My two cents on this. I think Europe suffers now from theconsequences of the fact that no single European tribe ever succeeded establishing a single imperial throne.

Europeans behave like the members of a committee, where noone wants to be singled out and noone takes risks in order to lead. Europe seems like a more successful Lebanon.

In Europe, as in Lebanon, the status quo is a constantly shifting ground because the whole is too big for any one party to master.

Therefore the attitudes of Europeans cannot make sense in terms of ideological sympathies alone, but have to be understood as a product of the political considerations of the ‘committee’ itself. People make the choices that are deemed to be safest within that political bubble.

So, when Israelis think about how to make their case in Europe, I think it would be well to think in terms of how one makes a pitch to a committee, which is a very different sort of pitch than one might make to an executive.

I don't know. It's probably true that the few European governments friendly to Israel (Germany's Merkel, for instance) probably wouldn't want to be outlyers relative to the rest of Europe. So it might be a good idea to pitch to Europe as a whole. But pitching "to a committee" here seems problematic.

I see five basic reasons why Europe will not be amenable to Israel, though the reasons will not apply equally across countries, or equally in any one country in different time periods: tradition, predilection, national interest, honest conviction, antisemitism.

By "tradition" I mean those countries that have venerable, centuries-long traditions of ties to the Arab world, are so naturally inclined toward it. Here I have in mind mainly France and Britain, whose old colonial ties have matured into special relationships with Arab states. Look at the Quai d'Orsay and the British Foreign Office, and you'll find old diplomatic hands who wax eloquent over the Arabs. New diplomatic hands will have to emulate the old, or else they won't get very far in their careers.

By I "predilection" I mean that, on the whole, Europeans seem to like Arabs (and Arab civilization) more than they like the Jews. The Jews may be respected for their intellectual business success--even more than the Arabs--but they are not the object of much affection. Pity, perhaps; respect, up to a point; but not affection. Also, there is still guilt over WWII, and no one likes a group toward which one feels guilty. That especially holds if the group was never much liked or valued to begin with. This is not to say that there isn't anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice. There's plenty. But that doesn't occur among the "chattering classes," who want to believe that the Arabs (and the Muslims as a whole) are essentially in the right, in spite of their sometimes horrible tactics. As for the rest of the population, there's plenty of room to like or despise both Arabs and Jews, though in different ways and to different degrees. It's easy to resent the Arabs in the "banlieux" but be totally for "les Palestiniens."

By "national interest" I mean the obvious points. The Arab world has most of the oil. Its 300 million people provide a major market for European goods. And its governments provide a major market for weapons and other technologies. The Arab world is also in an important geopolitical location, all along the southern and southeastern flanks of Europe. If you are European, you definitely don't want to lose influence in such a vast part of the world that's so close to home. Also, as goes the Arab world, so goes the rest of the Muslim world, which takes its cues from the Arabs. You don't want the Arabs as your enemies. You definitely want them as friends and trading partners. Even if you may not be thrilled with them as immigrants.

By "honest conviction," I mean the view of many--perhaps most--Europeans that Israel really was set on on land that should never have been granted to the Jews for a separate state. This view holds that the UN vote to establish Israel was a historic mistake and an injustice to the local Arabs, that it was done at a time when the world was hyper-sensitive to the suffering of the Jews and less sensitive to the needs of the Arabs. One may argue that this view is simplistic and one-sided. But it is so clearly and frequently expressed, and so easily accepted by those with little knowledge of history, that it is hard to argue against forcefully and convincingly. Also, Israel is easily portrayed as an oppressive occupying power by the media, and its own dangers are easily played down. So Europeans often really and truly believe that Israel is an evil, especially as this is a view well ensconced in "progressive" political thought.

As for antisemitism, I don't think it was at the root of anti-Zionism (except within the confines of social elites and diplomats), but it now feeds into it and reinforces it. The overwhelming disgust with Israel among Europeans has raised the threshold of tolerance for images and themes once considered antisemitic.

OK, so what do we have going for Israel? That it's a democracy? Scratch that. Most Europeans don't think it's a real democracy. Also, the fact that it's the "only democracy in the Middle East" doesn't really cut ice when many Europeans would answer that it doesn't have the right to exist in the first place, whatever the nature of its government.

That Israel has a great economy with technology to share? Some in Europe would appreciate that, but many would say that this is not a moral value.

