Richard Hoste has presented us with another shrill call to embrace unconditional anti-Zionism. I don’t know where to begin in addressing him.
I’ll start with the point of easiest access.
It seems that some paleoconservatives and white nationalists have internalized the Left’s worst stereotypes about themselves. “We basically want the same thing as Zionists, so we can work with them.” I believe most WNs and traditionalists simply want to be left alone, not to seize some land in the third world, slaughter/expel the natives, and form an ethno-state there and then for the next 60 years continue living in a never ending state of war in order to expand in a sea of one billion hostile and aggressive Muslims in search of some all elusive “security,” all the while being financed and protected by foreign taxpayers and soldiers. Western Rightists shouldn’t be comparing themselves to Israelis, but pointing out how reasonable, humane and moderate their goals are compared to those of mainstream Zionists.
If Richard think that advocates of Traditionalism and occidental consciousness are going to get anywhere by claiming “But look, at least we’re not Zionists!” then he must have forgotten everything he and others at this website have written about the civic religion of political correctness and multicuturalism.
In turn, it is, in my mind, still highly legitimate -- and philosophically powerful, if not yet politically effective -- to inform people like Abe Foxman, and others who are as fanatical in their Zionism as their anti-racism, that the Traditionalist Right and White Nationalists desire things that aren’t unlike the stated goals of the Israeli government: an ethno-state for one’s own, and respect for the aspirations of other nations.
My sense is that paragraphs like the one quoted above derive not from any rational recognition of American Jews’ hypocrisy on the issue of the ethno-state but from Richard’s infantile wish that Zionsim never happened (hence his reiteration of Israel’s well known misdeed against Arabs.)
From our perspective, one could certainly say that it would have been better if the Western powers had never gotten involved in the creation of the Jewish homeland. (I’m sure many British administrators in the 1940s felt this way after they suffered through the political violence of Zionist independence groups like the Irgun, most spectacularly with the bombing of King David Hotel in 1946.) But the fact remains that Jews would very likely have sought a homeland in Palestine regardless of the Balfour Declaration and Woodrow Wilson’s mandates in Paris in 1919. (Zionists certainly had other patrons, including the immensely powerful Rothschild family.) It might feel good for one to pretend that Israel could just disappear, but those of us in the reality-based community might want to deal with this powerful entity rationally.
Richard then informs us that Zionism is on the verge of extinction anyway, so we shouldn’t waste our time reaching out to the soon-irrelevant Israeli nationalists:
Zionism is a sinking ship, both demographically and in its relations with the rest of the world. Their only friends are those that make up the American establishment, who just happen to be our main adversaries.
In my estimation, the Jewish homeland isn’t anywhere close to being as doomed as Richard thinks (or hopes) it is. (Though he is certainly correct that Israel faces serious demographic and geopolitical challenges, many of which it brought upon itself.)
At any rate, the coming collapse of the American Empire -- which is ineluctable due to the country’s finances -- might end up being a very good thing for the survival of Jewish state in the long run, in that it will force it to engage with other Middle Eastern states with realism and the sly, deal-making spirit for which Jews are renowned and reviled.
Washington funds Israel’s occupation, but it is also a major source of aid to the Palestinians. This arrangement is, indeed, typical of Washington’s uncanny inability to sustain states of conflict around the world indefinitely. (The Iraq and Afghanistan wars come immediately to mind, but one shouldn’t forget that hostilities haven’t officially concluded between Washington and Communist North Korea!) Again, there is good reason to believe that America’s meddling and foreign aid is preventing Israel from finally drawing a line in the sand and reaching a final settlement with the Palestinians. (I recognize that such a denouement wouldn’t likely be pretty.)
In some ways, Richard presents us with a mirror image of the hysteric neocon vision of Israel surrounded by angry Muslims who are on the verge of gobbling it up if Team America doesn’t come to its aid. The reality is, that, as analysts like Trita Parsi has detailed, Israel has been quite willing to deal with most countries in the region, Egypt most obviously but even the neocons’ Great Satans, Saddam’s Iraq and the Ayatollahs’ Iran. Israel alone would likely act far more sanely than do its passionate devotees -- Gentile and Jew -- in Washington, DC.
