The penultimate chapter of Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way (2007) deals with the problem of Israel and Palestine—and with anti-Semitism. Although Cohen is of Jewish ancestry (he’s an atheist), he’s no rah-rah supporter of Israel, but takes what I see as a reasoned and pragmatic view. But he also recognizes the religious roots of Islamic terrorism and its motivation by its unrealizable desire for a caliphate and a hatred of Western modernity. I again recommend reading Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9-11. It’s a book I’ve often recommended to those who pin terrorism largely on Western colonialism, but the repeated refusal of those folks to read it speaks volumes about their close-mindedness.
In the passage below, Cohen proposes the only viable way to settle the Israel/Palestine problem (I despair of a solution), and also attacks the foolish notion that once that issue is solved, we no longer need to worry so much the Middle East, for the lack of a settlement is often touted as the paramount problem in that region and the main issue that exacerbates Islamism.
From pp.353-354:
Why couldn’t they [“the rich world’s liberal leftists”] support democracy in Iraq, Syria. Iran, and North Africa—not to mention China and North Korea—along with the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settler? Why did they, like Western governments at their worst, ignore dictatorial and genocidal regimes? No liberal would want to live in a state ruled by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Liberals, socialists, women, gays, freethinkers and Christians could not possibly prosper in an Islamist Palestine or Islamist anywhere. Rather than think about what life would be like under the new far right, they revived the old racist belief of the Left that what was intolerable for white-skinned peoples was fine for lesser breeds.
There was a motive beyond the usual singling out of democracies for special treatment which explained the focus on Israel, although few liked to admit it. Because totalitarian movements of the Right said Israel was their greatest grievance, there was a temptation to appease them by pretending that Israel was the greatest abuser of human rights in the world. Leaving aside the dangers of allowing Islamists to determine a liberal political agenda, the myopia the fixation brought ignored the fact that a solution to the conflict required a confrontation with both the Jewish and Muslim ultras who could accept no compromise in their contested ‘holy’ land. From the pont of view of the practical poltics of dividing territory, the liberal argument on Israel wasn’t a great help because it could call for concessions from only one side.
The bigger question was whether it would help calm the Islamist explosion. I’ve been very hard on today’s liberal-left, so I will end with the hope that it is right. A just settlement for the Palestinians is a good thing in itself and should be pursued regardless of whether the fanatics want it or not. Everyone knows what it is—a return to the 1967 borders, the tearing down of walls, a confrontation with maniacs from all religions who regard the holy land as the exclusive preserve of their god. Maybe if the international community were to deploy troops to safeguard Israel’s borders, it will happen. If it does, we will see if a settlement vindicates the current liberal view. Perhaps it will. Perhaps it will satisfy all the Islamists who are currently saying that their wars in Chechnya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir and Somalia, and their terrorist campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Britain, France, Spain, the United States, Denmark, Holland, Canada and Australia are part of a unified war against paganism and for a Caliphate. Maybe they will shake themselves and say ‘fair enough, we realize that now you’ve addressed our root cause, we don’t want a theocratic empire after all and will return to civilian life’.
If the liberals and leftists are wrong, and there are good reasons for thinking they are horribly wrong, history will judge them harshly. For they will have gazed on the face of a global fascist movement and shrugged and turned away, not only from an enemy that would happily have killed them but from an enemy which already was killing those who had every reason to expect their support.
While You Can’t Read This Book is more recent and perhaps more timely given its theme of Leftist censorship, What’s Left? is essential reading for a historical perspective on how the Left’s abandonment of Enlightenment ideals, its hypocrisy, and its susceptibility to identity politics is not unique to this decade. Cohen has a good grasp of political history, takes the long view, and is a very good writer.
Sub
sub2
“Maybe if the international community were to deploy troops to safeguard Israel’s borders, it will happen.”
I don’t think that will work. These extremist groups thrive on an us-versus-them mentality and don’t seem to mind worldwide opprobrium. It would just accelerate the spread of worldwide terrorism.
Not that I have any better suggestions…
I think that the international community is not interested in safeguarding Israel’s borders and will not deploy troops. And even if it does, the troops will be about as useful as those in Srebrenica, because they will put their own safety over the assigned task and the safety of civilians regarded as inferior.
I read this book a while ago but now Jerry is tempting me to go back to it!
It’s amazing, the psychic power that US and the west has to force other people to behave very, very badly. Sure the West has made mis-steps (as have all powers) but ‘somehow’ the mis-steps of the old USSR or China didn’t cause bad effects. Strange……
One of our big problems in the Palestine issue is the UN itself. They are far from unbiased. (UNESCO insists on using exclusively the Arabic designations for historic sites in the disputed areas as if Israel’s history never happened.)
