Soccer Dad

Between the canary and the alligator

More than four years ago Jeff Jacoby sounded an alarm

Jews, it is often said, are the canary in the coal mine of civilization. When they become the objects of savagery and hate, it means the air has been poisoned and an explosion is soon to come. If Europeans don't rise up and turn against the Jew-haters, it is only a matter of time until the Jew-haters rise up and turn against them.

In the subsequent four years the blossoming of "respectable" antisemitism in the West has been noticeable.

As Manfred Gerstenfield wrote in early 2004

Another major aspect, related to the subject of the total war, concerns the significance to others of what happens to Jews and Israel. The de facto function of the Jews and Israel has been compared to that of a canary in an underground mine. Common mining practice was to send canaries into mines in order to access environmental hazards. When the bird stopped singing the miners knew they were in danger.

From what happens to Jews, others can often learn what is awaiting them. Anti-Semitism is a construct that takes aim at the Jews initially. The aggressor first looks for what seems an easy target; thereafter he grades up to more difficult ones. This has often been described regarding authoritarian societies, but it exists in democracies as well. The perpetrator's aggression subsequently extends to others and endangers them as well. In the 1930s the Jews were a prime target for Hitler and his adherents. Later tens of millions of others would perish or suffer as well.

Last year Ilan Berman wrote

Academia has made Jews the canary in the coal mine in the sense that if universities are indicators of social trends, and anti-Semitism is becoming more acceptable there in the guise of anti-Zionism, then there is a problem society-wide. Our students must recognize that there is never justice in terrorism. It is unacceptable that some should even speak of eliminating a living and breathing state like Israel. But you'd be surprised how common such statements are on campus. These advocates are the ones that should be on the defensive.

And just a few weeks ago Warren Kozak wrote

Years ago, before modern devices could register poisonous gas levels in mines, miners would take canaries into the shafts with them. The birds, which are more susceptible to toxins, served a very useful purpose. If the canary fell over, it was time for the miners to get out quickly. It was a sad miner who failed to pay attention to the canary in the cage.

Throughout time, whenever tyrants arose and preached a mixture of world domination and complete intolerance for most other human beings, their first targets were often a small group of people noted for giving the world monotheism, the bible and a set of basic laws that have been followed for thousands of years. From the ancient Babylonians to German Nazis to today's Islamic fascists, tyrannical regimes always seem to have one common link — their deep hatred for Jews. At the same time there has been another continuum throughout the ages — a small fringe in every society that blames not the tyrants, but instead, blames their victims. That would be tantamount to a miner not just ignoring his early warning device, but blaming the canary for the problem. That's not just ill advised, it's downright stupid

JoshuaPundit loooked at the recent record in Europe and concluded It is time for Jews to think about leaving Western Europe.

JoshuaPundit has a point. The center of the Jewish world has been shifting to Israel in recent years. The only diaspora community that's growing is the American Jewish communtiy, but still for the first time this year Israel's Jewish population exceeded that of America making Israel the country with the largest population of Jews. It would appear that many European Jews have seen the writing on the wall and are leaving.

It would seem the idea of Israel being a Jewish state would be uncontroversial. But it isn't (uncontroversial.) Earlier this summer columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote an essay calling Israel a historical mistake.

The Cohen article was pretty bad, but now Richard Reeves has revived it. This past week columnist Richard Reeves picks up on Cohen's theme and quotes another author, Peter Osnos

"The optimistic view is that Arab pragmatists emboldened (and simultaneously intimidated) by their radical brethren's sense of victory may now be willing again to negotiate broader peace. The pessimists say that Israel is running out of time to secure long-term peace. ... Israel will mark its 60th anniversary in 2008. But it remains surrounded by countries and movements that at worst are sworn to its destruction and at best merely despise it. Nations are not immutable. The Soviet empire marked its 60th anniversary in 1977. Fourteen years later, it was gone, a parenthesis of time in Russian history. ...

"Much of the Western world seems no longer to believe, more than a half-century removed from the Holocaust in Europe, that civilization owes the Jews a homeland anymore. ... The image of Israel has gradually been corroded by the consequences of 40 years of occupation on the West Bank and Gaza. The country is a vibrant democracy with a deeply imbeddded dream of peaceful co-existence with its neighbors. Yet when security and dominance of its borders are at stake, Israel suspends the pleasantries. The image of Israel in the rest of the world focuses on that ferocity."

