Back to tribalism: the implications of the West's toxic relation with Israel and what can still be done (EN)

On 7 October 2023 Israel suffered a horrendous terrorist attack from Gaza that led to around 1,200 people losing their lives and some 250 being taken hostage by Hamas. Since then, Israel has waged a devastating war on Gaza that turned into a genocide. However, this is not the focus of this post, as the characterisation of Israel's actions in Gaza has been debated by credible experts, relevant international organisations and courts, while the daily horrors occurring there are sufficiently available to those willing to know. Rather, this post attempts to outline, mostly from a Western perspective, the nature and broader implications of the West's relation with Israel in the current context.

1. From tribalism to universalism: a civilisational journey

Evolving from a tribal outlook, which is largely the default state through most of history, towards a form of universalism is the typical ascending evolution of a civilisation. For Western civilisation, this evolution from a clan / ethno-centric perspective to one that (in principle) provides a place for everyone has culminated with what we call liberal democracy. While it cannot be said that its ideals have been fully attained in any given society, the model of liberal democracy has been the leading one globally in the aftermath of WW2 and in particular after the end of the Cold War, and has largely shaped the system of international relations and institutions since then.

It is fair to acknowledge, however, that liberal democracy - not just as a lived reality, but also as a model - is increasingly contested in the West itself, and for various reasons has lost at least in part its attraction for the rest of the world, which has been a main source for Western soft power. While the reasons for this decline and loss of attraction, particularly visible after the financial crisis of the late 2000s, would merit a separate discussion (they can range from botched globalisation to increasing inequality to woke excesses or even imperial overreach), what can be said here is that the 'traditionalists', 'illiberals' and other populist types who claim to revive Western civilisation by reconnecting it to its roots are in fact regressives who want to walk back from universalism to a more tribal, parochial outlook - and this regressive, backward-looking tendency is at the core of movements like 'Make America Great Again'.

2. Jews and universalism

Historically the Jews have been among, if not the main victim of tribalism, in the form of ethnic and religious intolerance. For over 2000 years, they have been - particularly in the West - the persecuted minority of choice, facing systematic discrimination, exclusion and recurrent pogroms, culminating with mass extermination in the Holocaust.

On the other hand, and perhaps not unrelated to the above, Jewish personalities have been essential contributors to Western civilisation, and in particular to its evolution towards universalism. Indeed, any intellectual history of liberal democracy and universalism is dense with Jewish enlightened thinkers. And certainly Jews - and indeed any persecuted minority - stand to benefit from universalism, as illustrated by their flourishing in liberal democracies (with the US a good example). 

The flip side of the above is that a departure from universalism and a regression towards tribalism and intolerance is a direct threat to the Jewry worldwide. Increasing antisemitism in Western societies is the 'canary in the coal mine' with regard to such regression.

3. Is there such a thing as 'Judeo-Christian' civilisation?

Western supporters of Israel regularly emphasize that Israel is a bulwark of Western civilisation and often label this common civilisation as 'Judeo-Christian'. This rhetoric - exemplified below with US Representative Randy Fine (R-FL) and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee - is used to emphasize the enduring bond between Israel and the West and more specifically to justify full and unconditional support by the West to Israel. 

This is not neutral historical, philosophical or theological commentary, but extremely loaded political rhetoric that requires unpacking, starting with the very 'Judeo-Christian' label, which is historically recent (forged in the 1930s) and misleading in a number of ways. 

First, because in the liberal democratic order built by Western civilisation the place of religion is fundamentally different (and less central) than in traditional societies. Therefore applying to contemporary Western civilisation this religion-focused label intrinsically denotes historical regression rather than a current and future-oriented perspective.

Second, the term 'Judeo-Christian', by this very juxtaposition, projects the image of a natural bond and continuity between Judaism and Christianity, and of historical closeness of Jews and Christians. None of these is factually true. From a religious point of view, there is clearly more rupture than continuity between the two faiths. This is particularly salient in terms of tribalism vs universalism: Judaism is largely ethno-centric (Jews are the 'chosen people'), while Christianity brings a radically different, universal message to humanity. For Christians the New Testament explicitly supersedes, not just complements the Old Testament. 

And if we look at history we see that Jews have been persecuted by Christians on a large scale for many centuries, and scapegoated for all kinds of misfortunes (from epidemics to natural disasters) occurring in traditional societies; so the historical perspective evoked by the 'Judeo-Christian' label in fact cancels the very wished-for togetherness (which instead is enabled by contemporary liberal democracy). 

