Ish Tzippor-
I think I understand what you're saying -I understand that- in a basic way- it is frustrating and alienating for a believer in traditional religion to live in the world today.
The secular world seems to have no understanding or appreciation for what religious people do or what their beliefs are. In fact, very often, secularly oriented people look uppon sincere religious believers as morally or mentally deficient. It is not hard for me to believe that religious believers might sometimes be moved to violent action in reaction to their alienating situation.
However, you seem to be making a comparison beteen conflicts being fought out between secular societies and religious ones on the one hand and those being fought out between two religious societies on the other. You seem to think that peace can be more easily achieved in the latter d
case because of the possibility of mutual understanding.
The fact is, though, that wars based on religion went on for hundreds of years! The Crusades, the Ottoman Wars against the European powers, Catholics vs. Protestants in Europe- the Thirty Years War etc.
נשלח ב-19/8/2005 14:29
שרירא,
קצת קשה לי עם האנגלית, אבל אני מקוה שהבנתי את העיקר כראוי.
אז ככה:
בטח שיש למערב זכות להגן על עצמו.
אמרתי רק שהוא לא מסוגל לפתור את המצב, כי הוא לא מבין את המנטליות וה"אמונה" במתכונתה המוסלמית. (מושג האמונה האמריקאי שונה לחלוטין מזה המוסלמי, ולא בכדי מוסלמי פונדמנטלי [ובמובן אחר, גם יהודי עם אמונה שורשית ולא הכי אינטלקטואלית] רואה את התרבות הזו מאיימת עליו)
בכל מקרה הגישה היהירה והכחונית, שחושבת שהדרך לניצחון יבוא בעזרת הרבה מטוסים, טנקים וכלי נשק, היא זו שגורמת לליבוי האש, והרצון לנקמה, המאמין שקורה בשם ה', ופועל עפ"י זה (בין אם לכיוון רצחני כדוגמת השהידים, או להבדיל לכיוון חרדי או מתנחלי פונדמנטלי) מבין שהעולם המערבי אטום לשאיפות שלו, לגלות את שם ה' בעולם, ולכן שואף קודם כל להסתגר, ולמצוא לו מפלט מעולם כזה, ואח"כ להילחם בו, במקרה הטוב במלחמת תרבות, ובמקרה הפחות טוב ב"ג'יהאד" אלים ורצחני, הכולל טרור מגא-טרור, ועוד דברים שככל הנראה עוד נתוודע אליהם בעתיד.
אני מקוה שתבין את הטענה שלי, אם כי מאוד לא אופתע אם לא .
נשלח ב-19/8/2005 13:24
Ish Tzipor-
Beemet lo hevanti. why don't Western countries have the right to defend themselves? Just because they are not theocracies?
About ruakh in the West- see the eshkol- HaAmerikaim Gedolei Hamaaminim -including the quote from Tocqueville I cited there.
The moral calculus concerning American actions in the Islamic world since 9/11 is complicated. Were the people of Afghanistan better off under those anshei haruakh, the Taliban? Were the people of Iraq better off under Saddam Hussein?
Secularists have defeated traditionalist regimes with a religious orientation a number of times in history. For instance, the Communists in Russia defeated the Czarist forces in the Civil War and the Young Turks under Mustafa Kemal suceeded in secularizing the Ottoman Empire.
What evidence is there for the proposition that the Americans are trying to destroy ruakh ve'emunah in the Islamic world? Are the americans trying to get Muslims to give up their religion? At most, the US is trying to see to it that the regimes in Muslim countries not harbor terrorists and would like to see the spread of democracy in that part of the world.y.
The fact is that there is a kulturkampf going on inthe Muslim world right now. There are voices being raised in that part of the world in favor of democracy. For instance, there is the reform movement in Egypt and the anti-Syrian movement in Lebanon. Women have recently been granted the right to vote in Kuwait.
There has even been serious discussion of democratic reform in Saudi Arabia.I think it is too simplistic to view the situation as a confrontation between the materialistic West and the spirit of Islam.
