Livni raps Israel’s cooperation with U.N. flotilla probe
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Israel's opposition leader criticized the Netanyahu government for agreeing to cooperate with a United Nations probe of the Turkish flotilla incident.
On the one hand, reducing security and foreign policy to national interests makes a lot of sense. I'm definitely of the opinion that we shouldn't go to war unless our interests are threatened in a very severe way that allows no other options. But there are a lot of people out there who want to fight numerous wars that are at best tangentially related to our interests, and those people have a lot of power. Operating as we are in a society that still harbors deep fears about terrorism and security, I simply don't have a lot of confidence that a purely realistic way of viewing foreign threats will be sufficient to stop needless wars because, in practice, it has been easy enough to convince people that it's better to shoot first in these sorts of situations instead of, I don't know, practicing restraint. But on the other hand, I don't think that it'll really be possible to destroy the neocons unless the rest of us are able to offer something to the public other than nationalism or realism. Liberals have by and large distanced themselves from the traditional liberal vision of global peace secured by international institutions, and considering the weakness of the U.N.'s structure I can totally understand that. But the course is invariably set: Plato's Republic tells us that law is a compromise between being able to steal and being stolen from without any recourse, and as the volume of global trade increases people who get ripped off are going to want to seek redress somewhere. If anyone wanted to make the argument that the financial crisis shows that it is necessary to have strong international institutions that can put pressure on countries (cough cough, Iceland) that could cause problems for everyone else, I think the argument could be pretty easily made. I'm not aware of any liberal politicians making that argument, though. It's a shame, not only because of our nation's history in supporting such ventures, but because the neoconservative model is so glaringly inadequate and contradictory that the internationalist model is practically ironclad by comparison. Free trade plus hypernationalism plus quasi-empire is no real reaction to the reality of globalization. Reviving that old liberal ideal strikes me as the only tool that could conceivably beat the neocons, just because it involves a different and more appealing vision than perpetual low-intensity conflict. You have to fight an idea with an idea, in my opinion. And liberal internationalism is a nice idea. I'm an optimist, and I'd like to think that an appealing ideal can beat grubby power politics when given a fair shot. It's been so long since anyone domestically articulated any of this that I'd be curious to see if the right could even form any reasoned arguments against it. I doubt they could.
I suppose my point here is that, while it is no doubt cathartic to be able to toss back a little nationalist rancor at the Netanyahus and Bushes of the world, it does more harm than good in the long run. It's well known that rightists often have an easier time of making real moves toward peace, as they can deliver the entire spectrum of public opinion, which the left alone often cannot do. By attacking from the left on nationalist grounds, Livni is denying Netanyahu any political space for independence from his right-wing coalition and is ensuring that he will have to continue to play to the settlement crowd in all things. I don't think Netanyahu is much more than a power-hungry hack, but Livni is proving herself no slouch in the power-hungry hack department. When the left plays the nationalist card, they lose. Evidently Livni didn't learn the example of her predecessor, whose bellicose nationalism helped him not at all against Bibi last year, and in fact set the stage for Israel's current predicament.
I suppose my point here is that, while it is no doubt cathartic to be able to toss back a little nationalist rancor at the Netanyahus and Bushes of the world, it does more harm than good in the long run. It's well known that rightists often have an easier time of making real moves toward peace, as they can deliver the entire spectrum of public opinion, which the left alone often cannot do. By attacking from the left on nationalist grounds, Livni is denying Netanyahu any political space for independence from his right-wing coalition and is ensuring that he will have to continue to play to the settlement crowd in all things. I don't think Netanyahu is much more than a power-hungry hack, but Livni is proving herself no slouch in the power-hungry hack department. When the left plays the nationalist card, they lose. Evidently Livni didn't learn the example of her predecessor, whose bellicose nationalism helped him not at all against Bibi last year, and in fact set the stage for Israel's current predicament.
