For Britain, the Arab-Israeli peace process is not only a matter of objective self-interest: of course the British side with the Arabs, both as a matter of historical allegiance and out of modern-day economic and strategic necessity.\
Israel has little hope of competing with the strategic importance of the Arabs: a whining country suing for peace is not a viable geopolitical partner for anyone. But even if Israeli leadership changes miraculously and turns the country into a strategic asset, we cannot hope to become as significant as the Arabs, whose influence is based on oil, aggressive fundamentalism, and
terrorism, and who occupy a large territory of geopolitical importance.
Thus, the West will continue its natural alliance with Arabs.
Moreover, the West sees the Arabs as a strong and important culture, while Jews are stereotyped as an ugly, Holocausted minority.
Psychologically, too, Western sympathies are on the side of the Arabs. That may change with the Muslim influx into Europe, which will turn them into a hated minority, but so far the stereotype holds.
Back to the British: the peace process for their leaders is highly
personal—Britain tried to occupy the same land Israel took over. Israeli victory is thus a British defeat.
Naturally, the British seek to subvert the victor. That logic applies to most Christians, except for a small segment of pro-Jewish Evangelicals, and even for them a favorable attitude to Jews is not
built-in: in the 1940s, they did not love Jews very much (nor did the Jews love Jews, for that matter).
Islam is just another competing religion, but Judaism is
far different: if Jews are right, then Christians are wrong. Mohammed recognized Jesus; Jews don’t. Naturally, most believing Christians would prefer Jerusalem to be internationalized, or at least in Muslim hands, rather than under Jewish control.
But by far most gentiles simply do not care. They would mildly prefer that the conflict be settled in order to stop the news of the Arabs’ oppression and Arab terrorism, but the issue is as remote to them as any tribal conflict.
Israelis are unduly wary of the world’s reaction to its actions. They confuse the reactions of leaders with public opinion. Engaged in foreign affairs and close to Arabs, Western leaders condemn Israel while the Western public is mildly curious at the most. In the short term, it is only the leaders’ opinions that matter: it is they, rather than the public, who can inflict sanctions on us. In the long term, leaders cannot veer too far from their voters and press issues that are irrelevant to the public.
Israel won’t make her international position any worse by evicting the Arabs.
Israel has little hope of competing with the strategic importance of the Arabs: a whining country suing for peace is not a viable geopolitical partner for anyone. But even if Israeli leadership changes miraculously and turns the country into a strategic asset, we cannot hope to become as significant as the Arabs, whose influence is based on oil, aggressive fundamentalism, and
terrorism, and who occupy a large territory of geopolitical importance.
Thus, the West will continue its natural alliance with Arabs.
Moreover, the West sees the Arabs as a strong and important culture, while Jews are stereotyped as an ugly, Holocausted minority.
Psychologically, too, Western sympathies are on the side of the Arabs. That may change with the Muslim influx into Europe, which will turn them into a hated minority, but so far the stereotype holds.
Back to the British: the peace process for their leaders is highly
personal—Britain tried to occupy the same land Israel took over. Israeli victory is thus a British defeat.
Naturally, the British seek to subvert the victor. That logic applies to most Christians, except for a small segment of pro-Jewish Evangelicals, and even for them a favorable attitude to Jews is not
built-in: in the 1940s, they did not love Jews very much (nor did the Jews love Jews, for that matter).
Islam is just another competing religion, but Judaism is
far different: if Jews are right, then Christians are wrong. Mohammed recognized Jesus; Jews don’t. Naturally, most believing Christians would prefer Jerusalem to be internationalized, or at least in Muslim hands, rather than under Jewish control.
But by far most gentiles simply do not care. They would mildly prefer that the conflict be settled in order to stop the news of the Arabs’ oppression and Arab terrorism, but the issue is as remote to them as any tribal conflict.
Israelis are unduly wary of the world’s reaction to its actions. They confuse the reactions of leaders with public opinion. Engaged in foreign affairs and close to Arabs, Western leaders condemn Israel while the Western public is mildly curious at the most. In the short term, it is only the leaders’ opinions that matter: it is they, rather than the public, who can inflict sanctions on us. In the long term, leaders cannot veer too far from their voters and press issues that are irrelevant to the public.
Israel won’t make her international position any worse by evicting the Arabs.
No comments:
Post a Comment