They?re Still Painting, and More: The Leipzig Art Scene

First a success, then a bubble: the hype surrounding the ?New Leipzig School? put the city on the map of the art world, but also blinkered its vision.... more more

GoetheInstitute

24/08/2006

Israel's clenched fist

Post-Holocaust morality and the violence of today: Navid Kermani says Israel weakens itself if it builds on military might, and forgets its past as victim.

Is it possible in Germany today to discuss Israel and the war in Lebanon without reference to the Holocaust? This question was recently raised by Eva Menasse and Michael Kumpfmüller in our feature "This endless moral flutter". The following article addresses this problem, as do a number of others on our site: "The freedom of Bedlam" by Imre Kertesz (here) and "Israel has no choice" by Tjark Kunstreich (here).

Israel has two constants to thank for its survival: the support of the West, and its strength over its neighbours. The support from Western states is grounded in several geo- and domestic-political interests, in a sense of cultural affinity, in the work of educational institutions and lobbyists and in economic integration. It has a profoundly moral basis: awareness of the suffering imposed upon the Jews. The specific morality of the atonement, as expressed in post-Auschwitz international politics, seems historically unique.

But this morality is virtually non-existent among neighbours of the young state. The Arabs don't carry a guilt comparable to the Europeans with respect to the Jews, nor do they learn as much about the history of Jewish suffering and thus the antecedents of Israel in their education system. The hermetics of the Western legitimization of Israel remains its greatest drawback. Aside from a few who have been educated in the West, the people of the Middle East - including hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are in their second or third generation in refugee camps - hardly have the opportunity to understand the morality behind Israel's existence. At most they can resign themselves to Israel's existence, not motivated by atonement but rather by a recognition of the opponent's oft-demonstrated superior power, apparently secured through Western sponsorship.

Particularly since Sharon became Prime Minister, Israel has relied less on its moral strength and more on its real power. Israel does not want to be the victim any more, because that entails being seen from a particular moral vantage point. The victim cannot simultaneously be the perpetrator, or the superior one, the powerful one. As soon as the victim becomes perpertrator, the victim role is lost (this is the source of the hastiness with which anti-Semites - trying to denounce the historical position of Jews as victims - suggest that Israel is imitating Nazi crimes). But Israel only wants normality, which means, in case of an existential conflict: the use of power and military resources with just as much decisiveness and as few scruples as any other state.

As long as the Israeli government is supported by the West, it can excercise military superiority and unilateralism. But if the support in its current form stops, all Israel's strengths will be useless. And because the neighbours would then recognize Israel's weaknesses, they would lose their recognition of Israel's irrevocable right to exist - a recognition that is more deeply seated than Israel likes to admit. The rage of recent years will reignite the rage of the last half century.

For now, the Western superpower - the United States - still grants Israel a free hand. But in the long run, doubts about such virtually unconditional loyalty must be heeded, as long as Israel continues its hard-line politics, showing no sign of its former moral stature as victim, a stature that forms an enduring basis for Western solidarity. The historical foundation will fade, and in the not-too-distant future, the questions that conservative American political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt raised, unleashing a fierce debate on both sides of the Atlantic, will also turn up in election campaigns and in the Congress: what is our interest in Israel? Accounts will be drawn up, with costs and benefits: Israel has no oil and is expensive. In its present form, Israel creates unstable relations in the Middle East and legitimises terrorism. It thus endangers the security of the West. And so on. A politics of pure self-interest, as is the case with other states, would change the basic relationship of the West to Israel. And the deficit can only be balanced out by the West's humanitarian approach to the State of Israel. But that in turn depends upon Israel's preserving its humane countenance.

This expectation bothers the Israelis: which is why Israeli intellectuals constantly point out that the Russians in Chechnya - and the Americans in Iraq - have accumulated far deeper debts of guilt, not to mention Hizbullah and Hamas, which randomly murder civilians: so why the fuss if the Israeli Army - unintentionally at that - kills civilians?

Why indeed? Why does the Western public have a different standard for Israel than it does for Hamas or Hizbullah, Russia, or itself? Because in these cases the Western states - as is the rule in politics - see their own interests first, and act accordingly. Most Western governments only criticize the USA as superpower when under duress (in general, they receive much harsher public criticism than Israel). Russia is too important a partner to be sacrificed on the basis of its treatment of the Chechnians.

