By Chase Mechanick
He was a vitriolic speaker who led a small but growing right-of-center, nationalist, populist party in an otherwise democratic country at the time: Germany.
Despite being foreign-born himself, his major policy angle had been a lamentation of the ethnic and cultural miscegenation of his country and a call for the restoration of "German values." He had been quoted as saying, "I very much favor democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and German values, the German ... values are more important."
Can you guess who it is yet? Maybe a couple more hints will help.
He proposed that his country's Jewish minority be forced to take what he called a "declaration of loyalty to the State of Germany as a German state" as well as to its "symbols" and "authority," and also be forced to "serve in the army or do national service." If any one of them refuses, his citizenship will be revoked, along with all of his accompanying civil rights and legal benefits.
He advocated an expansionist policy that would annex German-majority enclaves in neighboring nations through military occupation, ignoring the outcry from the rest of the civilized world. He had accused Jewish parliament members of "treachery," openly calling for their execution in some cases. Regarding several of his country's Jewish prisoners, he once joked, "it would be better to drown these prisoners in the Baltic Sea, if possible."
Any guesses? Nope, it's not Hitler. Actually, the man's name is Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which came in third place after Kadima and Likud in Israel's parliamentary elections last week (even beating former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's Labor Party, the dominant party in the country for 30 years). All of the aforementioned quotes and policies are literally his, with only arbitrary and inconsequential alteration undertaken by your humble author. Simply replace the words "Germany" with "Israel," "German" with "Jewish," "Jewish" with "Arab," and "Baltic Sea" with "Dead Sea."
In other words, this man believes that Israel should be preserved as a "Jewish" state. He believes Arab citizens should take an "oath of loyalty" to the Jewish state and serve in the Jewish army, or lose citizenship. He believes Jewish-majority enclaves (read "settlements") should be annexed from neighboring countries (read "Palestine"), despite the fact that these settlements are in violation of the Geneva Convention and are ritually scolded by the international community. It is worth noting that Mr. Lieberman himself personally resides in one of the West Bank settlements, and would have no occasion to evacuate his own home.
His campaign slogan was conspicuously racist: "Only Lieberman Understands Arabic," implying that only Lieberman realizes the insidious threat posed by the 20% of Israeli citizens who are of Arab origin. Imagine if Hillary Clinton adopted a campaign slogan that was this blatantly racist toward African-Americans, who comprise only about 13% of the U.S. population. She'd rightfully be forced to resign. But evidently racism isn't as much of a stigma in Israeli politics.
Lieberman has called for the execution of any member of the Knesset who has met with the Hamas government. In other words, if you're an MK who thought it was a good idea to try and negotiate directly with the freely elected government of the Palestinian territories, then too bad: Mr. Lieberman thinks that you deserve to die. And the Dead Sea joke referred to a plan by Ariel Sharon in 2003 to give amnesty to some 350 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli captivity. Apparently Mr. Lieberman thinks that just liquidating them all is a better idea.
Most troubling of all is that this unstable man, who has a truly medieval perspective on human rights, will have a hugely influential role in the next governing coalition. He will be in an opportune position to start implementing his radical program, and the electoral success of the right-winged bloc gives this dangerous movement all the popular mandate it needs.
And this is only one segment of Israel's much broader trend towards nationalist chauvinism, expressed by continuing territorial acquisitions in the West Bank, humiliating checkpoints, segregated roads, "security" barriers, economic blockade, a flagrantly criminal war in the Gaza Strip, an apartheid-style national ID card that clearly distinguishes Jews from non-Jews (the Teudat Zehut), and most recently a failed attempt to ban Arab parties from running in the 2009 parliamentary elections.
Most of these policies, contrary to feeble claims by the Israelis, have absolutely nothing to do with "self-defense" or "national security." Where they do produce marginal security benefits, as with the checkpoints, roads, and barriers, these are heavily outweighed by their humanitarian toll.
What is remarkable is that, in any other civilized country, these kinds of policies would not pass by even the most elementary human rights standards. But Israel is a special case. It has evolved into a sort of "black hole" for human rights in the developed world, immune to any real international scrutiny, thanks to diplomatic coddling and aggressive military support by the United States.
There are some out there who may believe that elements of fascism could not possibly take hold through the ballot itself, especially in a liberal democracy such as Israel. But as we all know, history proves them gravely wrong.
Posts
I appreciate your analysis, Chase!
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of voting, however, I feel like a little elaboration is worth adding. I would add only that for one to understand democracy, one must first grasp the entire concept of the state - why it exists, how it came in to being, and most importantly, who or what it serves.
The answer to this lies not in Illuminati conspiracy theories, delightful as they may be, but in the scientific analysis of human history - which like all matter, is bound by laws of behavior that do not differ much when acting under normal stimuli.
Capitalism, like Slavery and Feudalism, indeed practices democracy. But its involvement of people in decision-making is limited to the service of those who constructed it with their class intentions in mind. In every epoch, it seems to the majority of the population that the laws and mores of today are the same that have existed for time immemorial - bound to the present as if it is the summary of all history. It is the gradual opening up of the minds of people in whichever class is, at that juncture, most capable of rulership that revolutionary consciousness comes to the fore.
Chase this is excellent. Thank you for the forceful analysis.
ReplyDeleteThat was pretty interesting, with the whole Hitler/Lieberman reference. But seriously, there is one minor difference. In the 1930's, the Jewish people werent setting off and deploying suicide bombers into German cafes, schools, and places of worship. The Jews in the 1930's were passive. Today, the Arab minorities pose a serious threat to Israeli citizens. Jewish Germans posed no threat to non-Jewish Germans in the 1930s.
ReplyDeleteStill, interesting commentary.
Hi Troy, thanks for reading my post and commenting. I don't want to get in to a prolonged debate, so I'll keep this short and sweet and let you have the last word. I just have two points to help clarify the matter.
ReplyDeletePoint #1: The "counterterrorism" argument is thoroughly fraudulent and thinly veiled. As I said before, most of the Israeli repression of Arab populations, both within and outside of Israel, is not guided by any legitimate counterterrorist or security purposes. There can be no "counterterrorism" rationalization for making each Arab swear an "oath of loyalty" to the Jewish state; this is the kind of thing you'd see in 19th-century Prussia, not in a 21st-century democracy. The only thing it could accomplish is to foment populist, racist attitudes towards Arabs and make way for even further acts of repression. Fascism encroaches with baby steps like these.
Point #2: There are 1,100,000+ Arab citizens of Israel. When you say "the Arab minorities pose a serious threat to Israeli citizens," do you actually believe each and every one of them should be treated as a "threat?" In the act of bringing terrorists and lunatics to justice, condemning an entire race of people is unconscionable.
To be honest, it reminds me of the U.S. anarchist witch hunts in the early 20th-century. Anarchist activists were blowing up bombs in major U.S. cities virtually every week, no doubt a "national security" threat. Since most of them could be reasonably fit into one of a few ethnic categories (Germans, Slavs, and Italians were the most common), the government decided to unconstitutionally incarcerate and deport thousands of completely innocent immigrants - but not without beating and torturing many of them first. Sometimes they would force false confessions by making them sign statements in English that they couldn't even read. Ultimately, under these "counterterrorism" pretenses, we promulgated some of the most lamentable acts against ethnic minorities in our country's history. It makes me sick when I see similar instances of brutality in Israel, for the very same reasons.
- CHM