly in America. As in for instance in this latest project by a smattering of European right-wingers called the Friends of Israel Initiative, in which the first point is:

1. Israel is a Western country. With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations. 

Normal Western countries don't have religious laws and don't restrict immigration to a single religion. Nor are they occupiers of other people's lands and conduct wars of collective punishment with their immediate neighbors. But they care about this point so much they basically repeat in point four:

4. Israel is on our side. With this in mind, we must be clear in recognizing that Israel’s fight is our fight. Western democracy will not prevail unless we recognize and assume the Judeo-Christian cultural and moral heritage which first gave rise to those institutions and the values which initially inspired them, and strengthen them. The assault on Israel is itself an assault on Judeo-Christian values. Israel stands on the front line, but we are next in line. If Israel’s right to self defense is questioned in the Middle East, our right to self-defense will be questioned when fighting similar terrorist enemies in Afghanistan, and at home. If principles of human rights and universal jurisdiction are to be turned into weapons against Israeli democracy, what makes us so sure they will not one day be used against European and North American democracy? Israel’s future is our fate. 

Being partly of European background, I have to say I don't see much that's Judeo-Christian in European values. Christian, yes, definitely, although today there are as much if not more secular and even anti-religious values. But the idea that the West has always cherished "Judeo-Christian" values is rather odd, considering it persistently practiced anti-Semitism in various forms for hundreds of years. There was no deep-rooted respect for Jews or their values in Europe aside from the Christian interest in the Old Testament — history since the Inquisition makes that pretty clear. This new trope of Western conservatism is a recent invention.

Today's Europe, despite the minaret-banning and some religious revival in the Eastern countries, has at its core values Enlightenment ideals and their postmodern extension in the Frankfurt School and elsewhere. It is an identity in which universal human rights is a core value (even if the reality in Europe is obviously still far from that). Ultimately — and we've seen this trend grow since the end of the Cold War — European values are at odds with a theologically grounded, ethnically-based colonial state. 

And by the way: one of the signatories, David Trimble, was appointed by Israel as one of the two foreigners in the commission to investigate the Freedom Flotilla massacre. Enough said.

Comments

[man_in_tx]

I get it: Scream: "Racism!" Great attempt to distract people and to keep on denying reality. Ahem. Don't look now, but there is HUGE elephant in the room that you are deliberately -- and steadfastly -- ignoring. What is that elephant? Let me give you a few hints: Your article mentions the "Z" word in the FIRST sentence, but manages to avoid ANY mention of either the "I" word or the "M" word.

[aron]

The weirdest thing about this whole "Judeo-Christian" concept is that its proponents do not themselves see the consequences of it.

If we, for the sake of argument, accept the idea that mainstream US/EU culture is in fact not just Christian but "Judeo-Christian" in its heritage, due to influence from the Old Testament, that would presumably make Muslim culture "Judeo-Christian-Islamic", wouldn't it? After all, Islam is explicitly rooted in preceding prophesies, and early Islamic society appears to me to have been vastly more affected by its formation inside a Jewish and Christian environment (in Egypt, Byzanthium etc) than the impact of Judaism on Christian culture in Europe. Jews were until very recently a tiny, marginalized and persecuted minority in Europe, while Christians and Jews formed the majority population of the Caliphate for a considerable time and played a large role in its bureaucracy and intellectual life even after that.

Finally, if we accept the notion of a Judeo-Christian heritage for Christians -- how is that supposed to also apply to Jews? Judaism by definition hasn't built on the New Testament the way Christianity did on the Old Testament. And if we instead refer to cultural interaction, saying Jews and Christians influenced each other through living in close (if unequal) contact, then the argument gets even weirder. Surely, Jewish religious and intellectual tradition must have been more influenced by Islamic than by Christian enviroments? I give you Maimonides, just for starters...

So, as an analytical concept, "Judeo-Christian" values is totally bogus. As a tool for political mobilization, however, it's evidently pretty effective.

[Prestwick]

This is basically bang on. The undercurrent of racism within the Jewish community in the Middle East is such that it threatens to undermine their whole "jews are a race, lol" argument.

Legendary British war correspondent Max Hastings recalled a horrifying experience he had in his autobiography when he had dinner with the Netanyahu family to research his book on Yoni Netanyahu (the guy who died at Entebbe). Basically the Netanyahu's talked at length at how North African jews couldn't be trusted and how it would be better if "white jews" (i.e. European) command IDF units as they could be better relied on.

[David]

I agree with this assessment. Why do Europeans stomp out in disgust at the UN when the Iranian president takes the podium? Not because poor little Goliath is being insulted. Rather it's because Ahmedinejad's additional message is -- your time is up. Colonialism is dead. Capitalism is dead. Communism is dead. Something else [scary!] is coming to replace you. And then nations like Turkey and Brazil are elbowing their way to the table, too.

This may not quite be the last gasp for these resourceful (and still quite powerful) old colonial powers, but they are certainly getting grayer, having more recurring headaches, and gobbling down more antacids than ever before. Even Americans are starting to realize that the sun will eventually set on American empire.