On a related note, Turkey’s Erdogan has arrested an atheist Dutch reporter on ‘terrorism’ charges.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-24/turkeys-erdogan-goes-full-dictator-arrests-dutch-journalist-critical-tweet
“…‘Somehow’ the mis-steps of the old USSR or China didn’t cause bad effects…”
I side with those who think that Islamism in Chechnya is partly a result of the harsh Russian response to the secular Chechen independence movement in the 1980s and 1990s.
I would also recommend Ian Baruma’s Occidentalism, which looks at the origins of anti-Western attitudes in the West, and how they have informed Islam, as well as other non-Western thought. It’s a quick read, less than 150 pages, but very interesting.
so, you couldnt post my comment?
I am a poor ignorant ‘leftist’, non-elitest.
We support democracy, but not at the end of a pointed stick or gun. Not when it comes to invasion to force democracy.
If we could show that democracy does for the poorest of this country, show that no one goes without food or shelter. Show that no one is reduced to begging on the corners and highways of this country. Then we wont have to force democracy on someone.
Israel….. funny how a people, abused so much in the past; cannot see how abusive it is to put a different people inside a wall and take their land. And dont even start that it was given by God, it was given by America after WW2…
#DrMorq
Your comment appeared automatically, so what are you beefing about? But you’re moderated now for complaining.
By the way, the state was granted autonomy by the UN, not the US.
Despite your tone, I agree with the gist of one of your points: the answer to Nick’s “why don’t they…” question is, in part, that many liberals don’t want the US to invade more countries (or underhandedly have the CIA give rebel forces weapons etc.) in order to ‘save’ them, and for many of the examples Nick listed, that would pretty much be the only realistic way they’d turn democratic.
Support for many of these dictatorships is, IMO, a result of left and right coming together; the left is doveish about intervention, while the right is realpolitick about trade etc. Both those perspectives lead to a tacit acceptance of the status quo.
Sure, there’s soft power; foreign aid with strings attached, sanctions, etc. And that stuff will (or should) work in cases where (a) the dictatorship isn’t floating on oil, and (b) the Russians have no interest in leveraging our sanctions to gain good trade agreements of their own. Unfortunately there aren’t many mideast authoritarian regimes for which (a) and (b) are both true.
Israel wasn’t given anything. The British Mandate expired, and the Arab League, rejecting Resolution 181, immediately attacked the newly declared state. Israel was able to single-handedly defend itself in the War of Independence, and that is why it exists today.
I don’t recall the Jews in the past firing rockets into their neighbours homes.
Or am I mistaken, were the pogroms and holocaust done because the Jews were attacking them? (I know, it wasn’t only the Jews in the holocaust)
Or writing a charter with a “destroy utterly the others” clause in it.
1. Jews and Christians lived in primarily Islamic countries for centuries. The rampant anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism, and anti-Secularism have primarily occurred since the founding of the State of Israel, and have become more common since the 1967 War, especially over the West Bank.
2. The justification for occupation and annexation of the West Bank (aka “Judea and Samaria”) is Biblical in origin and should get no more sympathy than Bible-based Creationism.
3. Terrorism is usually motivated by a feeling (justified or not) that real grievances are not being addressed, or by an attempt to gain power, justified or not. It is not solely the province of Islamists, but has been used by many groups throughout history, including Zionists (e.g., the Stern gang, bombing of the King David Hotel). One can condemn terrorism without denying the grievances.
It is a complicated story. But the animosity between the Islamic and Jewish faiths in the region date to well before establishment of the state of Israel. There was a steady stream of terrorist attacks against Jewish people, including civilians, in the region long before 1948. The reasons then was just straight-up antisemitism. So this pattern simply continued after 1948 with a new set of reasons on top of the old ones.
And there were attacks by Zionists on Arab Palestinians before the establishment of the state of Israel.
My point is that no group has a monopoly on good behavior. Or bad.
True, but we should not draw false equivalencies either. I don’t like Israel’s religious-based immigration laws; they are a form of religious discrimination that the US 1st amendment would not allow. I don’t like Saudi Arabia throwing Ralf Badawi in jail and lashing him for talking about atheism; its a form of religious discrimination too. But they are not equivalently bad: SA’s policies clearly deserve more of our disapproval and action than does Israel’s. Barring an potential immigrant from citizenship is nowhere near as bad as jailing your own citizen for thought and speech crimes.
I do not think that religion-based immigration policy is necessarily bad. To me, every nation has a right to select who will be allowed to come and join. Like in condos where older tenants have a decisive voice whether a newcomer will be allowed to settle.
Secular societies have proved themselves tragically vulnerable to religious extremism. When we are told that we are obliged to accept people who clearly do not fit in, I start feeling as in the kindergarten playground: “If you are a good girl, you will give me your ball.”
