The Double Standard
Now that Avigdor Lieberman has been named Israel’s Foreign Minister, it might be worth revisiting an earlier, speculative post written before the election. In that post, I was offering a guide to understanding when the U.S., western European governments and, of course, all of civilized humanity would treat another government as an anti-democratic monstrosity for including nationalist parties in its coalition and when they would ignore electoral victories by far more aggressive nationalist parties or even hail them as great democratic triumphs. The rule is simple: adhere to policies that either Washington or Brussels endorses, and your government is seen as either unremarkable or even as positively heroic, but resist or criticize them in any meaningful way and your government will be made into a pariah and possibly a target of sanctions. Unlike the Western treatment of Austria ten years ago for bringing the FPO into government, there has so far been some criticism of Lieberman, but almost none at all of the government or state in question following Israel’s inclusion of Lieberman’s party in government and his position as Foreign Minister. There have so far been no Western diplomatic protests or political sanctions, and it would be shocking if we did see any. This is the case despite the fact that Lieberman’s policy proposals that he actually wishes to see enacted are far more outrageous and illiberal than anything coming from European nationalists over the last ten years.
If we used the same standards applied when Israel recalled of its ambassador from Austria and Western governments made a concerted effort to isolate and humiliate Austria for respecting the outcome of one of its own elections, we would expect Israel to be subjected to an intense campaign of international condemnation led by Western governments. As it happens, the absence of official protest is the appropriate response, or non-response, just as the appropriate response in a number of cases involving European nationalist parties should have been similarly restrained and muted. If one wishes to weaken such political forces, it does nothing but build them up if other states target them, attempt to bully the governments of the countries where these parties exist or otherwise gin up hysterical overreactions to their political success. If one has even the slightest respect for the normal functioning of liberal democracy, electoral results should never be portrayed as anti-democratic as they so often were in Europe over the last decade. Lieberman and his attitudes toward Israeli Arabs are appalling, and far more so than anything that provoked such hysteria against Flemish nationalists or even Pim Fortuyn, but he and his party will only gain strength if they and Israel are singled out for penalties or sanctions.
I agree regarding the proper policy from foreign gov’ts. However, this latest election has most dramatically illustrated the failure of Israel’s political system to create stable and sustainable governments. Its repeated weak, coalition gov’ts, enthralled to self-serving minority parties who extort public monies while preventing formulation of a comprehensive national policy to resolve its disputes with many neighbors.
OK, but what side of the double standard do you end up on? First you say “the the absence of official protest is the appropriate response.” Then you follow that with advice for how one might better weaken European nationalist forces, and say that Lieberman views are far more appalling than Pim Fortuyn. Have Fortuyn or Vlaams Belang said ANYTHING appalling?
As someone who supports these politicians, and others like the late Jorge Haider, and who also has a soft spot in his heart for the heroic people of Rhodesia, I have a hard time jumping on the post-national, multicultural bandwagon and trashing Avigdor Lieberman’s wish for a Jewish ethnonationalist state. As far as I can tell, his proposal to swap Arab areas in “Israel proper” for Jewish settlement blocs in the territories is among the sanest and most comendable proposals out there. I understand why the left hates Lieberman, and why neocons are embarrased by him (see Marty Peretz). I understand the paleoconservative hatred for those pushing an Israel-first Middle East policy for America. What I don’t understand is why paleocons who ought to understand the virtues of ethnically homogeneity or at least assimilation are aping leftist talking points in discussing Lieberman’s proposals for dealing with the Arab population of Israel.
“Have Fortuyn or Vlaams Belang said ANYTHING appalling?”
Not to my knowledge. That is, the things they said that led to VB being banned in Belgium and Fortuyn being killed never seemed objectionable to me, and even then their statements were treated as more outrageous than if they had incited people to acts of violence.
What I find so appalling about Lieberman is not his nationalism as such, but the outrageous demand that people who are citizens of the state and whose families have lived on that land for generations have to take a loyalty oath to a government to which they have never been disloyal. On top of it all, this demand comes from a transplant from Moldova whose connection to the land is comparatively very new. Just imagine some naturalized American citizen pushing for a law demanding a loyalty oath from the descendants of people who were in the colonies before independence based on ethnicity, and tell me how you would respond to that.
We do understand the virtues of assimilation, and the Arab population of Israel has to a very great degree assimilated as much as they have been permitted to do so. I have written repeatedly about the problems of multiethnic states, particularly in democracies where ethnicity becomes the main political identifier, but the multiethnic make-up of Israel has been a reality from the beginning. I’m not a great fan of nationalism in general, and I am definitely not a fan of its hostility to patterns of settlement that have existed for centuries.