Yasmina Khadra is the “nom de plume” (didn't know anybody still used that charming old term anymore) of Mohammed Moulessehoul. He was an officer in the Algerian army, but recently has been living in France writing novels about the Middle East.
The Attack is one such novel, and it's worth reading for anybody interested in the shit that is going on over there, recently or, well, since forever. Khadra begins the book with a very graphic description of an Israeli “drone” attack on an Arab sheik, followed by a second chapter detailing a similar carnage brought about a Palestinian suicide bomber. From there, the novel follows the descent into the abyss of the main character, Dr. Amin Jaafari, a successful Arab physician with Israeli citizenship, whose wife turns out to be the suicide bomber (this doesn't spoil the plot, since you'll find out about it very early on in the book).
Jaafari simply cannot make sense of what his beautiful, intelligent, and cultured wife has done, and his confusion is made more painful by the realization that she was so completely different a person from the one he thought he knew. The senselessness of her act is matched in his mind by the betrayal he felt at her utter disregard for shattering his own life without any warning whatsoever.
Jaafari tries to recover some sense of reality, but feels that in order to do that he has to embark into a long journey not just of self-discovery, but of searching who his wife really was. In so doing, his world is turned upside down, and the reader gets an incredible feeling for what it must be like to be on both sides of the conflict, for how senseless – and yet in some bizarre way also perfectly logical – the struggle and suffering is for both Israeli and Palestinians.
The Attack will not solve the problems in the Middle East, and it may not change many minds about who is “right,” but to me the few hours I spent in the company of Khadra were worth all the CNN news reports I've seen so far.
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
"The Attack will not solve the problems in the Middle East, and it may not change many minds about who is “right,” but to me the few hours I spent in the company of Khadra were worth all the CNN news reports I've seen so far."
ReplyDelete"Moral bankruptcy of 'world opinion'"
If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.
And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.
"World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.
The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.
Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;
or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;
or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union;
or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;
or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;
or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;
or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;
or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide;
or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;
or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;
or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.
Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.
On the other hand, we learn that "world opinion" is quite exercised over Israel's unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah – a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, "world opinion" was just livid at American abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.
Why is this?
Here are four reasons:
First, television news.
It is difficult to overstate the damage done to the world by television news. Even when not driven by political bias – an exceedingly rare occurrence globally – television news presents a thoroughly distorted picture of the world. Because it is almost entirely dependent upon pictures, TV news is only capable of showing human suffering in, or caused by, free countries. So even if the BBC or CNN were interested in showing the suffering of millions of Sudanese blacks or North Koreans – and they are not interested in so doing – they cannot do it because reporters cannot visit Sudan or North Korea and video freely. Likewise, China's decimation and annexation of Tibet, one of the world's oldest ongoing civilizations, never made it to television.
Second, "world opinion" is shaped by the same lack of courage that shapes most individual human beings' behavior. This is another aspect of the problem of the distorted way news is presented. It takes courage to report the evil of evil regimes; it takes no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. Reporters who went into Afghanistan without the Soviet Union's permission were killed. Reporters would risk their lives to get critical stories out of Tibet, North Korea and other areas where vicious regimes rule. But to report on America's bad deeds in Iraq (not to mention at home) or Israel's is relatively effortless, and you surely won't get killed. Indeed, you may well win a Pulitzer Prize.
Third, "world opinion" bends toward power. To cite the Israel example, "world opinion" far more fears alienating the largest producers of oil and 1 billion Muslims than it fears alienating tiny Israel and the world's 13 million Jews. And not only because of oil and numbers. When you offend Muslims, you risk getting a fatwa, having your editorial offices burned down or receiving death threats. Jews don't burn down their critics' offices, issue fatwas or send death threats, let alone act on such threats.
Fourth, those who don't fight evil condemn those who do. "World opinion" doesn't confront real evils, but it has a particular animus toward those who do – most notably today America and Israel.