Israel is a small country with few people, and so it's easily dispensable. From a Realist perspective, there would be no reason at all to support Israel against the Arabs. None. Nada. There would only be moral reasons. Except that many Europeans find Israel repugnant precisely on moral grounds--certainly for its policies, and for some even for its very existence.

OK, so how are you going to "pitch to the committee"? Suggestions, anyone?

Oh sure, you can say that Israel should patiently and aggressively give its point of view, give a more nuanced and accurate account of its history, and also of its present dangers and security dilemmas.

Sounds great, but how are you going to get that message across when the gateway to the European public is via hostile European media? European media are overwhelmingly anti-Israeli because they're government owned, government subsidized, or simply dominated by a generation of Europeans grounded in New Left values. This generation of Europeans will never be convinced, especially since their anti-Zionist views have for years been a logical extension of their anti-American views.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm not sure there even is an answer.

Joanne,

That's a great synopsis of the situation.

Terrorism plays well on the committee dynamic. Like a giant international game of whack-a-mole, the country that pops its head up (say, Denmark) gets whacked. This makes sympathy for the Arabs the safe choice, and the safe choice is always the right choice in that environment.

So how can Israel market its point of view as the safe choice? For all the reasons you gave, it can't. At least, not the whole point of view or all at once.

But on certain grounds it can. The article makes the critical point that Israel's identity is rooted in ethnic nationalism while the trend in Europe is a rejection of tribalism and nationalism. So this seems like a dead end. But in fact it's not. The threat that a group like Hizbollah poses to Lebanon is not a threat merely to the Nation State idea but to secular politics of any kind. So-called political Islam does not really distinguish between 19th century Europe (or Israel) and 20th century Europe. Both represent the arrogance of man in his attempt to replace the law of god with the law of man.

You might say it's a forced argument, but it really isn't. it's precisely this 'political Islam' that perpetuates the Arab/Israeli conflict.

So, to the extent that Israel can make the case that it is at war, not with Arabs as such, but with something truly dangerous to the European way of life, it should be possible for the Israeli side of the argument to seem like the safe one.

By 'safe', I mean 'the one you wouldn't want to be caught in public not sharing'. No European, however relativistic, is ready to turn against secular humanism itself! And Israel, though it may be a rendition of the Humanist ideal that the Europeans think they have outgrown, is at least a kin. Hizbollah/Hama/Iran are not.

The 2006 war was exceptional in bringing these faultlines into relief. And Olmert and Livni both, whatever their flaws, understood what was truly at stake and played it right. Israel gained international support in that war, not because Hizbollah shot first, but because Hizbollah stands for something that can potentially undermine the whole modern project.

That conflict made a strong impression on me because it shows that there's a parallel universe out there where things are aligned differently. Israel's pr job, it seem to me, is to cultivate that universe and starve this one. I think making offers to Assad, holding meetings with Gulf Arabs when possible, agreeing to participate in Annapolis - all of these actions were good choices in this context.

This is the way in. Everything you said is true, but while true it's not necessarily the whole story. Europe has a weakness, and that weakness is the inherent fragility of a common anti-authoritarian political project.

The project has been centuries in the making, and is therefore precious. But it's also vulnerable. No country can emerge as a maverick, because if it did the others would fear it. Therefore, nobody can stand up to counter even real threats. That's the European dilemma.

The Europeans will learn to love the Jews if loving the Jews turns out to be the only politically correct way (given committee dynamics) to stand up to a threatening and burgeoning theocratic movement.

Adam,

Of course, I should have mentioned terrorism as a major factor, although most Europeans should have realized that an overall pro-Arab orientation is no protection if a European country does something to displease the Islamists. Look at France in the mid-1990s after it blocked the Islamists from taking over the government after it won the elections; look at Spain and Britain.

The approach you're suggesting has been used by some, i.e., that Israel is on the front line of a fight against theocracy. But I think that only goes so far. Don't forget, some think that Israel itself is a theocracy.

I don't know, I think that what you suggest is a partial solution, but a lot of Europeans won't be convinced, especially since this fight for "secular" society seems to have been taken up by the Right, including the dreaded neocons. Some have taken up the cudgel, however. Christopher Hitchens, who's anti-Islamist but still as anti-Zionist as he ever was, says that the West has to defend Israel "as if it were a western and democratic nation." Ouch.

> some think that Israel itself is a theocracy.

They don't really think that. People act dumber than they are. It's a moo moo herd thing.

There's no difference in kind between the Jews and, say, the Navajo. A tribe with a religion. But you can't build political capital by criticizing the Navajo, so nobody does it.