Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for today's cartoon, titled "Palestinian Body Armor". You can read their related commentary and links HERE.
I also did a post about this subject last April. The Cox and Forkum site has some good excerpts from articles and many links, including some photos at the Little Green Footballs blog.
One of the articles linked to is Robert Tracinski's examination of
The Suicide Bomb Morality. Tracinski put's it succinctly:
The West's conflict with Islamic terrorism is more than a "clash of civilizations." It is, at root, a clash between two world views and two moral models, a clash much wider and more important than any political conflict...
The Palestinians show us a society based on sacrifice in its purest, most fanatical form. It is a society built around a single moral model: the suicide bomber, who is lionized on billboards, on television, in popular songs. And this is not just the propaganda of the corrupt Palestinian rulers...
...For the great mass of Palestinians this worship of sacrifice is sincere. By rejecting every chance at peace and coexistence with Israel--breaking every truce and turning down every peace offer--they have lost everything and gained nothing. Taking the suicide bomber as their moral model, the Palestinians seek to emulate his fate: in their lust to destroy Israel, they are willing to accept the utter destruction and collapse of their own society.
Look to the other side of the security barrier and you see a very different society. While the Palestinians raise their children on visions of blood and murder, the Israelis are largely preoccupied by the business of producing, creating, making a living. Consider, for example, the vast Gaza greenhouses handed over from the departing Israelis to the Palestinians. In the hands of the society that "made the desert bloom," these greenhouses produced millions of dollars worth of produce. Under Palestinian control, they were looted and their products have literally been left to rot. As with the Cold War examples of East and West Berlin, Gaza and Israel offer side-by-side laboratories for opposing moralities.
The contrast to America--a nation founded on the right to "the pursuit of happiness"--is even more vivid...
The distinctive model for American culture is not the suicide bomber but the "self-made man": the entrepreneur who achieves prosperity by hard work and ingenuity. Implicitly, we recognize that the proper business of life is not sacrifice but achievement. This is the actual code by which most Americans live.
The tragedy is that we don't recognize it.
We are still too morally intimidated by unquestioned traditions, or by the confused invocation of the "sacrifice" of our courageous soldiers--which fails to recognize that it is an act of the most profound self-interest to resist the rule of tyranny and terror. And so we pay lip service to the nobility of sacrifice.
This lip service undercuts our certainty and moral clarity, not only in dealing with terrorism, but also at home...
...Ayn Rand remains a controversial figure, scoffed at by both left and right. But this phrase, "perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing"--could there be a better description of the Palestinians' suicide bomb society?
Look at the horrific plight the Palestinians have chosen, and you can observe the real meaning of a culture of self-sacrifice. Look at America, by comparison, and you can see the life-affirming benevolence of a culture of rational self-interest...
(bold emphasis mine) This is an excellent article, not very long and well worth reading the whole thing.
Related links:
Children raised in a murder-suicide culture
Palestinian Human Shield Watch
Those Poor, Victimized Palestinian Civilians
9 comments:
Well I love to read your blog, but as you know, on this particular subject I'm not in complete accord.
Walker,
On Pat's blog in the comments section a while back, you had said that the Palestinian's resort to suicide bombings because it's very effective, and they have no army to fight with.
Sure, its effective... and affective too, at terrorising. But it doesn't seem to be solving anything, it just extends the conflict.
If they had an army, would suicide bombings stop? Japan had an army, and suicide attacks were part of their strategy. Iran has an army, yet they claim they have a contingent of suicide bombers around the world waiting to strike on their behalf. Suicide bombers are incorporated into their military strategy.
Having an army does not preclude the use of suicide bombers.
We all like to believe that people act rationally; that if people resort to suicide bombing, they must have good, rational reasons.
The truth is, human beings are suseptible to mass movements, cult thinking on a large scale, which isn't always rational. When such a cult can create an environment where the cult itself cannot be questioned, and debate and dissent are crushed, the irrationality is perpetuated indefinitely, and you often end up with a culture of death like Hamas has, with it's martyr cult, that can even justify endangering children.
We don't live in a suicide-martyr cult, and neither do the Israelis, but the Palestinians do. The point of this article was to highlight that difference, that world-view. To try to deal with this situation like it's all entirely rational, without recognizing the cult influence and it's irrationality, is to make a big mistake, because it's just too important a factor to leave out. Until the cult it dealt with honestly for what it is, there can be no rational solution that will work.
