Some obvious points one should remember before building an opinion
- Others are just like me; I am an Other for other people.
- What I see as right others see as wrong and vice-versa – this does not mean either of us is right.
- Even Muslims can think
- Islam is not a synonym to brain washing – it is a religion like any other
- Killing ‘infidels’ is not an Islamic ritual, in fact it is not even permitted in Islam.
- If one has a beard it does not mean he is evil/hits his wife and kids/ has a Kalashnikov/oppresses his family/will explode soon.
- Allahu Akbar has nothing to do with detonating a bomb.
- Killing the ‘Indians’ (we call the original population of America Indians just because at a certain moment
- The IRA are also called terrorists but they are not Muslims.
-
- Yes some women really like being veiled
- Muslim is not a synonym for Arab
- If Bush says so it doesn’t mean it is necessarily true, in fact most of the times it means the exact opposite.
- The Media are not a reference
- Journalism and Fiction use the same language
-
- Justice is not a term invented by the UN, and the UN does not have copyright for it.
- You cannot make peace without war – if there was no war you don’t even need to make peace
- The Arabs are Semites too, so they can’t be anti-Semitic because it would be suicidal.
- Fascism is a European invention, and Hitler did not speak Arabic nor Persian
- Arabs and Muslims don’t feel guilt for the Holocaust simply because they had nothing to do with it.
- If many Arabs are dying that doesn’t mean their life is worth less than any other human on this planet or that they don’t really mind.
- Self defense is reciprocal
posted by walid @ 4:34 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Take what the Europeans and Americans did to humanity from the old times till now and compare it with the record of the arabs and muslims... take the crusades, the colonialism, hitler, the creation of the zionist state (hopefully to be destroyed soon), ... man, their record is so HUGE, especially in modern times that talking about "civilized" world or human rights is no more a joke, it is now an insult to those who suffer like us... may they suffer MORE from what they call "terrorism" although they invented it, they trained and financed radical muslims such as Al Qaeda and the brotherhoods in Algeria and Egypt...
WE DON'T NEED TO DEFEND ISLAM AND FIGHT THEIR IGNORANCE, IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE IGNORANT, LET THEM BE!
May God bring us revenge in warm blood, May God bring us their blood...
As i can understand your anger i must also say that i would very much appreciate if the comments do not become a tribune of sentiments and a way to express hate, especially when the title of the blog is Dialogus. I agree to the fact that we do not need to defend islam, and whoever chooses to live in ignorance is free to do so, and keep living in prejudice. However, i do not agree on the tone of the last sentence and i prefer not to make it a war of civilization because it is not so. If you generalize like you did you are not being better than those you are accusing - no i do not want anyone's blood, and i do not want revenge in such a way. It was not western civilization who killed 57 (until now) civilians today, it was politics, power and the Israeli army and if one seeks revenge in 'their' (European and American) one is as criminal as those who killed the 57 civilians today.
As for the crime record of each people i think it is a matter of wider debate, however, at least in modern times western nations have indeed had a very rich record of criminal activity. This however does not make arabs or muslims a people with no crimes.
Walid's points are all not "obvious" and calling them obvious is already a dangerous path that can lead to totalitarian thinking. Not to speak of "Ayman", whose poisonous hatred is very sad indeed. The reality of the crimes of colonialism do not excuse the crimes of extremist Islamists. Besides, the main obvious thing Wallid misses in his list is that all organized religions are EVIL at their root. Having an institutionalization of beliefs, having a set of people who impose what should be believed to others, is what brings into mass crimes. By 'religion' I mean as much Communism and capitalism as the 3 monotheisms and the earlier polytheisms. There are few exceptions like Anarchist Christians or like muslim Sufis, wonderfully loving systems of thought. But for most of religious zealots, what they describe as God, Yeovah or Allah is expressing more evil, hatred and violence than goodness, tolerance and love... and Ayman's bloodthirst only illustrates a general trend across many (as well in Texas as in Tehran).