But let’s say Richard is right: Israel is doomed, and its leaders are psychologically incapable of dealing sensibly with their neighbors. Then let’s ask what would happen if Israel collapsed -- if television screens began flashing images of, say, marauding Muslim hoards flooding the streets or Jerusalem and ransacking the Knesset, or the rubble of Tel Aviv after a nuclear attack?
No doubt, such an event would be considered by Muslims in Europe, and the non-White Third World, as a great strike against White Supremacy. And in no time, New York, Berlin, and Los Angeles would likely absorb a whole new generation of Jewish refugees who would demand both violent military attacks against Arabs and new programs to combat "anti-Semitism" in their adopted homes.
What can be said for sure is that Traditionalist and White Nationalists wouldn’t be seen by anyone as any more legitimate due to their anti-Zionist stance.
Now, I don’t say any of this to imply that the West’s and Israel’s interests are identical, as so many neocons and movement conservatives like to imagine, and I would expect Israel to defend itself without the West’s help. What I am saying is that although Middle Eastern Muslims would likely be better off if Israel went up in smoke, the real Right in Europe and North would most definitely not be. (And it’s the Right that I care about.)
Let’s now turn to Richard’s superficially plausible claim that it’s simply not worth it to make friends with Israel, when one could align with 99 percent of the world on the basis of anti-Zionism.
Such a claim falls apart when one recognizes that the non-American Great Powers that matter don’t really care about the poor Palestinians nearly as much as does Richard Hoste. Anti-Zionism is a cheap and easy way of scoring points with the “international community” and criticizing American power. That’s it. (And note that the PC Left accepts criticism of the Israel Lobby, but would send critics of Jewish influence like Kevin MacDonald to prison on thought-crime violations.)
Anyway, I actually got a good laugh out of simply imaging the idea of someone in Tokyo or Beijing giving a you-know-what about the plight of the Palestinians. (There are probably many in the West, mostly Leftists, global do-gooders, and women, whose hearts genuinely bleed for Israel’s victims, but this is a sign of Whites’ sentimentality and misunderstanding of priorities.)
Countries like Japan and China will go on being themselves regardless of what happens in Zion. China is, in fact, the worst possible example of an “anti-Zionist Great Power” for Hoste to cite in support of his argument. Despite Beijing’s anti-Israel noises (which are probably made to keep up Marxist appearances), it has engaged in the most elaborate diplomatic-financial alignment -- “Chimerica” -- with the world’s foremost patron of Zionism!
Richard Hoste (much like the soft Left) seems to imagine that geopolitics and diplomacy amount to a global popularity contest, whereby it’s a good idea to be anti-Zionist so that one and half billion Muslims will “like” you. But who cares what the world’s Muslims ultimately think of us? I sure don’t. It’s probably beneficial to stay on fairly good terms with oil-producing countries, but due to their export-driven economies and the reality of the global market, they’ll sell us crude no matter what they think of us -- certainly their resistance to selling billions of barrels to Zionist America has been mild considering the circumstances.
Taking a step back, Traditionalists and the Alternative Right are, at the moment, so far away from political power that talking about what kind of diplomatic relations we’d have with various states has about as many real-world consequences as a game of Risk. That said, it behooves us to act like a shadow government, as if we are on the verge of taking to the world stage.
With this in mind, we must begin with a realistic assessment of the world and present ourselves to other countries as reasonable actors who are willing to deal rationally with them. Nothing can be gained by approaching any country under the assumption that it is existentially illegitimate and that we would look kindly upon its destruction. (That is how Trotskyites, neocons, leftists, and movement conservative make foreign policy. It shouldn’t be how we do it.)
I say all this not because I love Israel or Zionism (which I don’t), or because I care about the fate of the Palestinians (which I don’t). I say this because I love the West and the European race of man and desire that both survive.