Long Live Israel
Many people have rushed to judge Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah, because of its record on dealing with the Palestinians, the border fence, and other perceived injustices. I’m here to suggest we keep our eye on the big picture: no matter what other issues are raised, Israel is a vital player in the current conflict. If they weren’t fighting Hezbollah, (and therefore Iran by proxy), the United States would have to be. Aside from defending the interests of its people, Israel also stands as a bastion of democratic and secular values in a region of the world that has little appreciation for the concept. Now I’m not defending all Israelis, and especially not the extremist settlers who feel like they have a God-given right to certain land. We’ve seen some bad behavior by Israelis in the past. But we have to understand that there is a clear moral distinction between the government of Israel, and the governments of other Arab nations in the region.
Israel is dealing with an enemy that has one stated goal: The establishment of a "world Islamic caliphate." Governments like Iran have been stepping up a steady drumbeat seeking to justify the utter destruction of Israel. There is one reason why these governments hate Israel so much: because it’s strong, successful, and an outpost of Western values, right in their own backyard. There’s a rule in diplomacy: if you want to sit at the table, you have to first recognize the other players. Iran and Syria do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. To those who encourage diplomacy, and seek an end to the fighting, I say, how can you ask Israel to negotiate with anyone who a priori denies their right to exist?
Let’s be clear: the "world Islamic caliphate" means a sharia-based Islamic government, where civil liberties would be a distant memory. Women’s rights would be nonexistent. Modern science, which poses one of the greatest challenges to fundamentalism, would certainly be curtailed. As I write this, US President George W. Bush is in the process of vetoing a bill for stem cell research, which passed both houses of the U.S. Congress. If the president of the United States, with its supposedly secular government, can do this, we can only imagine what the leader of a "worldwide Islamic caliphate" would do.
Western liberals must put aside their differences with the methods of Israel. We need Israel to prevail in this conflict. Arab Islamic fundamentalism must not be allowed to survive. I know there are plenty of people who would argue that Israel’s aggression drives moderate Arabs further into the extremist camp. I don’t buy that argument. Part of this western liberal perception is based on cultural relativism, that fails to distinguish between traditional (read backward) cultures, and modern ones. There is simply no way for modern civilization to make peace with religious extremism, or to make peace with religious involvement in any government anywhere in the world.
We should support Israel unconditionally at this point, we can sort out the details of their internal policies later. The appropriate time to discuss Israeli treatment of Palestinians is some point in the future when we can see the subsiding of the clear territorial threat they face.
Every nation, including the United States of America, displaced indigenous people when it was formed. We have to look beyond the concept that modern states live in occupied lands. The only valid question is, what did the nation do with the land? Israel has built a prosperous and sophisticated society, in a region populated with primitive and radical Islamic dictatorships. American liberals need to get a clue of what it might be like to live under such a state.
We are clearly in a "clash of civilizations." It is far beyond a "war on terror." As Newt Gingrich recently said, it should more accurately be called "World War III." Which side do we want to win this global conflict? Backward radicals, or modern secular democracies? Our only choice is, how long will we wait to take whatever decisive action is needed to settle this question forever? My short answer to this question is that we should strongly support Israel, whose cities and people are being attacked, and who has finally decided to draw their line in the sand.
Comments (19 comments)
Matt / July 19th, 2006, 11:47 am / #1
Sean,
While I see where you are coming from, and I can see your point about the fundamentalism of Islamic Caliphate-wannabes, I think you are falling too much into the trap of letting Israel off the hook.
As much as they may advance secular goals, and this is admirable, Israeli’s (and Jews) are completely incapable of seperating their religion from themselves. I would argue that in no other culture has it been so ingrained that their religion is their identity. They are one in the same. Sure, on an individual basis, you will have Jews that will reject their faith… but even then, not entirely, because their history as a people and as a culture is wrapped up with their faith completely.
Personally, I think that the U.S. needs to stop fundamentalism, this I agree with you on. However, I also think that the U.S. needs to take a serious look at Israeli fundamentalism… which is in some ways even more dangerous, because it’s a cultural fundamentalism that even those who don’t practice the religion tend to subscribe to.
-olly
BlackSun / July 19th, 2006, 12:59 pm / #2
Matt, I’d use the example of the American movement toward theocracy. No matter how bad the fundies in this country get, they can’t breach the legal separation of church and state. I’m not familiar with Israeli constitutional law, but I would think they have similar protections.
I would argue that as long as a firm legal line is drawn, the theological preferences of the people are not as important. Israel and America are nations with strong religious preference. But they are still very much modern democracies. That’s the essential difference. And that’s what I think is worth supporting, no matter how much I may disagree with the various religions.
When we establish secular governments worldwide, then we can worry about the much longer-term task of getting faith out of people’s brains. (Though I do think Judaism is more benign than some other faiths I can think of.)
That’s my point with Israel. I don’t want to give them a carte blanche–just encouragement to keep up the fight. The rest can be settled diplomatically and culturally later.
Matt / July 19th, 2006, 2:17 pm / #3
Sean,
You are correct in terms of the seperation of church and state in Israel, and I see your point. My point was simply that whether the secularism was there in name or not, is it truly practiced?
We have a seperation of church and state in the U.S. too, yet we allow for a salute to God to be performed in schools every morning (pledge of allegiance), we allow for church groups to use school property for worship sessions (after school, sure, but I still paid for that property), etc etc.
Seperation in name and seperation in practice are two very different things. When it comes to Muslim fundamentalism, seperation disappears. Read commentary from Israeli Generals, they are convinced they are doing God’s work.
Just something to think about!
-olly
Ilene / July 19th, 2006, 4:22 pm / #4
Clearly the orthodox and ultra orthodox elements of Judaism have a large influence in Israeli politics,(within high eschalons of military as well), and that is undeniably a big problem, just as the religious right is a huge problem in the U.S. and U.S. government. But unlike Americans where 55 % believe in god, a large chunk (I’ll research the exact stats) of Jewish Israeli’s (as well as significant percentage of American Jews) are secular. I have never heard of a Christian, Hindu,or Islamic Atheist, but certainly I have known many many Atheistic Jews….(that self describe as Jewish as a matter of cultural heritage only) …This is a phenomenon unique to Judaism; a fact which seperates it from all other religious belief systems …Yes there is commraderie born of carrying the labels that come with the Jewish streotypes, and from being surrounded with hostility in the region, (and elsewhere) historically. But this is nothing like the fundamentalism of Islam. Even for many within the ranks of religious Jewish sectors,(and absolutely for the secular Jews of which a significant portion of the country consists),there is an implicit and deep embracing of modernity; scientific method/empiricism, progressive thought, and commitment to democratic values run deep within the society. That makes Judaism, particularly the phenomenon of secular Judaism,a different egg ,so to speak, from other religions in a profound way.
***(with the exception perhaps of Tibetan Buddhism , which .. as evidenced by the Dalai Lama, when asked; ” What if neuoscience comes up with information that directly contradicts Buddhist philosphy?” his reply was “then we would have to change the philosophy to match the science.” but thats another subject.
Ilene / July 19th, 2006, 4:28 pm / #5
A quick google search found this;”In a Central Bureau of Statistics social survey covering 2002-2004, 44 percent of Israeli Jews aged 20 and over defined themselves as secular; 27 percent defined themselves as traditional; 12 percent as traditionally observant; 9 percent as Orthodox; and 8 percent as ultra-Orthodox.”
Jill / July 19th, 2006, 6:31 pm / #6
Hi. My name is Jill, I live outside Cleveland, I blog about a lot of different things, and I’m an American. I was raised in the Reform movement of Judaism, went to a Jesuit college, lived in Israel for a year, married a Jewish man after having never dated a Jew and am now raising my kids in the conservative movement.
I’m curious to know how many Jews “Olly”/Matt (sorry I’m not sure of the name) has met in his lifetime. The statements you make don’t reflect my experience, but I will concede that they might reflect yours. However, I don’t think the generalization holds. Why would I say this? Because if there is in fact one thing that is quite common among American Jews, it is that we are VERY able, almost too able, to separate our religion from our cultural identity. To wit, people still consider themselves good Jews even if they only go to shul on the high holy days and spend the rest of the minor holidays enjoying family. They enjoy the culture - the traditions. But of course nearly all Jews, secular and religious, know from whence those traditions came. So perhaps that’s why you think the culture and the religion are inseparable.
However, are you aware that the Jews of Iraq, Iran, Morocco and Spain have completely different cultures from the Jews of Eastern Europe, or the Jews of South America? I would compare it to the ways in which Irish Catholics differ from Roman Catholics or Byzantine Catholics or Polish Catholics. Would you say that those Catholics religion and culture are inextricably intertwined any more or less?
Ilene, I have to disagree with what you say about the influence of the Orthodox and Ultra-orthodox on the government of Israel. First of all, their numbers are still small when it comes to the government. Second, although I’ve read that they are serving more frequently in the military, typically, they don’t. Third, the ultra-orthodox sects tend to not even recognize Israel - I don’t know if you knew that. They don’t recognize Israel because they want the Messiah to come and they say that it is not time yet for the state of Israel to exist (or something along those lines).
I’ve never heard of an Atheistic Jew - that’s something new to me. Are you saying that there are people who call themselves atheists who still celebrate Chanuka and Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur but dont’ believe in God? And in the same way there are Catholics who celebrate Lent and Easter but don’t believe in Jesus or God? I’ve just never heard the phrase Atheistic Jew. First for everything. Especially in the blogosphere.
Finally, I think Sean has posted a very brave entry. I don’t know if you read some stuff that was attributed to US Congressional candidate Bob Shamansky on the Buckeye State Blog within the last couple of days, but he basically said the same thing, Sean.
Thanks for the post, thanks for the space, thanks for reading.
I got to your blog, btw, via Lefty Blogs’ aggregate of Ohio blog posts, which had a piece from the Cincy Beacon listed - I went and read it and then clicked on your name.
Mark / July 19th, 2006, 8:55 pm / #7
“If the president of the United States, with its supposedly secular government, can do this, we can only imagine what the leader of a “worldwide Islamic caliphate” would do.”
Oh please. The President vetoed a bill that prevented government money being spent on a certain type of medical research. Private stem cell research is still totally legal.
And Sean, you know this fear of a “worldwide Islamic caliphate” is about as realistic as your idea that we can get rid of religion altogether. In other words, way over the edge of absurd.
Many Islamicists hate each other as much as they hate Jews or Western secularism. Look at what’s happening in Iraq. The idea that there is a ~chance~ of them banding together to defeat the infidels is pure fantasy. And even if they did somehow form some alliance, how would they manage to take over the world? With what? Islamic countries only spend a small amount on their militaries compared to the West. No Islamic country or alliance could pull off an invasion of Israel, let alone the entire earth.
Israel is not currently faced with an existential threat, although having missiles lobbed into your country is no picnic. Legitimate self-defense is fine, but there is certainly a point where a war can be considered unjust. Dozens of Lebanese civilians have died already.
And no way, no how should the United States get involved in this, except maybe as a mediator. The Israelis can handle this themselves. Getting involved in other people’s wars is dangerous.
The Christian crazies dream of a final Apocalypse and here you are dreaming of some sort of “final solution” to the problem of religion. I find this disturbing.
The United States needs to stop interfering in the affairs of the entire earth and maintain a reasonable national defense. That’s the best way to insure our freedom and security. There is no need to worry much about unlikely end of the world scenarios where al Queda takes over Washington, D.C.
Matt Crandall / July 19th, 2006, 9:40 pm / #8
“I’m curious to know how many Jews “Olly”/Matt (sorry I’m not sure of the name) has met in his lifetime. The statements you make don’t reflect my experience, but I will concede that they might reflect yours.”
Jill,
Indeed, my statements do reflect my experience with my friends whom are Jewish, both orthodox and otherwise. If you ask someone about their ‘Jewishness’ if I can use that term and not offend, how can you possibly talk about the cultural history of Judaism without the religious aspect of Judaism? Judaism is one of the world’s few true historical relgions. What I mean is that there are different ‘classes’ of religion: Naturalistic, Mystic, etc… where there is a defining theme to the religion. Judaism as a religion, and I would argue as a culture, is defined by it’s history. So I have been told by many Jewish friends, and so I have heard Rabbis say as well (granted, I’m ‘arguing from experience’ here, with all of the problems associated with that).
You yourself say that you have limited to no experience with ‘atheistic jews’. Granted, the statistics above talk about 44% being secular, but push come to shove, they still will self-identify as Jews I’m sure.
The point of my comments was that fundamentalism is not a phenomena unique to religion. While Islamic fundamentalism is certainly religiously based, Jewish fundamentalism can be both religious and culturally based. My only real point was that fundamentalism itself is a problem, whether political or religous, so we in the U.S. need to be careful about backing ANY fundamentalist movement, including ‘radical zionism’, to use a term bandied about in the media recently.
-olly
Get Real / July 19th, 2006, 11:53 pm / #9
“There is one reason why these governments,[read indigenous populations] hate Israel so much:”
…because it is an alien presence in the region, the result of European colonialism, because it ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestineans from its territory, because it is an apartheid state for Jews only (the right of return will not be honored if this means democratically altering the exclusive Jewishness of the state), because its human rights record is atrocious, it targets civilians and avowedly uses collective punishment to deter resistance, because it is aggressively seeking to expand by settling and annexing occupied territory, because it respects neither UN mandates nor the Geneva Convention, because it posesses weapons of mass distruction… sorry, that’s more than one reason after all, and I’m just getting started.
Ilene / July 20th, 2006, 1:16 am / #10
Jill YES I am saying that I have known and know today many Jews who connect to their culture but not to the belief in God. Many self refer as Secular Humanistic Jews..(which are non theists… or atheist)
Of ’secular Jews’, 34% do not believe in God
see;
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week609/feature.html
BTW I grew up in the reform movement, and have been surrounded with Jewish culture my entire life.
for a thorough explanation see the following link: http://www.humanistrites.com/FAQHumanisticJudaism.html -
but here is a bit from it. Question #2 addresses the issue of belief.
“What is Secular Humanistic Judaism?
How can you make up a new kind of Judaism? Secularism and Humanism are both very old philosophies. Each has a long association with Judaism. Humanistic Judaism got its formal start when Rabbi Sherwin Wine recognized how Secularism and Humanism provided modern Jews with a way to retain their Jewish heritage. He articulated these concepts and brought them together into a viable movement called the Society for Humanistic Judaism. However other rabbis had worked along the same lines; many continue to contribute to Humanistic Judaism, and some teach similar ideas in unaffiliated synagogues.
Do you or do you not believe in God?
We focus on the capabilities and responsibilities of human beings to help each other and to make the world a better place. Belief or disbelief in a god is not part of our philosophy, because we have no reason to believe that supernatural influences affect our daily lives or direct history. If there were a deity, many of us believe, events such as the Holocaust would teach us that we have no guides to understand or affect what such a deity might want from us. So, even if there were a deity, we think our best strategy would be to determine what behaviors make for a better world and act accordingly.
What role does faith play in your system?
Faith in the sense of “trust,” is something we experience every day. We have a strong faith in human power, reason, and dignity. We trust human beings to improve our world, because experience has shown us that such trust is often merited. This is “rational faith.” Faith in the sense of believing something for which there is no evidence is called, even by its adherents, “irrational faith.” Most of us have not found this kind of “faith” to be meaningful, and it is not a part of Secular Humanistic Judaism.
Is Secular Humanistic Judaism a religion?
Most people think of religion as involving a god, and in that sense the answer would be no. However, many other people think of a religion as a community-based system in which people share beliefs and traditions, and join together for ceremonial observances of the events of their lives. Some of us, who grew up in other branches of Judaism, or in other religions, feel that Secular Humanistic Judaism serves similar needs, and like to think of it as a religion. Others, whose roots and traditions were secular, don’t find the notion of a religion as particularly helpful. What we do depends on our beliefs and traditions, and not on any labels we might use.
