Reports this week indicated that the Taliban are ready to turn over a new leaf in relations with the world. They are willing to work with the US, which fought a twenty-year war in Afghanistan against them, and they are willing to have relations with India, or any other country. But there is one country they apparently won’t consider having relations with: Israel.
We are supposed to accept that with a shrug. Why would Israel want relations with the Taliban anyway? But that is not the proper way to analyze these reports. Why is it that the one Jewish-majority state is the only one that certain governments, among them Taliban, Pakistan and Malaysia, refuse to have relations with? This is more than implied antisemitism among all the countries that refuse relations with Israel and single out the Jewish state.
Most of the countries that reject relations with Israel today are Muslim-majority states. Their hatred of Israel stems from a toxic mix of religious hatred and antisemitism, combined with a belief that by sidelining Israel, they are supporting their “brothers” among the Palestinians.
This ideological logic could be seen as non-antisemitic if it was applied anywhere else, but it isn’t. The same countries, and groups like the Taliban, have no problem with relations with numerous other states accused of abuses against Muslim minorities. It isn’t about their co-religionists, it’s about Israel and Jews. More tolerant Muslim countries have normalized relations with Israel, leaving a handful of reactionary and intolerant states that reject such relations.
This implied antisemitism of the Taliban’s statements about having relations with all countries except Israel is part of an international relations code and doctrine that goes back to 1948 and which has been widely accepted – not only among some Islamic states, but also generally in international forums.
The exclusion of Israel and the attempt to sideline it, whether at the United Nations, or at UNESCO and other forums such as Durban, illustrate a global antisemitism in which hatred for the Jews has been replaced by international hatred of Israel.
THIS TENDENCY, which has decreased slightly in recent years, is an exception to all other forms of international relations. In every other instance, such as whether the US and Iran should have talks, the general theme is that “engagement” is good in international relations. People say that diplomacy is preferable to war.
In most other states, the issue of relations is not controversial. How good those relations may be is another question. However, even countries that have had numerous wars, such as India and Pakistan, or countries that don’t get along, such as Turkey and Greece, usually have relations. Exceptions exist when there are countries whose creation was not recognized by one bloc of states, such as the creation of Kosovo, which was rejected by some countries.
For the most part, though, these are the exceptions, not the rule. But the exception of Israel is different. It is a religious prejudice that leads countries not to have relations with the Jewish state. During the Soviet era there were also Cold War excuses, but today’s excuse as to why countries like Malaysia lack relations with Israel is solely based on antisemitism. Malaysia and Israel have never fought a war and they are far from each other. The countries could likely get along well economically and on many issues.
Malaysia, however, has a history of vicious antisemitism embodied in its former leader Mahathir Mohammed. He has defended Holocaust denial, and in the past was often invited to give speeches to Western universities such as Columbia, which have a history of inviting antisemitic global hate leaders to speak. Mahathir has called Jews “hook nosed” and trotted out every antisemitic view possible.
This is not international relations in which Malaysia just supports Palestinians. This is antisemitism as a building block of international relations. Unsurprisingly, Malaysia has hosted Hamas.
THE MALAYSIAN leader’s antisemitism as foreign policy isn’t something new. In 2003, he told the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit in Malaysia that Jews rule the world by proxy. The 57-member states in attendance did not condemn the speech. This is because it was widely accepted.
This antisemitic basis of foreign policy – openly pushed by countries like Malaysia as official foreign policy which underpins lack of relations with Israel – is not controversial on the world stage.
On the contrary, hatred of Jews and Israel is often the one thing that countries can push without being criticized. They can’t hate other religious minorities or hate other countries based on the religious majority in the country.
This implied antisemitism of avoiding relations with Israel is the reason the Taliban reject relations with Jerusalem outright. It’s not because they have an “Islamic” foreign policy that wants to put Muslims first or rejects relations with countries suppressing Muslims – it has nothing to do with that. It is because the international community, especially states that have close ties to the Taliban, such as Qatar and Pakistan, also reject relations with Israel – and consider it normal to do so.
