Jihad and evil

i'm reading blog of a girl who has just returned from Israel. She writes in 10 days spend there she hadn't seen any Jew who didn't hate Arabs, and that it was sickening, especially to observe such things as cheerful presenters on tv announcing that another Arab was killed together with 9 of his 12 children and there is joy around. What culture is this?
What if Jesus Christ looked at the land of his earthly life, what would he think? Two tribes both of whom who reject him as God are bitching and killing each other because of territory. I suppose he would turn away His face from this ugly picture. Just suppose.

-masha

Rombald: "Judaism, assuming that it has any connection whatsoever with its sacred text, is a racist, genocidal religion. The Nazis merely borrowed their ideas from the Jews, and applied them to Germans instead."

The greybeard bookfolk among us with a taste for lit-crit will recall the hot water in which the critic George Steiner, whom I reviewed in National Review in 1985, landed in expounding such ideas at length, especially in the speech by Hitler in Steiner's 1981 novella The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H., in which the aged dictator is captured in the Amazon jungle in the mid-1970s by Jewish Nazi hunters.

You can read all about it at your local library.

Or in Wikipedia.

This article is proof that the NYT is right to limit its use of the "terrorist" label. Just give us the brutal facts, and we can make the moral judgments.

I deal with lots of really horrible facts in my cases. The prosecutors who scream "Murderer! Murderer! Murderer!" or "Rapist! Rapist! Rapist!" are far less effective than the prosecutors who methodically lay out the objective facts.

By dispassionately recounting the Hamas terrorist's words, the NYT let him hang himself with his own words. That's far more effective than writing, "Terrorist! Terrorist! Terrorist!"

Rod, you're a lovely man, notwithstanding your love of "end of the world" fantasies. But you are horribly mistaken about Gaza and Israel/Palestine in general.

Surround a densely packed civilian population, composed largely of people driven from their own country. Keep them on short rations. Don't let them leave, even if they have scholarships to study in your "ally's" colleges.

Bomb and shell them for day after day, killing mothers, babies, and traffic cops, in the name of self-defense.

Who's to blame? The ineffectual nasty fanatics among them, or those who surround them?

The beginning of wisdom in the ME is this-- Zionism poisons everything.

Thank you, Cannoneo.

Yes, this is pathological. You're looking at the pathology of abuse. Men raised in an abusive, authoritarian social structure grow up to see themselves as soldiers in a war on evil. They don't see the collateral damage--or if they do, they believe their victims should be grateful to them. Sadly, this view of life is not confined to Hamas members.

"I utterly hate Islam. "

"The beginning of wisdom in the ME is this-- Zionism poisons everything."

I know it's wrong, but sometimes I just want to say, "A pox on both your houses."

I think public defender may be close to the truth. To get at that truth, it may be necessary for us to (with as much as respect as possible), ask a question about what exists in the hearts of the Palestinian and Israeli leaders. More and more, I wonder whether the problem underlying the many decades of such senseless slaughter in the Middle East is that each side is convinced that it is "chosen," and adheres to a worldview that is legalistic and has little room for redemption or grace. In other words, perhaps this is what happens when you put one "eye for an eye" culture up against another "eye for an eye" culture. Everyone goes blind.

In the history of both the Palestinians and the Israelis, each side has historically suffered horrible atrocities and injustices. So the cry "Never again!" goes up (understandably). But then, the victims become the aggressors, and vice versa, ad infinitum.

Take a look at other oppressor/victim situations in world history and ask yourself: did such an endless cycle of vengeance result there as well? Well, not always. Look at South Africa, where a certain period of violence gave way to a multiracial state and a reconciliation commission. Look at N. Ireland, where a fragile peace has been brokered. Look at continental Europe, where former oppressors and victims coexist in the same European government. None of these situations has turned out entirely sunny. And I'm not completely sure of my analysis here, but the question is worth asking: is Christianity (and its ethic of forgiveness and grace) responsible for the break in the chain of vengeance in those places? And are Islam and Judaism responsible for the inability to break that same chain in the Middle East? I'm just asking........

