The New Republic

I fear Marty overestimates the Dutch capacity to be "helpful" when it comes to Israel. Job Cohen is a seriously awesome mayor of Amsterdam, but the romance of the "poor downtrodden Palestinians" is just as strong among the youth of Holland as on any American campus. While the Dutch have done more than most in Europe to purge their society of anti-Semitism, two other Dutch phenomena weigh against reliability on Israel: 1. The large influx of Muslim immigrants in recent decades, the moderate assimilationists among whom nonetheless insist on anti-Israeli foreign policy; and 2. The Dutch reflex toward pacifism. Attend any Dutch celebration of Memorial Day and you will see that the lesson they teach themselves about WWII is not that aggression must be stopped sooner than later, but that war must be avoided at all costs. As long as Israel insists on actually defending itself, it will always run afoul of Dutch popular sensibilities. Marty's last two paragraphs are vitally important, and deserve a much fuller exploration, hopefully at length and in print. And not just in the form of a rhetorical question. What does Europe really expect from a Palestinian state? Assume the declaration of statehood tomorrow by a Palestinian state or states. Then what? What does Europe hope to gain? Can Israel expect an improvement in European attitudes and policies? When Iran dispatches its militia proxies to seize control of Palestine just as it has in Lebanon, can non-Islamist Palestinians expect European assistance? (I'd love to see TNR conduct and write up periodic wargames, perhaps with Brookings or something, in which a scenario like this can be gamed out. A unilateral Fatah or Fatah/Hamas declaration of statehood, or federated dual statehood, which prior experience in the Balkans suggests would be recognized swiftly by several large European states, probably including Germany, and then more or less automatically by most of the rest of them. Take that as the baseline scenario, assemble some policy practitioners, and play out reaction and counterreaction over the following 24 months. Most important cover story since the "Fish Apocalypse" piece.) However, I think "Yemen plus" is an inapt analogy. For one thing, the presence of Yemeni jihadists in Gaza now makes the threat of Palestinian Yemenization acute, not long-term, at least as concerns jihadism and terrorist safe haven. For another, the particular sociological characteristics that make Yemen Yemen just don't exist among the Palestinians. "South Lebanon minus" is more likely, which may actually be worse than "Yemen plus."

- rhubarbs

February 12, 2010 at 1:14pm

My own guess is that a Palestinian nation-state will drop like a stone and disappear, in terms of its importance, from the surface of active concern. My own acquaintanceship with the antiimperialist left is that thinking about strategic policies to build up a new state and its infrastructure (education, finance, law enforcement etc) is boring boring boring. Some Europeans, Canadians, and Americans will be delighted to go there and do aid work, or to keep pushing on the refugee issue, but conversely the visa queues at the new U.S. embassy in East Jerusalem will be long.

- ironyroad

February 12, 2010 at 5:13pm

A Republic of Palestine would not be the end of it. Islam's war against Israel would simply enter a new phase.

- amidut

February 12, 2010 at 7:16pm

yeesh Marty, focus, focus. I feel like I am watching a dog without a leash sniffing out everything that interests it. It is not that I particularly disagree with what you are saying, (though I find the schadenfreude of Greece's economic troubles troubling since they are friends and allies, and I hate to see unemployment and misery inflicted on anyone), I just wish you would be more laserlike in your focus. I agree with Rhub that the last two paragraphs are extremely important. "So what, if not for Israel's being its adversary, is the ideological lure of Palestine after all?" This literally confounds the hell out of me. The ideological lure of Tibet, absolutely. A non-violent people whose country was stolen with a leader who espouses peace and understanding. Swap out the Tibetans for the Palestinians and Gaza and the West Bank will be veritable paradises (albeit maybe not wealthy ones since I really don't know the Capitalist acumen of the Llamas), and it would also provide me the satisfaction of showing Palestinians what real repression can mean. (ok, check that, maybe just the thuggish oligarchs, who would be dispatched in short order) The tragic thing is I can easily imagine a prosperous Palestine, being neighbor to the most dynamic economy in the Middle East could be a Godsend, factor in the tons of aid that would accompany a peaceful Palestine makes it all the easier. Sadly though, such a thing is only in the realm of imagination. Their grievance mentality now seems bred into the bone and is daily enabled by Western fools. Why oh why can their never be a Palestinian like the Dalai Llama? (at this point, I will take a Deng Xiaoping)