Another point Wallid should be careful about: the Shoah was an unprecedented event, not comparable to other forms of genocide. It was the first industrial-scale, State-organized, mass-efficiency, totalitarian genocide ever. It is true that since then, it inspired others, especially the Serbs. it is true that other, cruder "techniques" reached also terrible scales as in Rwanda. But the Shoah, the 'Holocaust' was an innovation in abomination.
Another problem is that some of these so-called "obvious points" do express an unjustifiable anti-Jewish racism. It is legitimate to call Israel a criminal State because of its crimes against Palestinians especially since 1967. It is legitimate, yes, to claim your anger at that State and its wrong doing. But it is unacceptable to call implicitely for the end of the nation of Israel, to refuse to live next to these people. And it is a very poor play on words to say that because one is "semitic", one cannot be anti-semitic. Call it anti-jewish if you like, it doesn't change a thing in the real issue! Lebanon has long been a multi-faith, multicultural model of dialogue indeed (I have a friend from a Christian-Muslim mixed family in Beyrouth and she is a living example of that wonderful model of tolerance). Unfortunately, your list of "obvious points" does not completely live up to the high standards of this old Lebanese model.
The last point: Yes colonialism was evil and Europeans have to remember that some of their wealth comes from crimes of their ancestors. But so must Arabs remember that some of their ancesters were slave-traders who had no more respect for Africans than Europeans did. And so must they be self-critical, as many Arabic intellectuals indeed are, of the despotic nature of some of their regimes and of the fascist nature of some extremist forms of Islam like Wahabism. Yes Bush is one of the most terrible things that happened to the world in recent years... but so are the Bin Ladens and the corrupt Saudi regime and the Saudi Wahabits (and so is this 'Ayman' who spreads his violent words on the above comment)...
Religious faith should always remain a private or semi-private affair. As soon as someone imposes the Chariah in the public Space, as soon as the Jewish orthodox terrorize homosexuals, as soon as the Opus Dei murders surgeons who do abortions on women, religious organizations indeed become the number one ennemy of justice and sustainability.
May this horrid war end as soon as possible and Lebanon find peace and tranquility at last! Courage to all of you who are trapped in Beyrouth!
What are the crimes that have been committed in the name of the Arabs and Islam?... 9-11? doesn't count, you know how muslims condemn these things... Look into history and find me one example, did we go and invade and colonize and steal resources and impose a culture and enslave the people? ... have we ever felt superior to another people or race as much as you can witness in Europe? .. No one is perfect at the end of the day, but come one! why should we be on the defence here?
Revenge by killing them the same way they kill us is a coward's action... revenge is like when Saladin liberated Jerusalem, he didn't attack any minority or any religion, but instead thrived in keeping them safe and flurishing... we never hated another people, and we are not going to start now... our hate is directed against those who tell us "we told the civilians to flee, but they failed, so it's their fault.." .. these people do not read your Dialogus, they laugh at your pacifism and mine, those feel superior to you and don't want to listen. Your friends are not like that or else they will not be your friends.... with those people history taught us that there are no other way by to honorably hold the sword and fight them. Those whom we killed in Bint Jbeil and the occupied land. those are the foci of my anger ya ahbal..
CALMLY: Anger and frustration can only be a result of oppression... why should we feel such anger and hate if we are not the victims of what is happening?
For Walid, sorry for my reaction if it's inapropriate, but since when it was? go to your living room and here the comments there, don't take mine.
Mr visitor, Walid's points are more than obvious, they are as well very well written and truthful, maybe you should ask him questions instead of being a bit judgemental... The solution is not religion, everything can be missused including freedom and democracy (US for example???)..
Ayman's bloodthirst has never reached this stage, and the ones who know him can tell you what is the driving force behind this, it's not religion because i am not a believer, but Injustice... I am sure that you know nothing how this affected my life and how much people and properties and memories I lost, but i refrain from discussing them in respect to those who lost much more... Don't be such a stranger with no obvious interests to the reasons behind things, finding an explanation that looks convincing to you does not elevate the discussion to the norms that Walid may want and neither does my anger, but the difference is that you didn't receive the news I received this morning..
So I have a question for you... Where exactly is the unjustifiable anti-Jewish racism that you see in our talks? because to tell you the truth, I can't find it...
Hi Walid,
I would like to suggest some amendments of your obvious points:
1. People are not equal in all respects. Some are male, some are female; some are small or tall, have various colours of hair, eyes, skin, have various, sometimes unique abilities, skills or faculties. But, as I believe, they are a priori equal in their (human) rights and dignity.
Even in some cases people do not have equal value (e.g. their life is of different value). To support this bold statement here is an example: Imagine a situation where a doctor can operate only one patient, but there instead two. One is more seriously injured and the probability that (s)he will not survive the operation is higher than the probability of the second patient who will die without an operation. It is the difference in their health status which will most likely cause that the less injured person will be operated. This can be interpreted as if the life of the operated person was under these circumstances more valuable.
Now I have got a bit far away from the topic of your blog, but I think this point might be interesting. I do not know yet how to apply it or whether it is applicable to this conflict.
2. Allahu Akbar...
well, unfortunately, in some cases that were the last words of suicide bombers
Religions are always interpreted by people (some of them perhaps more qualified, since they specialize into exegesis) and since the holy books (Bible, Koran, etc.) are finite in their extent and language has its limitations, faith can be easily abused as an excuse for almost anything. This does not mean that religion per se is something what should be only condemned.
3. Yes, there have been many genocides. One can go into almost any stage of human development - e.g. wars between tribes in Africa or Papua New Guinea, kingdoms in medieval Europe or America, countries (nations) in Asia etc - mass killing or genocide is omnipresent. But I fully agree with the 'visitor', that genocide led by Nazis was unprecedented in the way how it was performed.
4. women and veils (in all their varieties)
Surely, some women like veils, but the question should be whether all Muslim women like it. Is it obvious that a Muslim woman does not have to wear it if she does not like it and will not face any violent consequences?
5. Bush
I am not sure whether you refer to what you wrote in your previous 'obvious point' (Muslim is not a synonym of Arab). In case you do not, then I guess you got a too biased. I do not think that he is a permanent liar.
6. Fascism has its roots in Europe, that is an factual point. But how does it relate in your view to this conflict?
The same holds for Hitler...
7. reciprocity of self defense.
I do not understand this point. If self defense is reciprocal, does it mean that Israel's current attack in Lebanon is an act of self defense? The war of 1948 was an act of self defense of Egypt, Syria and other countries.
Andres
First I fail to see where I have defended religiosity. Second not in order to defend religions, in a way I agree with your condemnation of all religions, however don’t you find yourself doing the same when you condemn in a dogmatic manner as you did? Third about this Holocaust argument – I agree it was industrialized however this is something that takes its source from the fact that at that moment of history industrial revolution was still not quite finished which makes killing (a cultural expression like all others) highly influenced by industry however this does not make it more violent than other crimes of genocide. Let me remind you that the killing of Incas was also state sponsored (at the time there were no states, however there were institutions). I still fail to see why the killing of the Jews in WWII is a bigger crime – is it perhaps because you saw pictures of it? Think about it sometimes, some tens of millions of Incas were not as valuable as 6 million Jews?
As for Lebanon’s example in beautiful tolerance, let me remind you that there was no more than 10 years of peace at a time in this beautifully tolerant country, of course many examples of mixed environments arise (I am one myself) but this does not hold any argument to call Lebanon an example of tolerance (in fact I would not hesitate to call it the example of non-tolerance). I can go on forever about the political system, the social structure, the explicit and implicit racism, the civil wars, the ‘events’, the ‘individual incidents’, the imaginary borders, the mutual ignorance…
Another thing I do not know if it is in my ‘obvious points’ that you managed to see anti-Jewish or whatever you call it or if it is in my previous texts, however i kindly ask you not to judge me with such shallow judgments; I say it loud and clear I am against the State of Israel, I even condemn the fact that it exists, but I would never allow anyone to call me anti-Jewish, or even yet anti-Semitic, in fact I regard it as a personal insult. As for your perspective on living in peace with our beloved southern neighbor I wish it was so simple, however as you should very well know it is not. In fact the people we used to regard as our neighbors (the Palestinians – who if you remember were actually the population of ‘Israel’) are now living on our land in refugee camps and this is not very pleasant for them as much as for us.
By the way some dates about this old Lebanese model of yours: Lebanon had its borders drawn in 1920, in 1820 and 1860 there were 2 civil wars in what is now Mount Lebanon between the Druz and the Maronites. Independence was granted in 1943 by the French, in 1948 there was a small civil war, in 1958 again, in 1963 one more, in 1967 again, in 1973 once again, in 1975 there was a 15 year civil war and from 1990 until now there was no declared civil war except in Basket Ball fields, football matches, student elections, and other silly incidents of the sort.
As for your last point and the history of Arabs, wahabites and ben ladens I totally agree with you.
As for Andres I also need to do some comments – first of all I would wish if while reading the points you do not give them more meaning than they have. That is first to appreciate the humor, second and more importantly when I negate I don’t assert the opposite. I know the allahu akbar was the last word of suicide bombers, don’t you seriously know that this is why I made the remark? Come on - but I wanted to say that it is not whenever you hear it that one will explode, or one is doing a violent thing. When you see a beautiful woman on the street you can say Allahu Akbar and it would be in perfect context. Otherwise about veiled women who said I wanted to veil all women. Try to see these points as some form of cultural introduction, I just want to point out to some ‘obvious points’ (this is for the dear visitor) which many do not recognize as obvious while many (around this part of the world) do. If you want to ever understand the other then you should start by knowing what s/he regards as obvious. As for the doctor metaphor I seriously don’t see how it can apply in the UN (not that I personally believe all people have the same rights) in legal terms.
As for Fascism and self defense it is simply to point out to the fact that the industrial killing is not a feature of Arabic culture, and second to simply say (without any political allusion) that violence is reciprocal.
As for Ayman, I have to say that we cannot deny that like all other civilizations the Arab one does of course have a history of invasions, slavery, and superiority and so on and comparison is not the way to argue.
Finally one more point about this constant confusion (I don’t know if people do it on purpose or if it is just a horrible mania) between Israel and the Jews, it is just wrong. How many times should one explain the difference? Do you just want to see Israel as representing Judaism? I personally don’t – and if you do, you really need to learn more about both.
And one more thing, about Bush and the constant lying, I actually wrote most of the times, but now that you mentioned it I would actually change it to always without hesitation. Maybe it is not him, it is just his job.
..few comments..
first, personally I think that the massacres of the Jews in WWII got a big impact on people because of the media effect that rendered it close to everyone and gave it more personal value.. much like we identify with the tsunami victim.. except that these massacres were heavily employed for political reasons and to gain "exceptions" when it came to the rights of others.
Second, Lebanon is really an example of tolerance because what happened during the civil war was made by fascist separatist parties that nowadays don't have the same influence anymore. If you look around now in Beirut I think you will find a perfect example... nevertheless that's not the point, the point is in the potential of Lebanon to provide such an idea about tolerance, meaning that if it could work out in Lebanon, it might as well work out somewhere else, and I imagine we both feel that it can really work out if "they" leave us alone...
I also would really like to understand the point of view behind the accusations of anti-jewish. Not to defend you, but to find the misconsceptions and how they are read... i think we should really listen to what he has to say about that because we're sure you're not, but this keeps happening, and it's time to see why...