Patty,
I think it has got to change a lot faster than several hundred years. The good news is, there are many modern muslims who have a westernized education, who want to join the world community and peacefully co-exist. The bad news is, they don't have a voice. Speaking out could cost them their lives.
The more I've learned about Muslims and Islam, the more I have come to understand that the Muslim world is a very large one, with many variations. I've harped on the Wahhabis a lot, as one of the most extrem and intolerant, and because they are backed by Saudi money that pushes their educational efforts. But I read recently that the Saudi's are allowing the Sufis more freedom, allowing them to practice their religion openly in Saudi Arabia. Sufis emphasis the kinder, gentler aspects of the Koran (unlike the Wahhabis, who tend to do the opposite).
So perhaps reform is happening even there. I believe that the biggest problem with Islam is the lack of debate and dissent in the Islamic world. I think 90 percent of the problems we have with Islam would resolve themselves if all Muslims were to have the freedom to openly debate, discuss and interpret Islam for themselves. There is a minority of fanatics that want to keep tight control over Islam and it's interpretation; their grip needs to be broken.
Chas, Last night I watched "Independence Day" for the 10th time but this time I noticed that the war was won by... a suicide bomber.
We are fairly sanctimonious about suicide bombers, especially when they are children -- that makes the tactic is so repulsive. (And I note your point that lots of failing war efforts have used children and suicide.) But we are also sanctimonious about it because it is effective, hard to defend against and, we don't do it.
Seems to me there are only two ways to fight suicide bombing: Fight a war of annihilation or adopt their tactics. Personally, I'm for the war of annihilation. With the left in this country, I'll be wearing a freaking burka before we fight that war.
That leaves other tactics. I don't think we can be too sanctimonious about suicide bombing because, eventually, the only way anyone will fight is by employing the elements of suicide bombing (if not the suicide exactly) by infiltrating civilian groups, and causing terror and uncertainty by random, ruthless violence.
I think we'll see the leftists use the tactic against the middle class long before we see the military use it. But nonetheless, I imagine we will use the tactic just the same.
I saw that movie some time ago. I believe the person who sacrificed themselves wasn't looking to do so; that's just the way the cards fell. And it was a sacrifice to save the world. If the Palestinians got the same result, it might be more understandable.
War movies often have someone who sacrifices their own life to save others. Who have the Palestinians saved by blowing theselves and others to pieces? It seems to only exacerbate their problems, not solve them.
Soldiers may sacrifice their lives in war, but they aren't usually looking for or hoping to die. They are fighting to live.
The suicide bomber chooses to die, and take as many of the enemy with him/her as possible. This goes against human nature, the will to live. To cultivate this kind of attitude requires deliberate effort, and that is what I am refering to as the culture of death, and it is also that culture, or worldview, that Trancinski is addressing in his article.
I don't see where sanctimoniousness on our part comes into it. To me it's not about moral judgements as much as it is about recognizing observable facts.
Anyone who is raised in a martyr culture of murder-suicide, where they are taught this from a very early age, from parents, teachers, the TV, the Mosque - is likely going to reflect that world view in their attitudes, opinions and lives. They won't all kill themselves as suicide bombers, but they will be inclinded to admire those who do, and think it's right and good. The seed bears the fruit in like kind, so it's not really suprising.
Our world view is different, so we find aspects of theirs revolting. Different seed, different fruit. How does that make us sanctimonious?
As for us using suicide bombing as a tactic, or elements of it, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Murder-suicide is not unheard of in our culture, to be sure. But it's considered an aberation and a tragedy when it occurs. Our culture doesn't teach us to aspire to it or reward us for it.
There are silly parts of our culture, like Hollywood, that romanticise murder-suicide in movies like "Thelma and Louise". There is in fact a whole history of the romanticisation of murder-suicide in the west, going back to France and the counter-enlightenment. Those ideas have also had effects in our culture and in the Muslim world too, but that is a whole nother topic.
The left in this country may romanticise murder-suicide, but it's not taught on "Sesame Street", or in our schools, churches or popular culture, as an actual goal for us to strive for.
As Trancinski says, the Palestinian's Suicide Bomber culture is the ultimate culture of self-sacrifice, while American culture is one of life-affirming rational self-interest.
