The State of Israel: Today’s Jewish Scapegoats

The campaign to criminalize Israel’s military actions and shape world opinion into the view that Israel is a rogue state is simply the latest variation on an age-old theme which holds Jews responsible for the harm and destruction now raining down on Israel and its neighbors in Gaza and Lebanon. In other words, we are once again being faced with a perennial attempt to define the Jewish people – meaning, disingenuously, the State of Israel – as a scapegoat.

Specious arguments along the lines of “I have nothing against the Jews themselves – it is only the vile actions of the Zionists who created the State of Israel which I deplore” might possibly impress some Jews who are ignorant of their own history, but these arguments are not specifically aimed at that group. Rather, they are directed at the millions of non-Jewish observers who watch in dismay as the bombardments on all fronts escalate and the casualties of war mount.

Inevitably, the news media are stirring the pot. We see footage of terrified, grief-stricken families, maimed children, bombed out hospitals and other harrowing images of war. Grim faced commentators leave viewers in no doubt that it is Israel which is largely responsible for the tragedy. Not much consideration is given to the fate which would befall Israel’s Jews if the IDF were to buckle and the fanatics who are howling for the destruction of Israel were to prevail.

Jews hoping for a peaceful solution to the conflict based on compromise find themselves caught in a pincer movement between extremists of both left and right. At the same time, Israel is being attacked on all sides by Islamic fundamentalists who have a deeply rooted hatred of Jews and who have so far shown no desire to compromise or change their views.

While leftists denounce Israel as a racist, colonialist state, this is being mirrored by the xenophobia of the far right, who thrive on inter-ethnic conflict and readily indulge in any scapegoating which conforms to their notions of racial purity.

There are two therapeutic principles informing the management of scapegoating, whether it occurs in the workplace, the classroom, the playground or the family. First, the scapegoat must be rescued from persecution by confronting the perpetrators with their responsibility for whatever it is that they are blaming the scapegoat for. Then, and only then, can the scapegoat be made to reflect on how he might have played a part in the process.

This calls for strong leadership by an objective outsider, someone who commands the respect of both parties. But to return to the international arena, where is such leadership to be found? The UN has failed abysmally in its role as peacekeeper. Among world leaders, some have held onto power through tyranny, others have too much of an eye on their own constituencies to be able to win the trust of the warring parties.

To complicate the situation, we are currently witnessing a development which inevitably arises when the potential scapegoat concludes that the only sure way to survive is to strike back at the perpetrators with all the power which can be mustered. In the process, new scapegoats are being created and the cycle of repetition kicks in.

Israel has learnt that whichever way it turns it will be deemed to be in the wrong. The nation’s survival is at stake, therefore war must be waged until the enemy is defeated. And the fate of Jews outside Israel is inextricably linked to that of Israel.

There is still a glimmer of hope that the scapegoating process can be reversed. If enough clear-thinking people on both sides of the divide can come together with the aim of achieving a peaceful solution, the majority of those caught up in the conflict might just arrive at the realization that cooperation is more fulfilling than the fostering of hatred for others. Extremists and fanatics of all shades will never go away, but they can at least be marginalized and stripped of their power to harm.