The Israeli Right’s ‘Post-Nationalism’ Excuse

Good Fences

By J.J. Goldberg

Published August 25, 2010, issue of September 03, 2010.
  • Print
  • Share Share

George Will, the conservative Washington Post columnist, was in the Israeli prime minister’s office a few weeks ago and came away with a fascinating new take on Israel’s image troubles. Israel is hated in Europe, he wrote on August 12, quite obviously channeling the prime minister, because Europeans are tired after centuries of slaughtering each other in wars and have fled into a “transnational” or “post-nationalist” era. Israel, “with its deep sense of nationhood, is beyond unintelligible to such Europeans; it is a stench in their nostrils.”

Luckily, Israelis have Benjamin Netanyahu, the modern-day incarnation of Winston Churchill, the Davidic kingdom and the Patriarchs (I didn’t make this up), to stand up and say no.

It’s a nifty argument, because it gets Israel out of an increasingly difficult bind: how to dismiss European pressure for Israeli compromise as clueless and hostile without calling Europeans a bunch of Nazi pogromists. The traditional accusation that Europeans are irredeemably anti-Semitic — that they imbibe Jew-hatred “with their mother’s milk,” as former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir once put it — is wearing out its usefulness. Europeans have begun taking it as an insult rather than a rebuke. You know your diplomacy isn’t working when it leaves people madder at you than they were before. Talking post-nationalism, on the other hand, lets you dismiss Europeans and their “transnational progressivist” buddy Barack Obama as hostile to Israel, while making it sound vaguely like a compliment.

We’ll be hearing a lot more of this nationalism-vs.-post-nationalism argument in the months ahead. It’s the topic of a major paper released in early July by Yoram Hazony, founder of the Shalem Center, a pro-Bibi think tank. Hazony’s paper, “Israel Through European Eyes,” is a lengthy academic treatise that cites everyone from John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Jurgen Habermas to Queen Elizabeth I. He calls post-nationalism a new “paradigm,” a fundamental shift in the way people understand and explain the world. Israel, he argues, is a creature of the old paradigm, the nation-state.

Hazony’s bottom line isn’t merely to pooh-pooh Obama and the peace processors, as Will seems to be doing. Hazony ends his treatise with a call to change the way the world is taught and understood, starting with a purge of leftists from Israeli universities. But the underlying explanation is the same. Hazony, Will and Netanyahu agree that Europe is living in a new historical moment, while Israel insists on sticking with the old one. Israel for them is, in the most literal sense, “an anachronism,” as the late Tony Judt put it.

As elegant as it sounds, though, the Hazony-Judt thesis doesn’t hold water. Yes, many Europeans display an unseemly antipathy toward the Jewish state. Yes, most of Europe has banded together in a continental union, which tries to carry out some of the roles of a nation-state. But most Europeans are quite happy as citizens of their own nation-states and wouldn’t sell them for all the euros in the Deutsche Bank. Nobody seriously advocates dissolving France or Sweden, much less the newly independent Estonia and Lithuania. Europeans welcomed the collapse of transnational Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia by inviting the emerging nation-states of Slovakia and Slovenia into the union. They went to war to protect the emerging nation-state of Bosnia.

In addition, Hazony’s arguments undermine the rhetoric of his allies in the campaign to restore Zionist pride to Israel’s social-science faculties by clearing out the post-nationalists. Many of his fellow advocates of such a purge insist it’s not an anti-democratic witch-hunt because it’s targeting opinions that go beyond free speech into the realm of subversion and treason. “I do not believe that any other state in the world would allow this kind of ‘academic freedom’ to run wild through its academic institutions,” writes Ynet columnist Haim Misgav, a lecturer at Netanya Academic College. “A sense of nationalism is among the inalienable assets of any country; it serves as the glue that unites its citizens. No nation in the world would give it up.”

If Hazony is right about Europe’s post-nationalist paradigm, then the peoples of Europe have not only allowed those subversives to run wild on their campuses but actually elected them their leaders. On the other hand, if Misgav is right about the hardiness of nationalism, even disregarding his cramped views on academic freedom, then Netanyahu just sold George Will a load of malarkey.

Actually, they don’t disagree. In reality they’re all after the same thing: resisting pressure to leave the West Bank, while trying to banish or explain away the growing cost of staying there.

Israel’s troubles in Europe didn’t start in 1948. Its reputation started eroding after 1967, when it captured the territories. Even then, though, European antipathy began as a fringe phenomenon, growing only slowly as decades passed, as the explosive situation dragged on and patience ran out. Everything was forgiven when Yitzhak Rabin made a visible effort to defuse the problem by negotiating a deal with the Palestinians. Half the crowned heads of Europe attended his funeral. It was after 2001 that the impatience erupted into hatred, due to a combination of George Bush’s ham-handedness, Ariel Sharon’s tanks and shrewd pro-Palestinian advocacy. Whatever the justice of your cause, there’s no way to erase images of tanks facing off against children. It’s just not a crowd-pleaser.

It wasn’t Kant that turned Europeans against Israel — it was the pictures on their tellies.

I mistakenly wrote in my August 20 column, “Remembering Tony Judt, Heartsick Lover of Zion,” that the late historian had criticized Israel in a 1983 essay as a “belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-state.”

There was no 1983 essay. The “belligerently intolerant” phrase appears in his 2003 essay, “Israel: The Alternative,” as something that Israel “actually risks” becoming at some point under certain circumstances (meaning it isn’t right now). The error appeared in the Associated Press, and I reproduced it. In the spirit of Elul, ashamnu.

Contact J.J. Goldberg at and follow his blog at

The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.

Find us on Facebook!
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight":
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • Should couples sign a pre-pregnancy contract, outlining how caring for the infant will be equally divided between the two parties involved? Just think of it as a ketubah for expectant parents:
  • Many #Israelis can't make it to bomb shelters in time. One of them is Amos Oz.
  • According to Israeli professor Mordechai Kedar, “the only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped."
  • Why does ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America receive its largest donation from the majority owners of Walmart? Find out here:
  • Woody Allen on the situation in #Gaza: It's “a terrible, tragic thing. Innocent lives are lost left and right, and it’s a horrible situation that eventually has to right itself.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?

We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.