One gets awfully tired of narratives. The argument over the present conflict in Israel and Gaza is an Israeli defense against rocket attacks from Hamas. The narrative is utterly ridiculous. As was the case in Lebanon, Israeli’s action was premeditated. That doesn’t make it right, wrong, or indifferent, but spontaneous defense it surely is not. Such is not to say that spontaneity is a requirement of defense, but if we are going to be making evaluations over this, we might as well start working from a common set of facts. It is not merely enough to say that Israel claims a defense against rocket attacks, Israel was hit with rocket attacks, ergo Israel’s claim of self defense should be taken at face value.
I will leave to wiser men than I to attempt to mediate the disputes Israel has. Each side has interests that will have to be worked out. I can however condemn rocket attacks. (I’m also against child abuse for what it’s worth.) I can also condemn dropping bombs in civilian centers with the result being the deaths of hundreds. One can also condemn the bombing of an active worship site. (Sure one can come up with scenarios where it may be licit, but, in the scope of attack options, aerial bombardment does not even offer the pretense of attempting to preserve that which is sacred while extricating evil.)
I’m not sure I really care about anyone’s definition of proportion if it involves over 270 dead in 7 days to “protect” from 7 dead in two years from rocket attacks in a population over 5 million. As I would likewise condemn the daily shootings in Milwaukee, I will also go out on a limb and say bombing Milwaukee would be a gross injustice, be it by the State of Wisconsin or any other entity empowered to promote justice and the general welfare. And the most sickening part of this whole charade is that many of Israel’s defenders do not believe Israel has an obligation of justice to the Palestinians.
From what I’m able to read on line, in the British, American, French and even Israeli press (Haaretz), this whole thing seems to be about winning the next Israeli elections–and not at all about the real security of the Israeli people. The latter are ALSO being terrorized and stampeded by a set of equally vicious and corrupt politicians. (If they actually WERE acting in the interests of their polity, they’d be telling their people to react to “rockets” with the same stolid determination and phlegm that the Brits responded to the IRA and the Nazis with.
I CAN tell you, however, that the Israeli Jews are losing European public opinion completely these days: I’ve never seen so many kaffeya (sp.?) scarves on so many young non-Arabs in my life, and many Europeans are quick to tell you that they think the Zionists have morphed into Nazis.
MZ,
I guess the question would be: Does incompetance in achieving one’s aim (I think one can hardly imagine that it’s Hamas’s intent not to actually kill many people when firing thousands or rockets into Israel) make one less deserving of retaliation for an attack? It would tend to strike me that the fact that the faction which controls the government of Gaza is constantly launching rockets into Israel would make taking them down justifiable (though one can certainly question Israel’s chosen means) regardless of whether they generally achieved their goal of killing Israelis.
Digby,
It would seem to me that if Zionists had indeed morphed into Nazis, that the Gaza Strip would no longer have a Palestinian population. One certainly cannot doubt that Israel would be fully capable of entirely wiping the Palestinians out if they so chose. That they have clearly not done so would suggest that the Nazi comparison is inaccurate.
MZ, I’m just telling you what so many of the Europeans I talk to think; and, if you doubt me, please watch on your television screen tomorrow the huge rallies planned for London and other European cities.
I have read similiarly digby.
Darwin,
I’m not one to presume incompetence. In its present form, I do not believe Hamas is an existential threat to Israel, its representations notwithstanding. On another note, representations are made about Mexico’s complicity with various drug and people smugglers along the American border. Would that justify attacks on Mexico City or would you respect Mexico’s soveriegnty?
Darwin,
Well, yes, the ability to achieve one’s aims is rather central. There are many groups of nutcases out there wishing destruction upon various peoples, and yet their reach is highly limited. One monitor’s diligently, rather than dropping a bomb on their house (honestly, did the Bush presidency really not teach certain Americans anything?)
I repeat the analogy I made in the previous post. The ability of the IRA to harm the civilian population in the United Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s vastly exceeded anything Hamas can accomplish today. And yet, the response was not to bomb west Belfast where the IRA were protected by the civilian population (certainly to the same extent as Hamas in Gaza). Rather, it was a combination of police action and a determination to tackle the underlying political grievances. If Israel were serious about peace, it would be seeking a real solution, not bombing civilian centers, imposing collective punishment on the entire Gaza population by blocking access even of humanitarian relief (honestly, Israel was been doing this for months, deliberately goading Hamas into its pathetic reaction). It would not be stripping Palestinians of their dignity on a daily basis under the boot of occupation.
