Ghetu asked me what I thought, as a ‘common Britisher’, of Bin Laden’s recent death. I responded as follows:
I’m more of an uncommon Britisher, but I’m pretty sure there are others who think like me. America deliberately chose its fight with Islam after the end of Soviet communism. America it seems has to have an enemy otherwise it eats itself (as it has been doing in its ‘liberal vs conservative’ sniping, which brings out the worst in both sides). America likes nothing better than a dirty fight, as if we were still in the days of the Wild West. It prefers to pick an ‘evil’ enemy, for the excuse to fight dirty. It’s easy to create an enemy–you just find someone to insult, cheat and wound. When you keep trying, someone crazy enough to fight you will emerge. Terrorism is the only weapon available to the weaker party, thus fulfilling the dream of the dirty fight with an evil enemy–favourite Hollywood theme.
Obama said the other day that the death of Osama brought America together—for the States perennially need to be United, in fact!—just as 9/11 had, ten years ago. It’s a pity that it has to destabilize the world to get its highs, but such is life. Osama’s assassination was orchestrated to impress Americans, not to demonstrate America’s respect for any known law. And certainly not to calm the world down.
It only remains to say that I distance myself from all opinions, especially my own.
In other news, I’ve been reading Nietzsche, The Antichrist, and now Beyond Good and Evil. As I’ve mentioned before, I read to discover ideas which I have already thought in my own incoherent way, but not been able to express well, or at all. Nietzsche is enough to keep me quiet for a long time.
a wayfarer’s notes 
I came back to your blog to find a response to my earlier comment but found a new post instead. This one
makes a lot of sense (the post, I have yet to read the diary)
LikeLike
I tend to agree, actually, up to a point. We meddled too much in the Middle East to begin with, mostly in the name of oil. I remember pundits after Sept. 11th saying that America couldn't afford her “isolationist policies” anymore. We had to become more involved in the world. I yelled at my TV, “What isolationist policies!? Not minding our own damn business is what got us into this mess.”
I could make the tired old argument that the American people, the civilian population, shouldn't be judged for the actions of our government, but I think we both know that's a cop out. The U.S. government by its very nature is a representative government. The idiots who pull this stuff were put in power by the people, and the people keep right on electing them. We Americans put on a big show of taking the “issues” seriously in our elections, but in the end the deciding factors are usually quite facile and shallow. Then there's the fact that a large chunk of the population is…well, pretty stupid.
However, one would be on pretty shaky ground making the argument that the people who died in those towers on Sept. 11th were paying their share of the guilt for American iniquities abroad. The argument could be made, using the logic above, but it would be a fairly cold argument, and the chain of responsibility a little tenuous when talking about people paying with their actual lives. I just think that's taking things a little too far.
Furthermore, you characterize Sept 11th and the death of Bin Laden as incidents where we “destabilize the world”. That's just plain not fair. In the first case, even if you made the case that it was committed as retribution for our own wrong-doing, we certainly didn't ask for 9/11 to happen. It's beyond insensitive to basically say “Oh that was just those Americans, causing trouble again.” As for Bin Laden, I won't argue for the divine right of retribution, and I honestly don't get much satisfaction out of his death. But again, how does this “destabilize the world”? Besides, if you're going to stand there and make the argument that 9/11 was our just desserts, don't you think he also had something coming for engineering the deaths of over 3,000 people? It goes both ways doesn't it?
A while back you implied that I had insulted you in my “Making Contact” post with my poor choice of pronouns and by not properly qualifying the audience I was speaking to at the moment. I think you've done some harder toe stepping here than I certainly even intended to do. Consider us more than even on that score.
LikeLike
OK, Bryan, it’s gracious of you to say that we are evens when it comes to toe-stepping. That feels nice and fraternal. I went back to your post Making Contact and was pleased to see the same topics arising again, like musical variations on a theme.
I shall resist further temptations to argue and clarify, and attempt to practise, here, the kind of diplomacy (at any rate from this point on) which I think is called for in international relations, but is sometimes deliberately flouted.
LikeLike
Ashok, welcome back. There is no diary to read, you'll discover, but a blank diary into which you can write (privately, for your own purposes).
LikeLike
You distance yourself from any opinions and comments on USA and Bin Laden, especially your own, having made comments.
That's an interesting variation on any response starting “With all due respect….” and you know darn well, there's nothing respectful, due, or otherwise, likely to follow.
Where do such a variety of disclaimers lead us and leave us?
LikeLike
I think drug traficking and the selling of weapons to drug lords and terrorists affect the world much more and in so many ways than the death of a terrorist.
Young boys are recruited into militias for the simple reason that there's no alternative for them. Poor and starving people will follow whoever gives them means to keep living. That destabilizes the world.
LikeLike
I find the current America to be a tad imperialistic. However, Britain was blatantly imperialistic not too long ago, and America's perceived war with the Islamic world is partially exaggerated (I know, I am babbling as these two ideas may seem unrelated). While “we” did pull some dirty tricks in Iran with the Shah and while we have tried other disreputable ploys in the past, the Arab world has not behaved in a more exemplary manner.
Much of the problem between America and the Islamic world stems from our relationship with Israel, because Israel is a merciless aggressor who commits acts of tyranny routinely, and we justify it, thus making terrorism somewhat forgivable. The problem is, Israel is not that tyrannical in context and they behave MUCH better than the other side, the Arab world, in response to their existence. It is a constant fight for survival for the Israelis, and despite the world's view, they do have some justification for survival.
I think maybe Osama targeted the American economy, and if so, he got what he wanted, and ultimately, and what he deserved.
LikeLike
John
It is the sort of views that you express that raise problems and hate in Arab countries against USA at times,
“It is a constant fight for survival for the Israelis, and despite the world's view, they do have some justification for survival.”
Your statement makes no mention of Palestinians. Do they also have a right to survive perhaps?
Are they persons living in some foreign country?
Was their country not divided and foreigners settled their without ther permission by force(on the basis of ancient history) ?
Was not some part part left for them occupied too continues to be occupied by support from UK and USA? Perhaps my facts are wrong?
But who cares? Palestinians dont exist perhaps for some Americans so why should they have a right to survive too? The Nazis wronged the Jews so they need to be looked after now by throwing the Palestinians out of their homes into the sea perhaps?
But beyond all that the Israleli connections control the almighty dollar to an extent and who cares if some people and some so called Palestinian children rot in refugee camps as long as the dollar is asured. Who cares for rats and other vermin?
One who lives by the gun goes by the gun so that was a natural fate for Bin Laden. Violence of any sort either by terrorists or so called civilized countries has no place in a civilized world. If violence has to be the means how then are human different from other animals? There are other models – Gandhi for one who using higher forces was far more successful in decimating the British Empire.
In the years preceeding his execution Bin Laden was kept in a mansion in comfort by some of the money of American Tax Payers give to Pakistan. That country uses some more of that money for keeping some more similar persons in comfort.
Yes UK was imperialistic, They are responsible for creation of Kuwait, Israel. Pakistan etc. that leads to problems in the world upto now. It is hoped that USA does not follow the lead.
LikeLike
The Israelis have a right to survive and the Jews needed to be provided a safe haven by the allies after WWII.
But,
Why did they not provide that safe haven within their own homes? Was it better to throw some other persons out of theirs to create that safe haven?
To use some 2000 year history as an excuse for that injustice is just some BS
LikeLike
ZACL, you make a valid point. I distance myself from the opinion, once expressed, to avoid the temptation to defend it.
It’s a lot harder to avoid the temptation to clarify. But still, I shall try.
LikeLike
Ashok,
I don’t have much time right now, but yes, the Palestinians are people. They are NOT a people. They are people who lived on land occupied by Jordan and other nations, where they were not a people either. Then they were occupied by Israel after that land that jutted into Israel was used as a launching point for Israel’s destruction (and would have had been used that way again if Israel had not held onto it). The Palestinian government did nothing to stop this. Why? Because there was no such thing as a Palestinian government. They are wanting autonomy they never had. It is like if Kentucky suddenly asked for autonomy.