And let us say. Amen.

[aron]

David -- I actually do think his Holocaust denial and general unpleasant lunacy is the trigger factor there, not that Iran is some sort of rising power. It's not. Brazil, quite to the contrary, IS growing into a serious regional and independent power, but Western politicians don't walk out on Lula in international forums, for the eminently simple reason that Lula doesn't spend all his time trying to provoke and insult them. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric probably makes sense from his point of view, but the result is nevertheless that he's shunned by a certain segment of world opinion, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[David]

Aron, I agree that Iran is not a rising power of the magnitude of Turkey or Brazil, but it certainly is the most obnoxious spokesman for the end of colonialism. Listen to what Ahmedinejad was saying just before Europeans and Americans walked out on his speech at the UN last September:

It is not acceptable that the United Nations and the Security Council, whose decisions must represent all nations and governments by the application of the most democratic methods in their decision making processes, be dominated by a few governments and serve their interests. In a world where cultures, thoughts and public opinions should be the determining factors, the continuation of the present situation is impossible, and fundamental changes seem to be unavoidable.

[…] Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate. […] We must all remain vigilant to prevent the pursuit of colonialist, discriminatory and inhuman goals under the cover of the slogans for change and in new formats. The world needs to undergo fundamental changes and all must engage collectively to make them happen in the right direction, and through such efforts no one and no government would consider itself an exception to change or superior to others and try to impose its will on others by proclaiming world leadership.

I'm not endorsing Iran, just saying that their president makes a lucid case for realities that are unpalatable to the colonial nations. And that, aside from anything his regime does, accounts for part of his demonization.

[aron]

David -- Iran's "president makes a lucid case for realities that are unpalatable to the colonial nations. And that, aside from anything his regime does, accounts for part of his demonization"

Maybe, but a very small part. This is standard anti-colonial, anti-imperialist fare, and you can hear similar things from many third world politicians, and even the odd Western leader. Ahmadinejad in this case had set himself up for conflict by his Holocaust and map-wiping statements (translation issues aside, perception is what mattered), the election crackdown, and his constant sparring with Western powers in the Gulf and over Israel, Lebanon, nuclear stuff, etc. If he had been just another anonymous head of state, talking about the need for a fairer UN process, he would be unremarkable and his speech quickly forgotten.

I guarantee you that if you check other statements made at that assembly meeting, by strongly anti-colonial nations like South Africa, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, etc, you will find nearly identical views of the unjustness of the current world order, but with no walkouts.

[Prestwick]

David said or quoted "Colonialism is dead."

That rhetoric is so out of date it makes telex machines seem cutting edge. How exactly does the supposed end of colonialism tally with the fact that the "colonial nations" either have no colonies worth their salt anymore or have little or no influence over their former colonial possessions.

In fact, to take it further, some "colonial nations" are so out of touch that their "colonies" such as Australia and Canada are setting the agenda in their regions.

And then there is neo-colonialism and how China, Japan & South Korea are taking over land and mineral rights in Africa for their own selfish gain. No white men involved there and no evil moutache twizzling Brits to blame.

How exactly that constitutes the end of colonialism and capitalism I don't know. But hey so long as we continue to hold the Falklands against their will we're the bad guys here and it won't matter how much land Asia steals from Africa in the name of feeding their economic miracle.

Ahmadinijad's rhetoric is out of date and it simply makes Iran more and more irrelevent as a force in the region. The Gulf states set the agenda and politely ignore Iran while China & Russia placate and butter up Iran long enough to get what they want and then they ignore it. Tehran is starting to wake up to the fact that Beijing's intentions aren't exactly as friendly as they at first seem.

[arabist]

For David and Aron above, you may be interested in this story in the Christian Science Monitor looking at Israel's perception of Iran and the threat inflation taking place there:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0618/Does-Israel-suffer-from-Iranophobia

It raises some interesting questions about why Israel inflates the Iran threat so much. Is it paranoia amplified by Ahmedenijad's awful statements and Holocaust denial, or an attempt to preserve the military balance and make sure they prevent a nuclear program? Or is it something else, like a desire to maintain the region in a state of instability? Or, most likely, all three?

[aron]

Interesting article. I think the basic reason is really the nuclear program. It is a legitimate fear and strategic problem which I would myself be extremely concerned about if I were Israeli. Then added to that, paranoia, which blows it up even more than it deserves.

Regional instability ... I don't know if that's something Israel spends a lot of time on, the region seems quite capable to handle its own destabilization. But adding more Western pressure on Iran also by default means more pressure on its allies, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas, which are directly affecting Israel's security. Plus, intensifying conflict with Iran serves to exploit and widen the post-Iraq War Shia-Sunni tension, serving the same purpose and also redirecting attention away from Israel. (That may well backfire, though. Even if Israel's paranoid ramblings about Iran helps bring the West into conflict with Teheran, it presumably strengthens Iran's stock with many Arabs who might otherwise be susceptible to anti-Shia rhetoric -- the Nasrallah effect.)

But in the end, I'd say it's actual fear among the public, underpinned by more rational strategic concerns among the military people.