In the West, when CNN credulously reports atrocities from Darfur or Bosnia or wherever, we’re often told that it is akin to the Holocaust, and intervention is therefore a moral imperative. At least in speech, the West piously accepts the charge from the Nazi’s Jewish victims that this episode was as much a moral failing of “bystanders” as it was the responsibility of the perpetrators themselves, and that therefore the whole world should stand united in the future when such events occur and intervene, militarily if need be, so that such an atrocity would happen “never again.”
But no one really acts as if this is true. It is true that the Holocaust is the chief agreed-upon symbol in the moral imagination of the Western World. It is a unique symbol, one of absolute evil. And this symbol is sometimes used, particularly by the far left, to show the fundamental moral failing of the Western World (as opposed to merely showing the failings of some of its members). For them, the Holocaust is the Evil Western World’s apotheosis, the culmination of the crusades, witch burnings, slavery, pogroms, mistreatment of indigenous peoples, etc. We all agree at a minimum that this event against these victims should not happen again. At the same time, the phrase “never again” has long meant something very different to Israelis than to Diaspora Jews and other Westerners.
For Israel is a throwback nation, a country with many western values and western technological expertise, but it is also a land of unapologetic nationalism reminiscent of the 1930s. For many Israelis, “never again” means “never again” to themselves, the Jews. And it means this even if they must inflict serious violence on marginal threats, while remaining aloof from strangers who may need their help.
As Yuri Slezkine observes in his tour de force, The Jewish Century:
[Israel is] the sole Western survivor (along with Turkey, perhaps) of the integral nationalism of interwar Europe in the postwar—and post-Cold War—world. The Israeli equivalent of such politically illegitimate concepts as ‘Germany for the Germans’ and ‘Greater Serbia’—‘the Jewish state’—is taken for granted both inside and outside Israel. (Historically, the great majority of European states are monoethnic entities with tribal mythologies and language-based high-culture religions too, but the post- 1970s convention has been to dilute that fact with a variety of ‘multicultural’ claims and provisions that make European states appear more like the United States.) The rhetoric of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic deportations, tabooed elsewhere in the West, is a routine element of Israeli political life. And probably no other European state can hope to avoid boycotts and sanctions while pursuing a policy of territorial expansion, wall building, settlement construction in occupied areas, use of lethal force against demonstrators, and extrajudicial killings and demolitions. It is true that no other European state is in a condition of permanent war; it is also true that no other European state can have as strong a claim on the West’s moral imagination.
The West, the eternal victimizers, we who must atone, must never let this happen to Israel or anyone else. We and our forces must go to Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. But Israel exempts itself from this obligation, classifying itself as the victim par excellence, forever exempt from the obligation that all others must obey. Its supporters defer to this exceptional nation and this exceptional view of its obligations.
Today we read:
Israel will in future turn away all illegal entrants from Sudan’s war-torn region of Darfur, a top official says. The policy applies to new arrivals only, while some 500 people from Darfur already in Israel will be permitted to stay for “humanitarian reasons”.
Israel is struggling to stem the flow of Africans entering the country via its southern border with Egypt. Overnight, Israel handed 48 Sudanese people back to Egypt, according to Egyptian security officials.
I found this policy striking, but not surprising. Gallantry and heroism and expensive support for supplicant strangers are too much to ask from the general lot of humanity and their nations. It’s an onerous and unrealistic demand to impose upon nation states that they put others on an equal plane with their citizens. Israel, though small, is surely not stretched to the limit by these Darfur refugees. If they were Ethiopian or Russian Jews, no doubt, their immigration would be encouraged, as it has been for the last decade. No, Israel rejects these refugees for the same reasons that Gentile “bystanders” have long been condemned in the standard interpretation of the Holocaust: it is inconvenient and possibly threatening to the group’s interests to provide such assistance. How much more costly was such help for strangers when those who assisted Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe faced certain death of themselves and their families? What a miracle that so many did!
Because when “nations” stop wars and genocides, it is not nations that do so collectively. It is their soldiers, whose interests are a public trust of sorts. When nations take on refugees, it is not the nation, but individuals and communities who are affected. It is Newark and Wausau and Minneapolis who must absorb the Central American, Hmong, and Somali refugees respectively. Acts of generosity and heroism are noble sentiments that should be praised and encouraged and remembered. Yet they are rare, and their absence should not be an occasion for condemnation. It is too much to ask Ordinary Men to be heroes; it is hard enough that they do not become monsters.