נשלח ב-19/8/2005 13:00
Avahu,
Why would you say that Israel has not had a great deal of success in combatting terrorism? Israel succeeded in putting down the second Intifada and has decimated Hamas , significantly impairing their ability to function as a terrorist group. Of course, even one terrorist attack is much too much but the fact is that Israel has had quite a good deal of success in cutting down on the number of terrorist attacks over the last few years by means of the deployment of effective intelligence and targeted assassinations. Why would you say that Israel has not enjoyed siginificant successes in combatting terrorism?p
נשלח ב-19/8/2005 12:52
Avahu-
I think most people saw the reality that the French in Algeria were a small, despised minority in that country. Also, the general moral sentiment of the world after WWII, even in the West, was anti- imperialist. The US took an official position in favor of the dismantling of the colonial empires. People , including De Gaulle, saw the handwriting on the wall. They knew that French colonial possessions had to be given up sooner or later.
נשלח ב-19/8/2005 12:42
Avahu-
1. Northern Ireland cannot be viewed as simply a colony of Great Britain. The fact is that Northern Ireland has representatives in the British parliament; something which was never true concerning any real colonies. However, I believe that most decent humane people believe that Britain's presence in Northern Ireland is justified by the fact that the Protestant majority in that territory considers itself British and wishes to continue living under British sovereignty. I know that there are some who argue that Britain's presence there is unjust because it is the result of Britain's colonial adventure in Ireland. However, I believe that most decent humane people realize that that adventure took place hundreds of years ago and you cannot simply turn back the clock; you cannot simply seek to erase history. That would be madness. Shall we consider the US an essentially illegitimate political entity because of all the land that was stolen from the Indians and the Mexicans lo these many years ago? It seems that most Irish people in the Republic of Ireland consider the IRA a bunch of terrorists. I believe the official British government position on Northern Ireland is that its ultimate status ought to be decided by negotiations which ought to include the Republic of Ireland. This shows that the British government is making a good faith attempt to arrive at a fair solution of the problem.
נשלח ב-19/8/2005 11:49
אני לא משוכנע לגמרי שנושא האשכול נהיר לי,
אבל התבוסה היא לא שלנו (כיהודים) היא תבוסה של ההשקפה המערבית, שלא מבינה תרבויות שזרות לה, לא מבינה מהי אמונה דתית שמשפיעה על החיים.
וממילא לא מסוגלת להתמודד איתם ועם השלכותיהם.
המערב לא מכיר ברוח (אלא כחוג מקראמה או כ"חויה" ניו-אייג'ית חביבה ולא מזיקה) וככזה לא יודע איך להילחם מלחמות רוח.
ולכן המלחמות הכוחניות שלו בטרור, נראות מגוחכות ונגועות מבחינה מוסרית. (מה שנכון)
רק מי שמבין מהי רוח ומהי אמונה (במובן שהזכרתי למעלה) יכול להילחם ברוחות רעות שנובעות ממנה.
ואח"כ גם להגיע לשלום מתוך הזדהות עם היסודות המשותפים שיש לו עם התרבות הזו.
מי שלא רק גורם ליותר שפיכות דמים, באשר הוא מנסה לדכא את עצם האמונה והרוח, ולא רק את הגילויים הבעייתים שלה. (אני מתכוון לתופעת השהידים והטרור האיסלמי בעיקר, אבל לא רק)
נהרות הדם כבר בדרך אלינו.
(הלואי שנצליח לעצור אותם)
נשלח ב-17/8/2005 23:29
Avahu-
The difference between Vietnam, Algeria on the one hand and Britain's struggle with the IRA on the other might be that the IRA was practicing terror at home- on the actual territory of the country of Great Britain. This fact constituted a greater threat and the British were that much more motivated to win the fight. Also, the British felt morally justified in pursuing the fight against the IRA as opposed to the Americans in Vietnam who often doubted the justice of interfering in the affairs of a country so far from home. The French knew they were fighting to maintain their imperial hold on Algeria, a goal of dubious morality. According to this logic there is good reason to believe that Israel will win her fight against terrorism.