- blackton

February 12, 2010 at 7:50pm

"When Palestine emerges, sooner better than later (I hope for Israel's sake), it will disappoint and disenchant. " This is a great overstatement. I know of nobody who has any expectations from a Palestine beyond its instrumentality in bringing about the end of Israel. I never heard of any Palestinian leader speak about the day after independence is achieved, except by way of celebrating the continued "Al-jihad, al-jihad, al-jihad, al-jihad"al jihad". http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000112.html

- noga1

February 12, 2010 at 8:29pm

Or, picking up on blackton's concluding flourish and maybe tweaking it so it's a touch more to the point, why can there never be a Palestinian Eamon De Valera? De Valera -- nationalist, rigid, ideological, humorless, uncompromising, authoritarian, obsessive about minor details, rejected the Treaty with Britain (hence causing the civil war) despite ratification by referendum. But. De Valera -- also nationalist, flexible, pragmatic, humane, willing to give ground, a democrat, able to see a bigger picture, became prime minister and won almost every election fair and square for 25 years.

- ironyroad

February 12, 2010 at 8:45pm

ironyroad “Or, picking up on blackton's concluding flourish and maybe tweaking it so it's a touch more to the point, why can there never be a Palestinian Eamon De Valera?” Because the analogy doesn’t hold up. Arab Israel conflict is not the same as the Irish British conflict. Of course, anything can happen and theoretically it is possible that a pragmatic Palestinian Arab leader will arise. There have been some such in the past most prominently King Abdullah of Jordan but they were all put down. Here are some of the salient differences that make such an outcome unlikely: Palestinians, many of them see themselves as part of the larger Muslim or Arab world (or both). Ireland did not see itself as part of, say, some Celtic or Catholic world. Before pragmatism can take hold among the Palestinian leadership they have to come to see themselves as serving a Palestinian nation whose own self interests are paramount. Will Syria, or Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood tolerate such a leader? Of course, Israel should divorce itself from the West bank as soon at is able to do so, but it will not be an easy thing to do.

- jdyer

February 12, 2010 at 9:37pm

I second blackton's lament about Palestinian leadership vacuum. It's far from evident that the Palestinians have suffered more than, say, Indians under the British Raj, South Africans under apartheid, or blacks under Jim Crow. But the latter were able to find their Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King. Somehow it seems obvious that such transcendent leadership could never issue from Palestine. Can we speculate about the why of that impossibility without degenerating into Islamophobia?

- robertgorton

February 13, 2010 at 10:28am

That's true, JD -- the Irish nationalist movement was not locked into a wider complex of religious and political power centers, all of which could undermine or hijack local developments. The Catholic Church was the closest one came to an alternate source of authority in Ireland, but its interests were more diffuse and adaptable (and it was cautious more often than not). They (the nationalist leadership on both sides) could actually think about the "nation" in a coherent way. Not unlike the mutually hostile elements of the Zionist coalition after 1948 (they didn't have a civil war, of course, but there were still disagreements). In some ways, Israel may be the most traditionally "nationalist" nation in the neighborhood.