Military force may be expended justly, in my view, only when that nation’s interests are at stake, not simply to help victims of political violence, including cases of genocide. It is an abuse of the public trust for a free nation’s armed to dispatch its armed forces and public funds on such crusades. It is better that war be a last resort, when clear national interests are at stake. Evils involving oppressed minorities may be dealt with through other means: boycotts, prudent refugee policies, embargoes, trade, the joining of the combatants individually as volunteers, and the like. I don’t deny that this would not always be as effective, at least in the short run. Yet a policy of “looking for dragons to slay” would undoubtedly be worse if practiced consistently. The Wilsonian notion that America, the UN, or any other group of outsiders should “do something” is the chief reason petty border squabbles can metastasize into something like World War I, when they might otherwise have been contained. In the name of creating world unity against aggression, the interventionists instead create a formula for perpetual and ever larger wars fought by enormous coalitions of people with no direct stake in the conflict. This is madness. Yet this is the fundamental premise of the United Nations and the “New World Order” and “idealist” foreign policy.
If we accept this view of things–as I do, joining many hoary conservatives, including the much-maligned America Firsters–then we must revisit the solemn invocation: “never again.” Because if “never again” means we must always go to war to protect the weak from the strong, then we’ll always be at war everywhere. Our people will suffer. And we may find ourselves victimized in turn for having created new enemies. Worse we may be unwittingly enabling future victimizers posing as victims in far flung locales involving people about whom we know very little. Consider Iraq as an example of a “humanitarian war” gone awry: who are the good guys again? Is it the Shiites? The Sunnis? Or was that last week?
If Israel expends its resources so parsimoniously on behalf of strangers in need, how persuasive is the claim from Israel and its supporters that we must do the same for strangers the globe over? In light of this shabby treatment of the Sudanese, how persuasive is the associated claim that America owes Israel substantial military and financial support to atone for our “earlier failing” to intervene directly to assist European Jews during the Holocaust?
It’s all a bunch of double standards. No one can follow them. So the principles should be revisited. And we should wisen up so that Americans and the West do not get brow-beaten into doing things that no sane nation, not least the Israelis, would ever do whether it relates to our immigration or our foreign policy.
Subscribe To This Feed
Peter Novick’s book The Holocaust in American Life examines the ideological use and abuse of the Holocaust and reveals how it only came to cultural prominence after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
An article over at Taki’s Mag argues that’s what’s good for Israel is usually bad news for Western conservatism:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/firing_foxman
Let’s not forget that the Sudan has steadfastly supported the Arab states in all of the Arabic wars against Israel. Legions of Sudanese soldiers were sent to fight Israeli forces in the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. Now you’re going to blast Israel for not taking pitty on the Sudanese? That’s idiotic. You should no sooner blast this policy than blast England for not taking in Nazi German refugees at the end of World War II. To boot, Israel is a very small country with anything but a “monoethnic” population. Recent immigration from Africa and former Soviet states have wreaked havoc on Israeli society, politics and economy as it tries to integrate these people. This on top of the significant Arab Israeli population. I would guess that the per capita refugee population would put many western states to shame. This is a piece o poop entry from you, Roach. Very poorly researched or thought out.
And in terms of military might, Israel has her own military problems at home and cannot spare resources to fight external wars. Even when offers have come, the international community generally will reject overtures from Israel because acceptance of such offers would lead countries unfriendly to Israel, as most of the world is, to cease their own efforts and discourage the same countries from participating in the future. I would offer Iraq as Exhibit A. Israel was happy to offer support after the invasion of Kuwait, but was told not to provide assistance even after being attacked herself.
That being said, Israel has secretly provided intelligence and military aid all over the world. But it has done so quietly. Don’t fool yourself, Roach. The US does not provide Israel with BILLION in economic and military aid because of some misguided sense of obligation. It does so because the US realizes very tangible benefits from doing so.
Again, I find your piece to be a real disappointment.
I didn’t realize the obligation to help innocent civilians did not include those from nations and peoples with whom one had bad relations; but if that is true, it is quite a bit to ask the Ukranians and Latvians and others similarly situated to be “Righteuos Gentiles” in the face of Nazi persecution, considering the huge percentage of Jews in both countries that were part of or otherwise benefited from the Bolshevik power apparatus from 1917 and 1940 respectively. This basic fact of Soviet life is all well documented in Slezkine’s book that I quote.
That all said, Israel can do what it wants that is in its national interest. We should do the same. I wouldn’t care but for the fact that gratuitous referenes to our alleged national failings in the Holocaust are often employed to cajole us into giving that aid. That’s why I said above, “No, Israel rejects these refugees for the same reasons that Gentile ‘bystanders’ have long been condemned in the standard interpretation of the Holocaust: it is inconvenient and possibly threatening to the group’s interests to provide such assistance.” I should add, this is a perfectly reasonable reason for a nation to withhold aid to others.