Digby is right: this is the way Europeans see it and they are largely right (largely, because too many approve of violent responses against Isael). But Americans are stuck in the mode of knee-jerk sympathy for Israel. The reasons are many, but all boil down to bad theology: the idiots who think Christ will only return if the secular state of Israel wipes out the Palestinians, and the slightly more sophisticated who assume that God is on the side of America and its allies, and that the world is divided into light and darkness. The more I think of it, the more I come to the view that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are central to the American psyche. We Catholics acknowledge these were acts of grave evil, underpinned by a flawed consequentialist reasoning. And yet, most Americans refuse to acknowledge this, because they simply cannot accept that the US can do evil. That would be “anti-American” and there is no greater sin! Look at the reaction to Jeremiah Wright– what is often forgotten is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was central to his anti-American outburst. So, if we condemn the actions of Israel, then we are implicitly condemning what America did in the past.
One final point: the risk of an Israeli civilian being killed by a Hamas bomb is vastly lower than the risk of an inner city American being killed by gunfire. If people were really concerned about this, they would ban all handguns, much as they would keep rockets from the hands of Hamas. But they are not concerned at all, are they?
We take effectiveness into account to an extent, but I imagine that if a gunman with one of those hated assault rifles went into a mall and started shooting it up — the city would send a SWAT team in and shoot him if he refused to put down his weapon, even if he had (despite spraying bullets everywhere) failed to actually kill anyone.
It’s certainly true that there are a great many looney’s and cranks that the government doesn’t go in and wipe out with excessive firepower (unless it’s the Clinton administration, in which case slaughtering large numbers of cultists is fine) but generally speaking if you start shooting at or planting bombs in populated centers, the government takes action against you.
Now it’s quite true that the IRA was generally more effective in killing British citizens than Hamas is in killing Israeli citizens — however there’s a difference in that the Brits actually controlled Belfast and thus could go after the IRA members directly. And back when Israel was actively the sheriff in town when it came to Gaza, they too tended to take a more policing-like approach. (Though like the Brits circa 1920s they tended to be a bit heavy handed about it.) However everyone insisted that Israel must give Gaza over to an elected Palestinian government. Now they’ve got their own government, and the government is run by an organization which can’t seem to resist firing rockets and mortars into Israel.
Perhaps someone here is aware of a situation in which firing a few thousand rocket and mortar rounds across a border into another country is not considered an act of war — but I personally can’t think of any.
Yes, it’s true that Hamas has been pretty ineffective in actually killing people (to my knowledge they’ve managed to kill more of their own people with rockets that fall short than Israelis with rockets that get through) but if you go firing rockets into another country I don’t see how you can claim to be surprised when the other country fights back.
A final note:
While it’s very simple for you, MM, to attribute all support for Israel to an alleged adherance to evangelical end times theology, you would probably serve yourself better if you actually looked at why people think what they do. Many people support Israel simply because it as an ordered nation which would probably do no harm to anybody if its neighbors would stop attacking it. If this was 1949, I’d have a lot more sympathy with the Palestinian cause (though at the same time I can see why the Zionists of that period thought that their need to have their own state had been proven by the near extinction of European Jews.) But at this point it’s been 60 years and it’s rather late to roll back the clock on Israel’s existence. The Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, has generally been focused far more on hurting Israel than on taking care of their own people. If they were sufficiently committed to peace to seriously crack down on their own violent factions (and if they were willing to simply accept current borders as they’ve existed for the last 30 years) they could have peace any day they wanted. For many people, that makes the Israelis much more sympathetic than the Palestinians — even while one remains aware that their experience of the last 60 years has made the Israelis overly paronoid and prone to resort to force.
If you fire rockets into another country, you shouldn’t be surprised if that place fights back. Other countries should at least be as upset at the place that fired the rockets as at the place that fought back.
As to young people wearing scarves, look at all the young people wearing Che shirts. Their lackluster history courses in school forget to mention that he killed indiscriminately and did not offer a trial to his executed. But no matter. Fashion and “resistance,” must go on. What else would bored comfortable young people rebel against?
Hamas has sent thousands of rockets into Israel….four thousand is a low end estimate over the past year or so – and with the strong support of the populace, uses the “truce” times to rearm.
What MM has written here really resonates with me because of a recent experience I had walking around an older part of a town here in Germany with a German friend of mine.
Here’s what MM wrote:
We Catholics acknowledge these were acts of grave evil, underpinned by a flawed consequentialist reasoning. And yet, most Americans refuse to acknowledge this, because they simply cannot accept that the US can do evil.
The place I was visiting was the hometown of the German friend, and, after showing me the area that had been destroyed by Allied bombing in World War II, he said, reflectively–half to himself, and half to me, it seemed: “But I believe we deserved it.
Can you, in your wildest imaginings, EVER imagine an American saying that about, say, our defeats in Vietnam, or–even more unbelieveably–about the “blowback” that came at the U.S. (I’m only quoting Ron Paul–a “conservative,” remember!) in the form of the Twin Towers’ bombing?