And the terror acts of Hamas and Hizbullah? Naturally they must be condemned, but Hamas and Hizbullah are neither supported nor financed by the West. The possibilities for influence are reduced to appeals, condemnations, boycotts. But Israel is closely bound to the West, today as in the past, and thus in its own way a partner in conversation, debate and evaluation. Israeli intellectuals may complain about this. But it is exactly this special morally-based relationship that guarantees Israel's existence.

It still seems absurd for the West to re-evaluate its relationship with Israel - considering official announcements and news commentary on the subject. Talk privately with those politicians or commentators who couch their official criticism of Israel in careful phrases, and they will often express their anger with a shrug. Of course, such things cannot be said aloud. On the other hand, published opinion has noticeably changed, to Israel's disadvantage. Much of what is written about Israel today would have been unthinkable ten years ago.

In other European countries, criticism published in serious newspapers has adopted a tone that would draw criticism as anti-Semitic here. But even Israel's closest friends among European journalists have become less sure about whether Israel can achieve its legitimate goal of security through a violence that increasingly seems blind. If even these publications are no longer showing unqualified solidarity with Israeli policies, one can hardly wonder at the opinions expressed on the Internet, in pubs or at podium discussions: it is devastating for Israel, say all surveys and all subjective impressions.

As long as George W. Bush is in power in Washington, Israel does not have much to worry about. But all the possible successors from the ranks of the Democratic party would latch onto the politics of Bill Clinton and push for a peace plan that rejects the lop-sided border demarcation that reaches deep into occupied territory. If Israel should then react with a similar abrasiveness as in all recent attempts at exerting influence, the relationship to Washington could also cool considerably. Those who already consider American interests to be damaged in the Middle East would react even more vociferously. Israel depends on morality for its survival.

Israelis often say morality is demonstrated by not randomly bombing civilians, but one actually should be much tougher than that. Assume Israel abandoned its last scruples and left large areas of Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza in rubble and ash, to eliminate the threat once and for all - would it then be even one step closer to living in peace? Sharon won the majority of Israeli votes with a promise of security. His successor was elected because he promised to carry on with Sharon's policies. Today, Israelis are less secure than ever. They are shot at, from north to south. The anger that Israel stokes with its clenched-fist politics has created, in concert with the hopelessness of Palestinian youth, a host of potential attackers.

In contrast, the wave of terror attacks that Sharon triggered through his first appearance and then suppressed through massive use of violence could have been a harbinger. The war against Iraq, roundly supported by Israel, unleashed a chaos in which the international jihadists gladly set up house. In Palestine as in Iran, extremists have landed in the government ranks, for the first time in ages using an international political forum to question Israel's right to exist, seriously and in real terms. Hizbullah has won, in simply continuing to exist. And Israel's image is at a worldwide low.

Israeli representatives rightly note that Sharon and his successors can not be held responsible for everything, that the Arabs have also behaved terribly and that in questions of ethical justification for military violence, the other side has sabotaged every peace initiative from Oslo to Gaza. But the distribution of guilt and justice has long been relegated to the second rung. Results count, after the peace process first stumbled and then ground to a halt following the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. In all accounts, the results are devastating, for all people in the region, Israelis or Arabs, who long for normalcy, for a life without air raids and rocket attacks, without suicide bombings in buses and tanks at the door. And the fact that those who long for normalcy are still in the majority remains today's only reason for hope.

*

This article originally appeared in German in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on August 7, 2006.

Writer and orientalist Navid Kermani lives in Cologne.

Translation: Toby Axelrod.

Get the signandsight newsletter for regular updates on feature articles.
signandsight.com - let's talk european.

 
More articles

This kiss for the whole world

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Who actually owns "intellectual property"?  The German media that defend the concept of intellectual property as "real" property are the first to appropriate such rights, and they are using this idea as a defensive weapon. With lawmakers extending copyright laws and new structures emerging on the internet, intellectual property poses a serious challenge to the public domain. A survey of the German media landscape by Thierry Chervel
read more

Suddenly we know we are many

Wednesday 4th January, 2012

Why the Russian youth have tolerated the political situation in their country for so long and why they are no longer tolerant. The poet Natalia Klyuchareva explains the background to the protests on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on December 10th. Image: Leonid Faerberg
read more

The Republic of Europe

Tuesday 20 December, 2011

Thanks to Radoslaw Sikorski's speech in Berlin, Poland has at last joined the big European debate about restructuring the EU in connection with the euro crisis. The "European Reformation" advocated by Germany does not mean that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation will be established in Europe, but instead – let us hope – the Republic of Europe. By Adam Krzeminski
read more