Reeves concludes

The bottom line is that, sadly, the survival of Israel depends not on its own valor and might or justice of cause, but on the friendship and support of one friend, the United States. And its friend has made all of these things worse by invading Iraq, spreading ever more chaos and hatred throughout the Muslim world.

Ironically, some of the American planners thought our weapons of shock and awe would make Israel more secure. In fact, our quick-strike aggression has done the opposite, and in many ways. As Osnos pointed out, Israel is richer and stronger, but in terms of security it is no better off than it was in 1948.

Rather than consider that Israel is a canary to the threat facing the West, Reeves believes that Israel can't be defended, effectively choosing appeasement that Churchill once characterized as feeding the alligator so that the alligator may eat him last. (Yes Reeves dismisses the comparison earlier in his essay.)

Osnos's article is here and it is more understanding of Israel than Reeves lets on. Osnos, for example, noted

For the American-based media, coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian story represents an excruciating problem. In the rest of the world, the image of Israel has gradually been corroded by the consequences of forty years of occupation on the West Bank and Gaza. The country is a vibrant democracy with a deeply imbedded dream of peaceful co-existence with its neighbors. Yet, when security and dominance of its borders are at stake, Israel suspends the pleasantries. The image of Israel for the rest of the world focuses on that ferocity. There are now hundreds of satellite channels in Arabic that provide nonstop, live coverage of Israeli bombardments. The indignities Israel has imposed on the Palestinians are a permanent undertone in the European press, where Palestinian corruption and self-destructiveness tend to be excused.

He understands that there's a double standard going on. No I don't agree with everything he wrote, but it's not what the unsympathetic Reeves describes.

However the mistake that Cohen, Reeves and Osnos all makes is apparent from the beginning of the Osnos article

Any editor will tell you that no international issue attracts more critical scrutiny than coverage of Israel and the Palestinians. Supporters make an impassioned case that Israel—a democratic state, a creation of the Holocaust, and a refuge from anti-Semitism—cannot be faulted for responding with force and even brutality to relentless siege.

Israel isn't just a refuge from the Holocaust. That might be the way to view it in modern terms. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Cohen would have been correct in terming Israel a historical anamoly instead of historical mistake. Has any other nation returned to its homeland after 2000 of exile?

The elites the dominant diplomatic culture have allowed the Palestinian narrative of an indigenous people supplanted by Europeans to govern current discourse. But the Palestinian narrative uses Western concepts of freedom and self determination to justify a very non-Western societies goal of replacing Israel. The degree to which the Palestinian narrative has taken hold is a function of those who give it credence.

The degree to which the peace processing has collapsed is not a reason to abandon Israel. When Reeves writes

As Osnos pointed out, Israel is richer and stronger, but in terms of security it is no better off than it was in 1948.

he touches on the real problem that he's ignoring. Why isn't Israel's security any better than it was in 1948? It's not because America (or Israel) has done anything to foment Arab rage. It's because in the West there are many who tolerate and even celebrate that rage conferring onto it a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

To a large degree the protesters against Pope Benedict are not protesting against the Pope, rather they are protesting for the cameras, for the academics for the pundits who will, in the name of liberal understanding, empathize with decidedly illiberal beliefs of parts of the Muslim world that wish to shut down debate and criticism.

There is little difference between those who are more offended by the Pope's words than by the killing of the nun and those who claim understaning of the Palestinians' humiliation even at the cost of largely ignoring the terror directed against Israel. Has understanding of the Palestinians' earned the West more respect in the Muslim world? Or does that understanding simply translate into acceptance of terror as a way winning freedom?

When Cohen and Reeves question if Israel's a mistake they are acting as appeasers. They are handing a justification to Israel's most ardent foes and strengthening them. One thing that Israel needs is strong rhetorical support.

The question that Reeves, Cohen and Osnos don't address is that if Israel cannot be defended and Jews are losing their safe haven in Europe, where are Jews to go? There is nothing noble in ignoring Jews as canaries while simultaneously feeding them to the alligators. Standing up for Jewish survival should be an imperative the West. Else it will serve to embolden our enemies.

Technorati tag: Israel.

Posted by SoccerDad at September 19, 2006 3:23 AM