Not in the part of America that I just left, you couldn’t. As MM correctly observes, time and time again, America is NOT an orthodox Christian nation, because most Americans (unlike Catholics, one hopes) can have no sense of REPENTANCE for anything done by the nation; in the mythic national narrative, she has always been on the side of GOD. That’s why it’s more appropriate that her greater nemesis, ultimately, should be not the super-rational Englightenment heresy of Marxism, but the fundamentalist heresy of Islam.
This continues to be arrangement in which there are no winners. And most especially no good guys. The right wing has its difficulties with such a concept-that Israel can not be “good.” Considering it receives its support from the Holy American Empire. The right wing retains an immoral and unholy attachment to this Empire, to the US.
or–even more unbelieveably–about the “blowback” that came at the U.S. (I’m only quoting Ron Paul–a “conservative,” remember!) in the form of the Twin Towers’ bombing?
The only unbelievable thing here is that you’d expect Americans to think that the people killed on 9/11 deserved it.
The only unbelievable thing here is that you’d expect Americans to think that the people killed on 9/11 deserved it.
No, of course the people killed on that day did not “deserve it” – but I think that, given the actions and policies of the US in the Arab world, it is not surprising that 9/11 happened, SB. The US has been acting with (literally) imperious disdain for the Arab world, and has reaped what it has sown.
While we’re on the subject of 9/11: Americans act as if that day’s events were practically the worst thing to happen to any nation anywhere, ever. Well, sorry, but no, it wasn’t. To be sure, that day sucked, and I’d rather not go through that again; but more Americans died on D Day and Pearl Harbor than died on 9/11. More Americans are murdered in 3 months than were killed on that day. Twelve times as many civilians were incinerated alive in one night in Dresden Germany in World War II. Up to thirty times as many were incinerated in one night in Tokyo.
Has it ever occurred to the hawks in this country that by sending armies into the middle east, the US has given Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted?
Digby, I think your appraisal of the typical American’s inability to see itself as sinful is a vast over-simplification. The national conscience is very much awake when it comes to racism and anti-Semitism, for instance. Have you never found that even the rightists who usually find nothing wrong with the US, really put her through the wringer when it comes to our acceptance of abortion and homosexual acts?
I think your German friend is absolutely wrong when he says that his country “deserved” to be fire-bombed. The deliberate targeting of civilian areas and populations is unjustifiable and there can be no question of whether as the nursery of Nazism they deserved it or not. Did the civilians in Japan “deserve” the atomic bomb? Now obviously it is legitimate to talk about how the political structure and culture in Japan contributed to militarism, which ultimately led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there is a difference between that and essentially blaming the victim which is what someone does when they talk about how this or that group of people really deserved to have horrific violence visited on them. In the US we ourselves do this quite a bit with our use of the atomic bomb and our other incursions.
I am sure you are aware that plenty of Americans do take the tack that we deserved 11 September or otherwise brought it on ourselves, so there’s no need to indulge in any wild imaginings about Americans EVER suggesting such a thing! Didn’t you quote Ron Paul who is in fact an American and has plenty of like-minded Americans in his circle?
Matt, yes 11 September in the pantheon of human suffering is not at the very top of the heap in terms of raw numbers. But it kind of reminds me of the military historians who work themselves into a tizzy arguing over which battle of which war was more horrible or more severe, some saying that this battle was worse because of greater casualties, others saying that battle was worse because the type of weapons and tactics used were more horrific.
The fact is that human suffering can not be quantified, and we can not “rank” tragedies on the basis of numbers of dead or the cruelty of the wounds. If you ever talk to a co-victim of murder, for instance, you will discover that for them it really is “the worst thing to happen to anyone, anywhere, ever” even though it’s only their one relative who was taken from them. Frankly in dealing with such circumstances it really has to summon more than “that day sucked, and I’d rather not go through that again.” We can’t adopt that attitude toward Dresden or Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima or Nagasaki and we can’t adopt it toward 9/11/2001, either, if we are going to keep our humanity.
Magdalena, the town that I was being shown around in was the hometown of Josef Goebbels, and it was the site of a HUGE military-industrial facility. Of course, the German civilians who died in it were “collateral damage,” as we call it nowadays in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, but just like the innocent Palestinians right now, they were being used as camouflage and shields by their Nazi overlords.
The German people at more than one point in that terrible history CHOSE Hitler and continued to support him. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to learn on my recent trip to Berlin that the persecutions and annihilation of the Jews were worse in the Rhineland area where I’m now living than they were in the eastern sectors of the country, where the concentration camps were: the rounding up and beating and taunting of Jews was a VERY popular activity around Dusseldorf, Cologne and Frankfurt.
People generally get the governments they deserve, and they are generally responsible for what those governments do: that’s why you/we Americans are going to be a long time paying for what Bush has done in Iraq and what a long series of Presidential administrations have done, by proxy, to the Palestinians. Ron Paul was right in the last election, but nobody was willing to listen to him, and so the chickens will still be coming home to roost.
And, as for the semi-literate “SB” (continuously my nemesis on these threads, it would seem), it is apparent that, for him, “consequences” means “deserts,” but I trust that other, more precise users of the English language can discern the difference; NOBODY “deserves” to die in bombing raids or “terrorist” attacks, but those who do generally do as a “consequence” of someone else’s misbehaviour. It’s called karmaya in the part of Asia where I lived for a decade.
Well, since the the Palestinians CHOSE Hamas (which I’m sure we can agree is a wicked and dissolute organization) through the democratic process, have they got the government they deserve? Is their present predicament karma? Chickens coming home to roost? You see how it can go both ways.
I don’t think so, but then again I don’t believe in karma.
Did not the Bush administration push for such a quick election, against the advice of many, many foreign policy experts, who feared such an outcome?
The short answer is “yes”.
And, as for the semi-literate “SB” (continuously my nemesis on these threads, it would seem), it is apparent that, for him, “consequences” means “deserts,” but I trust that other, more precise users of the English language can discern the difference; NOBODY “deserves” to die in bombing raids or “terrorist” attacks, but those who do generally do as a “consequence” of someone else’s misbehaviour.
You’re the illiterate one. You are now claiming that bombing or terrorist attacks are merely a “consequence” that “NOBODY deserves.” But your previous post never used the word “consequence.” Instead, you quoted someone who said — of a civilian bombing — “But I believe we deserved it.” You even thought his reference to “desert” so wonderful that you bolded and italicized it. So it’s quite extraordinarily dimwitted to spin 180 degrees and ridicule someone for having thought that you were talking about whether people “deserve” terrorist attacks.
I remember the Bushies did push for quick democracy, which as we know all too well they think will solve allllll the problems in the Middle East, and it backfired when the Palestinians chose Hamas.
Needless to say their choice speaks volumes about the the culture of death that thrives among the Palestinians as well as the complete disaster that Israel’s policy approach has been. Hindsight is 20/20 but I don’t believe it would have made a difference to wait to have the elections; the role Hamas plays both in terms of social service provider and foil to Israel is longstanding and we would probably have gotten the same results, just later.
Well S.B. I think with the story he meant to imply “consequence” even if he didn’t use the word. Surely you agree that it’s not bad to repent of national sin, and that America is not pure like the driven snow? However if you go too far down that path you get to the Westboro Baptists and their “God hates America” protests. And if you consider how many innocent people we have killed through abortion or through unjust actions (Hiroshima etc) you can almost understand why! That is the Devil’s favorite trick, to take our awareness of sin (which by itself is a good thing) and make us so sick of ourselves that we are unable to believe in the possibility of redemption. That is the temptation for many of us as individuals and for those who (justly) criticize nations.
First of all, here’s an example of the kind of journalistic reporting on the Palestinian conflict that the “main-stream media” in the United States WILL NOT deliver:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/04/israel-gaza-hamas-hidden-agenda
Secondly, to Magdalena: I do NOT agree that Hamas is so “wicked and dissolute” an organisation as the Nazi Party in Germany was. Hamas is, from the perspective of much of the Palestinian population, a far more upright and honest leadership than the corrupt Abbas-led al-Fatah movement. What, from our perspective, is their religious mania, has been largely instigated and fed by the Palestinians’ experience as miserable refugees outside of the Zionist State and as a despised, persecuted minority inside it.
And, finally, to the dimwitted and illiterate SB:
You even thought his reference to “desert” so wonderful that you bolded and italicized it.
Not exactly “wonderful” (unless meant in the sense of “causing wonderment”), but, yes, “remarkable” and deserving of note. (You really need a more solid foundation in basic English diction and rhetoric, SB. I’m sure your local community college in America can offer you a refresher course.)
Also, something very, very interesting from the London Spectator on the ridiculous “go nuts” policy of the Israeli government:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3194471/operation-go-nuts-is-a-success-so-far-but-for-how-long.thtml
WHY does the Israeli government believe that it must pursue this terrible “strategy” “before Barack Obama is inaugurated”? Is it that they suspect that he will re-instigate the peace process that Bush allowed to die? Is it that they believe (as I do) that he will pursue a more even-handed practice in mediating a truce or eventual settlement?
Yes, you bolded and italicized the statement that the Germans “deserved” for civilians to be bombed, and wondered why Americans don’t say the same about themselves. Therefore it is quite remarkable for you to pretend that you wrote about “consequences” and not “desert.” You didn’t.
One gets awfully tired of narratives.