Brown is not red

Tuesday 13 December, 2011

TeaserPicFilmmaker and theatre director Andres Veiel disagrees with the parallels currently being drawn between left-wing and right-wing violence in Germany. The RAF is the wrong model for the Zwickau neo-Nazi group, the so-called "Brown Army Faction" responsible for a series of murders of Turkish small business owners. Unlike the RAF, this group never publicly claimed responsibility for their crimes. Veiel is emphatic - you have to look at the biographies of the perpetrators. An interview with Heike Karen Runge.
read more

Legacy of denial

Tuesday 29 November, 2011

TeaserPicGermany has been rocked by the disclosures surrounding the series of neo-Nazi murders of Turkish citizens. In the wake of these events, Former GDR dissident Freya Klier calls for an honest look at the xenophobia cultivated by the policies of the former East Germany, where the core of the so-called "Brown Army Faction" was based. And demands that East Germans finally confront a long-denied past. (Photo: © Nadja Klier)
read more

Nausea in Paris

Monday 14 November, 2011

TeaserPicIn response to the arson attack on the offices of the Parisian satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on November 2, Danish critic and semiotician Frederik Stjernfelt is nauseated by the opinions voiced against the publication, especially in the British and American media. Why don't they see that Islamism is right-wing extremism?
read more

Just one pyramid

Monday 10 October, 2011

Activist and author, Andri Snaer Magnason is among the Icelandic guests of honor at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair. His book and film "Dreamland" is both an ecological call to action and a polemic. "The politicians took one of the most beautiful parts of Iceland and offered it to unscrupulous companies," says the author in a critique of his native country. By Daniela Zinser
read more

Dark side of the light

Monday 3 October 2011

In their book "Lügendes Licht" (lying light) Thomas Worm and Claudia Karstedt explore the darker side of the EU ban on incandescent bulbs. From disposal issues to energy efficiency, the low-energy bulb is not necessarily a beacon of a greener future. By Brigitte Werneburg
read more

Lubricious puritanism

Tuesday 30 August, 2011

The malice of the American media in the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a symptom of sexual uptightness that borders on the sinister, and the feminists have joined forces with the religious Right to see it through. We can learn much from America, but not when it comes to the art of love. By Pascal Bruckner
read more

Much ado about Sarrazin

Monday 22 August 2011

Published a year ago, the controversial book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany is doing away with itself) by former banker and Berlin Finance Senator Thilo Sarrazin sparked intense discussion. Hamed Abdel-Samad asks: what has the Sarrazin debate achieved beyond polarisation and insult? And how can Germany avoid cultivating its own classes of "future foreigners"?
read more

Economic giant, political dwarf

Wednesday 3 August, 2011

Germany's growing imbalance between economic and political competence is worsening the European crisis and indeed the crisis of Nato. The country has ceased to make any political signals at all and demonstrates a conspicuous lack of responsibility for what takes place beyond its own borders. This smug isolationism is linked to strains of old anti-Western and anti-political, anti-parliamentarian sentiment that is pure provincialism. By Karl Heinz Bohrer
read more

Sound and fury

Monday 11 April 2011

Budapest is shimmering with culture but Hungary's nationalist government is throwing its weight about in cultural life, effecting censorship through budget cuts and putting its own people in the top-level cultural positions. Government tolerance of hate campaigns against Jews and gays has provoked the likes of Andras Schiff, Agnes Heller, Bela Tarr and Andre Fischer to raise their voices in defence of basic human rights. But a lot of people are simply scared. By Volker Hagedorn
read more

The self-determination delusion

Monday 28 March, 2011

TeaserPicA Dutch action group for free will wants to give all people the right to assisted suicide. But can this be achieved without us ending up somewhere we never wanted to go? Gerbert van Loenen has grave doubts.
read more

Revolution without guarantee

Monday 21 February, 2011

Saying revolution and freedom is not the same as saying democracy, respect for minorities, equal rights and good relations with neighbouring nations. All this has yet to be achieved. We welcome the Arab revolution and will continue to watch with our eyes open to the potential dangers. By Andre Glucksmann
read more

Pascal Bruckner and the reality disconnect

Friday 14 January, 2011

The French writer Pascal Bruckner wants to forbid a word. Which sounds more like a typically German obsession. But for Bruckner, "Islamophobia" is one of "those expressions which we dearly need to banish from our vocabulary". One asks oneself with some trepidation which other words we "dearly need" to get rid of: Right-wing populism? Racism? Relativism? By Alan Posener
read more