- ironyroad

February 13, 2010 at 3:10pm

I dunno Robert, this is a good point: Before pragmatism can take hold among the Palestinian leadership they have to come to see themselves as serving a Palestinian nation whose own self interests are paramount. I don't think it is Islamophobia to point out how the concept of ummat al-mu'minin (community of believers) has undermined the self-interest of the Palestinians. Perhaps if Jerusalem held no significance to Muslims things might have been different (but being that Mohammed hijacked certain elements of Judaism and Christianity, a good deal of the foundation of Islam, Mohammed ascending to heaven in Baghdad or Medina or whereever, would have been lacking). It would require a leader who promotes the interests of the Palestinians while mollifying the larger Muslim world since that world feels its ties to Jerusalem are paramount. Of course, so does the Christian world, but we have long come to an understanding with Israel with regards to the Holy Lands (as Israel has made every effort to respect Muslim holy sites, something never acknowledged by western Israel haters)

- blackton

February 13, 2010 at 3:36pm

"I second blackton's lament about Palestinian leadership vacuum. It's far from evident that the Palestinians have suffered more than, say, Indians under the British Raj, South Africans under apartheid, or blacks under Jim Crow. But the latter were able to find their Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King. Somehow it seems obvious that such transcendent leadership could never issue from Palestine. Can we speculate about the why of that impossibility without degenerating into Islamophobia?" I think the answer is in the question, namely: Indians under the British Raj, South Africans under apartheid, or blacks under Jim Crow.... Islamophobia... The very anxiety about actually naming the essential difference between the plight of Palestinians and the other various victimhoods suggests that we are not dealing with the issue of injustice and redress but with something else altogether. There is also something grotesque about the need of Palestinians to be included in some of the worst calamities that have befallen humanity in modern times, be them man-made or natural disasters. I don't even know what to call this pathological envy for other people's catastrophes. If Jews have the Holocaust to enjoy, Palestinians make up their own Holocaust so as not to be outdone by the Jews. If Black South Africans had apartheid to boast of, Palestinians start fantasizing about their own version of apartheid. If Haitians are struck by a major natural catastrophe that claims 150,000 dead and over a million homeless, then Palestinians, too, need to place their claim to glory by manufacturing similar straights, of suffering from an invented man-made flood disaster and clamoring for the world's pity. Pity us, pity us, the Palestinians plead. Not them. Us. Aren't we the most pitiful of all victims, ever, in the history of the world? _________ About the Irish analogy. Let's not forget that the enemies of the Irish were British. That means that while there was sympathy for Irish suffering, the world did not mobilize against the Brits the way it has against Israel. People who support the Palestinian cause in its fundamental form do not feel unduly reluctant to call for the destruction of Israel or to flaunt the premise of Israel's illegitimacy, to use antisemitic tropes in order to demonize Israeli Jews, or to try and sabotage Israel's security measures through meddling, pseudo- Human rights NGO's. Nor would they go to any trouble to create UNHR investigations into British military conduct in Afghanistan or Iraq.

- noga1

February 13, 2010 at 4:20pm

Upon hearing of Hitler's death in 1945, Eamon De Valera visited the German embassy in Dublin to offer his condolences. Ireland (notwithstanding thousands of Irish volunteers in British and other Allied forces) was "neutral" during the 2nd WW. Such a wise nationalist leader, indeed.

- amidut

February 13, 2010 at 6:02pm

What do the scare quotes around neutral mean, amidut?

- ironyroad

February 13, 2010 at 6:28pm

From wiki: "However Ireland wanted to maintain a public stance of neutrality and refused to close the German and Japanese embassies, and the Taoiseach Éamon de Valera even signed the book of condolence on Adolf Hitler’s death, on May 2, 1945. Unlike many other non-combatant countries, Ireland did not declare war on the near-defeated Germany in order to seize German assets. Other neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland expelled German embassy staff at the end of the war, as they no longer represented a state, but the German legation in Dublin was allowed to remain open. [-] At ceremonies for the first Holocaust Memorial Day in Ireland, January 26, 2003, Justice Minister Michael McDowell openly apologized for an Irish wartime policy that was inspired by "a culture of muted anti-semitism in Ireland," which discouraged the immigration of thousands of Europe's threatened Jews. He said that "at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews". In 1966 a forest was planted in De Valera's honour at Kfar Kana near Nazareth." George Orwell wrote in his 1942 essay "Pacifism and the War", "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion...." I think that's why the quotes around "neutrality". Isn't it unfortunate that WWII yielded such horrendous, long lasting, results so as to vitiate the term completely of its meaning? Perhaps ironyroad you can find some merit in Irish neutrality. It was certainly more honourable than Swiss neutrality. Just don't try to sell the notion that it was a noble position to take.

