A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel [Paperback]

I was recommended this book, after being tired of the old debates on the middle east, and was impressed by the fresh thinking on the subject. Shepherd is pro-Israel, but he weighs up his points and the counter arguments judiciously. He sees the strained and complex relationship between europeans and Israel in civilisational terms, and sees in the former a general unwillingness to stand up for basic democratic values and freedoms. This issue is for him rooted in a left-wing ambivelance towards the west in general and as such is more a judgement on Europe than on Israel. He makes valuable points that have been lost in the mudslinging, especially on the question of when antizionism becomes antisemitism, arguing that defaming an entire nation, regardless of whether this conforms to traditional concepts of antisemitism, is in itself wholly unacceptable. In sum, this is worth a read whatever you view, because it seems to be written with a genuine effort to understand themes and trends, and that's a rare feat indeed.

No-one who takes even the slightest interest in the world around them can have failed to notice the poisonous nature of some - on occasion, much - of the discourse about Israel from people whom the spin doctors call `opinion leaders'. Here are just two examples (both of which are too recent to be mentioned by Robin Shepherd). In August a number of public figures criticised the award by Barack Obama of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, the former Irish President, because she had presided over the UN's Durban Conference against Racism in 2001 which gave a platform to some profoundly antisemitic comments by some NGOs. Robinson's response was not to defend her record but to bizarrely accuse her critics of `bullying': "There's a lot of bullying by certain elements of the Jewish community." Ben Bradshaw - then a UK Health Minister - said much the same thing in January "Israel has a long reputation of bullying the BBC... The BBC has been cowed by this persistent and relentless pressure, and they should stand up to it." He was rewarded by Gordon Brown with promotion to the Cabinet, as the Culture Minister.

Both these statements are patently ridiculous and defamatory. The word `bullying' implies the successful use of force upon a weaker person to achieve an unjustified result. What `force' is it that `elements of the Jewish Community' used on Mary Robinson (and on Desmond Tutu who she also mentioned)? And did Israel surround Broadcasting House with tanks?

As Robin Shepherd correctly observes, such statements speak volumes about what he calls the `pathology' of Europe and nothing about the Middle East: "I mean, even when Israel deserves censure, even when there are good grounds for protesting at Israeli behaviour, isn't it blindingly obvious that the use of ridiculous and defamatory analogies with Nazism or apartheid, the repetition of entirely distorted renditions of the historical context, and the making of casual and reflexive denunciations of criminality gives Israel a free pass to ignore all criticisms, including the reasonable ones? Which school of political campaigning did these people go to?"

Robin Shepherd is eminently well qualified to discuss the reasons for the degradation of Israel discourse in Europe. He is now Director of International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society. Previously he was in charge of the Europe programme at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He speaks Russian, French, Slovak and Czech and has also served as Moscow Bureau Chief for The Times. As I wrote in the Jerusalem Post (1 August) Shepherd "has paid a price professionally as a result of calling for a more sober and less hysterical approach to Israel. Having written an op-ed on the subject in The Times in January 2008, he was subjected to fierce intimidation from the powers-that-be at Chatham House. It eventually led to his departure."

For those of us who have watched with growing disbelief the spread of anti-Israel falsehoods and misrepresentation from the fringe into parts of the mainstream in Europe, Shepherd's book strikes many chords. His key insight is that the atrophy process says little about Israel or the Palestinians - but everything about Europe.

Shepherd observes that `multiculturalism' has resulted in Europe throwing out the baby - the preparedness to defend liberal democracy and other Western cultural norms - with the bathwater - the colonies and the primacy of the nation state. The atmosphere is "depressingly anti-intellectual". "Denial is the order of the day. ... Belief has given way to relativism; passion to apathy; resolve to appeasement." This makes Europe the virtual antithesis of Israel, the democracy under fire which has a national religious culture. Europe is - for the moment - able to "dissemble about the true nature of Islamist terrorism" whereas Israel "has no choice but to confront it". Europe is contemptuous of using military power to defend liberal democracy but "for Israel it is an existential necessity".

The book is full of other insights as well, for example about the roots of the opposition to Israel post-1967 in what Shepherd calls the `radical Left'. With the realisation that the Western proletariat was not going to be an instrument for change, attention turned to liberation movements outside the West - for example, the PLO. Israel was simply `on the wrong side of the barricades'. I also found Shepherd's taxonomy of antisemitism very useful. He divides it into the `subjective' and the `objective'. The former applies to those who hate Jews and use Jewish manifestations - most obviously, Israel - to express that bigotry. The latter refers to the `object of attack' and describes instances of antisemitism where the perpetrator does not hate Jews but comes to the same irrational and bigoted conclusions as the former.

