Finalmente alguém, Paul Gottfried em "For Zionists, Time To Choose", aponta a inconsistência óbvia em algum pensamento neoconservador que proclama o globalismo democrata multi-cultural criticando (mal) os críticos da livre imigração ao mesmo que tempo que defende com todas as forças, Israel como um Estado Judaico (com toda a razão).
O debate apareceu com a proposta em: In a provocative essay in the New York Review of Books (October 23), “Israel: The Alternative,” New York University historian Tony Judt :Abandoning the nation-state ideal: “The time has come to think the unthinkable… a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians.”
Logo se ouviu na "NRO, David Frum accused Judt of “genocidal liberalism,” noting “one must hate Israel very much in deed to prefer such an outcome [a binational state] to the reality of liberal democracy that exists in Israel today.”
Estranho, porque são conhecidos os ataques dos neoconservadores aos paleo-conservatives:
"Yet this is the Frum who notoriously raged against Sam Francis in “Unpatriotic Conservatives” (NRO, March 19, 2003) for advocating “a politics devoted to the protection of the interests of what he [Francis] called the ‘Euro-American cultural core’ of the American nation.
Ora a proposta de Tony Judt é consistente com a visão neo-conservadora dos EUA e da Europa:
Most interestingly, despite his appeal to current trends in the West, Judt actually wants something quite different for Israel. In a “binational” state, there are two continuing nationalities. But Judt approves of modern Europe because it consists of “pluralist states which have long since become multiethnic and multicultural. “Christian Europe," pace M. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, is a dead letter; Western civilization today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages…”
O problema é que democracia e sistemas de auto-soberania necessitam de uma entidade cultural homogénea. Paul Gottfried acaba asim:
Judt equates “democracy” with multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism. As a political theorist for many years, I remain astonished by this already ritualistic association. Why does being “democratic” require opening one’s borders and welcoming in a cultural “patchwork?”
Certainly this requirement would have struck Aristotle, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Thomas Jefferson as disconcerting. These political thinkers assumed a high degree of homogeneity as essential for popular self-government.
I believe that American Zionists should be reconsidering their inconsistent positions, instead of ganging up on Judt. Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, for example, make themselves ridiculous and vulnerable when they denounce those who oppose the granting of drivers licenses in California to illegal immigrants as far-right anti-Semites—while they simultaneously defend Israel as a “Jewish state.”
Tony Judt’s politics are not mine. I believe that Israel should remain predominantly Jewish and that the U.S. and Europe should remain predominantly Euro-American—and I support whatever is necessary to achieve these objectives
But, unlike his hysterical opponents, Judt believes that what is sauce for the Christian West must also be (more or less) sauce for Israel. He is at least an honest Jewish liberal.
Nota: óbviamente, aqui "liberal" representa a esquerda americana.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário