Ian Buruma
Says More…
This week in Say More, PS talks with Ian Buruma, the author of numerous books, including Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance, Year Zero: A History of 1945, A Tokyo Romance: A Memoir, The Churchill Complex: The Curse of Being Special, From Winston and FDR to Trump and Brexit, The Collaborators: Three Stories of Deception and Survival in World War II, and, most recently, Spinoza: Freedom’s Messiah (Yale University Press, 2024).
Project Syndicate: Last October, you highlighted the role of shame – specifically, the desire to “overcome the humiliation of centuries of persecution” – in guiding Israeli foreign policy, before warning that the resulting humiliation of the Palestinians will only perpetuate violence. How should this perspective inform how other countries – including Arab powers like Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States – approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Ian Buruma: One way not to approach the conflict is to deport the entire Palestinian population of Gaza, as US President Donald Trump has suggested. Such a move would not only be illegal and inhumane; it would compound the humiliation of a long-humiliated people, thereby making conditions in the Middle East very much worse.
The only proper solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the only one that would not perpetuate instability and violence through relentless humiliation – would still be the two-state solution. This means that efforts by Palestinians to rule themselves in Gaza and the West Bank should be supported and encouraged. Unfortunately, Israel, with US backing, is doing precisely the opposite, and the prospect of a two-state solution is growing dimmer by the day.
PS: In December, you advised American liberals in the media and higher education to respond to Donald Trump’s “authoritarian ambitions” by “recommitting to the pursuit of truth.” Since his inauguration, Trump has vindicated his opponents’ worst fears, mounting an all-out assault on US institutions. If they are right that Trump’s administration will flout court orders restricting his actions, how can he be prevented from “breaking US democracy beyond repair”?
IB: He cannot. If Trump decides to ignore Supreme Court decisions, the US will be plunged into a constitutional crisis, and the Republicans, who currently hold a majority in Congress, have shown no indication that they have the will to force him into compliance. The only hope is that the Democrats gain a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms – assuming those elections are free and fair – and brake his autocratic ambitions.
But even if that happens, huge damage to US democracy has already been done. Trump has not only wrecked the norms of good governance by using his political office to serve the financial interests of his own family and friends. By attempting to freeze payments already approved by Congress, demanding personal fealty from independent agencies (as an absolute monarch would), and openly supporting foreign autocrats over democratic allies, he has also shown his contempt for democracy and the rule of law.
PS: From “messianic politics” in India and the US to Russian “political martyrs” and America’s “civic religion,” you have often sought to shed light on the role of faith in shaping politics. To what extent are such dynamics reflected in growing support for authoritarian parties, including in Europe’s more secular societies, and how might they inform democratic resistance?
IB: Evangelical Christians and reactionary Catholics form a powerful segment of the right-wing-populist movement in the US. Many religious people seem to believe that Trump will make America “great again” by stopping the rot in a secular state that they view as decadent and immoral. In Europe, there is less evidence of religious zealotry, but something similar may be at work. The collapse of organized religion in many European countries has contributed to the rise of populism.
The rage against educated urban elites is fed by the sense of having been cast adrift, of lacking any authority to follow, count on, and revere. This had led to a desire for strong authoritarian figures who can “save our country” or even “our Judeo-Christian civilization.” Liberal and centrist parties are losing this culture war by being too technocratic, overly focused on procedures. If they are to turn the tide against authoritarianism, they must start appealing to ideals around which people can rally. The “rules-based international order” is essential, but it does not excite people. Perhaps it is time to revive ideals like freedom, equality, and brotherhood (liberté, égalité, fraternité).
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
BY THE WAY . . .
PS: How should prevailing Western models of education, particularly higher education, be reformed to improve the conditions for the “reason and freedom of thought” that the seventeenth-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza – the subject of your latest book, Spinoza: Freedom’s Messiah – embodied and advocated?
IB: One priority should be to fight for the humanities.
When he was president of Harvard, Larry Summers once remarked that learning foreign languages was no longer so worthwhile, because every important text can be translated into English. But while this may suffice for the training of economists and investment bankers, higher education is not merely training for lucrative jobs. Knowledge is a good in itself. We must educate people to think from many different perspectives, with a strong sense of history, and a familiarity with different cultures. Without those qualities, culture and politics will suffer.
PS: Spinoza’s ideas have been interpreted in radically different ways, both during his life and since his death. What do you regard as the most important misunderstandings about him?
IB: Like any thinker who believes in reason as a critical mechanism for expanding our knowledge, Spinoza is sometimes wrongly portrayed as a rationalist, who leaves no room for intuition or emotion. In fact, Spinoza recognized that feelings are important, even vital, for our existence. What he discouraged was letting our emotions control us, This can effectively enslave us and stand in the way of truth, without which we cannot live freely and well.
Spinoza has also been both excoriated and celebrated as an atheist, but he refuted that label. He did believe in God. But Spinoza’s God was not the “Creator” of nature; He was nature.
PS: You’ve written on a wide range of topics, from the “Churchill complex” to World War II collaborators. What will your next book be about?
IB: My next book – which I just finished writing – focuses on life in Berlin during World War II. Among the themes I explore is one that has long fascinated me: How can decent people remain decent in an indecent society? The question could not be more pertinent.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
