Our addiction to self-delusion
1. Regardless of the supposedly globalized and interconnected world, segmented thinking and selective perception is more the rule than the exception. Many nations and movements manage to convince themselves that certain menacing phenomena cannot possibly affect them. At the same time, there is a tendency to hold a devalued image of the threat that these development carry in their belly. The method behind addictive self-delusion consists of one-sidedly overemphasizing the compatible aspects of the observed force while determinedly ignoring those signals that represent a threat.
Here is an example. Country “A” states that it loves mankind, which can find peace under a “great tent”. This brotherhood will become possible once country “B” and the forces of evil ruling it are vaporized. Fighting “B” is, therefore, a “struggle for peace”. It makes a great difference if policy is made in view of the first sentence or whether the reaction considers both ideas and their logical relationship when “A”’s likely course is projected.
Taking the first part out of context harks back to a motive. Numerous countries wish to be left in peace. The resulting security strategy is to ignore disturbing developments. To achieve this, the appeasers are willing to deprive other, directly menaced societies of their right to self-defense. In this case, the method is to condemn the force that responds to violence. This luxury is enjoyed even if the real aggressor, whose actions are excused seeking its good will and ones non-involvement, is determined ultimately to destroy you too, regardless of the support given by having accepted his earlier claims.
On the ground, the clashes to which the reaction is under-response prove that nothing is more vicious and violent than are fighters for peace when shrouded in the protective camouflage of non-violence. Naturally, before accepting such terminologies, one should ascertain what is meant by the words used. Peaceniks understand non-violence as meaning that those challenged are not to resist. Helen Thomas’ impatient suggestion is revealing. She solved the perennial conflict in the Near East by suggesting that the Jews “should get the hell out of Palestine”. If such strategies work then the result is easy victories for “nasty” players. Indeed, the victim of the moment can prevent international shocks by compliantly accepting its fate. In going under, the sacrificed lamb has a consolation. By its consent, the next victim is moved from the ranks of the bystanders closer to the next venue of execution.
2. The generalizations in the foregoing have been committed to “paper” well before the “Israeli terror raid” on sea-enabled peace-fighters. (The allegation regarding the timing of the original draft, is beyond proof.) Even so, your correspondent finds that the event fits the earlier theory. The subject deserves consideration not because of the concrete case or the ultimate fate of Israel. The more so since the message implies that you cannot buy peace, only time, by selling Israel. The incident’s aftermath and publicity happens to be an illustration of a central concern of the author. That label is; “what is wrong with us?”
What I can recall from my course in the Law of the Sea seems to be that a vessel that claims civilian status has to submit to a search by a war-waging boarding party. (“War waging” because Israel has no peace treaty with the Palestinians and by implication the forces supporting them.) Resistance, whether with cannon, assault rifles, pistols or slingshots makes the vessel into a man of war. That chosen status converts it into a field of battle.
Skipping legal abstraction, there are facts that outsiders can ascertain. These indicate that the pro-Hamas propaganda’s image here, and prosaic reality there, do not match. After a problem-free examination of the four other ships of the convoy, the IDF has stepped into the set trap. In the aftermath of the boarding, the radicals that controlled the reception of the search party lost control over the events and went, by virtue of the hot-headedness of its representatives, further than intended. Obviously, the planned scenario amounted to a copy of what you see on TV when stone and Molotov cocktail throwing mobs attack police that is ordered not to react. Equipped with side arms and rubber ball “weapons”, the IDF unit has hardly been outfitted for a pre-meditated “massacre” they are now charged with.
The ship’s deck could be filled instantly upon the arrival of Israeli choppers by a throng equipped with the customary rioter’s gear. This reveals that resistance, which counted on the customary restraint of the “cops”, has not been improvised. The undisputed fact that, the vessel carried known extremists, support the suspicion. The serious danger to the life of the soldiers and the arms of those that protested the search, as well as the ultimate reaction of the stunned commandoes show that, events developed their own inertia. Therefore, the drama’s development took events beyond the blueprint of the original plan.
It would be in tune with our otherworldly culture of self-shielding by denial, to solve the problem by submitting the incident to an investigation by the UN. A specially suited branch would be the Human Rights Council. Members like Libya guarantee that the correct and PC conform judgment will be coughed up that it will duly condemn the insolently resisting victim.
3. Modern Europe – including its overseas branches – is the product of the mixture of diverse and mutually contradictory forces. Such were Christianity, Judaism and through Spain, some Islamic learning. Added to this intellectual heritage were significant elements of the classical Greco-Roman heritage preserved in the Western and Greek speaking eastern Roman Empire. The core of these components could contradict each other. Nevertheless, luckily they were in the end able to combine their strengths in diverse amalgams. These, in turn, could stimulate a development unanticipated an unintended by the original contributing protagonists.
After the economic, political and intellectual recovery achieved in slow motion during the middle ages – they were much “better” than their simplified school-book reputation – the energy represented by the Renaissance and Reformation could unfold. These movements contradicted each other but at the same time, they were also interdependent. In themselves, both encompassed a diversity that provided for internal debates regarding even their fundamentals. Most importantly, while also containing backward looking aspects, both streams of thoughts accustomed the exposed to the idea that change is possible and that when it happens it need not be ipso facto rejected. This tendency has been amplified by the individualism that emerged within the reformed-catholic and the renaissance movement. Inadvertently, all of these came to support originality and individuality. In a departure from these forces, but deeply indebted to them, the road led to the Enlightenment. With that the foundations of modern political democracy and through capitalism – the economic version of the democracy of politics – have been provided. We live in a continuation of the process that began with the unusual insight that all men are created equal and that these are endeavored to enjoy certain rights as long as the rights of others are not thereby curtailed.
If this is accepted then Europe’s success is due to a series of creative conflicts. Well before Christianity, what became “Europe”, knew successful civilizations. Christianity helped Europe to find a new fundament in the course of the renewal that started with the Dark Ages. Even so, neither the state nor the church alone could rule the region. Meanwhile, there existed a strong secular tradition that predated the Church. Secularization gave Europe, an era of different states, ethnicities and correspondingly diverse cultures. This variety proved to be the foundation of global success. With respect to the world of Islam, the story is different. Except for the divisions caused by disagreements over the right to rule over the faith’s entire realm, the forces of paralyzing orthodoxy ultimately prevailed. Pure doctrine, rather than debates over its meaning has prevailed. Ergo, the culture was deprived of a prolonged creative conflict. This explains not only a path of development that strived to return to the origins rather than moving into new spheres to improve on the past. Ultimately, in the military realm, this led to defeats (Lepanto and Vienna) and then to stagnation followed by subservience to the states that represented a modernized world. The modern world has been a Western cultural product. Assimilating its achievements meant adjusting one’s own tradition. For the Muslim world modernity has been a cultural representative of a characteristic of the foe and as the “religion” of the competitor. As a result, even today, the modern world does not represent a challenge to catch up with through assimilation (as it did for Meiji-era Japan). Except for Atatürk’s Turkey – now increasingly abandoned by Islamist elements in power there – the West appears to be the carrier of a seditious civilization. As such, it is to be rejected, fought and defeated. This in the service of a single, prophet-given truth. As such, that blasphemy is to be dealt with by combating it. Selectively adapting and adjusting for the sake of the utilization of its achievements is beyond the pale.
Posts