Jews not allowed in the regular town, because they don’t fit in, eh? That was the historical European religious immigration control. That didn’t work out too well.
With all that Islamic extremism is producing murderous terrorists, US problems with Muslims are arguably smaller than our problems with ‘good Christian’ conservative extremists, and the death toll from both groups combined is totally eclipsed by such mundane issues as drunk driving and heart disease. I’ll take religious freedom over heavy-handed policy attempts to keep ones’ population homogeneous any day, thank you.
Religious freedom eh. So anyone can preach death and murder and mayhem under the guise of religion,eh.
Oh, the US figures don’t show much risk. Hmm. How about the rest of the world.
How about the actual amount of world suffering directly in the name of Islam.
Comparing social issue figures like car crashes or heart disease is ridiculous.
Besides, those things are being addressed, but are not part of a directed campaign of suffering, just the opposite.
It is completely different.
How about the authorities stop worrying about Islamic terrorism, it is so harmless.
How long before the next attack. Not long I’d bet.
Is that what you want. They are so harmless after all.
Even so, what other alleged terrorist group has figures like Islam in the US.
Those twin towers were a pretty big thing.
That Boston marathon thing, hmm?
I am not looking anything up. Can you point to any group blowing up women and children at a social event by anyone else?
And then?
What else have you got. Not people who may be a certain religion, but that which is done in the name of religion.
I can drive defensively and eat well. I can’t wear a full set of anti explosive gear every where I go.
If people let me decide whom to let in, I am going to be very bad! (Relax – nobody is going to give me the power.) I agree that some Christians are at least as problematic as many Muslims. The first group of people I would shut out are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, because of their ban on blood transfusion. The religious freedom in their case becomes the freedom of a brainwashed fanatic to let his baby with hemolytic disease – such as me when I was born – to suffer a preventable brain damage or death. And I am appalled when I see how easy authorities turn a blind eye and sacrifice babies to appease the fanatics.
I would also think 7 times before allowing any Mormon immigrants. Of course, the eventual Mormon leaders of this blog are the honorable exception :-).
The death toll of religious fanaticism may be negligible, but every group stubbornly adhering to its backward culture drains the material and non-material resources of society: CPS, police and courts are engaged to investigate and try to protect young brides, there are lawsuits to (temporarily) take away child custody from fanatics so that the child can receive a life-saving treatment, there are attempts to shut down criticism of the backward culture, funds are needed to rehabititate those breaking free from it etc. My country is not homogenous and has never been. Yet I do not see a need to increase the diversity by letting in groups for which it is clear beforehand that they will be problematic, and who (as Hitchens said) are hiding under the umbrella of diversity while openly seeking to destroy it.
About not allowing in the regular town people whom you do not like:
“Long after Jeffs’s arrest, an extreme culture of child brides, excommunication, and “concentration camp”-like compounds has allegedly survived under the nose of local law enforcement, including police who are members or former members of the church.
The adjoining towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, are the subject of a federal trial in Phoenix, Arizona, this month, which alleges that the town’s powerful fundamentalist leadership denied non-FLDS members access to water, electricity, housing, and help from the local police forces.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/sheriff-covered-up-mormon-child-marriage.html
Whatever I may think of Islam, it is at least a religion with a long tradition that once prevailed in most advanced societies, and today it is difficult to control due to the general underdevelopment of Islam-dominated societies. Mormonism, in contrast, appeared in modern times, a mere 200 years ago out of thin air and spread like cancer in one of the most advanced countries, now having twice more adherents than the entire population of my country. I find this a perfect illustration how helpless a free democratic society is against oppressive religions. So I suggest, let every society deal with its domestic religions as it can while trying not to import more troubles.
Michael: So anyone can preach death and murder and mayhem under the guise of religion, eh.
I would say: nobody gets to incite murder. Doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it under the banner of Yahweh, Allah, Environmentalism, Animal Rights, or what. But neither am I going to prevent you from entry or forbid you from practicing your belief in Yahweh, Allah, Environmentalism, or Animal Rights in a non-violent and legal fashion.
You’re just using religion as a proxy measure for potential violent conduct, and it’s a lousy proxy. It creates a huge number of false positives (the 99% of Muslims who don’t commit violent crimes) and negatives (all those non-Muslim extremists you just let in because you’re so focused on Islam). Far better to stop using it as a proxy and just evaluate potential immigrants on their likelihood of committing violent acts directly. Have you been in jail before? Why? Accused of any crimes? What were they? And so on. And before you point out that someone could lie about past crimes, they can easily lie about their religion too. Any religious bar in immigration law would have to grapple with all the same issues of evidence and self-reporting that other rules need to grapple with, so (IMO) my rules still come out as a far better choice. Not to mention, far more liberal and freedom-supporting.
