Last week, Peter Beinart published an article in the New York Times that criticized President Biden for having no Middle East policy. He tied this failing to the moral contradiction and blindness that have become the drivers of Biden’s relationship with the Israeli government and particularly his Prime Minister, Netanyahu. In his 2021 inaugural address, Biden described the history of the United States as a “constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and a harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, and demonization have long torn us apart.“ He clearly sees Trump as an enemy that must be defeated. And he rightfully condemns the horrific actions of Hamas. But his unconditional defense of Israel and his inability to negotiate with Netanyahu lead many in Israel and here to question his ethical principles. The US President strongly believes that the core of the United States is based on the notion of equal rights, not on religion or ethnicity. Yet, that is what much of modern Israel has become based on, especially since 2018. For religious reasons, it is unable to write a constitution but it claims religion and ethnicity nevertheless as the foundations of the state. In opposition to many Israelis of the past and of the present, it proclaims that only people of Jewish ancestry can claim a national destiny. In spite and because of their long history, Palestinians are systematically rejected as undeserving of the rights and protections afforded by such a state. And unfortunately, Biden allows his fundamental principle of equal rights to have a major exception and be trampled by the present political authorities of Israel. Gaza has become his signal failure, totally in contradiction with his policy regarding Ukraine and Russia.

Hassan Nasrallah and many other heads of the Hezbollah have been killed by the IDF in a sophisticated operatipn that consisted of infiltrating the upper ranks of the organization and activating pagers bought and used by the Hezbollah. It looks like a great victory on the part of Israel. It is especially a vindication for the present government led by Netanyahu, even though it is even more unlikely than ever that any hostage will be freed by Hamas. I note in passing that Hamas and the Hezbollah have been enemies in Syria. The military action by the IDF means that Iran is on the back foot and needs to be prudent in any thought of retaliation. It needs to be much more careful than it has been recently if it wants to avoid the wrath of the US, especially in an electoral period when everything is so unsure. It also looks like Israel is closer to bringing the US into a conflict with Iran, in spite of US protestations. Another major consequence of the military action by Israel is that the politics of Lebanon and probably Syria are going to change rapidly since the Hezbollah, though not destroyed, will find its influence much diminished and the patch up minorities that constitute modern Lebanon will have to renegotiate their relationships on a new basis. Will it be a pyrrhic victory on the part of Israel? What is certain at the moment is that Israel holds the keys to the conflict and it is hard to predict what form it will take in the near future.

The NYT is calling on President Biden to do the right thing by the country and leave the race. In the so-called debate of Thursday night, he appeared as a shadow of the great public servant he once was. He presently is the only person who can rise to the occasion and bar the way to a second mandate of an indicted Trump by pulling out of the race. He would be keeping his reputation intact rather than be the candidate that gave us Trump. The risk is too great to find ourselves in a strong man’s regime, a dictatorship. There is no reason to run that risk when there are many more good choices in the Democratic Party and there’s ample time to choose a candidate who can take on Mr. Trump. The paper reminds us that it is Mr. Biden who challenged Trump to a verbal duel. The fact that he stumbled when presenting his own vision and responding weakly to Trump’s lies and provocations means that he foundered by his own test. The responsibility now lies with the Democratic Party to choose someone else since the Republican Party is willing to ruin the Republic by being completely beholden to Trump. There is no dearth of prepared democratic candidates, such as Newson, the governor of California, or Widmer, the governor of Michigan.

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant publicly says that Israel will not be the one to instigate a war in southern Lebanon. It would only respond to attacks. But it is hard not to think that both Hezbollah and the government of Israel are eager, for different reasons, to go to war whether it is latent or fully blown. Pressures are mounting regarding the decision-making and responsibility of PM Netanyahu that would be temporarily deflected if Israel maintained a state of war. The High Court of Israel has just announced that it is granting the government one month to respond to the petition requesting a government commission of inquiry that will assess the events of October 7, 2023.

A few thoughts about Israel: it looks like Netanyahu and the right wingers that he is a willing hostage to are itching for a full war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Gaza and neighboring cities have been completely destroyed and so the war-bent Israeli government cannot continue to shirk its initial responsibilities for the disaster by continuing the bombing of the area. It needs a bigger enemy. The US does not support this kind of adventure but is in an electoral year, which makes it very weak. The Israeli government and army are far from having destroyed Hamas, which apparently is still the leading force in Gaza and will be the only party the Israeli government can negotiate with. Is Israel planning a full-blown war with Iran?

The following quote of Ronit Lentin, found on the web page of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, struck me as not only misleading but inviting hate:

The creation of the Jews as a race and the insistence on its own homeland was based on ideas of blood, on ideas of soil, and ideas of folk. All of these are very much Nazi ideas.

My comments in French have been translated in English, which can be found at the bottom of the present page. Comments could run to many pages but time is short.

