While Israel is desperately fighting for its existence, the Europeans are fundamentally showing solidarity, but are setting a different tone by invoking humanitarian imperatives in the Gaza war, mostly for domestic political reasons. Of course, destroying Hamas “just a little” has never helped in the past. Totalitarianism – even in its religious form – must be uprooted by its roots. If Israel had recognized this in previous conflicts, in which they only used temperate counterattacks after rocket attacks, they might have been spared October 7th.
But even so, Islamism will remain a lasting challenge, for Israel, for Europe and, increasingly, for almost all civilized states in the world. The Islamic world is clearly lagging behind in terms of democracy, education and the economic situation. This creates a vicious circle, because in these insults of inferiority, revanchist Islamist narratives prove to be attractive to other losers in the modernization processes and therefore, it is no coincidence that they gain global importance.
The Islamization of Europe by Muslim fundamentalists is still taking place peacefully today through the use of social infrastructure. Internal security has already eroded significantly. Calculated based on the proportion of Jews and Muslims in the population, there were 122 times more anti-Semitic than anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2023, and the development has become more pronounced since October 7. The hatred of Jews sparked by Israel’s existence has now been exported to Europe.
Should Israel at some point no longer be able to withstand the pressure of the Islamist fighting groups on its borders incited by the mullahs’ regime in Tehran, a dam wall would collapse on the Europeans. But instead of fighting Islamists, many Europeans are taking the field against “Islamophobic” warners. They put their morals above judgment and also keep their own borders open to Muslim extremists. The open societies of the West willingly allow self-proclaimed enemies free access to the public sphere and sacrifice internal stability to the abstract idea of global humanitarianism.
Iran’s first direct attack on Israel seems to be giving more thought. This also makes the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes clearer. The West can cooperate with authoritarian states in the Middle East such as Jordan and Egypt, but not with a totalitarian regime like the one in Tehran. Its claim to absolute truth essentially means hostility and violence towards those who think differently and „infidels”. Compromises here can only be tactical in nature.
Even Western development aid, which is given to the Palestinians almost unconditionally, is shockingly naive. The UN pays for inflammatory textbooks directly, but sensible civilian aid also creates space for military build-up in Hamas’ budgets. It is true that the Europeans have not taken anything away from the Palestinians; on the contrary, they have made their continued existence possible through aid money that has been given out virtually unconditionally. But these protection funds are also not effective in the long term. Not only Palestinians themselves, but extremist forces from the entire Islamic world are using the freedoms of the liberal system in the West to celebrate hatred of Jews. They find support at universities as well as in the critical-creative environment of the Berlinale. Coexistence would be entirely possible with the many merely authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, but the violent totalitarianism of the Taliban, the Islamic State, the Ayatollahs, as well as Hamas and Hezbollah is of a different caliber. In the dark shadow of their threat, a security partnership against Islamist movements, even with potentates, would be necessary.
Since the apocalyptic religious messianism in the Middle East cannot be appeased due to its momentum aimed at the absolute, it must be contained. Applied to the Middle East, the successful strategy of the Cold War would have to be applied: political coexistence with authoritarian Arab regimes and joint containment of totalitarian Islamism. Taming the mullahs’ regime would also have to include taming Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
In order for Israel to emerge from its demographically and strategically rather hopeless situation in the long term, it needs a paradigm shift. And indeed there are indications of one emerging – in the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
Modern scientific and technical civilization is based primarily on the differentiation of functional systems such as religion, politics, economics and science, each of which follows its own logic and only thereby achieves performance. Democracy based on the division of power would be an additional level of civilization. Authoritarian states also have basic social regulations. They are therefore the lesser evil compared to the arbitrary systems of totalitarianism.
Interest in the achievements of Western civilization could help build a bridge between cultures. This could even take the struggle over supposedly territorial issues between Israel and the Palestinians to a new level. By agreeing to the Abraham Accords, parts of the Arab world have decided to cooperate with the former enemy and thus to have their own long-term civilizational future. Desalination of seawater, greening of deserts, economic dynamism and tourism appear to be more important to them than holy wars. Tehran’s henchmen hoped to sabotage this hopeful rapprochement on October 7, from now on the paths diverge. Across the entire Islamic world, a decision must be made between pragmatic development and Islamist regression. The Palestinians, who had refused the first attempts, should take part in the next Abraham Accord.
After October 7, Israel should no longer forget that border security is more important than the expansion of its own territory in the West Bank. In a world of hostilities, the excessive political preoccupation with questions of internal structure that divides the people has proven negligent. Even the Israeli government has completely underestimated Hamas’ religious madness. Israel’s state and society are proving to be extremely prepared to defend themselves in the crisis. Israeli resilience is based on a positive relationship to its own culture, religion and history. Despite all its cultural and ethnic plurality, Israel can build on the foundations of the Jewish dominant culture. This would not be possible with the post-colonial self-loathing that is fashionable in Europe. Woe betide us if we were to be blackmailed by a regime like Iran’s that has been massively armed with long-range missiles; no significant defense system could give us the protection that Israel had against the mullahs’ missiles.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
