This week’s post is a response to an article in The Spectator published just a few days ago, in which Seth Frantzman argues that the European right increasingly resembles its Israeli counterparts. He writes,
“For Israelis, Europe’s political landscape is looking increasingly familiar. Whereas Israel was once seen as something of a political backwater, nowadays it’s European politicians who seem to be gazing across to Israel for inspiration. Those on the right are leading the way: from Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to Austria’s Norbert Hofer, this group of populist politicians are tending to see in Israel’s brand of nationalism a model for their own. In January, Le Pen spoke of a ‘patriotic spring‘ of nationalism in Europe; she went on to say that ‘we are experiencing the return of nation-states’. And who better to provide inspiration for that than Israel?.” (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/will-european-politics-look-like-israels-future/ for the full article)
Frantzman’s analysis of the European right applies with equal relevance to America’s conservatives. Both the European and American right no longer believe in constitutionally limited government, free markets, a high moral upstanding of its leaders, or an aversion to utopian fantasies. Instead, they increasingly share the Israeli right’s preoccupation with security, nationhood, borders, and creating an ideal world regardless of the circumstances, or the size of government. For the European and American right, this involves a plethora of unobtainable ideals. Some want to bring back industries inevitably lost to globalisation, technology and the need to combat climate change. Some believe in preserving ethnic homogeneity, even at the expense of the talent businesses and universities need to compete in a global economy. Like the Israeli right, many have developed an unhealthy obsession with Islam, and believe the West is at war with Islamic civilisation, not just Muslim terrorists- this position is about as absurd as declaring war on Catholicism based on the actions of the provisional IRA; Muslim terrorists are motivated more by political ideology than religious doctrine. They all believe in vastly increased conventional defence spending, even when there’s no evidence that it will make us more secure. They all also portray themselves as representatives of ‘the people’, branding their political opponents as unpatriotic or traitors. In Europe and Israel, the right employs the use of welfare chauvinism, promising to defend the welfare state against both excessively cosmopolitan ‘neoliberals’ and foreigners who they think are undeserving of the state’s generosity. This applies less so in America, where reducing the welfare state is more of a priority because it is seen to enrich racial minorities and immigrants at the expense of ‘real’ (white) Americans. But on the whole, Trump, the European right and the Israeli right don’t have a theory of the proper role of government, only of who it ought to benefit.
Like Frantzman, I’m concerned by this trend. I appreciate the Israeli right faces a series of challenges and circumstances Europe and America’s conservatives are happily unacquainted with. The country is surrounded by largely hostile powers. Israeli society has been hardened by the experience of war, frequent terrorist attacks and a seemingly unresolvable territorial dispute. The country is more religious than most of Europe and America, which can lead to grassroots dogmatism on a variety of social issues. Iran’s funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, and its desire to acquire nuclear weapons remains a concern, though it isn’t the national emergency Netanyahu alleges it to be, nor would ripping up the Iran nuclear deal make peace more likely.
Having said all of that, the ideology and behaviour of the Israeli right is inexcusable. It openly opposes a deal with the Palestinians, disregarding conservative realism in favour of the ludicrous vision of a ‘Greater Israel.’ It espouses an exclusionary form of nationalism that results in discrimination against non-Jews. It is blasé in its attitudes towards the livelihoods of the Palestinians, portraying any form of concern as unpatriotic and a plot to destroy Israel. It is also disingenuous in its employment of the wider Middle East security situation to justify occupation of the West Bank in perpetuity. Now I’m not for a moment suggesting that were the Israeli right to disappear, there would automatically be peace. Nor am I letting the Palestinians off the hook for their crimes. The point is, the actions of Israeli Left, the Palestinians, Iran or anyone else, cannot possibly justify an extreme nationalist ideology based on Torah literalism, the wilful denial of Palestinian self-determination, and conspiratorial paranoia over what constitutes a security threat.
Every democracy needs competing political parties. On one side, there needs to be a party concerned with the welfare of the working class, and those most disadvantaged under a capitalist system. But there also needs to be a party sceptical of government. The reality is, governments are highly flawed and clumsy organisations that can make social security horribly inefficient and wasteful. Historically speaking, the most oppressive institution has been government: having a legal monopoly on violence, governments have carried out terrible atrocities, from the Holocaust to the Gulag. As a result, there needs to be a centre-right scepticism of (though not obstructionism to) government programmes. Ideally, these parties would also hold basic liberal values in common, such as a belief in secular government, freedom of expression and a dedication to the rule of law- both domestic and international.
As Europe and America’s political makeup increasingly resembles Israel’s, we are getting further away from this ideal party system. The right is no longer doing its proper job of holding government to account, preferring to obsess over national identify and a belligerent militarism, justified by portraying foreign countries and people as far more hostile and dangerous than they really are. This new right is perfectly happy to expand the size of government to achieve its goals. In Europe and America’s case, it involves more military spending, the construction and over-enforcement of borders, government regulation of the social issues (tellings Muslim women how to dress or gay people who to marry) and protectionism against the EU’s four freedoms, particularly people. In Israel’s case, it also involves more military spending, as well as a government-subsidised housing programme in the West Bank and dependence on American foreign aid. Regardless of the immorality, not making a deal with the Palestinians will end up costing more money in the long term; the Palestinians’ reluctance for a just deal doesn’t justify a bloated and callous Israeli government.
To end on a more positive note, nationalism, be it European, American, or Israeli, need not necessarily be harmful. In Israel, there is an immense amount of civic pride in the nation- its history, culture, and achievements- be they political, scientific, technological or economic. It’s true that there isn’t enough focus on the country’s past crimes, though the same could be said about almost anywhere else. But humans are an incredibly social species, for whom identity is important. Too often, the liberal left has sneered at patriotism, believing it to be parochial, ‘bourgeois’, or inferior to a European or other supranational identity. This attitude is unsustainable, and will inevitably lead to a backlash. To survive as a credible political force, the left will have to embrace a degree of civic nationalism, while rejecting the xenophobia of the populist right. But if the left can inject some Israeli-style optimism, pride and confidence into the largely beleaguered nations of Europe and North America, the future will be a good one.
For next week’s post, I will be taking some requests, so please comment if you want me to cover any topic (it doesn’t have to be political.)