Any explanation of human action involves a narrative. None will be a full explanation, as the one telling the story chooses which facts to highlight and how to connect them, thus revealing and concealing the reality about which he narrates. The question is whether or not the narrative constructed is accurate and an adequate explanation.
Digby:
I somehow doubt that Obama’s Middle East strategy will deviate a great deal from Bush’s and indeed may be worse given that his Chief of Staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel, is the son of a member of the Irgun and whose uncle died while engaged in “terrorist” activities with the Stern Gang.
The more things change the more things stay the same. We may soon wish for the return of Dick.
It’s interesting, JPF, that you say that the very thing that will enable Rahm Israel Emanuel to be able to “tell off” the soon-to-be “right wing” Premier of Israel, Benyamin Netanyahu–that is, their shared Jewish heritage–is what will make him incapable of pressing hard for a more moderate stance. At the time Rahm Emanuel was chosen, it was widely bruite about that one of the chief reasons for Obama’s choice was that Emanuel would be immune from criticisms of being “anti-Zionist” when he stood up to the hard-line Zionist politicians. If that is true, and you are wrong, then the choice of Rahm Emanuel was a brilliant one, and it makes good sense to me.
And, yes, “Obama is coming,” and that DOES make the world a little better.
Magdelena – 9/11 has been exploited by the Bush administration to justify aggressive war, torture, illegal eavedropping, and so on.
Peel away the mawkish sentimentality varnishing that day, and what you see is this:
The attacks of that September represented the first time that subjugated people successfully struck back at the power that has used and abused them for decades. It was also Americans’ first experience of feeling the consequences of their government’s actions in the world, where they live.
Remember how, for a brief while right after the attacks, the question on everyone’s lips was, “Why do they hate us?”
The answer to that question – even the question itself – profoundly threatened the power structure in this country. For a brief moment, Americans got a glimpse of what a lot of the rest of the world really feels about this country, and the powers-that-be absolutely couldn’t have that.
“They hate us for our freedom?” What utter nonsense. Freedom was not attacked that day: POWER was attacked that day: MISUSED POWER was attacked that day, not “freedom.”
Bingo.
We took choice number two:
BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda was going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was.
RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.
BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what?
——————–
4500 dead American soldiers + countless ‘collateral damage’.
So what indeed.
15 days and counting . . .
Digby:
I hope that your interpretation is correct, but I’ve seen little to lead me to believe that with the naming of Emanue as CoS and Hillary as SoS (both pro-Israeli Hawks) and the retention of Gates at DoD we will see little change in Middle East policy. I don’t see Emanue; or Clinton (at least not Emmanual) as a person willing to put aside personal beliefs and principles for the benefit of Obama.
I think that 4 years from now we will still be up to our knees in Afghanistan and Iraq, probably the Sudan, and may be Iran. Just remember that in 2000 Bush was the candidate that was opposing Clintonian nation building activity in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere.
Of course, I hope and pray I am wrong and you are correct.
JPF, one of the reasons I supported Obama is that I realised soon enough that he was a canny and ruthless politician who WOULD, indeed, get rid of people who would not serve his own and his country’s interests. If Rahm Emmanuel serves the interests of the State of Israel rather than those of his country, it will be because that is Obama’s own decision; we will be able to be sure of that, and vote to get rid of Obama in 2012. My bet, however, is that, if Rahm Emmanuel does NOT put aside his “personal beliefs and principles for the benefit of Obama,” that Obama will sack him forthwith.
Matt, the fact that 9/11 has been exploited for political purposes doesn’t have much to do with it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equally the direct result of Japanese political policies but that doesn’t make recalling and mourning the losses of those days mawkish sentimentality. You need to find a way to step back and view 9/11 as a human tragedy for everyone and not a political football for either side.
It is also kind of ridiculous to say that it was “subjugated people” striking back at the powers-that-be. These were well-educated people, some of them at US universities, that hijacked those planes, and they no more spoke for the downtrodden of the world than Truman spoke for all Americans in dropping the bomb. You would perhaps be shocked by how many Third World people believe in nonviolent solutions to their situation. You are correct that the hijackers were motivated not so much by religion as by political concerns, but their analysis was desperately inadequate (Western civilization is the cause of all problems in the East without exception). Please note that they do not only target the US, but multiple Western locations in England, Europe, Pope Benedict XVI, etc.
This meme within the left wing is exactly why there will be very little progress in the near future on miltarism etc, because most observers are not satisfied with the POV that the US simply “had it coming.” That is just as simplistic and frankly shallow as the right-wing approach which says “they hate us because they hate freedom!” And so both sides talk past each other with no helpful dialogue.