Why do people call you non
-believers? People who have not taken the time to study our philosophy come to conclusions based only on narrow meanings words like “belief” and “faith.” These words do have great meanings for us. We are, in fact powerful believers, but our belief is in the ability and moral responsibility of human beings to decide what is necessary to make a better society and to act based on those decisions.
Can life have profound meaning without God?
Our understanding of the meaning of life is based on philosophies that have, over the ages, bettered individual lives and the state of the world. Rabbi Hillel said “If l am not for myself, who will be? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” We find similar messages throughout Jewish history (and in other traditions as well). More recently, Rabbi Sherwin Wine addressed the meaning of life this way: 1) You pursue your personal happiness; whether or not you achieve it, you go after it. 2) You must do good for your community, nation or humanity as a whole. 3) You must give back. The life experiences of the Jewish people, and their writings — from Torah through Phillip Roth — all contain teachings about the meaning of life.
Do you believe that there is life after death? Humanistic Judaism focuses on life before death, as do most of the other denominations of Judaism. Historically, notions of life after death are late additions to Judaism, and have always been secondary aspects. We understand the comments of many great Jewish thinkers, like those of the Rabbis we mentioned above, to mean that we should live “here and now” on this earth and in our own time, making our best efforts to leave a better world to those who follow us. ”
For those interested the article is much more extensive and very informative.
Jill / July 20th, 2006, 6:55 am / #11
This is what’s wonderful about blogs - being able to see the information upon which people base their notions.
I’ve never heard of Atheistic Jews nor have I heard of Secular Humanistic Judaism. Naturally my not having heard of those phrases doesn’t mean they don’t exist - I’m not arguing that. I’ve just never met anyone who professes to be in those categories or calls themselves that.
I’ve never known whether I believe in God or not, but I know I’m Jewish and I like being Jewish. I would, however, never call myself an Atheist. I’m secular for sure. But I wouldn’t call myself a Secular Humanistic Jew. I guess I’m not sure what help these labels are, but, since I was a double major with sociology many years ago, I’ve never liked labels.
Which brings me to this - why is it important to separate everyone out this way? I’m asking because I’d like to know - does it help you figure things out somehow? What do you think is the value in the labels? If any.
Thanks for the responses.
Matt / July 20th, 2006, 8:17 am / #12
Jill –
Labels that we apply to others, generally, have less meaning then those with which people self-identify. Whether someone is TRULY a communist or not, if they call themselves that, you can at least infer a.)they are opposed to capitalism, and b.) they are opposed to tradtional democracy.
We HAVE to label if we are to understand the world around us. Which is more clear: a certain flower that is commonly red, though it can come in other flowers, and smells really good; or a Rose.
Rigidity in labels is the problem, not labels themselves.
-olly
Jill / July 20th, 2006, 10:29 am / #13
As an inquisitive person, I prefer multiple sources for assisting me in understanding anything so description is what I rely on. It would mean for someone to tell me that they don’t like economic systems that rely on the accumulation of wealth as a motivating factor than tell me that they hate capitalism. Labels just don’t do it for me on pretty much any level, I guess. Not to say I don’t live in and of this world that uses them and use them myself - I’d be hypocrite to say that I don’t. But in figuring out, understanding things? I much prefer description than a label - I don’t find a label very descriptive, though I agree it would say more about the person using it than the thing being described.
BlackSun / July 20th, 2006, 3:19 pm / #14
Jill, thanks for the comments. I think there are secular Jews–even “reformed Jews” are not considered official Jews by some other more conservative sects. I’m not sure where you fall on the spectrum. My sister converted to Judaism recently, and so I’ve learned to appreciate the value they place on their traditions–though I’m not a believer in god, obviously.
My support for Israel comes from looking at the alternatives.
Matt, I agree with you about the label thing. It’s just shorthand. When it crosses into stereotyping, it can be a problem. But stereotyping is also how we deal with an overabundance of information. As long as we don’t confuse stereotyping with analysis, we’re OK.
Mark, I’m not looking for a “final solution.” We have a choice, we can support secular democratic values, or we can knuckle under to religious-based militancies worldwide. Your point is taken about the slim chance of an Islamic “caliphate” actually happening. But lots of people will die trying to make it happen. I don’t think we should be complacent about the kind of damage Islamic extremism can cause.
