There’s been a bit of commentary around on how Donald Trump’s defeat is bad news for authoritarian leaders (whether in office or aspiring) in other parts of the world. Here’s Cas Mudde, for example, as quoted in the Guardian:
I doubt most far-right leaders will feel their electoral success is going to be impacted by Trump’s defeat. Neither will it really change their access to the White House, which was limited under Trump too. … What they mainly worry about is what [Viktor] Orbán has called “liberal imperialism” – having the US criticise democratic erosion and the abuse of human rights around the world again.
But as usual, there’s one far-right head of government that the pundits are afraid to mention in the same breath with Orbán and the rest – yet he is the one with perhaps the most to lose from the new administration in the US. I speak, of course, of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.
So step forward Yair Wallach at +972 Magazine with a clear and concise explanation of Netanyahu’s worldview, framed around the difference between the political outlook of American and Israeli Jews.
In the US, Jewish voters continue to vote solidly Democrat; they are appalled by Trump’s bigotry in general and his flirtation with antisemitic themes in particular. But Netanyahu, backed by the majority of the Jewish electorate in Israel, sees Trump as a kindred spirit and has aligned his politics closely with Trump’s agenda.
In Wallach’s words:
Israel has sought in the last decade to position itself as a strategic ally of the rising global authoritarian, revanchist, and Islamophobic right, headed by Jair Bolsanaro, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán and, of course, Trump. For now, this alliance appears to be working in Israel’s interests, in an increasingly illiberal world. Israeli right-wing commentators supportive of Trump have adopted alt-right rhetoric, and have spoken in disparaging and even antisemitic terms about U.S. Jews’ support for liberal values. …
For Israel, the global hard right is now a natural and perhaps inevitable choice. Israel’s preference for a Trumpist GOP is therefore a logical conclusion, while for most American Jews, Trumpism is an anathema and a threat.
As victims of persecution over many centuries, Jews in most parts of the world have an acute sense of the dangers of authoritarian government and the need for strong mechanisms to protect human rights. Secure in Israel, however, far too many seem to have forgotten that lesson. Netanyahu, whether from conviction or expediency, fans the flames of entho-nationalism and therefore finds allies among the far right worldwide, despite their barely concealed antisemitism.
Which all throws an interesting light on the British debate over antisemitism, back in the news this week. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the party last month after minimising the importance of antisemitism, despite a report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission that found Labour had failed badly in dealing with the issue under his leadership.
The suspension has now been lifted, but Corbyn remains excluded from the parliamentary party. New leader Keir Starmer is clearly using his willingness to address antisemitism as a defining feature to contrast him with his predecessor.
I haven’t read the EHRC report, but I think the issue that it’s dealing with is very real. There’s no doubt that in recent years substantial elements of the hard left have allowed their opposition to Zionism or to particular Israeli policies to drift into a more general animus towards Jews. That’s not something that a progressive party can afford to tolerate.
Nonetheless, there’s also an element of truth in what Corbyn says, namely that the issue has been seized on by his political opponents in a thoroughly disingenuous manner – and particularly by the Israeli far right and its allies, whose goal is to paint all anti-Zionism as necessarily and inherently antisemitic. And since exactly what counts as “Zionism” is endlessly debatable, what they really mean is that any criticism of them is an attack on Jews in general.
That’s not a new rhetorical move, but the recent drift of Netanyahu’s geopolitical stance makes it more absurd than ever. Someone who now speaks out against antisemitism in Poland or Hungary, for example, would be speaking against Netanyahu’s foreign policy interests, and therefore, by his logic, undermining the state of Israel: which, according to his allies, is itself proof of antisemitism!
Something here has gone badly wrong. But until Israeli voters are willing to step back from the virulent nationalism that their prime minister has been peddling, the problem isn’t going to go away.