"Tell me again how his ideology is not evil?"

It is evil. It is also becoming the norm of warfare as we move into a post nation-state model of conflict. Be prepared to see a lot more of this...and worse...as we move into the twenty first century.

So if what you just described is evil, would you also describe a military campaign that killed 800 people, 1/3 of which were children and also resulted in the wounding of over 3,000 children.

Now admittedly I am assuming that these children, at least, aren't terrorists who are waging "jihad" on Israel. But I suppose the moral calculus is different for you, when its Palestinian children.

And on a related note, I would guess that those 3,000 children, whatever their beliefs about Israel were, they are much, much more hostile. Why do you imagine that would be?

It's just amazing, what you read these days. Seems freedom of speech has let people say whatever they think, no matter how evil. This is good. The bad part is that everyone seems to be afraid someone will actually make judgements about good and evil.

The ranters scream that Israel is genocidal, and that HAMAS is evil. Great. Except any rational person knows the first is false and the latter true. Israel has the military might to wipe out the Palestinians. To wipe out HAMAS and Fatah. Yet, it doesn't.

On the other hand, HAMAS no more has the capability of defeating Israel militarily than they have of flapping their arms and wafting gently upwards to the moon. But they continue killing.

Terrorists have a tactic. That is, they use fear to accomplish a goal. HAMAS cannot generate enough fear to cause Israel to surrender. If 9000 rocket attacks over 3 years can't do it, then nothing they have in their arsenal will.

If you conduct a war of terrorism for years, against the same enemy, from the same place, using the same tools, and it fails to provoke even an overwhelming response, then your "war of terror" is an abject failure.

So, why do they persist? There are, inescapably, two possible reasons...

One, is just plain insanity. Without delving into the religion or social or cultural morasses, clearly, insanity can be an explanation that works with nary a wisp of contradictory evidence to be seen. Is it a psychotic illness, with murderous rage, a willingness to die just to have the satsifaction of killing people you don't know? Or is it a conditioned mindset, so ingrained or so brainwashed that irrational actions can no longer be recognized?

The other, is ignorance. They simply have no idea they're not winning, not advancing, and not defeating Israel. It's hard to swallow this one, but the shoe fits well. The behavior fits the explanation well.

I note with some amazement the response here that the quoted person who says that the injured and dying should be happy to be martyrs is "deranged". Well, to your POV, and mine, yes. The question is, how does one explain his behavior and that of HAMAS and not come to the conclusion they all think alike?

On one hand, you have side A, which endlessly persues killing the individuals who represent the ethnicity they want to die. On side B, you have the people who live with that unrestrained behavior, except for the occaisional incursion to bring it down to a tolerable level. Who doesn't act until things are bad enough they're willing to take the international "hit" for conducting a war against people who go to great pains to ensure that women and children die FIRST when conflict comes, and the press is right there to be willing accomplices to HAMAS and show and tell it to the world as HAMAS wants it shown and told.

It doesn't take long to understand that one kills just to kill. The other eventually kills when it has tolerated all it can and reacts to beat down the people who are responsible.

Now, take that picture and widen it. Iran (among others) fuels and funds this. It is a proxy war, and the Palestinians are the foils who get shot, while the safe funders and directors sit at a distance and smirk.

Who is getting whipsawed? The Palestinian people. HAMAS is more their enemy than is Israel. Israel would and has agreed to give them a nation of their own, but the Palestinians have never actually had any say in the matter. The non-combatant Palestinians (I'm sure there's plenty, if not the vast majority) can't win for winning nor for losing. They have no competent administration or governance, and they're endlessly killed in military conflict.

And all that some commentators can bring themselves to do is to bitch and moan that Israel's IDF is a bunch of baby-killers.

Maybe the insanity extends farther than the Palestinians...

"You should write an article titled: American capitalism and evil."

Maybe they didn't have the spin you would like, but Dreher has done a number of posts on exactly that subject.