I don’t think the world can move forward as long as it allows theocracies and dictatorships to exist.
One of the key factors behind the Middle East problem has been U.S. support for despotic regimes as a way of keeping the oil flowing. But withdrawing that support would ultimately allow an even wider resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism–as we’ve seen in Iran.
It’s a no-win situation–unless we want to stop buying oil. But that’s the subject of another post.
Simon / July 21st, 2006, 12:57 am / #15
Why are you, Blacksun, quoting Newt Gingrich? He would back away from you like you had leprosy. I don’t get it. What is that all about? Everything on this website defames and insults everything Newt Gingrich stands for. Yet you quote him to support your argument. I don’t get it. What is that, sort of a tongue and cheek joke?
BlackSun / July 21st, 2006, 1:27 am / #16
Simon, what’s with the guilt-by-association? I’d avoid Newt Gingrich on most issues also. But he said something I agree with on this occasion: I think the battle between modern secular values and radical fundamentalism is World War III. I posted on this years ago:
http://blacksunjournal.typepad.com/bsj/2004/04/welcome_to_worl.html#more
I don’t get your problem with quoting people. Do we all have to take sides or think in lockstep? Are certain people so bad they are unquotable? If I quote Marx, does that make me a Marxist?
Abogada de la diabla / July 24th, 2006, 1:22 pm / #17
“Israel has built a prosperous and sophisticated society, in a region populated with primitive and radical Islamic dictatorships.”
Neither side has the moral high ground in this struggle. Israel has prospered on a very imperfect formula that involved displacing Palestinians and then, when they were weakened, building their “superior” infrastructure on top of Palestinian labor — keeping the subdued population in an inferior state through racial profiling and ghettoizing Gaza and the West Bank. Hezbollah is a Shia struggle that at one time was not married to the Palestinian cause. Because refugees poured into Southern Lebanon, the two causes have become one. The problem with your essay, Sean, is you are trying to see this conflict within a Western paradigm, and frankly, you are distilling it down to a black-and-white struggle between “religious, backward” cultures and “secular, progressive” cultures. We will make ourselves dizzy trying to quantify which culture is less religious. The Jewish state is supremely religious. Any separation is de jure; the de facto situation is that religion has played a part in Israel’s actions since before the site was chosen for the new state.
I generally agree with you on many of your stands (especially energy)… but in this case, I do not. Until you put yourself in the shoes of three generations, now, of Muslims, you do not understand this conflict.
It does appear right now that Arab blood is much cheaper than Israeli — in the eyes of the West — and this is a very powerful message.
People are moved to radical action when they have nothing to lose. Religion merely serves to fuel the fires of injustice. If the empiricists in the Arab world, beginning in the 1940s and ’50s, continuing through the ’80s to now, felt they were being treated fairly in their contacts with the West, there would be very few recruits for jihad. That is the bottom line.
Respectfully,
Your sister
BlackSun / July 24th, 2006, 2:58 pm / #18
Thanks Abogada for your comment. I should know better than to invite comments from a professional journalist, who’s a better writer than I’ll ever hope to be
Sitll, I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t see the struggle of radical Islamist Jihad as some sort of struggle of the oppressed. Don’t be fooled. That very perception in the West has been cultivated carefully as part of a Machiavellian strategy that’s every bit as potent as that put forth by the neo-cons. Jihadists know they can’t win on the battlefield. The only weapon they have (other than terror) is ideology, and they have honed it to a high level. If they can gain sympathy from western hearts and minds while at the same time continuing their low-level intimidation game on the ground, it makes their job a whole lot easier.
Jihadists have to make do without diplomacy, since they have no formal contacts. So they take their message directly to the internet, and Jihadist friendly satellite media.
But all the while, Hezbollah has been amassing a cache of weapons on Israel’s northern border that is the largest non-governmental buildup in history. Where was the protest of the Lebanese when these weapons were being installed in civilian neighborhoods? Didn’t the Lebanese put two-and-two together and realize that the weapons made their neighborhoods a target? Or did they simply believe the Jihadist propaganda, and think their god would protect them?
When Hezbollah started lobbing (ball-bearing filled) rockets at Israel’s residential neighborhoods, it signed its citizens own death warrant. There isn’t a country in the world that wouldn’t strike back if a well-armed enemy started launching rockets across its border.
I’ll be writing a future post on the subject. Hezbollah has more in common with the larger of the U.S. street gangs than with any supposedly oppressed Arab peoples. The whole Jihadi umbrella is simply a tool for gaining eager recruits. But really, it’s more like a business/political/organized crime syndicate that’s wormed its way inside Lebanese society the way the American mob did in its heyday. Being financed and armed by Iran, frothing with Jihadist sentiment, this organization is public enemy number one of any peace in the Middle East. It simply has to go. This is why a cease-fire can’t happen until Hezbollah is out of business.
Respectfully, I assert that Israel does have the moral high ground in this situation. There can be no peace in the region as long as Jihad continues unchecked.
Abogada de la diabla / July 25th, 2006, 12:06 pm / #19
Thanks, Sean. Well, since most in my profession don’t really put a premium on good writing, just tenacity, it remains to be seen whether my writing is actually good - and the various verdicts will ultimately be subjective anyway. I have always thought you were an excellent writer.
In response, I must say that I don’t believe a false culture of the oppressed has been cultivated by all Shia, let alone a majority of Muslims. While I think the way the Shiite mentality developed is unfortunate (clinging to Mohammed’s blood line and ritualizing the martyrdom of his descendants at the hands of wealthier Muslims who became known as Sunnis), I believe the Islamic world has a case for a global double standard against it. I don’t have mountains of evidence at my fingertips, but I think this double standard began with the Crusades and that racism and xenophobia are at its heart.
Judging all of Islam based on things like the burning of the Danish embassies last summer is like judging the West based on the bombings of abortion clinics in the States.
The conflict in Lebanon right now is a bad case of deja vu. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because of skirmishes in its northern villages. Yet they withdrew three years later after more than 600 soldiers died, an amount proportionally greater than our death toll from Vietnam. This is all according to Robin Wright, L.A. Times correspondent in the Middle East, in her book “Sacred Rage.”
Israel’s withdrawal came after the multinational force composed of the U.S. and France had already fled. The Marine barracks were bombed in October 1983 and about 300 (I think) Marines were killed. The French embassy was also bombed. The reason the U.S. was targeted in the first place was that the Defense Department made a huge blunder in backing the Lebanese army, seen as mostly Christian, against the Druze militia at the resort of Soukh-el-Garb. Before that time, the U.S. was seen as neutral and the Marines were respected by many Lebanese — including Nabih Berri, current leader of Parliament. After Soukh-el-Garb, Muslims and Druze alike saw the U.S. as no longer neutral. A few weeks later, the barracks were bombed.
What we have to understand is that Lebanon is a multi-ethnic country with complicated tensions and loyalties. Iran and Syria have backed Hezbollah for a while, but wouldn’t you do the same if a similar situation happened in your backyard? It’s not unlike our intervention in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the early ’80s. Did you know that Syria is entirely secular (only one mention of God in the constitution, and that was reluctantly, after Assad was pressured). Assad is an Orientalist who wants to see the Arab world independent and flourishing.
I can see that a giant weapons cache would be alarming, but my argument goes back to a basic belief that most people are motivated by self-preservation, not domination. It’s like the Soviet Union: they would never have launched a first strike because they wanted to survive, too.
Even if we hadn’t incinerated them in retaliation, they wanted the world economy to survive. There may be some in the Arab world who want a worldwide caliphate, but most just want to be left alone to prosper. I think Hezbollah would probably not worry about Israel so much if Israel’s policies toward Palestinians had not been so racist from the beginning. Israel’s racist policies DO matter; they don’t exist in a vacuum. Many of the medical students and teachers who have joined the jihad have done so out of a sense that they must fight the evil beast that we have become in their eyes — as supporters of Israel’s racist policies.
I know I sound extreme, and maybe I am, but I must say that doing the exact same thing in Lebanon that we did in the early ’80s is probably not going to end well. We should try something else.
Post a comment