Nations are navigating a turbulent period where aggressive policies are challenging established international norms. Reports indicate a new phase of escalation in Gaza, with the city’s conquest proceeding despite global protests and concerns from traditional allies of Israel.Concurrently, economic maneuvers are causing significant friction, notably a reported doubling of duties to 50% on indian goods by a U.S. figure, framed as punishment for purchasing Russian oil. Threats are also being extended to the European Union regarding investment demands.
Law and (is) force
These developments represent significant shifts, characterized by an attitude and tone that transcend conventional, even cynical, international politics. For the first time, military and economic might are being overtly leveraged to impose will on other states and peoples.Past diplomacy, though sometimes veiled in formality, at least acknowledged moral underpinnings. This new approach, however, displays a stark lack of respect, bordering on arrogance.
Those who advance controversial plans often still pay lip service to morality.However, a more disturbing trend sees the direct identification of law with force itself. This departs from historic precedents where law, even when serving power, at least pretended to be autonomous of it. The European Union, treated akin to a colony, is reportedly surrendering to unilateral demands, a situation that underscores a demeaning climate of subordination. The necessity for the European Commission president to visit the American leader for his directives illustrates this power imbalance.
Netanyahu’s approach mirrors Trump’s, particularly in unilaterally dictating the fate of the Palestinian people. A proposal reportedly included deporting Gaza’s two million inhabitants and building a resort on the destroyed homes,a move echoing condemned “ethnic cleansing.” Intensified actions against civilians are described as an attempt to coerce their departure. The strategy of occupying Gaza without direct management, delegating to unnamed Arab forces under Israeli military control, further promotes the prospect of exodus.
Simultaneously, the acceleration of illegal settlements in the West Bank, displacing Palestinian inhabitants and destroying homes, continues with legislative backing.This action bypasses even the pretext of combating Hamas, as the West Bank is governed by the Palestinian Authority, a Hamas opponent that recognizes Israel. With Gaza occupied and West Bank annexation looming, European governments advocating a two-state solution are left to acknowledge the fait accompli. This situation allows for hypocrisy to explain inaction, as Western democracies have largely failed to halt this policy of conquest and associated violence, often accepting justifications like “Israel has the right to defend itself” against “Hamas.”
The Ideological Background of the New Way of Doing Politics
Trump and Netanyahu’s ability to operate without apparent hypocrisy stems from their power to unilaterally define truth and justice. This shift signifies a radical cultural transformation beyond mere circumstances. the West is experiencing a profound crisis, not just economic or political, but spiritual and intellectual, impacting its traditional vision of reality and values. This crisis finds its most extreme expression in Friedrich Nietzsche’s nihilism,a temptation that has increasingly undermined society.
Concepts like truth, good, and progress, once rooted in reality, have seen a significant decline in public consciousness. This erosion, as noted by Umberto Galimberti, particularly affects the youth. Trump’s political style, mirrored by Netanyahu, represents the ultimate consequence of this drift towards meaninglessness. The surprise at these actions may stem from forgetting Nietzsche’s concept of the “overman,” unbound by pre-established limits and capable of transcending conventional morality to reshape values.
Trump and netanyahu are flawed imitations of this ideal, revealing profound contradictions. Their actions are not merely individual aberrations but symptoms of a civilization-wide phenomenon. Demonizing them as “monsters” is an easy, but insufficient, response, especially given their support in places like Italy, indicating the pervasiveness of the underlying cultural climate.
The challenge lies in examining our own thinking and lifestyles, which often embrace self-referentiality, unrestrained competitiveness, and the assertion of personal judgment as the measure of truth and morality. This is precisely what Trump and Netanyahu embody. The task is to cultivate positive aspects that resist this distorted model, drawing strength from protest movements. The crucial question is whether we can discern this within ourselves, rather than solely focusing on Trump and Netanyahu.
