Wednesday, April 10, 2002

Domino democracy Bernard Lewis, the world renowned scholar of Islamic history and the Middle East, explains to Saul Singer why hopes for peace and democracy in the region are still viable even in one of its darkest hours "'If the peoples of Middle East continue on their present path . . . the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression.'" "'There is something in the religious culture of Islam which inspired . . . in even the humblest peasant or peddler, a dignity and a courtesy toward others never exceeded and rarely equaled in other civilizations. And yet, in moments of upheaval and disruption, when the deeper passions are stirred, this dignity and courtesy toward others can give way to an explosive mixture of rage and hatred which impels even the government of an ancient and civilized country - even the spokesman of a great spiritual and ethical religion - to espouse kidnapping and assassination, and try to find, in the life of their Prophet, approval and indeed precedent for such actions.'" "Lewis . . . argues that 'there is an important difference' between Judaism and the two newer religions. 'The Jewish position was that there is only one God. This was seen with horror by the polytheistic world of the time. But the Christians and then the Muslims went one step further: they said that not only is there only one God but there is only one way to that God - our way. Now that was not the Jewish position, which was expressed in the Talmudic dictum that the righteous of all peoples have a place in paradise. That is not the Christian or the Islamic view, traditionally. Their view is that there is only one true religion and the others are either false or at best incomplete.'" "Lewis makes an observation that is brilliant - precisely because it seems so obvious in retrospect. The countries of the Middle East can be divided into three types: those with an anti-American and pro-American people, those with governments considered pro-American in which anti-American hostility runs rampant, and those in which both government and people are pro-American. The classic members of the first group are Iran and Iraq Regarding the second group, whose most prominent members are Egypt and Saudi Arabia . . . They live in very bad conditions; they at the very least mistrust, and often hate, their governments whom they see as responsible for their misery, and since those governments are seen as pro-American they see America as responsible for those governments. The third group . . . has only two members: Turkey and Israel." "If anything deserves ridicule, then it is the view that systematic change can be wrought without toppling the first domino of Arab tyrannies - Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The likely alternative to the West playing this game in earnest is not the status quo, but dominoes toppling the other direction." ... [more] 5:11:08 AM  Google It!  comment  []

"Then there's this eye-popping comment in a 'Week in Review' piece by Serge Schmemann: 'Even people of good will argue for the morality of suicide bombings, saying that suicide bombers are a natural product of a history of humiliation and despair.' Schmemann himself rejects this view, but his comment that 'people of good will' support it is shocking enough. Would Schmemann say that 'people of good will' endorse the idea that blacks deserved to be enslaved or that the Holocaust is a myth? Of course not. Certain ideas are so monstrous that no one can hold them and still be credited with 'good will.' It's not clear who these 'people of good will' are; Schmemann gives no specific examples. What he seems to mean is that the pro-suicide bombing position is a respectable one in the context of elite Western (particularly European) opinion. What would lead civilized people to endorse such barbarity? The Weekly Standard's David Brooks has an explanation: 'bourgeoisophobia.' Don't blame Brooks for the unwieldy term, which was Flaubert's coinage. Brooks argues that bourgeoisophobia is 'the major reactionary creed of our age': Today, in much of the world's eyes, two peoples--the Americans and the Jews--have emerged as the great exemplars of undeserved success. Americans and Israelis, in this view, are the money-mad molochs of the earth, the vulgarizers of morals, corrupters of culture, and proselytizers of idolatrous values. These two nations, it is said, practice conquest capitalism, overrunning poorer nations and exploiting weaker neighbors in their endless desire for more and more. These two peoples, the Americans and the Jews, in the view of the bourgeoisophobes, thrive precisely because they are spiritually stunted. It is their obliviousness to the holy things in life, their feverish energy, their injustice, their shallow pursuit of power and gain, that allow them to build fortunes, construct weapons, and play the role of hyperpower. And so just as the French intellectuals of the 1830s rose up to despise the traders and bankers, certain pToday, in much of the world's eyes, two peoples--the Americans and the Jews--have emerged as the great exemplars of undeserved success. Americans and Israelis, in this vieweople today rise up to shock, humiliate, and dream of destroying America and Israel. Today's bourgeoisophobes burn with the same sense of unjust inferiority. They experience the same humiliation because there is nothing they can do to thwart the growing might of their enemies. They rage and rage. Only today's bourgeoisophobes are not just artists and intellectuals. They are as likely to be terrorists and suicide bombers. They teach in madrassas, where they are careful not to instruct their students in the sort of practical knowledge that dominates bourgeois schools. They are Muslim clerics who incite hatred and violence. They are erudite Europeans who burn with humiliation because they know, deep down, that both America and Israel possess a vitality and heroism that their nations once had but no longer do. 'People of good will' indeed." [via The Opinion Journal] 5:05:34 AM    comment  []

The Peril of Too Much Power "So why I am worried about this wonderful country's current role in the world? Partly because until President Bush changed tack last week, I feared that if the United States were to attack Iraq without taking the lead in negotiating a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Islamic world would be united against the West while Europe would be divided from America, with disastrous consequences for years to come." "But my concern goes deeper than simply a worry about the Middle Eastern policy of a particular administration. The fundamental problem is that America today has too much power for anyone's good, including its own. It has that matchless, global soft power in all of our heads. In economic power its only rival is the European Union. In military power it has no rival. Its military expenditure is greater than that of the next eight largest military powers combined. Not since Rome has a single power enjoyed such superiority — but the Roman colossus only bestrode one part of the world. Stripped of its anti-American overtones, the French foreign minister Hubert Védrine's term 'hyperpower' is apt." "Contrary to what many Europeans think, the problem with American power is not that it is American. The problem is simply the power. It would be dangerous even for an archangel to wield so much power. The writers of the American Constitution wisely determined that no single locus of power, however benign, should predominate; for even the best could be led into temptation. Every power should therefore be checked by at least one other. That also applies in world politics." "The complicated double task for us pro-American Europeans is to strengthen Europe's capacity to act outside its own borders while disentangling the idea of a stronger Europe from its sticky anti-American integument. We need to build a Europe that sees itself not as a rival superpower to the United States, but as America's most important partner in a world community of liberal democracies. Americans, in their own enlightened self-interest, should want Europe to succeed. Otherwise they will be left to cope alone with the loneliness of the long-distance hyperpower." ... [more] 3:52:53 AM  Google It!  comment  []