As for our foreign aid, I don’t think this is all about tit for tat; we’ve gotten comparatively little in return, and the “behind the scenes” argument is convenient not least because it requires no facts to be proven. There are important domestic lobbies for this aid, i.e., AIPAC, and it’s reasonable to conclude that lobbying takes place and is effective because our alleged community of interest is not obivous on its own. As for help and fellow feeling, consider that little Australia, South Korea, Spain, and the Phillipines sent small contingnets to Vietnam to prevent Communist aggresion. Where were the Israelis if they are such long-standing friends? I have no problem with sharing intelligene and otherwise cooperating. But Israel knows its interests are not identical to ours; that’s why it sensibly cultivates relationships with China among others. We should not forget that as well.
Where were the Israelis? Well, when they were not fighting 3 wars during the Vietnam War era, they were busy fighting for their existence. I’d say that gets them off the hook of sending even a pack of gum to Vietnam.
Furthermore, while I would certainly not discount the role of lobby groups in garnering assistance to their many causes, you give AIPAC and the Jewish lobby much too much credit if you think lobbying alone results in the vast aide package Israel receives every year. They may be good, but they are not THAT good.
Perhaps you should stick to writing about the mustache lobby and leave the role of Israel in the world political arena to people who know something about it.
I think it’s pretty arrogant to describe someone that does not subscribe to the AIPAC talking points as needing to do research and not knowing about Israel. I’ve read Avi Shlaim, Michael Oren, Abraham Rabinovich, Yoni Netanyahu, Walter Laquer, Benny Morris, among others on Israel and its history.
As for them fighting 3 wars during Vietnam, they were also defying the US during the Suez Crisis, when they were not attacking the USS Liberty in ’67. So to say their record as an “ally” is a mixed one is hardly a stretch. Korea was in pretty rough shape ten years after their war and needed to continue to defend itself fro the North’s various provocation, but that didn’t stop them from helping out.
I see you passed on the problematic moral reasoning that I brought up above, i.e., your penchant for on-again/off-again collective guilt mongering against every group of humans but Iraelis and Jews. You also avoid the problem of your unprovable “secret Israeli intelligence assistance” theory. Indeed, for all that alleged assistance, judging by the Pollard case and Osirik, there were also many acts of spying against us and disobeying US wishes. So I think our moral obligtations are minimal and the alleged community of interest is as well; I certainly think when the Cold War ended we should have ended our boondoggle foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, and most of our other third world client states. And, most importantly, I don’t think something Europeans did to European Jews 60 years ago, and our alleged failure to stop it, should have any bearing on this calculus.
I think you need to read what I said a little closer. Maybe this is your problem. I did not say that not subscribing to AIPAC’s lobbying made you ignorant of Israeli issues. In fact what I said was that you give too much credit to AIPAC and their lobbying prowess.
Or perhaps you just believe that when it comes to getting money, the Jews have some magical spell they cast on others.
The point is that you give far too much leverage to complete nonsense. Do you honestly believe that the US gives BILLIONS of DOLLARS in aid to Israel because the Congress feels bad about something or someone? That’s ridiculous. You must have no faith in government, then.
And you must also believe that everything the government does is done in full disclosure to you and to the public, right? Yup – I’m sure that happens, too.
You know, it’s hard to have a discussion with someone who is grounded in a sandy foundation, as you appear to be.
I think people spend money on lobbying for a reason. I think this lobbying can affect our policies. I think the Congress is a creature of self interest, as are most political institutions, and if the cost in votes and pressure of weakening support for Israel is substantial they’ll balk. So yes, I guess in that sense, i have limited faith in government. I think that we do not always behave in a sensible and realist fashion; consider our embrace of Iraqi and Lebanese “democracy” on idealist grounds. This is basic public choice theory; I realize it’s anathema to the “structural realist” idiots in IR who ignore the domestic context, but their view is refuted by the very existence of AIPAC. If indeed the US and Israel had the same interests and nations always behave in accord with those self-evident interests, no one would need to lobby for anything.
It’s really stupid to deny the obvious. Why not just deal with the facts? Setting aside the AIPAC thing, one in two dollars donated to Democratic candidates is from a Jewish source. This is serious influence from a very small ethno-religious minroity, and this situation should be admitted and (if one feels compelled) defended rather than denied.
