America was always a religious nation, but prior to WW II, America was really a Protestant nation, and was fairly hostile to Jews and Catholics, according to historian William G. McLoughlin. (See my 2006 article, “President George Bush talks about a ‘Third Awakening,’ but he has his history wrong.”)
 |
| Benjamin Netanyahu |
Two major world events changed this about America: the victory of the godless Communists in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, and then the shock and horror of the Holocaust after WW II. The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 provided a link between conservative Evangelical Christians and Jews, and allowed a common front with Catholics as well to make defense of Israel the symbol of religious pluralism in America by the time of America’s generational Awakening era in the 1960s. Jewish writer Will Herberg is quoted in 1955 as saying, “to be a Protestant, a Catholic, or a Jew are today the alternative ways of being an American.”
In his speech to both houses of Congress on Tuesday, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu tapped into these emotions, and sought to emphasize that Arabs across the Mideast “Arab Awakenings” are beginning to experience the same thing:
“Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American. …
Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.”
Netanyahu’s warm reception from Congress
Netanyanu’s speech was warmly received by Congress, and he received dozens of standing ovations.In terms of the actual content of the speech, it was Netanyahu’s turn to take a hard line, following the lead of President Barack Obama in Thursday’s speech last week. In fact, Netanyahu took the most extreme hardline position on every issue. There would be no 1967 borders, no right of return for refugees’ descendants, no compromise on East Jerusalem settlements, no withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank, and no negotiations with a Hamas government. And the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Responses from Palestinians were equally hard line.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Netanyahu’s speech indicated how unwilling the Israeli leader was to make peace, according to Al-Jazeera:
“We’ve not heard any new words in Netanyahu’s speech in front of congress tonight. He’s chosen to dictate, not negotiation.
“He can make peace with congress, but at the end of the day in terms of everything he said tonight he has proven that we don’t have a partner for peace in Israel. …
“Reconciliation with Hamas is our number one priority and those who want a two-state solution, who want peace, must know the way to that must go through reconciliation.”Nisreen El-Shamayleh, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Ramallah, said that Netanyahu’s demands would be seen by Palestinians as asking far too much:
“Netanyahu says he wants to negotiate, but as far as Palestinian officials are concerned there isn’t much to negotiate about.
He doesn’t want to withdraw to 1967 borders, he wants to retain major settlements, he wants to keep Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and he wants the Palestinians to declare that they relinquish the right of return … and recognise Israel as a Jewish state.”Erekat seemed particularly unhappy about Netanyahu’s saying that the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.” He said that this was a “new condition,” and implied that it was a trick to deny the right of return to Palestinian refugees.
We now have maximally hardline positions on all sides. This is the outcome I was fearing as soon as I heard Obama’s speech last Thursday.
What we’re witnessing very dramatically is what happens in a generational Crisis era. Whereas the 1990s Unraveling era was a time of maximum compromise, with the Silent generation of WW II survivors still in charge, today we’re approaching a time of maximum confrontation, with Boomers and Gen-Xers in charge.
Avoiding panic
A couple of days ago, I wrote that Israel is playing out a generational Crisis era script in an extremely panicked form. The danger is that, even if Israel survives the approaching Crisis era war, it may not survive the subsequent Recovery era, if the United Nations, or its next incarnation, decide that Israel is at fault for starting the war. This would be a kind of “mirror image” of the action taken in 1948 in creating Israel.A couple of web site readers asked me what Israel could be doing differently. I don’t know the answer to that question, but I can suggest one possibility:
OBAMA: Israel must accept the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps.In this template, Netanyahu is the agreeable one and Erekat is the villain, not vice-versa.
NETANYAHU: That’s fine, Mr. President. Let’s agree on the 1967 borders with land swaps, and let’s discuss what land swaps you have in mind that will guarantee Israel’s security.
EREKAT: Only the tiniest land swaps will be considered. The unmodified 1967 borders are sacrosanct.
If I’m not mistaken, this is the kind of technique that Israel used in peace talks in the 1990s, with the result that the Palestinians were always blamed for the collapse of peace talks. If the Palestinians could not agree to a peace plan in the 1990s, then they won’t agree today.
Big Peace