A map of the countries that still lack relations with Israel shows a bunch of failed states such as Libya, Yemen, Somalia, but also includes other states that have cut ties with Israel allegedly over tensions with the Palestinians, such as Venezuela and Bolivia. These states don’t cut ties with other countries over similar issues. This implies antisemitism in foreign policy.
It is rare for countries to subordinate foreign policy to ethnic, racist and religious prejudice. In fact, most countries that may be on opposite ends of various religious, ideological and political spectrums often have relations. Only Israel is generally singled out. So the Taliban’s choice in this matter is no surprise.
IF SOME thought that the Abraham Accords – where Israel has achieved normalization with Bahrain, the UAE and several other countries – was a pathway to a more nuanced discussion of the Jewish state in countries like Pakistan, Malaysia, Qatar and even among the Taliban, this idea clearly has a long way to go. The policy that Israel is the one state that these countries cannot consider relations with is still considered a norm in international relations.
This goes beyond international relations as well. Whereas countries like Kosovo may not be recognized by other states, when it comes to things like international sports, no one generally refuses to compete with Kosovars. However, when it comes to Israel, every Olympics includes embarrassing displays by athletes from countries like Iran or Algeria who refuse to face an Israeli opponent.
This ingrained antisemitic foreign policy infects sports to the extent that Israelis are seen as sub-human by competitors from these states. That illustrates once again that this is not just a foreign policy issue, it is much more than that: It seeps into society unlike anything else.
For instance, Lebanese journalists face bans on even interviewing Israelis. There is no other country in the world where they can’t interview its average citizens. The Taliban were also embarrassed to find out recently that they had inadvertently given an interview to an Israeli journalist. Goods “made in Israel” are also controversial in these states, as are Jewish symbols such as the Star of David and Hebrew writing.
In no other case does this happen. Whereas some may find the Iranian regime distasteful, most agree that Iranians themselves are not to blame for the regime. No one hates Farsi just because the regime speaks in Farsi. Most people do not reject Shi’ite symbols just because the regime may use them.
HEREIN IS revealed the reality and symbolism of the headlines about the Taliban rejecting relations with Israel. It’s not about Israel: It is about Jews, Judaism, Jewish symbols, Hebrew and everything else having to do with Jews. Quiet acceptance of sidelining Israel in international forums, groupings and foreign policy – including in Western countries where the Holocaust happened – was about enabling antisemitism in foreign policy and enabling the exclusion of Jews and Israelis.
It is no coincidence that many of the countries that reject ties with Israel have also expelled Jews or make it impossible for them to openly practice their faith. The last Jew of Afghanistan has reportedly left Kabul, for instance. The last Jews of Yemen have mostly been rescued, with help from the UAE.
We have gotten used to this discussion of the “last Jew” of many countries, in a way no one would think to discuss the “last Muslim” or “last Christian” living somewhere. There is only one community in the world in which it is considered normal to reduce them to zero in countries where they once thrived. Where is the Jewish community in Syria, in Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen and all these countries where once there were thriving Jewish communities?
The reduction of a minority community to zero is generally called genocide. We don’t call it genocide because no one put Jews in gas chambers in Yemen; they just made life impossible for the community, indirectly forcing them out. When that happens to racial and religious minorities in the West we call it a hate crime, or racism, or Islamophobia.
What is the phobia that guides the expulsion and disappearance of Jews in all those countries that also lack relations with Israel? It is antisemitism. The foreign policy decision to avoid relations with Israel is guided solely by antisemitism. No other international relations concept can explain it, since no other such concept applies to any other countries or religious minority community in the same way.
Thus, the antisemitic speeches of Malaysia’s former leader spell out openly the underlying concepts that guide those in Pakistan and other places. The Taliban have no real reason to reject relations with Israel, except the implied antisemitism that says such rejection is normal in their milieu.