O conhecido professor da NYU morreu hoje, aos 62 anos. A direita nunca lhe perdoou o ensaio brilhante da New York Review of Books de 2003. A ideia básica não era nova - Tom Friedman já a tinha explicado no livro From Beirut to Jerusalem - mas a verdade às vezes dói e é preciso coragem para a enfrentar: o número de não judeus dentro das suas fronteiras não permite que Israel possa ser um estado judeu e democrático ao mesmo tempo. Mas Tony Judt foi mais longe e explicou que Israel é um anacronismo no mundo de hoje, "a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them;"
O aviso, claríssimo, caíu mal nos meios da direita americana: "In today’s “clash of cultures” between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp."
E mais:
ResponderEliminar«The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European “enclave” in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a “Jewish state”—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.»