Concerning veil and women, I lived in a muslim area most of my life, and i have never met a veiled woman who was forced to wear it or did it by force or something like that... it seams more to me a thing between women and religion, they do as they please, understand it and interpret it as they want... no one's business but their's
Discovered fact: Lots of Jews identify themselves with Israel without really meaning to be bad.. they like the religion mythology associated with it, and don't know about the concequences of its creation that much. I know a lot like that, they of course condemn everything we condemn, but at the end they want the country to exist and to be accepted....
I think a type of country should exist there of course, but how should it be? would they aggree to the return of the palestinian refugees and to make a state along with the palestinian people and share power with them and join hand in hand for the future of their country?... For me, it's hard to understand why such a proposal is so hard for them to accept, especially that it is the basic rights of the palestinians that we are demanding, no more...
I have to say that I do disagree with your idea about the Holocaust, I do believe that the impact was amplified – definitely – by Media in all its forms however this is because it did become an iconic image of systematic violence or de-humanization of humans. It was indeed a breakthrough in the methods however not in the intensity nor in the violence (I will always repeat the example of the Incas until people will realize that some tens of million of them were killed with swords and hatchets in a systematic way and a population of a continent was practically liquidated).
As for Lebanon being an example of tolerance, I have to refuse this statement completely. When did you have tolerance in Lebanon, I am glad I don’t need a Visa to go from one region to another in this country. To say that the civil war was made by fascist separatist parties is seeing things in a very narrow perspective and to ignore the underlying social problems that made the war(s) possible is an act of denial. As for influence I don’t see how they do not have influence any more. I have to remind you that I am looking around now in Beirut (I am here as you should know) and all I am seeing is a daily potential of a new civil war, in fact if you walk in Beirut nowadays you will probably choose not to anymore (that is in case you understand Arabic). We cannot keep fooling ourselves with this mythical heaven-like Lebanon, if you do not acknowledge that there is no Lebanese society but a group of mutually hating communities that are fighting over a small piece of land then we will never resolve this issue of creating a Lebanese identity that all of them can share. And I staunchly refuse that ‘they’ made the civil war, or the ‘they’ are the ones who plant hatred between the peace loving Lebanese – come on there are a lot of foreign ‘investments’ in Lebanon just because there is a huge potential of investment. No one was innocent during the civil war, from the left wing parties, to the right wing ones, from the Palestinians, to the Israelis, from the Libyans to the French, everyone wanted the war and everyone participated – some more violently that others, some did more atrocities than others (in this domain the right wing fascists as you call them were in fact highly imaginative) but all were guilty of hating each others without the help of any foreign power. It is not about giving a good image of Lebanon as much as about trying to understand in a critical way the reality of a conflict that is not limited to the Lebanese borders nor to any borders. I am sorry to tell you the people in Lebanon are not tolerant to one another, in fact they prefer to identify with foreign identities than identify with those who share their country.
About Incas.
Walid, I really think if you want to choose an example from the Americas, the best one is the systematic killing of millions of Indians in the South of the States after they got those territories. That was more than a single genocide because the exterminated a lot of different peoples (in ethnic terms), begining with the destruction of the basis of their economies: the bison. In order to force those amazingly rebelious Indians to die of hunger they killed several millions of buffalos (the esteemed population at the mid 19th century was something like 70 million and for 1890 there were only like 700 left). Then, the people begin to die of hunger, their soldiers were less and less strong and it was easier to subjugate them and finally put them into those awful reservations.
But why I don't think Incas are the best choice? First of all because most of the mestizo population of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Northern Chile (which happen to be an amazingly big amount of the population of those countries) has Inca blood: they are mostly a Spanish and Inca mixture. Then, right now there are some 10 million active speakers of Quechua which means, following the trend of the rest of Latin-America, that there are more Quechuas than that since in 20th century a lot of Indian gave up their laguage for Spanish. Now, Spanish conquerors did the deed and they killed a lot of Incas. We will never know how many would they be if there were not conquered by Spaniards. But certainly if they were conquered by Englishmen the would have stopped existing or nearly.