And that being the case, I don't see how our military could ever adopt suicide bombing as a tactic. The popular culture goes against it. In fact it sounds like a military recruiter's nightmare. Besides, it may be affective at terrorising people, but it has a miserable track record at winning any wars.
I agree and not. Some elements of suicide bombing are tactics we might have to adopt in the future. Sending a lone bomber into a market crowded with civilians. Even if the bomber does not blow himself up, he still insinuates the bomb in a crowded place.
This tactic -- terror -- is the wave of the future. No more armies on battlefields. There are two ways to wage war: Terror from the air with bombs and, on land, with booby traps and lone bombers.
**A handful of idiots are handicapping an entire conventional army with these tactics in Iraq.**
I think we'll see the left do it to Americans in a very short time and we'll probably see it as a military tactic used by us before we die.
I'm just saying it's coming because it is an effective tactic: Cheap, lethal, hard to defend against. Can't beat it, especially for undermining an existing government. Look what the Palestinians have managed to do to the Israelis in terms of PR alone! Nothing could have been more effective than terror.
I disagree that our culture doesn't permit it. We might not use suicide in particular, but we will use somehing like it.
Terror - as a tactic, is a much broader catagory than suicide bombing in particular.
Many of the non-suicide tactics you mention are what I would call guerilla warfare, which has been around for a long time.
A case could be made that suicide bombers are just another tactic in the guerilla warfare arsenal. But it still differs from the other tactics, in the aspect of intentional suicide, instead of fighting to live.
you said:
**A handful of idiots are handicapping an entire conventional army with these tactics in Iraq.**
I'm one of the people who believes that we don't have, have never had, enough troops in Iraq. Why? Too many times, our soldiers have cleared an area of insurgents, then moved on, with no soliders left behind to guard the cleared area. So the insurgents just come back later, and have to be fought and cleared out again.
I think this has caused things to drag out a lot longer than they needed to. We are still wiping them out, but it's taking longer, and our soldiers get killed retaking areas they had already cleared previously. There are other factors at work too, but I believe the numbers are perhaps the biggest.
As for the left in America, the environmental wackos have already started their terrorism. I expect we shall see more of it, but I doubt suicide will ever be a major component, if it ever plays any part at all.
I can't agree that suicide bombing is an effective tactic. The day it suceeds in destroying Israel, then it can be called effective. But the Palestinians have been doing it for how long? Remember, their goal is the destruction of Israel. How closer are they to that? The Israelies have dug in. It's only effect has been to insure that the so called "peace process" comes to nothing.
It's other effect is to make the Palestinian leadership very rich, living lives of luxury in Europe on blackmail money paid by Isreal and the West, to try to stop suicide bombing. Whenever they want more money, they get a suicide bomber to blow up some Jews, then they pay lip service to the "peace process" while they collect even more money from the west for going through the motions of pretending to want peace.
So yes, it does have an effect, not of winning the war, but perpetuating it indefinitly, to the detriment of the Palestinian people, and to the enrichment of the Palestinian leadership.
Suicide bombing in particular as a tactic, isn't in my opinion a winning stradegy, at least I haven't seen it proved to be yet. And I don't see it in particular, being embraced by the US, because the necessary MINDSET required is not supported in our culture.
You said:
I disagree that our culture doesn't permit it. We might not use suicide in particular, but we will use somehing like it.
Would you care to be more particular? Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean. We try not to kill civilians, our soldiers can even get punished when they do. The insurgents in Iraq even send women and children out in the line of fire, knowing our soldiers won't shoot them, to buy time for the insurgents to re-group.
Bombings from the air, and land-mines,which have become part of conventional warefare, might be called terror, but then war is full of terror, especially when civilians are involved, wether deliberately or incidently.
What we call terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. I don't see the US moving in that direction.
In world war II many civilians died in cities like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But those cities were also industrial centers of the enemy's war machine; the civilians could not be avoided. We have "smart" bombs now, which may kill less civilians, but doesn't eliminate civilian deaths. But what makes it different from terrorism is the intention to kill civilians.
If you want to talk about our military tactics as terror, equal to terrorist tactics, then you are getting into "moral equivelency" arguments. One can make those arguements, insofar as war IS terrifying, but there are significant differences in particulars and intentions, not to mention results.
Chas,
My point is that, to win and probably to just survive eventually, we'll have to secret bombs in public places, like markets, and wage war just as our opponents have OR we'll have to wage a war of annihilation.
We'll have to kill civilians, on purpose, to win or even just exist.
If we do not do this, then we'll continue to have an army (big or small) that is there for DEFENSE not offense. Interesting that a lone bomber who doesn't care if he kills civilians can put an entire nation -- and entire army -- on defense, isn't it?
BTW, I'd say suicide bombing alone is responsible for the worldwide support for the Palestinians. It is not only effective, it is a great PR tool.
It is the perfect illustration of resistance of a people who say there were kicked out of their homes by force, rounded up into concentration camps where they are kept impoverished and terrorized by the Israelis, who are propped up and armed by the U.S.
No weapon generates more anger and hatred from supporters of Israel than suicide bombing and no tool generates more sympathy for the Palestinians.
If the Israelis were not armed by the U.S., THEY would be using it too.
I can agree with elements of your argument, but I just think you may take it a little too far, or at least further than I can see it going.
My point is that, to win and probably to just survive eventually, we'll have to secret bombs in public places, like markets, and wage war just as our opponents have OR we'll have to wage a war of annihilation.
We'll have to kill civilians, on purpose, to win or even just exist.
That sounds like Guerilla warfare, with the loss of civilization as we know it; the collapse of civil institutions and world economies.
There are fears that a war of annihilation, using weapons of mass destruction, could bring us to that. All the more reason to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
If we do not do this, then we'll continue to have an army (big or small) that is there for DEFENSE not offense. Interesting that a lone bomber who doesn't care if he kills civilians can put an entire nation -- and entire army -- on defense, isn't it?
If we keep excercising "restraint" and "appeasment", then you are necessarily defensive. If you keep feeding the monster, it will thrive and continue to be a monster. The west supports the suicide cult - literally.
It's time to stop feeding the monster, and to stop acting like we have both hands tied behind our backs - with political correctness and Multiculturalism- when Terrorist groups try to kill us.
These groups have names and faces. They exist in time and space. We know who the enemy is, and there are a multitude of ways to deal with them, both in war and in prevention of terrorist actions. But it's up to us to use those ways.
BTW, I'd say suicide bombing alone is responsible for the worldwide support for the Palestinians. It is not only effective, it is a great PR tool.
It is the perfect illustration of resistance of a people who say there were kicked out of their homes by force, rounded up into concentration camps where they are kept impoverished and terrorized by the Israelis, who are propped up and armed by the U.S.
No weapon generates more anger and hatred from supporters of Israel than suicide bombing and no tool generates more sympathy for the Palestinians.
But WHO is sympathetically supporting them? Look at the people who demonstrate against Israel: Muslims, many who are in various degrees in the mental grip of an Islamic cult of death. Read what they write on their blogs. They are trapped in cult thinking.
The rest, are mostly a bunch of leftwing moonbats, socialists and communists, people who don't believe that ANYONE has the right to even own land. And like the Muslims, they also have no use for the idea of personal liberty.
Suicide bombing did give the Palestinians worldwide press coverage, for sure. And that's been very lucrative for some of their leadership. But it's hardly provided unconditional sympathy from everyone.
Since 9-11, when suicide bombers were used against the US, and the Palestinians danced in the street with joy over it, I know a lot of people who have completely turned against the Palestinians. Suicide bombing may provide them with a lot of PR, but it isn't all favorable.
The pie-in-the-sky European socialists may still be all "romantic" about suicide bombing, but as Europe slides deeper into it's own conficts with Islam, they might come to see things differently, especially if they start to be on the recieving end of such "romantic" notions.
If the Israelis were not armed by the U.S., THEY would be using it too.
It's more than just a technique or tactic. Even with the support of the culture of death, of the suicide-murder cult, it's still hard to get people to do it. People have strong instincts to live. It's a lot easier to pay lip service to the suicide-murder cult, to aspire to become a Martyr, than to actually do it.
I suppose you might argue that they would use other terror tactics like car bombs or such. But in the end it's one of those "what if" scenarios; you can speculate, but you can't know for certain.
I think there are a number of things precluding US from using such terror techniques. We have many alternatives still. Overall I think you may be too pessimistic, but no matter what we say here, only time will tell for sure what's going to happen.
Alan Dershowitz just published an article on the use of civilians as human shields by groups like Hezbollah, it's called "The predictable condemners". He maintains that they WANT the west to kill as many civilians as possible. He also contends that it doesn't have to play out that way, and explains why. You might find it interesting.
Post a Comment