נשלח ב-17/8/2005 19:00
צריך להבדיל בין מלחמות קונבנציונליות, אלה שבהן צבאות סדירים של מדינות נלחמים זה בזה, לבין מלחמות גרילה, מסוג זו שאנחנו נלחמים כאן והאמריקאים בעיראק. הנסיון ההסטורי במלחמות גרילה הוא כמעט חד משמעי: צבאות סדירים מובסים על ידי לוחמי הגרילה. הצרפתים בויטנאם ובאלג'יריה, האמריקאים בויטנאם, הרוסים באפגניסטאן, ישראל בלבנון - בכל המלחמות האלה הצבאות הסדירים הובסו. דומה שהאמריקאים מובסים גם בעיראק. כיום נראה שהבריטים הביסו את המחתרת האירית בצפון אירלנד וזו (אולי) דוגמה נגדית.
מה הסיכויים שלנו במלחמתנו נגד הפלסטינאים לאור הנסיון ההסטורי הזה אני לא יודע.
נשלח ב-16/8/2005 00:04
Gam VeGam-
RE: Immigration- Your point about the Mexican border is well taken. But- I didn't mean mainly to make a point about immigration. Rather, I meant to make a point about the discourse in contemporary democratic societies. To wit, that discussion of issues like immigration is almost taboo. The reigning discourse exhibits a far-reachung commitment to tolerance which makes it difficult to identify the enemy by name and focus on thoroughly defeating him.
RE: Nuclear Weapons: If we accept the point made earlier in the course of this discussion that democratic societies find it possible to gather their strength for wars where they are truly threatened- then what really are we talking about? In cases where the democratic society is truly threatened, where its existence is at stake, it seems that they can summon up the strength to fight. In the case of wars where the very existence of the democracy is not at issue, you are correct that in such non-existence threatening conflicts, democracies would go to great lengths to avoid using nuclear weapons. In the case of democratic governments deeming it wise or expedient to invade other countries, we are agreed that the democracies run into trouble maintaining the national will and commitment to prosecute the war. The question that remains then is- In cases where the territory of a democracy comes under attack but the survival of the democraxcy is not at stake- would the population be willing to bear the burdens of war? Or in the case of a faithful ,democratic ally coming under attack would the population etc.? The Falklands War and the Yom Kippur War are good examples. (I am going with the idea tht the Arabs attacked Israel in that war despite ther knowledge of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons because they knew that Israel understood that they were seeking only to regain the territories lost in '67, not to endanger Israel's very existence. However, ultimately, these examples are not really good because they were short wars, quickly won. The question is whether contemporary democratic populations would have the stomach for costly protracted wars. I mean costly in terms of lives not just money. I have my doubts about that and I wonder whether contemporary democratic populations wouldn't prefer to cede territory and/or abandon faithful allies rather than go through protracted costly wars AS LONG THE DEMOCRACY'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE IS NOT THREATENED.
Actually, this question may also be moot in today's world. Since it has basically ben established that democracies almost never (or maybe even actually NEVER) go to war against each other, we are discussing a POSSIBLE WAR BETWEEN A DEMOCRACY AND A DICTATORSHIP HERE. At the moment, the democracies have serious advantages in terms of technology and educated military personnel So- any such war between a democracy and a dictatorship is likely to end in a quick and easy victory for the democracy. So- as I see it, the real question is whether the citizens of a democracy have the fortitude to prosecute a war against a GUERILLA FORCE that goes on for a long time. Or- whether sometime soon China will attain a high enough dgree of military and technological proficiency that it will be capable of sustaining a protracted military campaign against the U.S. Let's say the U.S. would feel constained to go to war for the defense of Taiwan. Would the US citizenry be up to that? Good question; I have my doubts.
Actually, one of the main points I wanted to bring out is that democratic societies may be strong enough to carry out conventional wars but they might encounter specific problems carrying on the necessary struggle against TERRORIST groups.This has to do with the matter of "civil liberties" problems and the difficulty of keeping the sense of threat alive when the threat is somewhat vague and amorphous.v
o.