Yassir Arafat said he was going to “create an oppressed people,” the Palestinians, and he did. What is a Palestinian? I know that the inhabitants in “Palestine” are mostly not Jewish and do not want to live under Jewish authority and I am completely sympathetic to that. However, they are not a displaced people. That was an invention. Who legitimately holds the land of “Palestine” is debatable, since everyone who ever occupied it, stole it so far as we know. However, there is the practical problem that the land is used to obliterate Israeli when it can be and it s a very good strategic place to do it. So long as the world refuses to acknowledge this, it puts Israel in a bad place. They are asked to ignore the reality that their existence is threatened by a made up people wanting their made up nation back.
I am sympathetic to the “Palestinian” cause, I really am. One culture is suffering the rule of another, which is a huge untenable problem; just like one culture getting a strategic launching point for the destruction of another is a huge problem. The problem is always addressed one of two ways:
1. Everyone takes one side of the argument and ignores the reality of the other and then starts saying what “should” happen. Obviously, they don’t know what they are talking about if they ignore half the story.
Or
2. Everyone argues which people, the Israelis or the “Palestinians,” legitimately have historical rights to the land, which is an utterly silly argument. Neither “people” have historical rights to the land and if you disagree, then it is an utter matter of opinion. Do the vagrants who wondered their when it was no man’s land deserve it or does the nation that built it into a nation deserve it or do the last people to conquer it deserve it? In my opinion, no one has an inherent right to own a part of the earth anyway, so trying to figure out whose great great great great great great great great great great grandfather lived there is absurd and pointless.
I do not have time to re-read this for editing mistakes or discuss the matter further. I only skimmed your response, which I will read fully when I have time. Suffice it to say, those who condemn Israel for its stance seem to universally lack understanding of the problem. So far as I can see, Israel is not the great tyrant the Middle Eastern political machine makes it out to be.
And finally, you quoted this:
It is the sort of views that you express that raise problems and hate in Arab countries against USA at times,
“It is a constant fight for survival for the Israelis, and despite the world's view, they do have some justification for survival.”
I totally agree that Americans acknowledging certain facts that the Middle Eastern Political machine wants covered up is one of the reasons they hate America.
LikeLike
Thanks for enlightening more on the history of the area John. I have not, and still do not, have sufficient interest in that area to learn more.
I guess my point was just as you said
“I totally agree that Americans acknowledging certain facts that the Middle Eastern Political machine wants covered up is one of the reasons they hate America.”
it may also be that
“I totally agree that Arabs acknowledging certain facts that the American Political machine wants covered up is one of the reasons why Americans can not see the other side of the picture.”
We need people to see both sides. WhatI know of the situation is only what is obvious without studying history or going into lengthy debate that:
1. The palestinians are living in much more harsh conditions than Israelis and therefore although I sympathise with lack of peace for both I do so much more for Palestinians. It is my nature that I sympathise more with the poor rather the rich, the weak rather than the strong, the greater sufferer rather than the lesser one. However you are entitled to do your point of view to have the opposite attitude.
2. My knowledge so far, it could be wrong, if you say so, is that the Palestinian Arabs are orginal inhabitants of the area, with whatever shape they wished their country to be in, and that the vast majority of jews are later settlers from Europe. Therefore the original inhabitants have the first right on the land.
But perhaps it is so with Native Americans too or the Native Australians. But who cares for the underdog. They cannot argue so intelligiently. Snuff them out as long no one is looking, and when people start looking shuff into a reserve or a Botswana or a gaza strip.
Deprive them of food, get them boozed up and infected and when their numbers are down to negligible outlaw racism, introduce minority rights, take care of the few and get over with the guilt and get back to the steak and wine.
LikeLike
Historically the definitions of countries and their borders have shifted and changed until recently. New countries have emerged in Eastern Europe recently.The local inhabitants (or their desendents)remain almost same though even in modern times of fast air travel, unless some outsiders come and shuff or snuff them them out.