In brief, 'Judeo-Christian' is a recent, ideologically loaded concept that doesn't have a solid base in history or religion and projects a regressive perspective on Western civilisation. But it's precisely this regressive perspective that Israel promotes.

4. Israel as a driver of regression towards tribalism

While Israel is routinely presented as an outpost of Western civilisation and democracy in a part of the world dominated by regressive, authoritarian regimes, the country is fundamentally set-up as an ethno-centric state, based on settler colonialism and apartheid (with many similarities to the former apartheid regime in South Africa). As such, it can at most be linked to a historically outdated pattern of the Western civilisation, one that the collective West has been striving to overcome in recent generations, not to universalist values - such as equal rights - embedded in liberal democracy.

Israel's conduct in Gaza since October 2023, as well as the political rhetoric around it make it glaringly obvious that the policies of the current Israeli regime are not aligned, but rather in stark contrast with the universalist values of liberal democracy. It is not by chance that mainstream public opinion in Western democracies grows increasingly critical of Israel, nor is it by chance that the current Israeli regime finds support among the far-right parties, nazi sympathisers and illiberal ideologues in the West; this apparent paradox alone should give serious pause.

Israel's actions in Gaza directly undermine the world's - and in particular the West's - 'never again!' pledge made in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and drive a regression towards tribalism and intolerance - which, incidentally, is particularly ominous for Jewish people around the world (see point 2 above).

5. The West's toxic relation with Israel

Its relations with the West have been essential for Israel since its inception as a state. Indeed, without strong political backing and multi-dimensional support from the West, including financial and military, Israel would have had a hard time to maintain itself in an admittedly hostile region. The US, the UK and Germany in particular are strongly committed and unconditional supporters to Israel. Leading politicians in these and other Western countries rarely miss an opportunity to affirm and reaffirm their commitment to Israel.

But as Israel more and more obviously looks like an ethno-centric, colonial apartheid regime rather than a liberal democracy, and turned from an underdog into a regional hegemon and bully, Western support has also changed nature from a lifeline to an enabler. And in the context of the events unfolding in Gaza, the relation between Israel and the West has grown particularly toxic in many respects. 

On the one hand, by providing unconditional support and diplomatic cover, the West has contributed to building a sense of entitlement, omnipotence and impunity for Israel. This has encouraged overreach, has created political space for radical, maximalist agendas to the detriment of more balanced and pragmatic approaches, and in time has shifted the overall Israeli public discourse to a kind of generalised lunacy that bodes ill for the country's future. Many actions and statements from Israeli politicians and public figures appear shocking and completely unhinged to most of the outside world, but have been completely normalised inside the Israeli bubble. This growing rift would not be possible without the West's enabling of Israel over a sustained period of time, including during the Gaza genocide. It's to a significant extent due to the West's full, unconditional backing that Israel has lost its bearings. And this builds a major threat to the long-term viability of the Israeli state, because the total support of the West for Israel will not be there forever - not only public opinion about Israel is rapidly souring, but there are clear signs of a generational shift in both US and Europe, with the young generations much less inclined than the older ones to unconditionally support Israel. Hence, the time when Israel on its own will have to reckon with the consequences of its actions and with the region's realities, grievances and interests is approaching.

On the other hand, the outsized influence, and sometimes outright control that Israel exerts on Western politics, longtime a taboo topic in the West, has become extremely visible in recent months and is increasingly scrutinised and questioned. The levers of this influence are largely untransparent (one can see a parallel with similarly surreptitious influence that Russia had, at least until its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, on key politicians in the West). What is clear is that there is a growing fracture between public opinion and the political class when it comes to Israel. In this context, the authorities' response is growing increasingly authoritarian and repressive, sometimes actually using Israeli technologies for societal surveillance, control and repression. Equating criticism of Israel's policies with antisemitism, as now embedded in law in several countries, is a particularly pernicious act: not only it stifles democratic debate and free speech, but it also associates all Jews - many of whom are opposed - to Israel's actions. Equating peaceful protest against genocide with terrorism is just as absurd and dangerous. These trends are profoundly damaging to Western democracies and - if not reversed soon - are bound to have a long-lasting impact.

Not least, by enabling and associating itself with Israel's actions in Gaza, the West is betraying the very international rules-based order that it worked over generations to put in place, is outright sabotaging international institutions that it painstakingly helped create, is abandoning its universalist claim and liberal democratic values, and sacrificing its soft power and its credibility with the Global South. It ultimately degrades its political system and accelerates its own regression towards tribalism and power politics. 