À part la dernière phrase peut-être, le lecteur est tenté de voir dans les phrases précédentes sur le sang, la terre et le peuple un reflet exact et terrible de la réalité. Mais en fait l’auteur parle d’Europe plutôt que de christianisme, ce qui met la puce à l’oreille. Car le vrai problème est le fait que le christianisme et le judaïsme se sont enfermés dans une dialectique profonde dont la période moderne des deux derniers siècles n’a pas vraiment changé les termes sinon en les rebaptisant. Or, c’est la Bible elle-même qui nous donne une idée critique des effets politiques de la biologie et qui nous a engagés dans ce pari qui va bien au-delà d’une parenté physique en laquelle on se recroqueville. Il y aurait beaucoup à dire sur cela. Il me suffit de rappeler que le peuple d’Israël,—ou le peuple juif à sa suite, mais ceci est une longue histoire—est une création basée non sur la biologie et les rapports de clans et de tribus mais au contraire sur la fidélité et la confiance en la promesse d’un dieu qui lui-même a perdu et dû effacer ses aspects biologiques ou, pour le dire autrement, est devenu une ouverture sur le monde—un guide—plutôt qu’un chef de guerre vengeur à l’assyrienne, babylonienne, ou perse. Il serait long de retracer l’arrachement à la famille ou au peuple qu’Abraham ou sa descendance miraculeuse incarnent dans leur retour vers une terre qui après les effondrements dynastiques d’Israël et de Judah ne peut plus être un sol d’origine et qui se mue en une promesse. Adam n’est plus ni le sang ni la terre. Le peuple d’Israël ne peut plus être seulement défini comme la source d’une Ur-ethnographie. Blut, Boden, Volk sont devenus d’impossibles terrains institutionnels. D’où également l’impossibilité de continuer à justifier l’exploitation du travail par les dieux comme c’était le cas sous les rois ou les empereurs.

English:

Apart from the last sentence perhaps, the reader may be tempted to see in the previous sentences about blood, soil and people an exact and terrible reflection of reality. But it must be noted that the author talks about Europe rather than Christianity, which strikes me as oddly revealing. The real problem is the fact that Christianity and Judaism have locked themselves since at least Paul and his letter to the Romans into a dialectic whose terms have not changed in the modern period of the last two centuries, except by renaming them. However, it is the Bible itself that gives us a critical idea of the political effects of biology and that has engaged us in this belief that goes far beyond a physical kinship in which we get enmeshed. There would be a lot to say about this. It is enough to recall that the people of Israel,—or the Jewish people in its wake, and this is a long history—is a creation based not on biology and the relations of clans and tribes but on the contrary on the fidelity and trust in the promise of a god who himself had to erase his biological aspects or, to put it another way, had become an opening unto the world—a guide—-rather than a vengeful warlord in the Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian modes. It would be long to trace the uprooting from his family or people that Abraham or his miraculous descendants embody in their return to a land that after the dynastic collapses of Israel and Judah could no longer be a land of origin and turned into a promise. Adam is no longer blood or soil. The people of Israel can no longer be only defined as a source of an Ur-ethnography. Blut, Boden, Volk have become impossible institutional grounds. Hence also the impossibility of continuing to justify the exploitation of work by one’s closeness to the gods as was the case under kings or emperors.

J’ai vu hier soir le film israélien Birth of a Conflict qui retrace les origines du conflit israélo-palestinien. Deux choses qui m’ont surpris dès l’abord sont l’usage qui est fait de la musique et la rapidité du défilé d’images et de lambeaux d’interviews. Les plans se succédaien à un rythme saccadé, peut-être toutes les trois secondes. Il est difficile de se laisser emporter par un film qui veut assommer plutôt que convaincre.

Ce documentaire m’est apparu tendancieux. Il présentait d’une façon assez juste le rôle des puissances colonisatrices qui ont été obligées d’appeler mandat ce qui en réalité était une autre version de la colonisation par la Grande-Bretagne et la France. Par exemple, il montrait que l’intérêt marqué par la Grande-Bretagne pour le mouvement sioniste était en réalité guidé par le souci de garder l’Inde sous son contrôle et était loin d’être une expression de philosémitisme. Le film insistait par ailleurs sur le rôle de l’Allemagne d’avant la Première Guerre mondiale et le choix qu’elle avait fait de l’empire ottoman comme allié.

Les auteurs ont fait la part belle aux nationalismes arabes et particulièrement à Fayçal, donc aux élites, mais sans s’interroger sur l’aspect religieux de la grande révolte anti-ottomane de 1916, sans considérer le rôle des chrétiens arabes en Syrie, en Palestine ou en Irak dans ce nationalisme, ni expliquer la réaction opposée des peuples arabes et leur désir de voir s’établir un gouvernement religieux universel, ce qui explique par exemple le développement des frères musulmans en Égypte à partir de 1928.

Il me semble que cette interprétation des nationalismes arabes voulait suggérer des solutions politiques qu’un Netanyahu pouvait faire siennes. Je veux dire par-là que l’horizon de ce film était l’espoir de créer des liens économiques et culturels avec les états qui ont hérité de la situation mise en place par la Grande-Bretagne et la France après la Première Guerre mondiale—d’où l’intérêt relatif pour les mouvements nationalistes—,mais sans se préoccuper des espoirs du peuple palestinien—particulièrement de leur désir de liberté—et en les abandonnant à leur sort. En ce sens, le film avait en partie raison de présenter Israël et la Palestine comme le fruit d’un marché de dupes où le même fondement de l’état—la terre et son histoire—, avait été promis à deux peuples qui en réalité partageaient une histoire à la fois très longue et très compliquée. Mais alors il faut aussi noter que ce film ne parle nulle part de l’achat de terres arabes par le fond juif. Plus généralement, le film ne montre aucun intérêt, ou si peu, pour le peuple palestinien et la situation catastrophique qui lui est faite. Peut-être pourra-t-on éventuellement le re-baptiser Birth of Two Nations [On a Promised Land].