It cannot be a justification for outsiders to come and push the local inhabitants out.
LikeLike
Yes there is one justification, it is greed and plain undiluted self interest devoid of ethics.
Humans are prone to it but in my view it is better for them to admit it rather than justify it.
However there are consequences of undiluted greed or lack of ethics that mankind has to face.
LikeLike
I think negative attitudes are easy to spot. It shows up in actions, manners, and in voice. They cannot hide. So, no matter how diplomatic people are trying to be and say, “No, I didn’t mean this or that,” it’s there. Separately, I’ve been comparing Japanese and American news on the earthquake and tsunami, and it’s obvious to me that American newspapers avoid reporting almost all negative news about own country.
I also think that when we’re in one culture, we do not see ourselves. But, it doesn’t do much good if we only point out faults. I’m speaking from two perspectives, but I think it goes to all the cultures. So, this is what I think. We can require all the future leaders to go live and work in one of Islam countries and vice versa and study the target culture and language. That also goes to the Japanese culture and language and so on. More we learn is better, but at least one totally different culture and language. I just don’t see true respect and appreciation grow among us unless we learn more. I would say at least five years in each country, and fluency in the target language is a must.
LikeLike
Well Ssaid Keiko.
LikeLike
Some of what you say Keiko, is undoubtedly sensible, however in our world, it is also idealistic. There is no guarantee that anyone living in another culture for a while, learning to understand some of its way of being, will necessarily become more tolerant of it and its people.
Remember the adage,'knowledge is power'.
John Myste offered a useful synopsis of international operations and relations which, most people, due to their education systems, internal propaganda, (referrred by Keiko), their lack of knowledge of history and diplomacy would know little of. John's synopsis could have gone back to Ottoman rule, also relatively recent. Nevertheless, his points were well made and pertinent.
LikeLike
ZACL,
The other way has been also idealistic. It depends on perspective. A while ago, I read that PM Cameron wants foreign workers to speak English. That’s understandable. It’s matter of respect to the target country where we live. But he seems unaware of own people who live in foreign countries not learning the target language.
I value knowledge, but without real experience, it has no power. I know it’s tough to learn. But if people put fair share of effort, I guarantee that they will understand Japan better, so understanding Islam isn’t a dream. I would say no pain no gain.
LikeLike
I live in a small street which has a mosque at the other end. Most of the houses are owned by Pakistani Muslims who came over in the Fifties and Sixties, and whose English is very poor. Their children and grandchildren who went to school in England do of course speak English, but still speak Punjabi at home. I find that with the older people it is hard to have a conversation because their English is so limited.
How am I to understand Islam?
LikeLike
Ashok,
Trying to meet an impossible deadline at work, so I really have little time. However, you have inspired a response again.
It cannot be a justification for outsiders to come and push the local inhabitants out.
I totally agree with this. The Israelis are not outsiders who pushed the local inhabitants out, of course. They simply occupied the territory used in the campaign to “drive the Jews into the sea.”
Yes there is one justification, it is greed and plain undiluted self interest devoid of ethics. Humans are prone to it but in my view it is better for them to admit it rather than justify it.
This argument can probably mostly be applied to America’s support for Israel. It is a virtual certainty. America, like all world powers before it, it an imperialistic nation. Though Americans’ motivations are rarely virtuous, they are on a logically defensible side of this dispute (if they must take a side). Until someone can offer Israel a solution that does not virtually ensure their eventual demise, they would be idiots to take it. Without a solution at all, the “Palestinians” have been far more violent than the Israelis. Again, I am not unsympathetic to the problems of the Jordanian vagrants (defined as vagrants who used to live in Jordan, via occupation of unclaimed territory). I only sound that way because I am answering what I think is a ridiculous idea: that the Israelis are tyrannical or imperialistic in their response to the “Palestinian” problem. I see no evidence of this. I know many have argued in the past that the Israelis routinely use excessive force in response to the attempted assassinations of protesters, but those who argue it think anything short of surrender is excessive.