Another fact is that most Indians died of smallpox because they didn't got defences for an illness that was very common in Eurasia and never had reached America (the continent -sorry I can't stand that a single country sells cheaply the name of my continent and claims it like their property).
With Aztecs, if you're tempted to use them, things were worst: other Nahuatl peoples tired of the continuing killings that nation was imposing them helped Cortés to win. The paradigmatic case are the Tlaxcaltecs, a republic defending itself from Aztecs for centuries.
But well, Spanish people in fact killed most of the population of Taínos (the one's that are depicted in the symbol Cohiba cigars) the other died in mines, but for certain, when the conquest of Mexico (1521) began there were no Taínos left.
By the way: I'M NOT DEFENDING THE SPANISH CONQUERORS. I just wanted to state that.
Again I'm moving away from that horror you're living...
Abel thank you for a very nice presentation of a point I am trying to make – I would have never done better.
Now does anyone have the audacity to tell me that the lives of some 70 million Indians are less important than those of 6 million Jews? Regardless of the way they were killed isn’t the crime the same (to want to exterminate a whole population – something that happened often in history, even more recently with the Armenians and later in the Balkans), or do you really believe they did not have a soul? As for the industrialized aspect of it, I find some analogy between Hitler’s approach to the killing of ‘inferior beings’ in a cold blooded and institutionalized manner and that of the killing of Palestinians especially in the big concentration camp called Gaza.
If during the Nazi era a Jew trapped in the concentration camp would do a suicide bombing (maybe against Nazi civilians) would he be considered a terrorist? For the Nazis he would definitely be called a terrorist. Maybe they are right, maybe not, maybe he has his reasons, and maybe it is not reason enough. Nonetheless people trapped in inhuman conditions tend to make radical decisions; the question is how to fight such terrorism (if we call it so). Is it by killing all the remaining Jews in the camp or making their lives even harder (thus giving them more reason to do such terrorist actions to counter what they regard as terrorist measures imposed by their Nazi oppressors) or is it by getting them out of the camp and giving them what is rightfully theirs – which is their lives, pride and freedom? I know the Jews in the camps did not have access to Nazi civilians, nor did they have bombs and Kalashnikov, but if they did what do you think they would have used them for? Before answering such questions and before giving the automatic judgment of ‘it is not the same’, give yourselves some time and give your mind some freedom to be able to acknowledge human suffering as something that transcends racial, religious and cultural barriers. People do not commit suicide for religious reasons, nor do they do it as a hobby, or even less for pleasure, to be able to go and explode yourself it means your life is far worse than hell, and it is not by killing his children, family, or by destroying homes and olive groves, or by building a huge wall or by making humiliating measures on checkpoints, or by doing a constant and never ending embargo or in short by making their lives even worse that you can expect to solve this problem, in fact by doing so you are simply nourishing the hate that makes someone able to explode himself as a way of struggling.
Hi Walid,
I guess you were a bit too eager reader of Abel's comment. Those 70 million refered to bisons, North American buffulos, i.e. animals.
Andres
You are very right. Sorry about that (the shame). However i take back the number but not the argument: that is to say that the crime is the same in both cases. However again i am sorry for such eager reading as you so accuratly called it. By doing so i actually did the same thing i am criticizing, but then again one should always learn from one's mistakes.
Regards
walid
Hi Walid,
I would take the challenge of explaining why the lives of some X million Indians are “less important” than those of 6 million Jews, and why the answer is irrelevant to the destruction and massive killing carried out by the Israeli army in Lebanon.
(Proper disclosure: I am a grandchild to holocaust survivors)
- It is for the same reason that the world outcries the death of the Qana victims and ignores the same amount of dead in same day in Iraq (and I guess in many other places around the world). It is a result of agenda settings. These are the news for today and this is why the public opinion is so shocked by some events while ignores other of the same scale and horror. It has nothing to do with the act of violence but with the interest of those how present it.