A few weeks ago Israel killed one of the Hamas leaders (I do not remember his name) together with his 2 wives and 11 children. He did not leave his house regardless of Israeli warning. One of his sons died before caring a suicide mission against Israel. He wanted to stay in the house and to die, fine with me. His wives presumably wanted to die with hime, fine with me. But the children? They did not have a choice. He made their choice for them.

My mother-in-law was in ghetto in Ukraine during WWII. She was telling me that when Germans were shooting, Jewish women tried to cover their children with their bodies hoping that the children would survive.

It looks like according to that Hamas leader belief, his children will become martyrs and it is more important for him than their lives.

What really angers me, is that we are arguing about Israel to obsession, while meanwhile back in Congo 500 civilians have been killed in fighting in the last month. Where are the demonstrations? Where is the outrage? Or are five-hundred dead Palestinians (and every death is a tragedy and a terrible loss, that is not what I'm disputing) worth more than five-hundred dead Congolese?
http://allafrica.com/stories/200901080001.html for the reporting on this. There's yet another disaster unfolding in this poor tormented country, the UN can't get help in and some areas are inaccessible, yet...where is the outrage?

"American capitalism has fueled and funded the removal of more evil in this world than any other force"

Intriguing. I am moderately well read in military history. Care to cite some instances.

Steve

steve
January 10, 2009 10:26 PM
"American capitalism has fueled and funded the removal of more evil in this world than any other force"

Intriguing. I am moderately well read in military history. Care to cite some instances.

Steve

Sadly, Steve, your question reveals you're incapable of comprehending either an answer, or an explanation why your question makes not the slighest sense.

American capitalism has fueled and funded the removal of more evil in this world than any other force.

Brief thoughts:

-- The American Revolution was funded, to a non-trivial degree, by the monetary printing press, with all the expropriation of wealth that implies.

-- The Civil War, WWI, & WWII resorted to mass conscription of labor.

-- WWI also featured nationalization of railroads & telecom.

-- WWII also featured rationing, price controls, immense income taxes, and the allocation of >40% of GDP towards federal spending (double today's amount).

Given that, throughout all these examples, the US economy was still generally characterized by ownership of private property, the ability of private actors to conduct (some) voluntary private transactions, & the pursuit of economic self-interest, I suppose one could still describe said economy as "capitalism".

And yet nowadays I also occasionally hear about how "capitalism" wasn't to blame for (say) the financial crisis, that it was all "government intervention", and that in a truly free-market capitalist system, such a crisis never would've happened, owing to self-correcting market behavior, etc.

Perhaps, in addition to supplying the list of citations Steve @ 10:26 mentions, you could also explain exactly how you're defining "capitalism", and whether/how the aforementioned examples fit into your framework.

Easy, Rombald - it really was only the other Scott who accused you of "hate speech". Go back and reread what I wrote. My sole motive was in providing a bit of literary background in an area on which I am expert - the work of George Steiner - so as to footnote for my fellow amateurs an area where I am anything but - Judaism, the Old Testament, and religion in general. Since I merely implied a close echo between your line of argument and that of George Steiner, of whom I am a critical admirer, and who is not an avatar of hate speech, I plead "not guilty" to any hostile accusations, which I do not fling about lightly. The Scott who did accuse you thus is free to elaborate if he chooses. For the record, I am neither friend to any religion, ancient or modern, nor enemy, and am content to attend the conflicts between them with abundant popcorn and much shaking of the abdominals.

All patriarchal religions are genocidal, so why blame Jews and Muslims? The Greeks and Romans, the Assyrians and Babylonians, all were genocidal long before the monotheists came along.

Religion is a cultural framework for conceptualizing ourselves in relation to self, others, and the world within which we operate. Local religions become tribal as the population grows and bumps up against competitors. Tribal religions emphasize the virtue of those who are like us and the impurity and displeasingness to the gods of those who compete with us. All the big monotheistic religions started out tribal, and they incorporate rationales for genocide.