נשלח ב-15/8/2005 21:54
שרירא,
לנקודה האחרונה שלך - עובדה היא, שגם מדינות שיש בידן נשק גרעיני עושות מאמץ עליון להמנע מלהשתמש בו. כך ישראל במלחמת יום הכיפורים, כך ארה"ב במלחמותיה (וגם בעקבות הפיגוע בתאומים), כך בריטניה בפוקלנד. התוקפן יודע שאם הוא לא יאיים על עצם קיומה של הדמוקרטיה, היא לא תגיב בנשק גרעיני - וממילא חוזרת השאלה למקומה.
לגבי מדיניות ההגירה - למיטב ידיעתי, ארה"ב מגבילה מאד את ההגירה היום, ולרוב רובם של המוסלמים בעולם יהיה היום קשה מאד לקבל אפילו אשרת כניסה לארה"ב, לא כל שכן אשרות שהיה ועבודה ואזרחות. כך או אחרת, מדיניות הגירה היא כמעט חסרת משמעות במדינה שמאות אלפים נכנסים אליה ממקסיקו מדי שנה.
נשלח ב-15/8/2005 20:20
Esnakhto- Thank you very much for the compliment.-----------------------------Gam VeGam And Meitzitz- I agree that history has shown that democracies do rise to the occasion and unite in their own defense when the threat seems serious and immediate enough. I understand what you are saying about Britain in the 30's and Israel of a few years ago. Those countries also looked like they were going soft and decadent and yet their citizens proved themselves ready to fight hard when fighting became necessary. However, the case of the contemporary U.S. might be different. As opposed to Israel, with its universal compulsory military service, the U.S. has gone a long time now with an all- volunteer military in which, in keeping with the nature of things, the troops are drawn mostly from the less economically well off sectors of society. The American elite does not send its sons off to do military service. The sense of community, commitment and shared sacrifice has ben very much weakened. It is fair to point out that Israel has fought for its survival a number of times in the last few decades and Israelis, in general, are keenly aware of the fact that they are surounded by enemies. There is a sense of being under siege. All this gives a certain tautness and readiness to Israeli society. Sadly, Israelis know, all the time, that they could be called upon to defend their country at almost any time. The US, on the other hand, has not experienced a direct security threat since WWII. Therefore, I think, the general atmosphere in the US is a good deal more slack, looser than that in Israel. Because of this, I have my fears about American decadence. I am not saying that I believe, flat out, that Americans are not ready to defend their country; I'm just saying that I have my worries. Also, I would like to focus specifically on the issue of terrorism. It is a case where the threat is often vague and murky. It is often not clear, at any given moment, how serious or imminent the threat is. This gives more of a chance for fuzzy- minded liberal thinking to mess things up. I alluded to the prevailing liberal discourse which renders serious consideration of limiting immigration almost impossible. Such talk is widely considered racist. Pat Buchanan has spoken openly about such things in the past; he defended the idea of taking cultural factors into account when setting immigration policy. He pointed to the undesirability of the country allowing in large numbers of people who are likely to be religious fanatics possessed by hatred of the West and who come from countries that have no democratic tradition.Such people, Buchanan claimed, would have a great deal of trouble becoming integrated into American society becasue of the cultural difference and might wind up presenting a security threat becasue of their fanatical religiosity and hatred for Western ways. Buchanan did not get much of a hearing for his ideas on immigration; the man and his politics have come to be widely considered as marginal in the American society of today.(I am, of course, no fan of Pat Buchanan. I know that he has been anti- Israel and has said a number of anti-Semitic things even going so far as to belittle "Jewish claims" about the Holocaust. However, -kabel hoemmes mimi sheomro- what he was saying about immigration deserved a hearing.) When it comes to the terrorism threat, I worry about things like those I mentioned above- too much strictness and concern with civil liberties in places where it is inappropriate because- in the specific context, the so-called violations are not that serious (Guantanamo is no Gulag) and we cannot afford to be raging civil liberties fanatics when the security of the country is at stake. I was quite disturbed to see that Amnesty International compared Guantanamo to the Gulag and so much of the liberal and left-wing establishment both in the US and Europe gleefully accepted this comparison. Also, I am afraid that there might be too much skittishness about torture. IOf course, civilized people must always maintain a certain horror toward the idea of torture. However, it is fairly obvious that the war against terrorism cannot be successfully prosecuted without a certain amount of torture being practiced , to a certain degree, at certain times and places. It is a matter of obtaining information that could save hundreds or perhaps even thousands of lives. I'm sure that most Israelis