| The lead letter to the editor in today's Financial Times is by David Harris, responding to an op-ed article earlier this week by Tony Judt. For your information, the original op-ed is pasted below David's letter.
May 25, 2006 'Venomous' attack against Israel lacks any understanding of regional context From Mr. David A. Harris. Sir, Not for the first time, Tony Judt has unleashed his venom toward Israel ("Israel cannot always rely on US helping hand", May 23). While he does not go as far as he did in his earlier New York Review of Books essay, when he questioned Israel's right to exist, his paternalistic and one-dimensional view of Israel comes through clearly. To read Mr Judt's article is to believe that Israel's difficulties in the region are entirely of its own making, a function of "reckless behaviour", "insistent identification of all criticism with anti-Semitism" and "macho victimhood", although he is more than happy to add a dollop of responsibility for Washington's alleged role in making a bad situation worse. What is missing is any understanding of, much less sensitivity to, Israel's regional context. Thus, for example, Mr Judt refers to Israel's victory in the 1967 war and its subsequent occupation as "a moral and political catastrophe", but ignores the circumstances leading to Israel's war for survival against nations whose leaders openly called for its extermination, or the ensuing months when Israel's call for political talks was met by the Arab League's response of "no peace, no negotiation, no recognition". Mr Judt also omits any reference to the peace treaties Israel later signed, first, with Egypt, then with Jordan. In both cases, Israel yielded on every territorial issue in dispute to achieve an accord. In other words, when a credible and courageous Arab leader emerged, be it Egypt's Anwar Sadat or Jordan's King Hussein, peace not only became possible but inevitable. Last, Mr Judt writes as if there were no Hamas in power. In fact, he never mentions the terror group nor its charter, which calls for Israel's destruction. Nor does he acknowledge the terrorist threat faced by Israel, including from Gaza which, thanks to Ariel Sharon's statesmanship, is now for the first time ever in the governing hands of the local population. Nor does he note the bellicose language from Tehran, as if Iran's calls for Israel's destruction and aspirations for nuclear weapons were not even part of the equation. After all, it is so much easier in Mr Judt's world to lay the blame at the doorstep of Israel's "long-cultivated persecution mania" than to face the harsher truth that there is a sound basis for Israel's ongoing security concerns and no off-the-shelf diplomatic formula for addressing them, other, perhaps, than in the hallowed halls of Mr Judt's ivory tower. David A. Harris,
May 22, 2006 Israel cannot always rely on US helping hand By Tony Judt By the age of 58 a country – like a man – should have achieved a certain maturity. After nearly six decades of existence we know, for good and ill, who we are and how we appear to others, warts and all. And though we still harbour occasional illusions about ourselves, we know they are, for the most part, just illusions. In short, we are adults. But the state of Israel, which has just turned 58, remains curiously immature. The country's social transformations – and its many economic achievements – have not brought the political wisdom that usually accompanies age. Seen from outside, Israel still comports itself like an adolescent: confident of its uniqueness; certain that no one "understands"; quick to take offence, and to give it. Like many adolescents, Israel is convinced – and aggressively asserts – that it can do as it wishes; that its actions carry no consequences; that it is immortal. That, Israeli readers will say, is the prejudiced view of the outsider. What looks from abroad like a self-indulgent, wayward country is simply an independent little state doing what it has always done: protecting its interests in an inhospitable part of the globe. Why should embattled Israel even acknowledge foreign criticism, much less act on it? Because the world and its attitudes have changed. It is this change – largely unrecognised in Israel – to which I want to draw attention. Before 1967 Israel may have been tiny and embattled, but it was not typically hated: certainly not in the west. Most admirers (Jews and non-Jews) knew little about the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948. They preferred to see in the Jewish state the last incarnation of the 19th century idyll of agrarian socialism – or else a paragon of modernising energy, "making the desert bloom". I remember in the spring of 1967 how student opinion at Cambridge University was overwhelmingly pro-Israel before the Six-Day War – and how little attention was paid either to the Palestinians or to Israel's collusion with France and Britain in the disastrous 1956 Suez adventure. For a while these sentiments persisted. The pro-Palestinian enthusiasms of post-1960s radical groups were offset by growing public acknowledgement of the Holocaust. Even the inauguration of illegal settlements and the invasion of Lebanon did not shift the international balance of opinion. But today everything is different. We can see, in retrospect, that Israel's victory in June 1967 and its occupation of the territories it conquered then have been the Jewish state's very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe. Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified its shortcomings to a watching world. The routines of occupation and repression were once familiar only to an informed minority; today, computer terminals and satellite dishes put Israel's behaviour under daily global scrutiny. The result has been a complete transformation in the international view of Israel. The universal shorthand symbol for Israel, reproduced in political cartoons, is the Star of David emblazoned on a tank. Today the universal victims, the emblematic persecuted minority, are not Jews but Palestinians. This shift does little to advance the Palestinian case but it has redefined Israel forever. Israel's long-cultivated persecution mania no longer elicits sympathy. The country's national narrative of macho victimhood appears to many now as simply bizarre: a collective cognitive dysfunction. Israel, in the world's eyes, is a normal state; but one behaving in abnormal ways. As for the charge that criticism of Israel is implicitly anti-Semitic, this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling assertion: Israel's reckless behaviour, and its insistent identification of all criticism with anti-Semitism, is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in western Europe and much of Asia. If Israel's leaders have been able to ignore such developments it is because they have counted on the unquestioning support of the US – the one country where the claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism is still echoed by mainstream politicians and the media. This confidence in unconditional US approval may prove to be Israel's undoing. For something is changing in America. Israel and the US appear increasingly bound together in a symbiotic embrace, whereby the actions of each party exacerbate their common unpopularity abroad. But whereas Israel has no choice but to look to America, the US is a Great Power – and Great Powers have interests that eventually transcend the local obsessions of even the closest client states. It seems to me suggestive that the recent essay "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published in March in the London Review of Books, provoked so much debate. It is true that, by their own account, the authors could not have published their indictment of the influence of the "Israel lobby" on US foreign policy in a major US-based journal. But the point is that 10 years ago they probably could not have published it at all. And while the ensuing debate generated more heat than light, it is of great significance. The fact is that the disastrous Iraq invasion and its aftermath have set in train a sea-change in America's foreign-policy debate. It is becoming clear to prominent thinkers across the political spectrum – from erstwhile neo- conservative interventionists such as Francis Fukuyama to hard-nosed realists such as Mr Mearsheimer – that in recent years the US has suffered a catastrophic loss of international influence and degradation of its image. There is much repair work ahead, above all in Washington's dealings with economically and strategically vital regions of the world. But this cannot succeed while US foreign policy is tied by an umbilical cord to the needs and interests of one small Middle Eastern country of little relevance to America's long-term concerns – a country that is, in the words of the Mearsheimer/Walt essay, a strategic burden. That essay is thus an indication of the direction of debate in the US about its peculiar ties to Israel. Of course, it generated fierce criticism – and, just as they anticipated, the authors have been charged with anti-Semitism. But it is striking how few people now take that accusation seriously, so predictable has it become. This is bad for Jews as it means that genuine anti-Semitism may also cease to be taken seriously. But it is worse for Israel. From one perspective, Israel's future is bleak. Not for the first time, a Jewish state is on the vulnerable periphery of someone else's empire: wilfully blind to the danger that its indulgent excesses might ultimately push its imperial mentor beyond the point of irritation, and heedless of its own failure to make any other friends. Yet, modern Israel still has options. Precisely because the country is an object of such universal mistrust, a truly statesmanlike shift in its policies (dismantling of big settlements, opening unconditional negotiations with Palestinians and the like) could have disproportionately beneficial effects. Such a radical realignment of strategy would entail a difficult reappraisal of every illusion under which the country and its political elite have nestled. Israel would have to acknowledge that it no longer has any special claim on international sympathy or indulgence; that the US will not always be there; that colonies are always doomed unless you are willing to expel or exterminate the indigenous population. Other countries and their leaders have understood this: Charles de Gaulle saw that France's settlement in Algeria was disastrous for his country and, with outstanding political courage, withdrew. But when de Gaulle came to that realisation he was a mature statesman, aged nearly 70. Israel cannot afford to wait that long. The time has come for it to grow up. The writer is director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. |
To remove yourself from all mailings from American Jewish Committee, please click here.
To modify your profile, please click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment