The Jerusalem Syndrome

[marcinmoka]

(Translated from French, printed in "Le Figaro"...a very good paper if you ask me)

By Andre Glucksmann

The outrage of so many outraged people outrages me. On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes. Two measures, two weights. The daily terrorist attacks on civilians in Baghdad, killing 50 people or more, are checked off in reports under the heading of miscellaneous, while the bomb that took 28 lives in Qana is denounced as a crime against humanity. Only a few intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Lévy or Magdi Allam, chief editor of the Corriere della Sera, find this surprising. Why do the 200,000 slaughtered Muslims of Darfur not arouse even half a quarter of the fury caused by 200-times fewer dead in Lebanon? Must we deduce that Muslims killed by other Muslims don't count - whether in the eyes of Muslim authorities or viewed through the bad conscience of the west? This conclusion has its weak spots, because if the Russian Army - Christian, and blessed by their popes - razes the capital of Chechnian Muslims (Grosny, with 400,000 residents) killing tens of thousands of children in the process, this doesn't count either. The Security Council does not hold meeting after meeting, and the Organization of Islamic States piously averts its eyes. From that we may conclude that the world is appalled only when a Muslim is killed by Israelis.

Should we thus presume that the public at large implicitly endorses the ideas that Ahmadinedjad shouts at the top of his lungs? And yet so many of those sceptics who display consternation over bombings in Lebanon seem shocked if you suspect them of anti-Semitism. I want to trust them. We don't want to imagine that the entire planet is mired in anti-Jewish paranoia! But then the matter becomes even more puzzling. What is the source of this hemiplegia? Why is the world frightened by Israeli bombs alone?

Perhaps the reason why the deaths in Lebanon are so disproportionately shocking as compared with the starving people of Darfur and the ruins of Chechnya is that they are seen as a surrealistic geopolitical signal. Anyone who follows the news in Gaza or Qana does not simply count the dead on a particularly violent day - rather, the coffins of these victims encircle the aura of a fatal promise - a promise that the hundreds of thousands of corpses from Africa and the Caucasus have no chance of approaching. Haven't legions of experts - for decades now - identified the Mideast conflict as the centre of the world's chaos and the key to its pacification? Is there any diplomat who does not repeat ad nauseum the formula about the gates to a hell of future wars versus the gates to world harmony, all of which open in Jerusalem? A never-changing script haunts 21st century minds. The script maintains that everything is decided on the banks of the Jordan. In its most grim version, that means: As long as four million Israelis and as many Palestinians are facing off against one another, 300 million Arabs and 1.5 billion Muslims are condemned to live in hate, bloody slaughter and desperation. And the rosier version: We just need peace in Jerusalem to put out the fires in Tehran, Karachi, Khartoum and Baghdad and to set the course for universal harmony.

Have our sages gone crazy? Do they really believe that sans Israeli-Palestinian conflict nothing bad would have happened, neither the deadly Khomeini Revolution, nor the bloody Baathist dictatorships in Syria and Iraq, nor the decade of Islamic terrorism in Algeria, nor the Taliban in Afghanistan, nor the angry warriors of God the world over? The sad, reverse hypothesis is seldom posed, but it is actually much more likely: Every truce along the Jordan is fleeting, as long as the palaces and streets, the majority of the intelligentsia and the officials of the Muslim world hang on to their anti-western passion. Globalization (which entails the dismantling of economic barriers but more importantly all social and mental barriers) necessarily leads to tough and terrible defensive reactions. The development of anti-western ideologies in Germany, from Fichte to Hitler, does not depend on the foundation of the Zionist state. The anti-western affect is constantly renewed in Russia, from the tsars to Stalin and on up through Putin. And it would be naive to presume that the Iranian lust for power, in search of its Khomeinistic force de frappe, uses the "Jewish question" as anything more than a pretence for a universal Jihad. Does anyone think that the green subversion, after erasing Israel from the map, will mark its success by laying down its weapons?

A hypocritical geopolitics, which ordains the Mideast as a basic pillar of the world order, has become the religion of the European Union, the belief of the unbelievers and of the doubters of the west. Post-modern thinkers have no justification in proclaiming the end of all ideologies. In fact, we are swimming in an ideological illusion and have secretly exchanged our deceptive hopes for a final battle with a fearful incantation conjuring a catastrophe to end all catastrophes, that is just as absolute. While our head swarms with surrealistic ghosts, our heart perceives, in every photo from Lebanon, the death of humankind. Jerusalem is only the centre of the world because it is considered the centre of the end of the world. Our illusions feed on apocalyptic notions.

And so every Mideast conflict is like a rehearsal for the end of days. Just look at the undefinable war of cultures, if you need convincing. And anyone taking that position is resigned to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The years of bombing of Israeli cities by the rockets of the Party of God become a foretaste of the Iranian godfather's promised destruction. And so, as Clausewitz already noted with irony, it is not the aggressor who starts the war. Instead it is he who steps in to stop the aggression. So Israel is guilty. Guilty of a collectively fomented fantasy of the end of days. From surrealistic geopolitics to delusion - just one step.

[Borg]

Forgive me please:

Quote - From that we may conclude that the world is appalled only when a Muslim is killed by Israelis. - end quote.

This did make me chuckle, as IMO it is quite true.

I also chuckled when I read this:

Quote - And so, as Clausewitz already noted with irony, it is not the aggressor who starts the war. Instead it is he who steps in to stop the aggression. So Israel is guilty. Guilty of a collectively fomented fantasy of the end of days. From surrealistic geopolitics to delusion - just one step. - end quote

Aggressor / aggression?

I seem to remember writing on this board that if the "bad guys" were to lay down their arms and stop fighting peace would break out. If the Isrealis were to lay down their arms and stop fighting it would be a slaughter. Few seemed to agree.

Good article from my quick skim.

Borg

[BC_chick]

You're comparing Iraq killings, an area in which recent invasions resulted in a power vacuum with two equal sides fighting to seize control, with the attacks of a country who is far more powerful militarily than its enemies, and who provides a legitimate reason for animosity to its enemies by blatantly breaking their international duties.

IOW, if Israel gave back the occupied territories and was still being attacked, people would not criticize her for fighting back.

[marcinmoka]

You're comparing Iraq killings, an area in which recent invasions resulted in a power vacuum with two equal sides fighting to seize control, with the attacks of a country who is far more powerful militarily than its enemies, and who provides a legitimate reason for animosity to its enemies by blatantly breaking their international duties.

IOW, if Israel gave back the occupied territories and was still being attacked, people would not criticize her for fighting back.

No.....not really. The article was comparing global REACTIONS to the killings. Sometimes it's nice to read the actual text rather than just skimming the key words.

[marcinmoka]

Posted by White Doors in a previous post:

Finally, deeper bias against Israel and Jews may be evident when Israel is held to a different standard than any other country in the world. Such an example is when critics of Israel question or deny Israel’s right to exist. No one questions France’s right to exist or Egypt’s, simply because there is disagreement with their policies. Only the Jewish state’s legitimacy is in question. Similarly questions of motivation arise, when Israel is singled out for criticism for actions or policies that other nations around the world perform with impunity.

[BC_chick]

You're comparing Iraq killings, an area in which recent invasions resulted in a power vacuum with two equal sides fighting to seize control, with the attacks of a country who is far more powerful militarily than its enemies, and who provides a legitimate reason for animosity to its enemies by blatantly breaking their international duties.

IOW, if Israel gave back the occupied territories and was still being attacked, people would not criticize her for fighting back.

No.....not really. The article was comparing global REACTIONS to the killings. Sometimes it's nice to read the actual text rather than just skimming the key words.

I repeat....

people would not criticize her for fighting back.

By people I'm referring to the global REACTIONS.

Either you're arguing semantics, or you're doing what you accuse me of doing .... skimming the key words.

[myata]

Whatever global reactions, it's hard to argue that Israel is an innocent victim of unwarranted and unprovoked assaults. Not after:

- sprawling illegal settlements on the occuplied lands supported by full military force of the state;

- expropriations of lands;

- targeted killings;

- heavyhanded reprisals and incursions;

- and so on

[marcinmoka]

Either you're arguing semantics, or you're doing what you accuse me of doing .... skimming the key words.

While your second point dealt with "reactions", the opening point you made did not, there's a big, big difference between saying:

"you're comparing Iraq killings", and "you're comparing reactions to Iraq killings".

Furthermore, the article dealt with not just Iraq, but also

- Darfur

- Chechnya

- Afghanistan

all of which are far, far from "two equal sides fighting to seize control". Israel is a tiny nation, with a legitimate right to be paranoid. Everyone hates them.

Myata, no one will say Israel is completely innocent.

( But it IS EASY TO ARGUE the Jews HAVE ALWAYS been victims of unwarranted and unprovoked assaults. You may of heard of a little chapter in the history books known as WWII. )

THE QUESTION I ASK IS THAT WHY DOES EVERYONE GLOSS OVER OTHER EVENTS, SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS IN CHECHNYA, OR THE SALUGHTERS TAKING PLACE IN EAST AFRICA, and focus primarily on a conflict which causes not nearly as many casualties BUT MANAGES TO INCLUDE THE ETERNAL SCAPEGOAT, the JEWS?

[geoffrey]

IOW, if Israel gave back the occupied territories and was still being attacked, people would not criticize her for fighting back.

Idealistically, I'd agree with you, but there are some serious security concerns with doing so... not to mention that you can't just give it all up tomorrow and expect that power vacuum to be filled by a terrorist run PA.

Take Golan for example, Israel's security would be directly threatened by giving that up, as the neighbouring countries have consistantly proven they will not stop terrorists from attacking Israeli farmers with missiles from the Heights.

The occupied territories are occupied for a reason, rather justified in the current power situation. I personally don't trust Hamas much with cracking down on Hamas funded terrorists, it doesn't make much logical sense to me.

I'd like to see a move out of the occupied territories, but only once the PA has the strength to control security in the region, and a government that is not controlled by terrorists with a stated objective of wiping Israel off the map. It's not reasonable for Israel to cede to such people.

THE QUESTION I ASK IS THAT WHY DOES EVERYONE GLOSS OVER OTHER EVENTS, SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS IN CHECHNYA, OR THE SALUGHTERS TAKING PLACE IN EAST AFRICA, and focus primarily on a conflict which causes not nearly as many casualties BUT MANAGES TO INCLUDE THE ETERNAL SCAPEGOAT, the JEWS?

Oh boo hoo. If you want to play like the big boys, you've got to take criticism like the big boys. No one glosses over Chechnya or Sudan, just as they aren't just going to gloss over Israel. I think Israel has some very justified security concerns, but their methods of dealing with situations are sometimes bordering absurd.

And they'll be criticised for that.

Not as Jews, but as Israeli's. Israel is a secular state, open to as much criticism as Iran, Canada, North Korea, the United States, whoever. Like I said, if you want to play the nation game, you've got to deal with the responsibilities that come with.

Being Jewish isn't a 'get out of criticism free' card. Beyond that, Israel isn't Jewish, it's a secular state with a foreign policy.

[Black Dog]

Beyond that, Israel isn't Jewish, it's a secular state with a foreign policy.

Not entirely true. Israel is, by self-definition, a Jewish state. The fact that it has policies that expressly favour Jewish citizens further weaken the claim that it's a secular state. It's not a theorcracy, but it's not secular either.

[myata]

BUT MANAGES TO INCLUDE THE ETERNAL SCAPEGOAT, the JEWS?

My, you really breaking new ground here, my friend.

[marcinmoka]

No one glosses over Chechnya or Sudan, just as they aren't just going to gloss over Israel. I think Israel has some very justified security concerns, but their methods of dealing with situations are sometimes bordering absurd.

You or I may not gloss over it, but count the proportion of posts dealing with Chechnya or Sudan compared to threads/mentions of Israel on this, or any other forum, or even major news agency dealing , compared to any other major conflict. Israel is guilty at times and one would be a fool to deny it, but why does no other nations receive so much criticism.

[GostHacked]

Pretty interesting article. I am always stunned when news media portrays something. The Darfur region is a complete hell hole. But the media has not reported it in the ways they do for the Middle East. Geopolitical indeed.

The reactions when Israel gets attacked is just nuts.

- kill em

- retaliation

- ect.

-----as we have seen in the summer of 2006 with the Hammas taking Isreali prisoners, but then Lebanon gets their ass pounded for a couple months. Most of the reactions I have read (and on this site) show how much more people react to an Israeli related story as to... hmmm um The Philipenes??

But not much has been said in regards to Darfur. That seems like a much more urgent crisis to solve compared to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. The amount of people getting killed in that conflict far outweighs anything Israel has 'suffered' in their entire history as a country. But being in Africa, it just does not seem important to anyone. The US media has always favoured Israel, but rarely backs up any country in Africa. Nigeria is another country under much turmoil in the last year. Again not much reporting or reactions to it.

It is the media's fault as much as the people who watch it and react to it. The media will present the case as tragic and horrific for one area and go on and on and on and on about it. Then another area will be mentioned with so much more horror going on, but it gets a side note. Making it not important to people, so their reactions are proportionate to the amount of press an item gets. Check it out for yourselves.

There is crap going on all over the world that would make many of you cry out in sadness/anger. But it is not being treated the same as other lesser important events.

[geoffrey]

You or I may not gloss over it, but count the proportion of posts dealing with Chechnya or Sudan compared to threads/mentions of Israel on this, or any other forum, or even major news agency dealing , compared to any other major conflict. Israel is guilty at times and one would be a fool to deny it, but why does no other nations receive so much criticism.

Because no other nation really matters that much. How much does any of it affect my life??? None at all in any of these places really.

But we have a large Jewish community in Canada (especially in the media) that likes to point out, oh ya, look at those Palestianians attacking Israel. So the other side counters with the other side of story. Builds up to more coverage.

I don't think Canada has a large Chechnyan population or that the average Canadian really even knows where that is. Israel is higher profile because their proponents and those against Israel live among us.

[marcinmoka]

There are about 350,000 Jews in Canada but the Muslim population is almost twice that. But most are not Palestinians, yet they still side more with the Palestinians than the Chechen's.

We also have about 200,000 Russians, and 1.2 million Chinese, yet they rarely try to bring our attention to any of their causes, i.e Muslim - Russian , or Muslim - Chinese animosity?

I will give you that in Canada and the US, the bickering between the two groups does SIGNIFICANTLY raise their profiles, but why is it THE cause celebre in the wider Muslim world, where many of these places are relatively devoid of Jews?

[geoffrey]

Well the Jews consistantly rank highest amongst the Jihadists objectives, so I'd say that focus from that perspective is mainly religious.

[marcinmoka]

Religious? Could you explain?

Takes me back to a Fatwa carrying author, but I believe that religion is a facade used by the elite in their quest for power. Unfortunately, many "weaker" individuals are rightly duped into compliance, believing their actions will carry out a religious will, when in fact it is no more than political ploy. And this exists amongst ALL sects.

Money = Power = Survival......and all this makes the world go around.

[myata]

Well the Jews consistantly rank highest amongst the Jihadists objectives, so I'd say that focus from that perspective is mainly religious.

Was it also the case before the creation of Israel (and mass expulsion of arabs )? Just a thought - before one's carried away far into existential "conflict of religions" / "good agains evil" and like domains.

[Argus]

You're comparing Iraq killings, an area in which recent invasions resulted in a power vacuum with two equal sides fighting to seize control, with the attacks of a country who is far more powerful militarily than its enemies, and who provides a legitimate reason for animosity to its enemies by blatantly breaking their international duties.

IOW, if Israel gave back the occupied territories and was still being attacked, people would not criticize her for fighting back.

You mean, like, if Palestine was a separate country, and yet they were still firing rockets and missiles into Israel, and attacking Israel border posts?

Like Lebanon?

[Argus]

But not much has been said in regards to Darfur. That seems like a much more urgent crisis to solve compared to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. The amount of people getting killed in that conflict far outweighs anything Israel has 'suffered' in their entire history as a country. But being in Africa, it just does not seem important to anyone. The US media has always favoured Israel, but rarely backs up any country in Africa.

Why blame the US? The US has been more out front on the Darfur crisis than anyone else, and has repeatedly demanded action in the UN. On the other hand, the Chinese, French, and the entire Muslim world have defended - never mind not attacked strongly enough - defended the butchery in Darfur, and continue to do so.

[Rue]

Whatever global reactions, it's hard to argue that Israel is an innocent victim of unwarranted and unprovoked assaults. Not after:

- sprawling illegal settlements on the occuplied lands supported by full military force of the state;

- expropriations of lands;

- targeted killings;

- heavyhanded reprisals and incursions;

- and so on

You without a doubt have sunk to an intellectual low. read back what you wrote. You are engaged in justifying terrorism. Even if what you said is true which it is not, its is intellectuallypathetic to trot out the two wrongs make a right arguement or the equally as inane Israel is evi lso deserves to be terrorized arguement. These arguements are tiresome, unoriginal and absolutely idiotic in simplicity.

Terrrorism is inexcusable period no matter who does it and no matter what the reason. Its people like you that make me angry more so then terrorists because if these terrorists attacked you-you would be the first whininga nd demanding restitution-I am not sure which is worse your self-righteousness or your blatant hippocracy.

As for your selective exercise of trying to paint this to be the usual Israel bad Palestine good scenario, if that is all you have to contribute move on. We have enough idiots in this world trying to apologize for terrorists.

Also get soemthing else crystal clear. Israel targets the assassination of terrorists don't you dare infer with intellectual dishonesty as you have that Israel is targetting innocent civilians.

The difference between Israel and Hamas is Israel does not have a charter calling for the killing of all Palestinians nor does it broadcast on its tv and radio nightly, shows calling for killing of Muslims world wide let alone wiping out all Palestinians.

More to the point before you make subejctive comments about heavy handed excursions and the usual stale Israel is evil b.s. get it through your selective head-it takes two to tango-Israel would not be doing what it does if it did not have to fight terrorism.

You want to criticize Israel, then criticize Hamas and all the other terror groups as well and put this in proper context.

[myata]

Even if what you said is true which it is not, its is intellectuallypathetic to trot out the two wrongs make a right arguement or the equally as inane Israel is evi lso deserves to be terrorized arguement. These arguements are tiresome, unoriginal and absolutely idiotic in simplicity.

And so on ....

And that must be your intellectual high?

[jbg]

Should we thus presume that the public at large implicitly endorses the ideas that Ahmadinedjad shouts at the top of his lungs? And yet so many of those sceptics who display consternation over bombings in Lebanon seem shocked if you suspect them of anti-Semitism. I want to trust them. We don't want to imagine that the entire planet is mired in anti-Jewish paranoia! But then the matter becomes even more puzzling. What is the source of this hemiplegia? Why is the world frightened by Israeli bombs alone?

Perhaps the reason why the deaths in Lebanon are so disproportionately shocking as compared with the starving people of Darfur and the ruins of Chechnya is that they are seen as a surrealistic geopolitical signal. Anyone who follows the news in Gaza or Qana does not simply count the dead on a particularly violent day - rather, the coffins of these victims encircle the aura of a fatal promise - a promise that the hundreds of thousands of corpses from Africa and the Caucasus have no chance of approaching.

As I've posted elsewhere, when it comes to Islam the West has a certain surrender instinct that does not serve it well. The fact that a people espouse violence does not mean it should be appeased; quite the contrary.

[Figleaf]

THE QUESTION I ASK IS THAT WHY DOES EVERYONE GLOSS OVER OTHER EVENTS, SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS IN CHECHNYA, OR THE SALUGHTERS TAKING PLACE IN EAST AFRICA, and focus primarily on a conflict which causes not nearly as many casualties BUT MANAGES TO INCLUDE THE ETERNAL SCAPEGOAT, the JEWS?

I'm puzzled why Israel's apologists have begun to take this particular line in recent months. What value is really gained in a public relations strategy based on "Yeah, but not as bad as Them."?

Anyway, there are a number of explanations for the greater attention paid to the middle east conflict in 'Western' discourse than to conflicts in Africa, for example. In particular:

-Israel to some extent a creature of the modern international order and so has a legacy of intense attention from the wider UN community.

-Along the same lines, the conflict in that area is a legacy of the failure of the modern international order in an institutional sense, and so receives greater institutional attention still, compared to non-institutionalized conflicts that crop up, like Darfur.

-Israel and its Arab neighbors have more connections to the lives of people in 'the west' than other parts of the world, both in terms of family and social connections between people, and in light of the Biblical cultural legacy of Judeo-Christianity (not to mention the strategic importance of the larger region).

[jbg]

I'm puzzled why Israel's apologists have begun to take this particular line in recent months. What value is really gained in a public relations strategy based on "Yeah, but not as bad as Them."?

Anyway, there are a number of explanations for the greater attention paid to the middle east conflict in 'Western' discourse than to conflicts in Africa, for example. In particular:

-Israel to some extent a creature of the modern international order and so has a legacy of intense attention from the wider UN community.

-Along the same lines, the conflict in that area is a legacy of the failure of the modern international order in an institutional sense, and so receives greater institutional attention still, compared to non-institutionalized conflicts that crop up, like Darfur.

-Israel and its Arab neighbors have more connections to the lives of people in 'the west' than other parts of the world, both in terms of family and social connections between people, and in light of the Biblical cultural legacy of Judeo-Christianity (not to mention the strategic importance of the larger region).

Because it is self-defeating, indeed suicidal, for Israel (and indeed the US) to be held to impossibly high standards. Both have serious enemies, and the issue should not be whether Israel/US fights with one hand tied behind their back, or both hands, while their enemy fights with missilized civilian aircraft, exploding 17 year olds, etc.

In the other regional conflicts, i.e. Dharfur, all parties fight with gloves off. Israel is asking to be compared against a standard where others are far more villainous than Israel.