Last March, Jean-Claude Milner delivered a disturbing diagnosis in our pages: the rapid American trusteeship of Israel, due to the loss of the illusion that made the Jewish state an “impenetrable and solitary diamond”, a representative of the democratic West in hostile lands. In his text, “Western” meant above all the recognition of American supremacy, WASP values and a doctrine where peace is the rule and war the exception. An alternative was emerging for Jews: either orientalization in a vassalized Israel, or dissolution in the new American Jerusalem. At a time when the Trump presidency seems to be reshuffling the cards by reconnecting with an imperial logic, and Europe seems increasingly marginalized, Milner revisits his diagnosis.
On March 27, 2024, I published an article in the magazine K. entitled “Israel and the USA: from reservations to dispute”. It was then reprinted, with my full consent, in a collection conceived and edited by Bruno Karsenti, La fin d’une illusion. Israël et l’Occident après le 7 octobre (The End of an Illusion: Israel and the West after October 7), PUF, 2024. Even though I made general proposals, my thinking was based on the decisions of Joe Biden, then President of the United States. However, Donald Trump’s presidency has adopted a very different tone towards Israel from that which prevailed under the previous administration.
However, I stand by the essence of my previous analysis. And this, on at least two points: through the Biden administration, I was talking first of all about the progressive current in the United States, which continues to exist, despite having been defeated. But I was talking above all about the American Jewish community, an advisor listened to by Democratic Presidents. As I indicated in 2024, in the distance that J. Biden marked against B. Netanyahu and the orientalized Israelis, it was necessary to recognize a position widely held, not only among American Jews, but also among Jews in the West as a whole. This distancing persists, even if it hesitates to express itself.
The events of October 7 and their aftermath have imposed silence on those in the West who separate Israelis into two groups: on the one hand, the overly orientalized Jews, who are rejected, while being called upon to accept a two-state solution, which may doom them to disappear; on the other hand, the westernized Jews, who are invited to leave and join the West, even if this is effectively reduced to the United States. No one would have tolerated such discourse being heard in such circumstances.
On all political, social or societal issues, the protector-suzerain intends to impose on each of his vassals his own interpretation of the facts and his own decision, without taking much account of values supposedly shared by both parties. The democratic rectory has lost its charm and the civilized gardens, their luster.
Moreover, many American Jews find it hard to recognize themselves in the support that Israel receives from the Trump administration. They are well aware that evangelical Christians and supporters of a conservative revolution each have their own agenda. However, their pro-Israelism applies to the outside world; it does not exclude Judeophobia within the borders. Outright fear keeps the Jewish community silent, for a time that one can hope will be short, but for which there is no guarantee.
The fact remains that in silence, disputes continue. Throughout the West and in the United States, the name of Israel continues to divide, not without reawakening the spirit of persecution against those who bear the Jewish name. That being said, a major change is coming, one that could truly deserve the name revolution. No one can predict whether or not this revolution will come to fruition: the United States is currently seeking to isolate itself from the West in order to better dominate it. They want to turn their system of alliances into an empire. Readers of Thucydides are aware that there is a precedent: Athens, like the United States after the Second World War, had, after the Greco-Persian Wars (490-479 BC), developed a military alliance: “the Athenians thus received hegemony of their allies’ free will […] They determined which cities should provide them with money or ships”. Then came “the failure to pay contributions in money or ships”. In retaliation, the alliance became an empire: “the Athenians were very strict” and “their authority was no longer exercised as before with the consent of all” (extracts from The History of the Peloponnesian War, I, 96-99; trans. J. de Romilly). Whether or not D. Trump has read Thucydides is anyone’s guess. The possibility remains that he is vaguely familiar with the name, as Silicon Valley, the business community and the political class have become so familiar with the “Thucydides trap” that it has become a mandatory part of the language used by decision-makers. In any case, Trumpian discourse is returning, consciously or not, to Athenian logic. Of course, the implementation differs, modernity obliges.
The new empire is based on the proliferation of binary relationships between vassal and sovereign. The emperor sees himself as both protector and suzerain. He enjoys playing on both sides of his role: on the one hand, he withdraws his protection, the better to assert his suzerainty when he considers it to be contested; on the other hand, once his suzerainty has been recognized, he confirms his protection. On all political, social or societal issues, the protector-suzerain intends to impose on each of his vassals his own interpretation of the facts and his own decision, without taking much account of values supposedly common to both parties. The democratic rectory has lost its charm and the civilized gardens, their luster.
Without ruling out territorial annexations, the new empire revived the old status of what were called the marches. I quote, in abbreviated form, the dictionary of the Academy: “MARCHE. Territory located on the borders of the Carolingian Empire • By extension. Designated any border province exposed by its situation to incursions or attacks, armed to repel a possible invasion”. Western Europe and Great Britain, standing on the shoulders of their own imperial past, are reluctant to accept such a position. Neighbors of the Russian Empire, the Central European states are divided: some already consider themselves to be marches of the American empire and wish to remain so; others prefer to be marches of the Russian empire, as they were in the past and briefly ceased to be. As for Ukraine, its case is paradoxical: while it openly demands to rejoin the marches of the American empire, the latter sends it back, perhaps temporarily, perhaps definitively, to Russia. A peculiar turnaround, which is part of an overall revolution.
Whether it is orientalized or westernized is of little importance, as long as Israel aligns itself with the most faithful vassals of the new empire.
As for Israel, its destiny is beyond doubt. It is destined to become a march of the United States, after having been a march of the entire West. But the West, in fact, has only a tenuous existence; what is more, its protection and support are waning. In this respect, the new empire is taking charge of everything. It is even considering entrusting Israel with two missions: from now on, to monitor all the neighboring Arab states and, in particular, the Gaza Strip. In the medium term, to ensure the proper execution of the planned program for the transformation of the Gaza Strip and to take its fair share of any profits. This was the function of the marches of the Carolingian empire: to keep external enemies at bay and take advantage of them. But these tokens of trust are accompanied by an increasingly undisguised demand: whether it is orientalized or westernized, it doesn’t matter, as long as the Israeli ranks among the most faithful vassals of the new empire. Only once this allegiance has been confirmed, only once the Israelis have fought tirelessly as the protector-suzerain demands and only once they have stopped fighting when the protector-suzerain demands, will the previous design be resumed.
For empires never forget their national past, even and perhaps especially when they break with it. Athens, having become an empire, continued to talk about democracy and equality. This is evidenced by the speeches that Thucydides attributes to Pericles. The Roman Empire, the model for all empires to come, claimed descent from the Republic that had preceded it and that it had definitively overthrown. Napoleon, in his conquests, implemented the policy of the Constituent Assembly with regard to the Jews. Once Israel’s position and permanence in its region had been established, the empire would remember what drove the Biden administration and the progressive Jewish community. Revolution in the astronomical sense of the term, some would say, since we find ourselves back where we started.
Then the time will have come to examine, among the Israeli vassals, the part of the Orient that will have crept in among some of them, whether they are Sephardic or Ashkenazi. The contaminated will remain, weapon at the ready, tools in hand, on their Mediterranean march; the healthy subjects will find it in their interest to return, between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, to their true metropolis, ever whiter, ever more Protestant, ever more Anglo-Saxon.
No one can guarantee that, when faced with necessity, the American Jewish community will put up much of a fight. After all, hadn’t it drawn up, in more agreeable terms, a partially analogous program? As for continental Europe, its record, past, present and future, forbids and will forbid it from intervening in the matter. Will it, moreover, have managed to avoid its own enslavement?