In a nutshell, the costs in historical terms for the West - political, economic, societal, intellectual - from getting entangled into the Gaza genocide are just staggering and cannot be justified going forward. As to Israel, the false sense of impunity enabled by the West's full and unconditional support is stoking a painful, possibly existential reckoning in the future, when the West's support will be withdrawn. 

5. What can the West still do

Way too many people have died in Gaza and tragically it may already be too late to save many of those still alive. Israel itself has largely exhausted its remaining capital of international goodwill and will hardly ever again be seen as the victim. And way too much damage has been done to Western democracies, their stance in the world, to our societies and psyche, and to the international system that we used to call 'rules-based'. 

Changing course is very urgent if the West is to retain a chance to save itself from being completely dragged down into and a spiral of civilisational regression and into global discredit by its current association with Israel's actions. 

AP report on secret CIA prison in Romania (EN)

More details here.

UPDATE: Huffington Post is running the same as its lead story, and with a more dramatic title:

Borders (EN)

I vividly remember the time when I needed a visa to travel to Western Europe. The endless queues at foreign consulates, the constant humiliation of being treated like a second class European, the arrogance and corruption of some consulate staff, were all powerful deterrents to anyone traveling for a legitimate purpose.
Once, as a student, I almost missed a scholarship for a summer university in Southern France, due to the impossibility to get an Italian transit visa in time. As I was traveling by train, the excruciating routine of seeking transit visas from all countries on the way, in reverse order from the destination, got stuck for good at the Italian consulate in Bucharest. Such was the chaos and total disregard for visa applicants that I spent one week at the consulate's gates with hundreds others from about 6am to afternoon every day, without even getting to submit an application (for a less than 24 hour transit visa) or to show to anyone at the consulate the letter that I had from the French embassy, requesting that my transit visas be expedited. In fact, I never got to see the building from the inside. At the last minute, I decided to change route and got instead transit visas from Austria and Germany, traveling about 1,000 kilometers more to my final destination.

***

A few years ago, I was flying from Vienna to Sarajevo for a regional conference. At that time there weren't many direct flight connections between the ex-Yugoslav countries, and to travel between neighboring countries the easiest way was often to take a transfer flight through Vienna. Thus, on the same flight there were quite a few people from other Western Balkan countries, some of whom I knew, going to the same conference. The late evening flight took off on time, but shortly thereafter the pilot noticed some technical problems and decided to return to Vienna rather than continue to Sarajevo. All passengers were disembarked and booked for an early morning flight next day; we also got vouchers for dinner and accommodation at the NH hotel at Vienna airport, literally across the street from the terminal. Everything went smoothly, but as I was checking in at the hotel, I noticed that my Western Balkan acquaintances were missing; and they did not show up by the end of the dinner when I went to sleep.
I eventually found out next morning that they had spent much of the night in the airport, not having an Austrian visa to get out of the terminal and cross the street to the airport hotel; eventually they were given a visa after a few hours, which left them just enough time to check in at the hotel, take a shower and return to the terminal for the morning flight.

***

Earlier this year, as I was flying from Vienna to Oslo on a snowy winter evening, a surprise was awaiting upon disembarkment at Oslo airport: a gentleman in uniform, standing at the gate (just standing there, not at the typical booth as there was none around) was checking travelers' passports or IDs.
To remind, both Austria and Norway are part of the border-free Schengen zone (though the latter is not an EU member); theoretically this means that there should be no control whatsoever at the border. But there it was.
To be fair, it went pretty fast, the uniformed man seemed to be doing a largely perfunctory check. Notwithstanding, my Romanian passport earned me some bonus conversation. Unlike the others, I was asked about the purpose and duration of my visit, and when I explained, it probably seemed somehow counter-intuitive to my interlocutor, so he asked me to show him some evidence, which I did. While doing this, all along in the back of my mind a nagging inner voice was telling me that I didn't have to answer those questions - as an EU national I was free to travel within the Schengen zone at will without having to provide any explanation. But I just answered them, because it seemed more expedient and I was not in the mood to look for trouble.
To give some minimum satisfaction to the nagging voice, and having already established rock-solid credentials for my less than 24-hour visit to Norway, I asked the uniformed man what was his purpose checking passports at a Schengen internal (non-)border. He seemed a little surprised by the question and told me that his was not a border control, just a police check. It just happened at the border by some coincidence.

