The crux of Byron Roth’s disagreement with Kevin MacDonald is essentially that Prof. MacDonald makes criticisms of Israeli nationalism that he would never make about European peoples. This critique is frequently leveled against Patrick Buchanan by writers like Larry Auster.
This is, in many ways, the inverse of one of the easiest criticisms some White Nationalists make about Jewish Leftists: namely, that they hypocritically support Israeli nationalism, while screaming that enforcing our immigration laws is “racist.”
If one were to try to sort out views on nationalism in Israel and the West, it could be neatly split into four categories:
- Those who support ethno-politics for Israel but not for Europeans and the West. (neoliberals and neoconservatives like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Kristol et al.)
- Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel and the West (Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal et al.)
- Those who support ethno-politics in the West and in Israel (Lawrence Auster, Diana West, Michael Savage)
- Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel but support it for the West (Pat Buchanan, Kevin MacDonald)
Presumably, the intellectually consistent views would be 2 and 3. Group 1 could be seen as Jewish hypocrites, and group 4 must be anti-Semitic.
It is not that simple, however.
Pat Buchanan is not a “White Nationalist.” He simply defends the right of European peoples to retain their majorities in their own countries. He has criticized Israel for bombing Arabs and tearing down their homes, and he opposes what he considers to be Israeli partisans’ subversion of America’s national interest. But Buchanan explicitly accepts the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state and to the best of my knowledge, has never questioned its ethno-religious citizenship requirements. He has never advocated anything like that for America, however. Yet the current zeitgeist is so skewed to position 1, that Pat can be called out as a hypocrite or worse.
And given the incredible hostility Buchanan, as well as Kevin MacDonald, has faced at the hands of the hypocritically pro-Israel, anti-West establishment, they can be forgiven for going a bit overboard once in awhile.
Certainly, the Ron Paul supporters whom David Horowitz denounces would go into position 2. They are likely anti-racist, open borders libertarians. They also virtually worship Jewish economists such as Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. They’re not prime candidates for “Jew Haters,” that’s for sure.
Personally, I align myself with position 3. I have no sympathy for Arab good intentions, and I am fine with Israel establishing its own ethnic state and doing what it feels necessary to preserve it.
However, there are three important qualifications to this position.
The first is that Israel should preserve itself on its own dime. While I may wish Israel well, this does not make them America’s vital ally. Our support of Israel has caused needless enmity within the Arab world.
The second is that while I would rather live in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country, I do not value it as equal to or greater than the West. The idea that the fate of European or American Civilization is somehow tied up in Israel, as Geert Wilders & Co. often claim, has absolutely no basis in reality; the same goes for the ahistorical, made-up term “Judeo-Christian tradition.” (Let’s not forget who sided with the Muslims in the Crusades!) Furthermore, even if you consider European Jews to be White (which I do), only one third of Israeli Jews have roots in America or Europe.
The third qualification is that while Islam is an immediate threat to Israel and Europe, it is not a threat to America. Arab Muslims are a tiny fraction of our immigrant population, and the idea that Shariah will be imposed in this country is completely absurd. Yet this obsession with stopping Muslim Immigration, while ignoring the Hispanicization of America, by the likes of Robert Spencer and Mark Steyn shows a complete lack of priorities.