Christianity and Buddhism are interesting in that their original impetus was as a critique of tribalist religion. In their pure form, they universalize “the Way,” making it available to all humans . . . or at least to all “mankind,” perhaps not quite the same thing. They attract the disenfranchised, who see in them a way out of their assigned position as marginalized, impure, and displeasing to the divine embodiment of tribal authority. By opening up the boundaries of who can be acceptable to God, these universalizing religions create a huge expansion of possible alliances--a theological land-grab, as it were. So they’re evolutionarily superior to the more constricted tribal religions.

However, within centuries both Buddhism and Christianity were re-colonized by tribalistic authorities, eager to make sure this liberation didn’t get out of hand and elude their grasp. So the old genocidal impulses were re-grafted onto the new, liberated theology. Once again competitors and enemies were identified, and labeled as impure and hateful to God. So the cycle continues.

Genocidal impulses are present within Christianity, as well. It was our hatred and persecution of Jews--those impure, God-hating people--that created the need for Israel. Judaism has evolved over time from a genocidal tribal religion to a belief system that contains within it some of the most generous impulses toward peace, justice, and learning--as well as the fossilized injunctions to vengeance and mayhem. It’s quite remarkable, considering the brutal and relentless pressure that’s been applied to Jews over the centuries by our own supposed religion of peace.

Normally, under pressure, all religions devolve back toward their old tribal origins. In times of stress, unscrupulous manipulators try to hasten that process, hoping that fear and hatred can be used to power their own engines, under the guise of pleasing God and removing the impure ones from his sight. “God wills it!” was, and still is, the cry of Christians in the grasp of genocidal impulses. It’s currently being applied in Gaza. God wills that our proxies, the Jews, slay the evil Muslims, who are repugnant in the sight of our God, who naturally sees us as the Real People and does not regard the deaths of infidel children.

It’s pointless to argue about which religion is superior, because they all behave the same way when they’re being used as tools of cultural domination.

'Not too long ago I listened to a Terry Gross interview with ex-CIA operative Robert Baer, author of "The Devil You Know." At the risk of oversimplification, his main thesis is that the U.S. negotiates from the wrong side of the Sunni/Shia rift. His contention is that Iran -- and Iranian-backed terror groups like Hezbollah -- are ultimately rational and have specific political objectives in mind. With these folks, diplomacy is possible, albeit challenging. The Sunni terror groups, in contrast, are basically apocalyptic anarchists. They have no discernable rational objectives upon which realistic negotiations could be based.'

I think that's a hangover from thirty years ago when we saw the Iranian Shi'is as the Totally Wacko Enemy.

"Intriguing. I am moderately well read in military history. Care to cite some instances."

Well, I would say the Big Three are...

The Civil War
WWII
The Cold War

There is a moral difference here, if only you would see it. Rombald, I agree that there are moral differences in what is commanded or recommended by different religions. I think my point stands, though--that in practice those differences all collapse under the pragmatic pressures of the moment. I'd be really impressed by a religion whose followers would stand up in public and say "It would be advantageous to us to napalm your village, but our religion forbids it, so go in peace." Instead they all come up with some variation on "Er, well, naturally we don't believe in burning children alive, but heck, this is WAR!"

I prefer Christianity over Islam and Judaism, for the same reasons you cite. However, Christians have never repudiated their version of the Jewish scriptures, and have often used verses from the Old Testament to justify warfare. So I don't see how they can get off the same hook on which you'd hang Judaism. It's true that if Christians took the New Testament seriously, they'd have to behave very differently. But, alas, most Christians prefer to waffle on this subject, for the same reason I give above--peace and love is not considered practical.

I guess we could haggle over what constitutes "full-blown genocide." I think you're mistaken about the Romans. Remember Carthage? In any case, you don't have to exterminate every last one of your enemies to be following what I called "genocidal impulses." Certainly the warfare of Christian Europeans against indigenous people in North America and Australia was genocidal in its impetus and effects, even though descendants of those peoples still exist.