***

Why am I telling these stories?
Well, because these personal stories (and I actually have many, many more) are illustrative of the history that we have been living in this region. The experience of traveling in Europe, as a Romanian, has changed a lot, mostly for the better, in the last 20 years - and this has coincided with historic progress in the country's European integration, culminating with accession to the EU in 2007 (perhaps more important for the common folks was the lifting of visa requirements back in 2002).
And this has pretty much been the trend as well for other Eastern European countries that gravitate towards the EU.

But this trend seems now to have stalled, or even gone into reverse gear.

Revolt and martyrdom (EN)

Notwithstanding the attempts (sometimes rather pathetic, like this one) to make sense of the momentous developments in the Arab world, the events there (as I argued before) remain largely incomprehensible for many Westerners.

Among others, it is mind-boggling how the protests can continue for weeks in places like Syria or Yemen, in the face of atrocious repression by desperate governments clinging to power.

I would argue that any serious effort to understand what motivates such resilience of protests should look at the cultural and especially religious background of the Arab societies, which makes so many of their youth ready for martyrdom to a degree nowhere to be seen in our time anywhere in the (post-)Christian West. The Tunisian revolt was actually sparked by such a self-inflicted act of martyrdom.

Once the barrier of fear has been broken, the fact - reinforced with fresh examples on a weekly basis - is that Muslim youth in Arab countries are far more willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause, and this willingness is nurtured and sustained in time for a lot longer than one can even imagine nowadays in Western societies. And religion plays a huge role in this: Arab revolts are re-ignited every Friday by the prayer in mosques, they follow a ritualistic pattern as much as a political one.

How we understand history (EN)

The dramatic events in the Arab world over the past couple of months have captured the attention and imagination of mankind. But how do we understand the tectonic changes that are unfolding?

Reality is not easy to put into logical categories; it is often chaotic and incomprehensible, even more so in situations of conflict and social upheaval.
However, trying to understand what is going on by forming a narrative of the events is a very powerful human instinct: we simply are designed to function by making sense of reality, by projecting some sort of pre-formed mental coherence - usually in the form of a comforting narrative - on our environment and circumstances.
And sometimes the urge to take action may be just a symptom of mental insecurity due to lack of understanding, to a failure to make credible sense of reality. Thus, action becomes an effort to regulate reality by making it fit into an acceptable narrative.

From this viewpoint, the international military intervention in Lybia pushed for by France and Britain (with the US following with some reluctance) could also be read as a symptom of mental insecurity.

The writing on the wall, since the beginning of the Arab turmoil, has been the declining influence of the West, even in a strategically crucial region in its very backyard. Remember how the regional tsunami of social protests took the West by surprise, found it unprepared and eventually forced it to go along a change that it didn't expect, didn't want, and didn't quite understand (the ideas of freedom and people power that eventually gained prevalence on the positive side are just nuggets of understanding to offer some familiar, though precarious anchor to Western opinion in an ocean of unpredictability and incomprehensibility; same with fear of islamism on the negative side).
The decline of the West's global influence and the emergence of Asia is a long-term established trend, and the understanding of this trend has more recently started to sink in even in America and Europe (particularly after the financial crisis originated in the very center of the Western economic order); but the West's influence in the resource-rich North Africa and Middle East seemed well assured through a thick web of economic, political, historic and military links. By throwing this old certainty into question, the improbable awakening of the Arab street has in fact created much insecurity in the West.
And such insecurity calls for action. Decisive action.

Embracing the opportunity (and risks) of Arab democracy (EN)

As the authoritarian order in the Arab world is shaking in the face of popular uprisings that have broken through the socially entrenched fear barrier, an equally epic struggle is taking place in the West to come to terms with its own fears vis-a-vis the Arabs, and to comprehend the until recently unimaginable prospect of Arab democracy. 

For the West, the current dilemma is whether to embrace what looks like the chance of an unprecedented democratic opening in the Middle East (and, yes, with all the risks associated to it), or stick to the old comfort zone of familiar dictators who deliver "stability and security" in a volatile region.

This shouldn't be a dilemma at all.
For the "realist" position of privileging "stability" over change is riddled with inconsistencies and, in the longer term, breeds risks at least as serious than those associated with the alternative.

