When you read the review of a book you
haven't read, you assume that the writer of the review has been faithful at
reflecting the content of the book as well as it can be done. And so, you may
formulate a preliminary opinion about the book and its author based on what
you've read, but you refrain from passing any serious judgment on either
writer.
This was the attitude I adopted when I
started reading the review that Daniel Pipes had written about Yoram Hazony's
book: “The Virtue of Nationalism.” The Pipes review itself came under the
title: “Yes to nationalism, no to imperialism,” and the subtitle: “China
pursues its global ambitions, with Russia and Iran similarly ambitious.” The
review was published on August 2, 2019 in The Washington Times.
I was not prepared to pass any judgment on
the book or on Pipes's piece while going through it. But something caused all
that to change near the end of the Pipes review. I felt like I was punched in
the face by one of the two writers. Here is the passage that did it: “As an
Israeli, Mr. Hazony takes special interest in what this means for his own
small, anti-imperialist country. He discerns a widespread but false syllogism:
(1) Nationalism caused Auschwitz; (2) Israel is the most nationalist country;
therefore, (3) Israel is the most Nazi-like and dangerous country”.
This took me back to a previous paragraph
I had not questioned while reading it, but not anymore. Here is that paragraph:
“Mr. Hazony welcomes the turn to nationalism manifested by Brexit, Donald
Trump, and Jair Bolsonaro, seeing this as a necessary popular revolt against
the liberal construction, a testimony to the common-sense nationalism of the
masses versus the self-interested imperialism of the experts”.
And here is what caused me to reject the
content of those two paragraphs: It is my view that when it comes to
nationalism or lack of it, you make sense when you lump together America,
Brazil and Israel. But when you add Britain to the mix, you demonstrate you
have a problem with the definition of certain words. To explain this point, I
give a definition of nationalism as I understand it. Here it is:
A monolithic society is made of people who
look more or less alike and adhere to the same culture, with perhaps some small
variations between the regions. But the people in all the regions are so
guarding of their way of life, they attribute to it their continued existence
as a well-functioning society. If probed about their mores by an outsider, the
people of that society will respond in a manner that can be described as
boasting of their cultural accomplishments, and unapologetic about their moral
shortcomings. This is nationalism.
Though not as monolithic as Japan, Britain
still qualifies as being a nationalistic society. The same cannot be said about
America, Brazil or Israel, which are made of diverse people coming from diverse
cultures. In fact, what is happening in America and Brazil is an ongoing
low-intensity civil war between the various groups.
As to Israel, it is a powder keg that is
ready to explode, but is not for now. That's because the Jewish leaders are
keeping it together with a demagogic wall of fear about an external threat
that's ready to pounce on it and annihilate it. If you take away that fear, a
civil war will explode in Israel, creating a bloodbath like the Jews never saw
in any pogrom. This situation cannot be viewed as an expression of nationalism.
As to the definition of imperialism, Yoram
Hazony makes a distinction between liberal and aggressive imperialism. It is a
start, but far from being adequate to reflect what lurks at the core of true
imperialism. To put it crudely, imperialism does not consider all humans as
belonging to one and the same species.
The imperialists' view of what we call
humanity, goes something like this: If you're not one of us, and happen to live
in a place we covet for its attractive features or its resources, the place
does not belong to you anymore than it does to the fauna that lives in that
place. We are the humans that can claim ownership of that place and all that's
in it. In fact, even if you live among us and have a talent that equals any of
ours, that talent does not belong to you. We can exploit it and keep the
returns, giving you just enough to let you continue performing so as to
generate more returns for us to enjoy.
And so, it is erroneous to call
imperialism, Bush's “New World Order” or Albright's “Indispensable Nation” or
Obama's “American Leadership.” These people did not want to occupy other
nations, did not want to own their resources, and certainly did not want to own
talented American citizens, or consider them less than fully developed human
beings. What Bush, Albright and Obama tried to do, was bring other nations into
the American fold lest they find themselves in the fold of America's opponents.
But do you know who is hellbent on
practicing imperialism? The Jews are. They practice it openly in occupied
Palestine because no matter what they do out there, they know that America will
protect them.
The Jews also practice internal
imperialism in America. But they are so subtle, they avoid running afoul of American
law. In fact, they developed a sophisticated game by which they engage mentally
retarded politicians and religious fanatic gentiles to do the dirty work for
them.