are well aware of this because of the specific Israeli situation. Concerning torture and Guantanamo, as far as I know, the Bush administration has been quite tough in its policy and has not caved in to the critics. However, I fear for the future.If a relatively long time goes by without an attack, America's vigilance will slacken and the undermining tones of a certain kind of liberal discourse will be that much more likely to have an effect. And the truth is that that the U.S. may be under threat for years or even decades to come. Even if a long time goes by without an attack that won't necessarily mean that we needn't fear another one. As far as federal government policy on terrorism, I see little to complain about at the moment;my fears are focused on the future. However, in terms of NYC government policy I do indeed fear for the present. In my previous message, I alluded to the official NYC government policy against racial profiling. The mayor has stated publicly that the NYPD will not engage in racial profiling in the subway system even after what happened in London. That means that when the police conduct searches of people's bags in the subway, they (the police) are not permitted to single out people who look like Arabs and South Asians. They can only do random checks. Apparently, the reigning attitude is that to single out a group is to engage in unacceptable racial discrimination. This despite the fact that terrorism suspects come overwhelmingly from certin easily identifiable groups.This is really crazy and suicidal.I know there are people who argue that the NYPD is, in fact, focusing its energies on subway riders who match the terrorism profile but they (the NYPD) don't want to say so publicly for fear of stoking unwanted controversy. I certainly hope what those people are saying is true.
To sum up-1. I find the situation in the US somewhat more worrisome than that in Israel- in a certain way. I am afraid that because the imminent focussing threat is missing in the US, there is more possibility of a certain undermining decadence taking hold there.
2.Aside from the matter of bourgeois individualism and apathy there is also the matter of the discourse of liberalism as represented by any number of professors and media pundits. This discourse is often guilt- inducing and West- bashing. (For these people Imperialism is the Original Sin). Prominent elements in this discourse are tremendous sensitivity to anything that might remotely be considered racist and a constant fear that someone(preferably a member of an oppressed minority group( somewhere is having his rights violated. I fear that the promulgation of this discourse,typical as it is in democracies, will make it difficult to prosecute the war on terrorism.
3. Most of what I am saying here has to do with the difference between a clear military threat and the terrorist threat. It is true that democracies have shown themselves, time and again, capable of defending themselves ferociously when they have come under direct military threat. The case of the terrorist threat is different, however. The threat may at any given time be very real but NOT SO CLEAR.In this instance, it will be more difficult to kep people focused and the undermining aspects of the liberal discourse will have more opportunity to do their damaging work.
_____________
I'm afraid that I was too maarikh in my last message for which I apologize.Also, I apologize for the messed-up tzuras hksivoh; unfortunately I have not completely mastered the typing thing yet. Basically, I think Esnakhto made the point. I very much agree that democracies can only defend themselves successfully if they are willing to give up on democratic principles TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. It is an established policy in the US that democratic freedoms are sometimes overridden by national security considerations. (Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War and many intelligent and decent people believe he was right to do so.)I certainly understand that the national security principle can be and has been abused. We must beware of overusing it. However, we must also beware of bending over in the other direction.When one is fighting a brutal enemy who gives no quarter, to worry TOO MUCH about civil liberties is to be suicidal. It is simply a fact of life that sometimes undemocratic means must be used to defend democracy..To argue otherwise is to argue that democracies are not entitled to defend themselves.
_____________
RE: the question whether democracies are ready to accept the sacrifices of war- There are those who argue that that the advent of nuclear weapons has rendered the issue moot. What country would be insane enough to attack a nuclear power?
עצכח: אוחדו שלוש הודעות רצופות השייכות זו לזו
תוקן על ידי - עצכח - 16/08/2005 0:31:33
נשלח ב-15/8/2005 19:10
אני לא רוצה להיכנס לשאלה אודות אמצעים כאלה או אחרים שאפשר לנקוט ולא נוקטים בגלל מוסריות , למרות שאני סבור הדגש המוגזם ששמים על זה, כאילו זה מה שמכריע בין ניצחון לתבוסה היא אירציונליות טהורה.