Digby, Nazism won much of its iniital support because Versailles crushed Germany ecnomically and poured on the vengeful humiliation. I agree that Palestinian support of Hamas is the result of similar political and economic conditions. They have succumbed to the same temptation as Germans did in the 30s, to reassert their human dignity, pride and rights through organized violence. Germany, by electing Hitler, eventually brought even more suffering and ecnomic ruin on its head and you can see that pattern has been repeated by the Palestinians, too. Their violent reaction to injustice and occupation has resulted in a ground war and 400+ and counting killed so far.
And can we please dial down the snarky remarks about basic English and community college. Just because someone disagrees doesn’t mean they can’t read. I understand that people can get over-emotional about this topic but are we adults or what.
Just because someone disagrees doesn’t mean they can’t read.
He didn’t merely “disagree”; he DELIBERATELY mis-interpreted what I wrote, and you know it! (You implied as much above.)
This is something that he CONSTANTLY does to me, sometimes in ways that imply near-criminality on my part, and so I WILL NOT refrain from rebutting such maliciousness.
By all means you can rebuff away! :) But rebuffing is different from belittling. You seem clever enough to do the one without the other. I can see how someone could misunderstand your story about your German friend, especially if they are pre-disposed to oppose your viewpoint. We should all try to give each other the benefit of the doubt, including S.B, who also should accept your explanation, unless he can read your mind and knows better what you meant than you do.
It is also kind of ridiculous to say that it was “subjugated people” striking back at the powers-that-be. These were well-educated people, some of them at US universities, that hijacked those planes, and they no more spoke for the downtrodden of the world than Truman spoke for all Americans in dropping the bomb.
You’re missing the forest for the trees, Magdalena; what did the hijackers believe they were doing? Why did Bin Laden want to strike the US directly? Why didn’t they strike, say, Russia? What explains the rejoicing in parts of the Arab world at the events of that day?
The United States is widely (and correctly) seen in large parts of the Arab world (and for that matter, the wider Islamic world) as a bullying empire.
Why do you think they hate us, Magdalena?
Matt, no doubt the hijackers agreed with you that they were striking at the heart of a bullying empire that was responsible for all the ills of their culture. Like all radical ideologies, theirs reduced complex situations to simple equations. But their analysis (and yours, if it goes no further than “the United States is widely and correctly seen in large parts of the Arab world as a bullying empire”) is ultimately far too simplistic.
Like all radical ideologies theirs fed off a fear, and ultimately a hatred of, the “other.” This is what I consider to be the root of “their” hatred (although it’s inaccurate to extrapolate from Bin Laden to the rest of the Arab world. The “man on the street” in the Middle East probably regards the US more with ambivalence than hatred, similar to the generic American impression of Russia).
Bin Laden’s thought process ultimately has its roots in a profound cultural anxiety that has been a thorn in the side of the Middle East for a long, long time. Western society produces anxiety in the East chiefly because our very different social attitudes and practices are attached to overwhelmingly powerful technology. The Arab encounter with the West in later years has essentially taken place as an encounter with modernity, and the response of Bin Laden and others is essentially a rejection of that modernity. It is not our religion, our economic structure or our political practices which they find threatening, but our culture and our apparent technological power to spread it, or “seduce” other nations and peoples with it. It is a huge mistake to ascribe this to strictly military power or the United States alone; remember that Pope Benedict has come in for threats, as well, although as Stalin pointed out he has no divisions, and he is hardly identified with American policy.
The Middle Eastern inferiority complex was stoked by colonialism and honestly, if I were part of a technologically weaker society with a growing awareness of the power of another, radically different society, I would feel threatened, too. It’s no wonder that in the Middle East one way of responding to this cultural threat has been a re-emphasis on “traditional” religion.
An inexact analogy could be found in our current immigration crisis. The right wing which gets worked up about amnesty etc. does not really hate immigrants because the undocumented workers harm our economy (which they don’t) or because they strain our social services (which they do), although these are reasons typically given; really they hate immigrants because they are afraid that their culture will be lost to them and that what is familiar and cherished will be replaced by the alien and unfamiliar. They sense, with Spanish on forms and street signs, with Cinco de Mayo celebrations, that traditional American culture is “losing” in the encounter with Latino culture. In some ways this anxiety is a normal part of being human; the problem comes when fear turns into hate, which it usually does.
As for the rejoicing in the Arab world on 9/11, I can only guess that it means that their culture is as depraved as ours. No doubt plenty of Americans clapped after we dropped the bomb.
I should add that if said culture invaded with the expressed intention of imposing its version of liberty and freedom I would probably feel vindicated in my fear. N.B. that 9/11 happened about a year and a half before the invasion of 2003.
“As a matter of fact, I was surprised to learn on my recent trip to Berlin that the persecutions and annihilation of the Jews were worse in the Rhineland area where I’m now living than they were in the eastern sectors of the country, where the concentration camps were: the rounding up and beating and taunting of Jews was a VERY popular activity around Dusseldorf, Cologne and Frankfurt.”