I don’t think Jews have a magical spell; I do think AIPAC has and spends a lot of money, and it spends it effectively. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked Congressmen to rank the “25 most powerful” lobbying organizations in DC. In 2005, the National Journal did the same. Both times, AIPAC came in 2nd – ahead of, for instance, the AFL-CIO and the NRA, but behind the AARP. In 2001, it came in 4th on the Fortune list.
It’s silly to think this very politically active group of people, with strong emotional and moral attachments to a foreign nation, and significant involvement in American politics (in contrast to, say, Koreans or American Indians), has not influenced our foreign policy towards Israel significantly. One of the tools is a rhetorical one, the effective employment of the Holocaust as a symbol of western indifference and therefore western obligation to atone with respect to Israel. The Holocaust is the one agreed upon symbol of evil in the Western World. He who wields this symbol most effectively has significant power. There’s a reason people wanting something, whether blacks or Bosnians or Iraqis, suggest they’re in a position analogous to the Jews during the Holocaust. If you can persuade people of this, you’re in pretty good shape. The remarkable thing is that Israel, a country with nuclear weapons and a first class military, somehow suggests that it’s about to be wiped out by its decrepid and thrice defeated Arab neighbors. It’s true it faces terrorism, and so do we, but then again so do the Thais and Sri Lankans and a lot of other people.
[i]Or perhaps you just believe that when it comes to getting money, the Jews have some magical spell they cast on others.[/i]
Blackmail would be my preferred term. Look at the $1.25 billion extorted from the Swiss banks.
Roach, you have a real knack for making good arguments and then pulling the rug out from underneath yourself. How can you compare Israel to the plight of the Sri Lankans and Thais? Israel is a country the size of New Jersey with a population of about 7 million (of which only 5.3 million are Jewish). It is completely surrounded by 23 countries (not including the PA territory), spanning 2 continents, and with about 325 million in population. These Arab states, for the most part, all still maintain an official policy of wishing to rid the world of Israel. They are not looking for some land or a political change. They are looking to terminate the state all together. Their tone in English ahs been tuned down of late, but the Arabic rhetoric is as firey as ever.
To boot, the militaries you describe as decrepid and thrice defeated are constantly being upgraded. Russia is always looking for arms sales partners and Syria, among others, has some of the most advanced weapons in the region. You need to look no further than the last invasion into Lebenon to see that the mighty IDF is not the unbeatable force it once was. The margin between Israel and its neighbors in terms of military might is quickly closing. Sure, Israel may have nuclear weapons, but I ask you what good those really serve. In what climate would Israel launch such weapons? In the real world, they are worthless.
I ask you, does that compare in any way to Sri Lanka and Thailand? Or even the US or the Philippines? Not even close. To suggest otherwise illustrates a complete lack of context.
This is not the seventies. Israeli’s conventional advantage is huge; these societies have drifted further behind in their military ability. Libyan or Yemenese Marines won’t be landing on the shores of Haifa any time soon, I assure you. Their threats are, roughly: the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran proper, and Syria. Jordan and Egypt are totally harmless and both have peace treaties with Israel. The Saudis will never muck anything up that interferes with their oil. And of these threats only Hezbollah is any great shakes and that’s because it helps to fight guerilla style on the defense. All the rest could be sorted out pretty easily if push comes to shove and so could Hezbollah if it came down to it. A few rockets a nd a couple of kidnapped soldiers is hardly an existential threat.
Syria’s military is incredibly weakened over the last 15 years; they have old T-72s and decrepid states of maintenance and training. Let’s face it, there is no Arab conventional threat worth a crap, and to lump in the distant Yemenis and Libyans and Omanis as part of this monolithic threat, of which only four Arab countries border Israel, is kind of hyperbole to say the least.
Roach, you are seriously mental! No one knows the true extent of Iran’s capabilities. Given the level of cooperation between them and North Korea, who knows what they have. Could be nothing or it could be a lot. I’ll grant that Egypt and Jordan are not threats. But don’t dismiss Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I wouldn’t exactly trust the PA, either. Sure these guys have a lot of old crap. But the Syrians especially have been working hard to buy updated Russian equipment.
The problem, too, is that Israeli society, like much of Western society, has a much lower tollerence for casualties these days. It’s not like it used to be, where Israel could do whatever it takes to win. The Arab states know that they don’t have to be militarily superior. They know they need to just inflict enough pain to make public support for any war crumble. Look how effective that was in Lebanon. Hezbollah lobbed a bunch of crappy, dumb rockets into northern Israel. Few ground forces were killed inteh invasion. Yet public support crumbled very very fast. Not because Israel was being clobbered by better weapons, but because mounting casualties became unacceptible.