אני מתייחס אך ורק לטענתו של אידך גיסא שהחברה הדמוקרטית אינה מסוגלת לעמוד בקרבנות הדרושים למלחמה ובנקודה הזו מה שברור הוא
א. שאי אפשר לייחס את ההימנעות משימוש באמצעים כאלה ל"פינוק".
ב. טענתי עדיין עומדת שכל זה אינו נוגע למלחמות באופן כללי, אלא לסוג המיוחד של מלחמות "בעייתיות" שהמטרה שלהם הוא לקיים שלטון על עם זר.
באשר לנושאי תדמית , אינני מבין את הטענה שהשיקול היחיד העומד על שולחן המדיניות הוא שלא יהיה דרך לשום טיפש לפרש משהו כהישג. אני גם לא בטוח עד כמה זה נכון שהאוכלוסייה הרחבה אכן קונה את הלוקשים (היום כתבה למשל עיתונאית מסויימת בהארץ, שרבים כאן לא אוהבים , אבל היא מעורה היטב בחברה הפלסטינית , שאנשים ברחוב לא באמת קונים את התעמולה שהיה כאן ניצחון). ואני גם לא יודע עד כמה ניתן למנוע זאת, הרי בכל זאת מצליחים מדי פעם לפוצץ איזה טנק מרכבה .
נשלח ב-15/8/2005 19:04
אתנחתא,
ראשית, אם כדי להשיג נצחון יש צורך שהדמוקרטיה תתנהג כגרועות שבמדינות, יש לשקול היטב האם היא מעונינת להשיג נצחון כזה. שנית, את הדרך שאתה מציע ניסו הסובייטים באפגניסטן ויורשיהם הרוסים בצ'צ'ניה, ללא כל מעצורים מוסריים או אחרים, ולא נרשמה הצלחה מסחררת.
נשלח ב-15/8/2005 18:48
הסיבה שאי אפשר להיחלץ בעיראק היא מטעם אחד ויחיד, שכן מנסים ללחום באמצעים דמקורטיים ועל פי כללים בינלאומיים עם קבוצה מרדנית שאין לה שום כללים ושם תוכנית כלל. למעשה מלחמה בטרור תחייב לא התגייסות ועמידה, שזה יש מספיק, אלא הסכמה לבטל את היחס הסובלני נגד האיסלאם וביטול המלים היפות שבאמת איסלם היא דת רחמנית, וזאת ייעשה רק כשכולם יודו שהדמקרוטיה והרב תרבתותית אינה הדרך למגר את התופעה וזקוקים לכך אמצעים לא "מוסריים" וחקירת המבוססת על עינויים, והעדר גישה לפירסום כל הצלחה של פיצוץ עצמי שרק מגביר את ההתלהבות של נצחון. (וגם בזה לא צודק מייציץ, בעולם הערבי העיקר הוא הנצחון התדמיתי ולא המציאותי, כאשר מפרסמים (אני רק משתשמ באקטואלי כמשל בעלמא) שהחמאס הצליח לגרש את החזקים (כל מציאות למה שקורה בשטח מקרי לגמרי) משטח מסויים, זה מגביר את הפנטזיה ואת התיאבון של כל הזיהדיסטים בכל העולם כולו!
דרך אגב לפתע בריטניה תפסה שהדמוקרוטיה הורגת אותה, ופתאום תפסה שאם תתן מחסה לכל מחבל ומטיף צמא דם מפני השלטונות המזרתיכוניים, אז הכינוי לונדסטון יהפוך מכינוי למציאות. והנה גם היא הסכימה בחודש האחרון לצמצם את החירות הרבה שהיא מעניקה לכל דכפין. ועוד תראה כיצד הדמקורטיה הולכת להצטמצם באירופה. אך זה יקח עוד הרבה זמן ונהרות דם.
עד היום הזה עדיין השמאל רוטן על זריקת הפצצה האטומית נגד היאפניים, שבהתחשב עם התקופה ועם הרצחנות שגילו היאפניים הרי לא היתה שום דרך להילחם בהם.