- The Jewish people were victims of continuous violence, humiliation and reasonless aggression from early Christianity thought the Middle Ages until nowadays. Anti-Semitism is not a domestic European problem. It was (and still is) practiced in Europe, Russia (and former USSR nations), USA, Japan and the Muslim world. The Shoah is not a single act of genocide but the extreme expression of prolonged system of insults, prejudices and laws which shared the same desire – to turn the lives of Jews to hell on earth.
- The German officer who attempted to assassin Hitler was condemned as terrorist by the Nazis and is celebrated in monuments in contemporary Berlin. I guess if a nation of Islam would take the place of the USA, the terrorist of 11-9 may be celebrated as the fathers of the revolution. Terrorism, like heroism, is granted by those who continue to live and see themselves as winners.
I really do not understand why the Shoah has anything to do with the cruel and violent actions of the Israeli army in Lebanon. The state of Israel is not consolation reward granted by the western world to the Jewish people after WW2. The state of Israel exists because the Zionist movement made tremendous efforts to establish a national house for Jews. Some may argue (and I am among them) that the result is very far from the ideal. But it still doesn’t change history (although many try to, including Israelis).
I hope the assaults will end soon,
Gal
Well I agree on all the points you presented especially the answer to why some lives seem more important than others. However, I am not at all relating the Shoah to what is now happening in Lebanon. The reason why I am often discussing it is simply to criticize this tendency to always justify Israel’s actions by calling for a guilt complex that has its roots in the Holocaust.
Take care of yourself
Hi Wallid,
what is the difference between Holocaust and the mass killing of Incas? I think, that one of the crucial differences is that in the latter case if you told someone from Europe, Asia, Africa etc except the Incas themselves, who lived in that period, about what the Spaniards are doing with Incas, hardly anyone would be shocked. It was common for victors to slaughter the conquered population. And I assume that it was common up the end of 19th century (e.g. the Hague conventions; Boer war with first concentration camps ever an its effect on Britons)
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during WWII
bit more at:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036419
What I try to say and what to a certain extent was highlighted by UV in one of his comments on European pacifism is that at least ordinary people of the 'Western world' (sorry, I do not know which better term to use and due to lack of my knowledge I am not able to speak about different cultures) before the the WWII did believe that a systematic mass killing of people (not to mention in an industrialized fashion) would be possible. I would even dare to say that under people they considered people of all races not only people of the 'western world'.
I do not claim that there was no antijewish sentiment, racial hatred or I do not put the 'western world' on a pedestal, but it was unthinkable that holocaust could happen. It has been understandable that people (not only soldiers) die in wars and lots of injustice happens (e.g. WWI). As my grandmother (not German) used to say that no one believed that such a civilized nation which brought about Goethe, Schiller, Bach and Beethoven would do such monstrous and barbarian things...
Ad barbarian - the ancient Roman used to call Gaelic insurgents who used guerrilla practices barbarians, today the would call them terrorists.
Ad my lack of understanding of your humour - the case of Allahu Akbar:
A blog is a way of communicating ideas and it is difficult (at least for me) to correctly consider all the circumstances under which the author (you) writes something. Writing filters out many aspect of a face to face dialogue. I based my concerned comments on your previous claims like:
'Yes I do not believe that Israel has the right to exist, at least not in Palestine, and yes I wish it never did.'
or 'Every historical proof, every empirical study shows that Israel is a criminal state, perhaps the state with the biggest record of war crimes (there is however a strong competition with the US). '
both from July 22 in Terrorist thoughts and the first claim repeated few days ago. Such statements always bring me on alert.
Best,
Andres
I don't know if i really understood what you wrote or meant, however i can perhaps ad something.
Morality and the representation of right and wrong as a cultural variation of what is acceptable and what is not, in other words the variations of taboos and ideals are something that i believe change with time and space, however power and the essence of these representations of social structures remain fundamentally the same.