The final chapter is entitled "Contagion: Is America Next?" Shepherd enumerates the reasons why the quality of the Israel discourse in the US has not deteriorated to the same extent as in Europe, though warns that it could. Having seen Walt and Mearsheimer present their appalling apology for a book (`The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy) at Chatham House - where Shepherd was employed until only recently - one surely has to be alive to the risks.
Robin Shepherd has written a profoundly important book. It is hard to think of anyone who would not take something from it: those interested in international affairs certainly but also policymakers, legislators and those working in the field of community cohesion. It is beautifully written with many examples to support the thesis, but not so many as to draw attention away from the thesis. The research is meticulous with every reference sourced.

Many times in the book Shepherd laments the `anti-intellectual' quality of much of the discourse in Europe about Israel.

His book is the antithesis of that.

In 'A State Beyond the Pale' one of the top opinion formers within the British establishment has written a devastating critique of arguments and accusations levelled at Israel in the battleground of public opinion.

Sheppard is an immensely creative writer, never once needing to 'cry wolf' and settle for the label 'antisemite' as defence. He looks at a broad range of arguments from journalists, writers and politicians when discussing Israel, and builds his case very convincingly for what is fair, and unfair criticism of Israel. He steers clear of so much of the 'political speak' when encountering this subject, he simply analyses in simple language and provides excellent comparisons for anti-Israel arguments; this makes his arguments all the more powerful and thought-provoking.

This is not so much a book about Israel then, more the reactions to it.

Quite interestingly, and probably quite indicative of the arguments relating to Israel, is the preface and introduction, both of which are 51 pages long (out of a 310 page book). However, this by no means reading 51 pages before getting to the heart of the matter. From the first page Shepherd wastes no time in getting down to business saying 'Arguments relating to this subject very quickly become personal; arguments should be judged on their own merits, not on who's making them.' And in this way the book continues. I had quite forgotten what part of the book I was reading before turning the page and seeing "Chapter 1". It's fair to say this is an engrossing read!

A perfect example of how these 'personal arguments' are made was in the defence of the organisation called MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), which intercepts and translates Arabic broadcasts and writings - showing how widespread antisemitism and incitement to jihad are. As an attempt to discredit MEMRI, those not wishing anyone to see the offences MEMRI's work exposes, claim that its staff contain many former Israeli military personnel. Shepherd argues that it doesn't matter who works there, either the translations from Arabic sources are accurate, or they aren't.

Another argument I thought brilliant, was in showing how anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. For without Zionism, Israel would not exist. And without Israel, as we saw from the Holocaust, the Jews could not hope to exist for very much longer. In his comparison he describes the Israel-bashers who use the minority of Jews who are anti-Zionist (such as Naomi Klein and organisations like 'Peace Now') and compares them to being much like the white slave traders who attempted to defend their abhorrent acts by stating that there were many black slave owners; whilst true, this did not mean the slave trade - or the slave traders - were not racist.

However his rejection of criticism isn't totally against anti-Israel people. He does reject a few notions of antisemitism (although these are few instances). Moreover he rejects Bat Ye'or's prolific Eurabia, which has become a source of inspiration to so many writers on this subject, stating "...there's no need to go that far," which may ruffle a few feathers among the die-hard Israel lovers... (myself included). In hindsight, I assumed he is trying to frame his argument within certain boundaries and maintain a certain perspective on things. Fair enough.

This book has cost Shepherd dearly. Once having worked at Chatham House in the UK, he was summarily expelled from that institution because of his opinions which deviate from the Political Correct discourse about Israel in much of Europe. Chatam House, ironically claiming to be a '...world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all.'

As a Brit myself, the sorry state of affairs is all too evident. In the stories continually appearing in the headlines, from MI6 inadvertently using al-Qaida's top man in Europe for intelligence gathering. Or the Mayor of London, inviting a radical Islamist to give a talk on affairs relating to 'inter-community harmony' in London. It is quite clear, the British establishment (or for that matter the European establishment) do not even understand who its friends are, even a decade after 9/11 and after the London bombings of 7/7 2005. Multiculturalism has really sunk its teeth in...

With the Orwellian 'newspeak' now dominating our discourse on so much of what we hear, with terminology and phrasing encapsulating our sound bite attention spans, words - and arguments based on those words - have lost their meaning. Shepherd has put much understanding and meaning back.

I did want to say it would be interesting to see how opponents of Shepherd answer his book, but as with Alan Dershowitz those same people chose not to answer or debate; instead simply attempting to deceive and dissuade people from believing these people, or reading their books. In the realm of public discourse, Shepherd has raised the bar to a new level, and his work is simply in a category of its own. I'm sure it is destined to become the book by which all others on the subject are judged.

I would defy any open-minded person to read this and not come away with a much better and fairer understanding of what is legitimate - and illegitimate - discourse when discussing Israel.