In any case, it is because of these reasons that Israel relies on the US and its aid to stay at the bleeding edge of technology. Any fight that would include zero Israeli casualties is a good one for Israel. The US knows that. Apparently you do not, however.
If Israel does not get over its casualty aversion, it will cease to exist regardless of what we do or don’t do. You seem to recognize this too. That said, the Lebanese attack was somewhat incoherent; it was justly criticized by the public. Was it meant to destroy Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc.? It was entirely unclear what the intent was, and if it was to destroy Hezbollah, it was a woefully inadequate level of forces.
Israel may want us to subsidize its first class military and high tech tools to avoid casualties. It’s obvious why from their perspective for the reasons you say. The US may even know this. What’s missing from your analysis is why the US should do so other than the vague moralistic reasons which you seem to think are not that important (I happen to think they are) and the secret intelligence sharing which neither of us knows enough about to evaluate precisely because it’s secret.
I’m reminded of our relationship with the South Koreans. We have huge forces there and spend a ton of money to defend the South. Yet the South sometimes undercuts our presence there and otherwise defangs us in dealing with NK. But if the South is not willing to fight to defend itself, why should we bother? Anyone we’re providing arms and money to should (a) support us militarily when called upon and (b) have some skin in the game, so to speak, and not simply manipulate the US into doing its bidding.
I’m kind of casualty averse myself for Americans in uniform when our interest is merely moral or a matter of habit. I don’t think we should continue to make commitments to SK, Taiwan, and Israel for that matter because it embroils us in places where we could otherwise do business with these allies’ enemies and where we make a lot of enemies as a consequence of these commitments. I don’t think, frankly, it would be the end of the world for America if Israel were less involved in our Mideast policies, not least because we need to drive a wedge between Sunni and Shia, religious and nationalist leaders. Israel and our support for it unites all of these constituencies.
Now, if these allies want to buy weapons or defend themselves, I think the question of arms sales is somewhat different, but even there if it’s a question of taking sides I prefer US neutrality except when absolutely necessary and would even give up this revenue stream if it proved too costly. I think we should be out of NATO, out of Germany, out of SK, and out of the Middle East other than Afghanistan. We should project power when necessary from arms length and on an ad hoc basis. We should remember we have a lot of money, people will trade with us regardless, we have two oceans on either side from which we can shield ourselves from most of the world’s troubles, and that our extensive involvement here there and everywhere is a product mostly of a cock-eyed notion of interests where people with financial stakes and dual allegiances–including to places like Cuba and Greece–get us involved where we could and should otherwise remain aloof.
My main points in this entry were really simple and I think you’ve not addressed them or simply dismissed them as unimportant and moved onto another also interesting subject.
I tried to say that the US did not “fail to do the right thing” in not “doing more” to stop the Holocaust. That this failing is a universal one, because we naturally prioritize our own people and interests above those of strangers. That as a consequence of this alleged failure we do not now have a duty to “stop genocide” everywhere under the rubric of “never again,” nor do we have a specific moral obligation to Israel as a consequence of our actions during WWII, other than to the extent our self-interests align. Now we clearly disagree about the extent of the alignment of self-interest, and I admit it’s a debatable question, but the broader point critiquing “humanitarian war” we seem to have lost and that’s the main point I was trying to make both with respect to Israel, Darfur, and everywhere else.
So, do you basically agree with my point on that and instead think self interest justifies and mandates our help for Israel? Or do you think the moral point is compelling and if so why?
I simply don’t agree that the moral point has no impact whatsoever on policy or I doubt the argument would ever be raised.
Four of five members of the board of a campaign promoting President Bush’s policies in the Iraq war are Republican Jews.
The board of “Freedom’s Watch” includes Ari Fleischer, Bush’s former press secretary; Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition; Bradley Blakeman, a senior White House staffer in Bush’s first term; and Mel Sembler, a longtime RJC leader and former ambassador to Rome.
Brooks told JTA that the fifth member, William Weidner, a casino operator in Las Vegas, is not Jewish. However, Weidner’s wife, Lynn, is Jewish and is active in that city’s federation. Blakeman is the group’s president.
Brooks said it would be a mistake to regard the group as having a Jewish direction.
“It’s a coincidence that several of the board members are Jewish,” he said, noting that half of the donors contributing to the group’s first $15 million ad campaign are not Jewish.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103795.html
[...] rightly uncomfortable with undertaking abstract, ideological crusades. I said rather strongly in a recent entry, “Military force may be expended justly, in my view, only when that nation’s interests are [...]