The new antisemitism

"'It's in our interest for Syria to stay out of Lebanon and for this government in Lebanon to succeed and survive."

And of course the best way to help governments succeed is to blow up bridges and power stations.

***

I think this view must be considered. What exactly is the reasoning behind permitting Israel to aggress beyond its borders while insisting that its neighbours do not?

The answer seems to be quite clear. The West has, almost since encountering them, considered Arabs to be practically children, savages who cannot be civilised but must from time to time be chastised. (Israel is clearly understood to be part of the West. It's key to understanding attitudes to Israel across the political spectrum to understand that. It is also important to grasp that antiarabism has become the new antisemitism: the unthinking hatred of Jews that in former times characterised Europe from top to bottom has lessened a great deal, while a similar hatred of Arabs (and other dark-skinned followers of Muhammad who tend to merge in with Arabs in the popular consciousness) has grown.) Israel's attitude to the Arabs, in particular, has been characterised by paternalism: Israel offers the Arabs take-it-or-leave it deals, resembling a father offering a child the choice between doing their homework or receiving a spanking. The laughable offers it has made to the Palestinians of a disconnected jumble of bantustans have not been the kind of thing equals present to one another; rather, they have been entirely dismissive of the Palestinians' aspirations. The recent attacks on Lebanon show a strain of the same thinking: killing Arabs, even civilians, just doesn't matter, so long as it serves the purpose of saving Jewish lives. The notion that one type of person has more intrinsic value than another, and as a corollary that their life has more worth, simply because of their ethnicity is precisely how racism is defined. The Holocaust could happen because Germans were able to convince themselves that Jews were less human than them. It is dangerous to start down that path, but we are some way along it. When the government states its belief that it is worth a few dead Arabs as "collateral damage" to prevent its own soldiers from being hurt, it is on the road to agreeing that we should simply nuke Baghdad to remove the threat to us that its citizens pose. (Of course, they are not far down that road but it should be clearly recognised that A can and does lead to B and C. The Germans did not begin with "let's kill all the Jews".)

It can be argued that the Israelis created their own predicament by making their state in the middle of the Arab world. It can also be argued that the Arabs should get over it, and are using the presence of Israel as a distraction from their more pressing problems. Neither attitude is much help in finding a solution.

It's easy to understand that would-be regional hegemons, such as Syria and Iran, will scheme against a powerful Israel, and that Israel will seek to diminish them and to hurt their proxies. These powerplays won't end until the broader regional issues are settled, as was the case in Europe, where centuries of jostling ended with a settlement that suited all. But it must suit all. Any settlement imposed by Israel and unsatisfactory to the regional players is not going to bring the lasting peace Europe enjoys. However, while Israel, and its Western allies, considers Arabs the niggers of the Middle East, it's not going to happen.

posted by Dr Zen @ 11:34 am