What i mean to say here is that the world has not evolved on an absolute level towards good, it has simply created new ways of discourse to justify its acts of power. In explicit terms i do not believe that having invented the Human Rights or the United Nations the world became better or more moral in an absolute sense, on the contrary it created a new violence that is justified by new discourses (the cause and dynamics of this new violence are however the same that exist since civilization - and thus violence - was invented) the essence of power relations remains the same nonetheless.
It is of course natural for people to believe that the Human rights are good - and they are of course. However they are good as a theoretical text that describes an ideal. But on political terms they represent a new form of power relations where Justice becomes mixed with Force (as Pascal would have it defined).
The human rights as an ideal are on the same level of any utopical system throughout history, from Plato's republic until the modern fiction, they are 'nowhere'. But they however will inspire systems of power that will be far from achieving the initial goals.
In this sense i find nothing better or higher on moral level in the 20th or 21th century than what was in the 20th century B.C. Remember that there were never as many people killed in one century as in the 20th and never so many wars. Actually i even believe that the world has become even more amoral since violence has become so hypocritical that it is often called justice.
As for humour you are right - but unfortunately i can't help it, i am after all someone that has been cursed with a sarcastic attitude.
And about my opinion about the right of Israel to exist. Well yes i definitely believe that it should not exist, in fact i even believe that if it did not exist the middle east would not have been the welcoming home of regional wars. In fact i don't know if you confuse the fact that i don't recognize its right to exist with calling for its annihilation (or killing all jews as many would think) but in this case you are wrong and i can assure you that i am realistic in this field. But even if i recognize that now it is a fact that cannot be changed (that is that israel is here to stay - at least for the coming years, until the Israeli-arabs become a majority inside the state of Israel - they make a lot of children as you know, we can call it 'demographic jihad', however i refuse to be obliged to state that i think it is rightfully here, because i don't (like, i presume, more than 1 billion and a half people on earth) and i am not so politically correct. My argument in this case is very simple, Israel does not have the right to exist in Palestine, because it is Palestine that should be there and I don’t really believe that anyone has the right to kick a population out of its country and make them live in exile for generations and demand that they recognize their right to exist, because in their ancestors lived there some 2000 years ago, or because God promised the land to them, or for any (yes any) other reason that might be there (this is back to the Holocaust theme probably). I do believe however that Jews could have very well had migrated to Palestine without having to take over the country and terrorize the population and declaring a state of their own – however as Gal so well put it, it is not about the jews it is about Zionism. To learn more about the pre-Israel (1948) declaration period and the discourse of the Zionists in that period a very good book is Edward Said’s Orientalism, I suggest you read the passages that describe how Palestine was represented and how it really was, it would make a much better argument than I could.
just two comments:
well, although you believe that you are cursed with sarcastic attitude, you have at least an attitude which according to my impression you are willing to critically examine :-)
You claim that a) the 20th century was the bloodiest century in terms of death toll b) the most war-prone century.
Ad a) you forget one important thing - the ratio between people killed and people who lived the world. The 20th century has witnessed the highest amount of people ever living on this planet.
Although exact figures are not available and many historical records do not exist, you may check out this toll rates (some are really surprising!) and one other very detailed source with references is here
Ad b) we both lack exact data and an exact definition of war according to which we could label events as wars, but I am willing to claim that the number of wars in the 20th century was if not lower then on about the same level as in other centuries. Firstly, the historical records are practically nonexistent or incomplete about wars between tribes for instance in Africa or America, or ancient kingdoms etc. Secondly, wars and war atrocities are more universal than human right - e.g. The Great "War
Figures"
Therefore,even though I am aware that I did not present any bullet-proof argumentation, I cannot agree with your reasoning that your claims a) and b) support your argument of equal moral level between 20th century B.C. or A.D.
More on this issue (perhaps an attempt to refute your argument that I mention in the previous paragraph), on human rights and what I meant with my previous comment later...
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home