Something brewing (EN)

UPDATE 2 (14/01): Developments have indeed accelerated in Tunisia - we see the collapse of the regime as we speak. This more and more resembles the fall of the communist system in Eastern Europe in 1989. To watch in the coming period the other countries mentioned in this post.

UPDATE (14/01):  A breakthrough in Tunisia! Things may accelerate in the coming period.

Something is brewing in the Islamic world.

From Iran, 18 months after the rigged presidential elections in June 2009, the main news is not that the regime is still in place, but that the green movement is still alive, managing to propagate a continued message of reason, democracy and moderation (like this one by Mir Hossein Mousavi, the real victor of the 2009 elections) that gains popular support. In fact, in spite of the brutal repression by the regime (a de facto military dictatorship that has been forced to implicitly abandon any pretense of democratic or even religious legitimacy) for a year and a half, the resistance has strengthened its grassroot base and consistently maintained the high moral ground. The standoff continues and it is very difficult to predict when the regime will collapse. For one thing, all the guns are in the regime's hands and it has repeatedly proven that it has no hesitation to use them against the people. However, following a pattern previously seen in the demise of other dictatorships like Romania's Ceausescu regime in 1989, there are small but increasingly visible cracks within the establishment.

True, Iran is shi'a, and in many ways is a standalone case.

But what is happening lately across Northern Africa - in particular Tunisia and Algeria, to some extent Egypt - also signals a broader tendency in the "Western-friendly" South Mediterranean rim: the survival instincts and vital energy of a new generation clash with the status quo of rigid dictatorships led by aging strongmen (Ben Ali, Bouteflika and Moubarak respectively). The lid that has been kept on any dissent for many years has only helped build up pressure; sooner or later, in one form or another, it has to erupt.

This is potentially a turning point. 

In a few years from now, we could have more open and inclusive societies in a traditionally volatile area that has Western Europe within missile (or suicide bombing) range. But the eventual transformation is not risk-free, and increased radicalization is one of the possible outcomes.

Suicide Bomber Comedy (EN)

Could humour be a more effective way to counter terrorism?



The above is a clip from the film Four Lions by Chris Morris. The "world's first suicide bomber comedy" will premiere later today at the Sundance Film Festival, where it's running for the World Cinema Narrative prize.
I haven't seen anything so hilarious in a long time. Can't wait to see the entire film :)

Where America's Founding Principles Came to Die (EN)

Three months ago I wrote:

The real, mortal danger comes when a civilization's core values are compromised from the inside. When the very things that distinguish it from its enemies are trampled by those who claim to be their defendants. When those who make the decisions at the centre give away moral superiority for the sake of some temporary tactical advantage. When in the fog of war one forgets what he or she ultimately stands for and morphs into something else.
In absolute, atemporal logic, this is the biggest threat for a civilization: to lose or compromise its core principles. From there on, it's only a matter of time before it succumbs to historical erosion.

What emerges from Guantanamo seems to confirm the worst fears.
Read Andrew Sullivan's text after the jump. And his other today's pieces that are linked from there. Read carefully. And reflect.

Sadly, the mindset that made it possible seems to be back, and its champions ride the wave again. We'll talk about that soon.
I would just say now that America increasingly hysterically has begun to hate the hope that it voted for little more than a year ago.
I ultimately don't much care about Obama, he's just a guy. And yes, he maybe screwed up a thing or two. But this is not about him, it's about us.
God save us.

The Meaning of Abu Ghraib (EN)

My statement that the New Barbarians pose a bigger threat to the Western civilization than Al Qaeda (and also than islamic fundamentalism, nuclear proliferation, rogue states or any other external enemy) has raised some eyebrows. I will try to explain.

The point is not whether more Americans (or West-Europeans) and foreign civilians have perished or are at risk because of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policies (or those of their allies in Europe) than due to, say, terrorist attacks over the same period. While the case could be made, the point isn't about the body count. Rather, it's about the nature of the threat.

The New Barbarians (I) (EN)

The Western civilization is under attack, and in serious danger. And the most serious danger comes not from Al Qaeda-type terrorism, fundamentalist Islam, rogue states, nuclear proliferation or any other external factor. Rather, it comes from within, from people who profess to be its defenders. And who, in the name of defending the West's fundamental values violate them on a routine basis. People who think they can abolish the rules when it suits them, and reinstate them at will. Who think double standards are OK - e.g. you can unlawfully spy on your citizens or torture suspects and be a liberal democracy at the same time. Who think you can eat a cake and have it.

I call them the New Barbarians.