IMHO you ‘learned’ only a very partial truth – a truth in part informed I would be willing to specualte by your desire to be critical of all things Catholic.
One can actually argue that the NSDAP lost the last free elections in the catholic regions of Germany to the catholic Zentrum party.
Certainly the Rhineland region with an upright leading catholic politician like Konrad Adenauer in the lead was instrumental in the post war political,moral and economic recovery.
To put it another way.
Since the Rhineland was/is predominant a catholic area are you implying that catholic region of Germany behaved worse than other regions in terms of treatment of jews?
Frankly your statement does not make much sense since the location of the most notorious concentration death camps was outside pre WWII german borders – thus the catholic polish population around those camps can not exactly be compared to the Rhinelanders.
But yes Goebbels was born a catholic as was Hitler – what do you expect, half of Germany is Catholic.
I dislike religious fundamentalism – thus for me the Israelis do us all a favor in batteling organizations like Hamas. I am a liberal political guy but the PC behavior of the liberal left in Europe towards terrorist organizations like Hamas stinks in my view.
It stinks as much as the PC attitude towards destruction of human life for the sake of personal freedom (Abortion).
Our side of the political spectra gets all bend out of shape over environmental issues and animal rights yet can not muster the guts to truly protect human life.
But hey nobody is perfect.
Like all radical ideologies, theirs reduced complex situations to simple equations. But their analysis (and yours, if it goes no further than “the United States is widely and correctly seen in large parts of the Arab world as a bullying empire”) is ultimately far too simplistic.
“Your analysis is far too simplistic” seems like the perfect belittling, paternalistic response to the legitimate claims of oppressed peoples. “You don’t really understand your own oppression” is precisely the kind of thing u.s. imperialists have been telling their victims for decades.
“Grega,” I was not even aware that the Rhineland is/was a “Catholic area” of Germany: I haven’t been here long enough to know that, but, presuming that the information regarding rounding-up, beatings and deportations in the Neues Synagogue in Berlin is correct, then most of the attacks on Jews by local populations did, indeed, take place in Western Germany, while most of the incarcerations took place in the East, and in–as you say (the map in the Neues Synagogue indicated as much, as well)—occupied lands in Eastern Europe.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions digbydolben regarding the intention of your statement.
Since I was born in the Rhineland region I could not help but being a bit surprised by the wording of the Neue Synagoge assertion.
Yes Bavaria, most of southern Germany and the majority in the Rhineland area historically is considered the catholic part of Germany (frankly this is more due to the semi-arbirtary leanings/alliances of counts and local nobles during the 30 year war time than due to of educated religious choice of the populance – and the church/archbishops/kurfuersten particular in those regions had huge political clout through landholdings – the Kurfuersten elected the Kaiser thus they particular had influence).
As an aside the Archbishop of Cologne in the 1960 to 1980 had more financial means thatn the Vatican. Ratzinger taught in Bonn and was an adviser during Vatican II for Cardinal Frings – the popular and influential Colgne Archbishop.
Money talks in this world and in our church.
M.I., by no means do I wish to downplay what the U.S. is responsible for – like Israel our policy approaches are not only ineffective but often morally repugnant. But the fact is no serious thinker can be satisfied with a solution that does not respect the complexity of the situation. Imperialism plays a huge role, but it’s not just imperialism. Something that those on the left wing need to come to terms with is that not everybody actually living in the Third World (or the Middle East) agrees with them that their biggest obstacle is the US military and economic footprint.
It’s not paternalistic to insist that we have to move beyond a black and white, good-guy/bad guy, wicked imperalist/helpless victim, evil insurgent/shining beacon of freedom, approach. A lot of people on the left wing and the right wing have a hard time doing that – because their ideology won’t allow them to. And that is why all our best laid plans for peace and development are continually thwarted.
Magdalena – I am quite aware that imperialism — or should we say imperialisms — is a complex matter. I still think it is paternalistic of you to say that oppressed peoples do not understand the complexities of their oppression. They certainly know the complexities better than any of us do.
He didn’t merely “disagree”; he DELIBERATELY mis-interpreted what I wrote, and you know it!
How utterly silly. What I said wasn’t a misinterpretation at all, let alone a deliberate misinterpretation. You approvingly quoted a German who said that his country “DESERVED” civilian bombings, and then reproached Americans for not saying the same, which would necessarily mean saying that we “DESERVED” 9/11. I interpreted this to mean that you were speaking of whether America “DESERVED” 9/11.
It’s understandable that you now wish to pretend you had written something else, but you didn’t. The least you could do is just say that you misspoke. It’s a fool’s part to blame other people for correctly reading the words that you wrote.
It’s understandable that you now wish to pretend you had written something else, but you didn’t. The least you could do is just say that you misspoke. It’s a fool’s part to blame other people for correctly reading the words that you wrote.