When Jordan occupied the West Bank, why was this problem less? Similar cultures? Why does Jordon not welcome them back into Jordan? Why would they refuse to go? What is the government the “Palestinians claim?” What people do they claim to be? Why do they think this strategic battlefield should be returned to same kind of culture that last used it against them?
As I stated before, and as was referenced again, who has a long-standing historical claim to the territory could not be a more irrelevant question. If you believe in God, then God owns it. If you do not, then no one has a birthright to the place. People have a right to exist and the right of the band of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians was never taken away. The right of the Jewish people is repeatedly challenged, and was again in 1967 and I think we all know, would be again if anyone interested were strong enough to do it, or should I say: will be again when anyone becomes strong enough. There are few things that would help more in the quest of one culture destroy another than to return the West Bank to its owners prior to 1967 (or if we cannot do that, just grant the inhabitants in 1967 autonomy. That is probably good enough). Anyone who does not acknowledge the difficult, virtually impossible, situation Israel is in, and instead casts them as villains for being in that situation, probably has right having an opinion in the matter. You cannot completely ignore the life and death, most critical problem preventing peace and still claim peace should happen. The claim is that since we are ignoring that problem because the poor Palestinians are ignoring it, Israel should just cooperate. Israel cannot afford this kind of denial, as it may well lead to their final destruction.
I am not Jewish and I have no desire to be. I completely believe that the world view of the Palestinian problem is completely manipulated and I am merely responding to that. I watched the week-long Palestinian Debate in the 80’s aired on Nightline. Since that time, the Arab world has concocted much better stories and solidified their position, just as an attorney building a case would. The Israeli position has not changed or evolved. The Israelis had a problem, admitted it, and did never felt the need to reinvent it to keep it alive.
LikeLike
Mr. Vincent,
You are probably annoyed with me for taking your site down to my natural level. I apologize for that, and I will probably not continue this discussion, or at least not here. It is a particular issue that comes up from time to time, and if one delves into it, it definitely becomes a “back and forth” discussion. There have been many efforts to solve the problem. Israel was pressured into agreeing to an unworkable solution, then did not honor it and used Palestinian aggression as the excuse. People argue that the Palestinians are as much a legitimate government as the Israelis were, since they are a “made up government” also. People argue that Israel has used lots of force that had nothing to do with survival. They argue that Israel has monetized the occupied lands, which is corrupt if their purpose is survival. People have argued that Israel has violated human rights by using curfews combined with lockdowns to prevent basic supplies into “Palestine,” as acts of vengeance for assaults by teenagers. People argue that the Palestinians have a unique history in “Palestine” that is as long as the Jewish history in Israel.
I do not intend to have those discussions here. I am acknowledging them, lest someone happen upon this and try to engage me in those areas. I am aware of the arguments and I don't intend to address them now.
LikeLike
Keiko, if a target country wants its incomers to have knowledge and use of their language for economic immigration, they should insist on it. People would then have to consider how to go about learning the language.
The children's education policy of a country is another matter.
I fully appreciate your communication perception, Vincent. There are, in large part, cultural issues enfolded there, which were unwrapped with the following generations.
LikeLike
I’m not at all annoyed, John, & happy for everyone to continue here, as far beyond the original post’s scope as you want to go. Myself, I have nothing useful to say about foreign policy.
LikeLike
John your points are well thought out and well argued on behalf of the Jews. However, There are others who too have well thought out and well argued points on behalfof the Palestinians. We seem to have very few persons around who would argue for both with equal empahasis.
LikeLike
AS regards myself though I would continue to remain biased in favor of the Palestinians simply because they are the greater sufferers, atleast until I see both sides on an equal footing e.g. palestinians also controlling what goes in and out of Israel borders just as Israel controls what goes in and out of Palestinians ones e.g Gaza strip.
and
Palestinians also occupying and building on pre !967 israel land just as Israel is doing now
or best of all both sides doing none of the above and living in Peace.
LikeLike