Eric, (I haven’t got a reply button under the thread.
Law, government oversight, control, freedom and so on are tricky areas.
Ideally, the less law the better. And as you have pointed out, laws are often wrong.
I agree that great freedom is important, including freedom of religion.
But there are realities. Pragmatics. It is a fact that, at the moment, Islam brings worth it an increased chance terrorist actions.
Action against innocents more so than most other perpetrators.
You do minimise or negate this fact. That is why I asked if you could come up with some other examples.
That the majority of Muslims don’t actually commit terror, surveys say that a lot support it one way or the other. If not terrorism than “behead those that insult the prophet” or gays should be banned or punished or its like.
I am not using religion as a proxy. I am observing evidence and using reason.
Even despite the extremely low percentage of Muslims in America, the numbers of death and suffering is still there.
I am not actually arguing for totally restricting emigration. But care needs to be taken. Extra care in the case of Islam.
Should they be able to preach “behead those that insult the prophet or its like”?
It is your minimising the reality of Islamic behaviour that I am stressing.
1. Really, anti-Semitism is a recent phenomenon in the Muslim world? Are you serious?
2. I can’t disagree.
3. Have you actually studied what the Islamists’ “grievances” are? Have you tried to imagine what the world would look like if these grievances were “addressed,” if they got the items on their political wishlist checked off?
1. That’s not what I said. I said that Jews lived in Muslim countries pre-1948. I agree that this wasn’t a Utopia, but they still lived there, and often in better conditions than in Christian countries. Anti-Semitism (and anti-Islamicism, and anti-(fill-in-the-blankism) are malleable behaviors with even more malleable “justification.”
2. Thank you.
3. What did I say? My point was simply that terrorism is a predictable response. I didn’t say it was logical or justified.
4. I have no sympathy with the radical Islamicists’ BS, nor do I think that all their political grievances or subsequent wishlist are justified. I do support a two-state solution, however the parties choose to negotiate it. Please don’t put words in my keyboard.
Quite apart from the occupation of the West Bank, the 1967 war was a failed attempt by Arab countries to destroy and occupy Israel. Their failure may have sparked anti-semitic feeling, but that only demonstrates how idiotic, unjustified and vicious that anti-semitism is.
There is an argument that the strong “honour” based moral feeling in those countries does contribute to the anti-Israel anti Jew feeling.
That they lost is a deep wound that needs to addressed, and not by compromise.
Honour cultures are, in my opinion, not much good. (In that particular aspect).
Yes — as I understand it, Sadat started the 1973 attack of Israel to “restore Egyptian honor”. They achieved part of that with their spectacular crossing of the Suez, but then got left in the lurch by Syria, and spectacular defeated by General Sharon, launching his path to prominence. All in all, not a happy result.
Have you read Avi Shavit’s “My Promised Land”? I thought it was a very interesting book by an Israeli who clearly loves his country and appreciates its achievements, but passionately recognizes its imperialist past vis-a-vis the Palestinians, which puts moral imperatives on today’s Israelis.
“My Promised Land” is an excellent introduction to the subject. On a more human scale, I recommend “The Lemon Tree” by Sandy Tolan.
Neither book has a prefabricated solution but they do recognize that the status quo is untenable.
Sounds like racism and political demagoguery on the part of Nick Cohen, instead of coming from “the Left”, to me. I wonder (instead of being a conversation stopper) what is the payoff for Nick Cohen engaging in such theatrics and rhetoric. Frankly I’m not that interested in such a straw man about “the Left.” I doubt that the author would recognize, much less address, his own confirmation biases and preconceptions and assumptions about present day leftists, socialists, Marxists, and freethinkers.
There is, in fact, a long history of Orientalist thinking on the Left. Now, particularly in regards to Muslims, it’s the default mode of thinking. Leftists generally expect Muslims to be Quran-thumping fundies, and their wires are duly crossed when liberal Muslims speak out against theocracy in their own societies. Indeed, according to the leftist narrative, liberals don’t even register in places like Iraq. Only the Islamists who resent our influence there and decry Western culture are considered legitimate representatives of public opinion. This is the “bigotry of low expectations,” and it’s overwhelmingly common among leftists nowadays.
Where, pray tell, is the racism that you discern in Cohen’s statement? He’s not expressing his own feelings when talking about “white-skinned peoples” versus “lesser breeds.” You do see that, don’t you?
“what is the payoff for Nick Cohen engaging in such theatrics and rhetoric… I doubt that the author would recognize, much less address, his own confirmation biases and preconceptions and assumptions about present day leftists, socialists, Marxists, and freethinkers.”
This, I’m afraid, is the standard mode of discourse for the Left today — claiming to already know that the writer has dishonest motives, and using that as an excuse for not analyzing their views and constructing a counter-argument.