And yet you seem to be accused of this very thing several times a week.
That’s not even arguably true: I have never done anything (let alone several times a week) even remotely comparable to what digby is doing, namely, writing a very specific word, and then claiming that I wrote the opposite and calling anyone who directly quotes me “illiterate.” Why are you telling such a blatant untruth?
And more to the point: It is absolutely false that I’m “accused” of “this very thing several times a week.” I am simply not accused, several times a week, of switching 180 degrees from something that I had written in plain English.
You utter idiot, SB!
I said that MY GERMAN FRIEND said “We deserved it,” and I said that you’d never hear American making such a statement about any deplorable thing their country had done. Magdalena suggested (correctly, I guess) that my second statement was an exaggeration, that SOME American HAVE noted such American misdeeds as the genocide of Native Americans, but, that, I believe, is coloured by her experience living among a far more enlightened and better educated segment of the American population than I did, for so many years–but I’ll grant HER point–not yours.
YOU, as opposed to her, have become so brainwashed, so cretinous (probably as a result of listening to Right Wing “attack radio” for half of your life) that you believe that an OBSERVATION of something unusual or remarkable is an ENDORSEMENT of it. I think you’re a true brainless wonder.
Stay calm digbydolben – in my view there is no such thing as a enlightened segment of any society/nation. Yes there are plenty of people that share the point of view that you, me and perhaps half of humankind gravitate towards – folks who happen to not share our point of view are not necessarly idiots nor brainless. I do not know the history between your little infighting with SB but the silly name calling will not do the trick. If you are half as smart as I think you are you must understand that SB very much represents a significant opinion certainly within the american society .
I am German and yes certainly if one wishes one can find the opinion that your german friend shared with you – in my opinion if you desire to dig a bit deeper you can easily see a bunch of not so great human desires that play into your german friends viewpoint. Certainly your friends mea culpa sounds rather hollow if he in the same breath strings together a bunch of unrelated historical grievances to mitigate the blow to his fine german soul.
In my opinion we have to fight an terrorist organization like the Hamas just like free Nations faught Nazi Germany and totalitarian Japan.
The type of religious motivated intollerance that Hamas and likeminded organizations propagate should have no future.
I think digby’s hysterical ranting and namecalling speaks for itself.
Obviously digby’s comment ridiculed Americans for refusing to say, like the quoted German, that we “DESERVED” 9/11. After quoting the “DESERVED” statement, digby says:
So not only was digby ridiculing Americans, he was saying that our refusal to admit that we “DESERVED” 9/11 proved that we’re not an “orthodox Christian nation.”
In light of that stunning accusation, it’s quite idi0tic for digby now to pretend that everyone should have read him to be saying that “NOBODY deserves” to die in such attacks.
One last time, you moron, SB:
Because one “cannot imagine” an American saying what my German friend says, DOES NOT MEAN that either Germany or America “deserved,” say, the bombing of Dresden or the destruction of the World Trade Centre; it simply means that almost no American would ever PRY INTO THE CONSEQUENCES (i.e. “blowback,” in Ron Paul’s words) of an arrogant and ill-thought-out foreign policy.
And “repentance” IS a characteristic of a “Christian nation,” and it most certainly IS NOT a characteristic of the American South or Southwest (the parts I know best) regarding treatment of, say, Native Americans or African Americans. (That is mostly the operative mode of the more liberal, or better educated part of the country that I presume Magdalena is representative of.)
I stand by my opinion that my German friend’s remark is unusual and remarkable, and by my conclusion, from your sweeping statements, that you are an illiterat moron.
It must be depressing to have such raging emotions as you have, yet to find no outlet for them other than capitalizing words when commenting online.
Perhaps what you meant to say — minus the hysterical ranting and petulant namecalling — was something like this:
“My German friend said of Dresden, ‘But I believe we deserved it.’ Of course, he was overstating matters considerably, because it’s never true that civilians deserve to be carpet-bombed. Still, his comments showed a level of self-reflection, and willingness to admit to his countrymen’s own wrongs, that I wish were more present in Americans.”
If that’s what you meant to write, then you simply need to start thinking and writing more clearly. Clear writing is a benefit not just to others, but to yourself, because then you wouldn’t be so sorely misunderstood.
S.B., let it go. This is not advancing the discussion. When you get stuck on a turn of phrase instead of addressing the content of digby’s argument it leaves the impression that you don’t know how to respond to it, which is probably not the case. You gotta show what you know!
Well, I’m not trying to “advance” anything. It’s just frustrating when someone says something reckless, gets called on it, and then hurls accusations of illiteracy simply because I failed to read his mind and figure out that he was thinking something other than what he plainly wrote.
BUT, you idiot, you JUST WROTE that I did NOT “plainly” write it!