- noga1

February 13, 2010 at 8:20pm

noga, while it wasn't noble, it was understandable. The Irish hated the British who forced the Irish to fight in England's wars for centuries. My family fled Ireland during the Potato famine, even a century and a half past the British were never well regarded by my family. I remember growing up around cars that had "Bobby Sands free at last" bumper stickers on them, and this was in Pa.

- blackton

February 13, 2010 at 8:38pm

I'm still waiting for amidut to explain what he meant by the quotes. In any case, I think that one crucial aspect of the neutrality issue has to be the practical stuff that happened on the ground. Irish counterintelligence was rather more effective against Nazi operations in the Free State than is often recognized (particularly with regard to German military intelligence attempts at contact with the IRA), and the informal liaison esp. with the U.S. after 1943 clearly indicated that, DeValera's public rhetoric notwithstanding, Ireland was not a hostile neutral. It wasn't a noble position, but neither did I try to "sell" it as that.

- ironyroad

February 14, 2010 at 12:06am

I wrote my comment in response to ironyroad's favorable assessment of De Valera's leadership. By the quotes that agitate irony, I meant that Ireland's neutrality under De Valera was questionable and dishonorable. Nonetheless, I can, at the same time, understand and empathize with the understandable Irish hostility to Britain because of its ruthless colonization of Ireland and the Famine. If irony disagrees with me or feels that my opinion was too harsh, he and others are welcome to argue that Ireland was not a hostile neutral and introduce new information (ex. Irish counterintelligence effectiveness) to the discussion. I am willing to consider it and possibly modify my opinion.

- amidut

February 14, 2010 at 8:32pm

That clarifies it a little, thanks. My question was really to establish whether you thought that Irish neutrality was genuine or fraudulent (which the quotes might suggest). It seems to me that it was driven by something other than pure opportunism -- that is, there was an element of principle in DeValera's thinking, even though one might disagree with that principle. There was a tactical aspect too, however, as it was very unlikely that public support could have been gained (pre-1944, at least) for active participation in the war. After the invasion of Europe, that might have been a different equation. We'll never know. My general argument would be, as I suggested above, that below the line it was ultimately -- in terms of practical effect -- a neutrality that favored the Allies.

- ironyroad

February 14, 2010 at 10:25pm

Well, at least Marty is coming closer to saying out loud what was always implicit in his musings on Europe -- the main aspect of whether or not a particular country's financial or economic policies are good, bad or indifferent depends upon the warmth of its relations with Israel. So Greece, Spain and Ireland are getting their economic just desserts, not because of misguided economic policies (which is a topic that Marty really doesn't understand), but because they are anti-Israel. On the other hand, European countries whose economies are similarly disfunctional (e.g., Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Hungary) are spared his wrath because they are either pro-Israel or do not actively involve themselves in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And, interestingly enough, nary a word about the successful economies of countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and China whose foreign policies can hardly be said to be pro-Israel. It's obviously acceptable to criticize all sorts of countries over their pro-Arab biases in the Israeli-Arab conflict. What is logically incoherent is to somehow tie these biases to those countries' relative economic conditions. The fact is that poor economic management in Europe is not limited in the least to those countries who are anti-Israel, and good economic performance also has nothing to do with one's relationship to the Jewish State. This post is just another sorry example of a mind that sees just about everything through the prism of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

- wildboy

February 16, 2010 at 12:17pm

A fine article by Marty, followed by interesting and insightful comments on the part of several TNR regulars. Isn't the real obstacle to an Israel-Palestinian settlement the desire on the part of the surrounding states to maintain Israel as the target of the enmity of the Arab masses? That way the Arab and Iranian rulers benefit from attention being diverted from their greed and misrule.

- bulbman1066

June 2, 2010 at 8:52am