The moment one recognizes "world opinion" for what it is – a statement of moral cowardice, one is no longer enthralled by the term. That "world opinion" at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way."
Dennis Prager
http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=198
cal (of course)
Of course. But thanks anyway for letting us know that there is an ignorant idiot (or, if not ignorant, with bad intentions) guy called Dennis Praguer roaming the net.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, he forgot to add that the world opinion probably did not even say much about the mass murders and terrorist acts practiced by Christians all over history, even nowadays. Oh, sorry, I forgot all about historical and sociological circunstances for a second there...
J
J:"By the way, he forgot to add that the world opinion probably did not even say much about the mass murders and terrorist acts practiced by Christians all over history, even nowadays."
ReplyDeleteHe forgot to add that world opinion is always concerned with bias in other people, but seldom in we (our world opinion) ourselves.
Power. If you had it, what exactly would you do with it, J? Promise that you'd NEVER misuse or abuse it?
Evil. If you saw it, how would you identify it? How would you confront it, without becoming as much yourself?
Justice. How do you know what JUSTICE should look like when it is enacted? Why would Jews, Arabs and Christians today need to pay for crimes against other humans from hundreds and thousands of years ago? Because we all instinctively know,I think, that whether we believe in a Creator God or not, that sin on an individual level must ultimately require a solution.
cal
cal's quotes were interesting but totally unrelated to the idea of reading a story which has a setting that is different from the one best known by most Americans. Possibly I'm older than most of this group but my attitude toward Israel, and I suspect the attitude of many of my generation, was shaped by the movie EXODUS. It has taken nearly 40 years for me to overcome that pro-Israel influence. Americans do not know the Palestinian side of the story. I am fairly well read and I keep up with the news yet it is only in the recent past that I began seeing the numbers of Palestinians who were pushed off their land, hearing the first-person stories of families forced off of farms that had belonged to them for 4 or 5 or more generations so that Israelis could move in. We are not talking about something that happened 2,000 years ago, we are talking about something that happened to the fathers and grandfathers of today's young Palestinians. Will they forgive and forget? I doubt it. Would you? I have no love for Islam and have plenty to fear from another Islamic state in the Middle East but that doesn't make Israel's actions morally correct. MP's referenced story is a fictionalization but if more people read it the might get a more complete perspective on the issues.
ReplyDeleteDennis: Possibly I'm older than most of this group but my attitude toward Israel, and I suspect the attitude of many of my generation, was shaped by the movie EXODUS. It has taken nearly 40 years for me to overcome that pro-Israel influence."
ReplyDeleteMy father-in-law's mother came from Spain. She had explained to him on several occasions about the history and fate (down through time) of all the countries that seriously came against Israel. France Germany, Spain....and on and on.
Since the outcome never seems to be real good for those powers that choose a hard-line position against Israel, what do you think it all means?
How else, other than by supernatural means, does such a minuscule segment of the world population become so powerful, with the attention of the entire world focused on that awefully tiny speck of land?
It's insane, really.
"Will they forgive and forget? I doubt it. Would you?"
Yes. I'd have no interest in belonging body, soul and mind to the person(s) that I refuse to forgive. That's how it works, you know.
So when some speak of "the occupation", I think they just mean to say that the Jews are always occupying their mind(s). For if the Jews can't live in Israel, where should they live?
cal
cal wrote: For if the Jews can't live in Israel, where should they live?
ReplyDeleteMight I suggest that they come and take your house? And then while you are sweltering in a refugee camp without adequate food, water or sanitation and no job... you just tell me how forgiving you are. And even if *you* are, that doesn't mean that everybody will be (or ought to be).
BTW, that was not 'Dennis' that you quoted but Die Anyway (also known as Thom H.)
cal,
ReplyDeleteDennis Prager's rant does contain some elements of truth. For instance, video equals news is sadly true. And of course its easier to criticize (internally) a free country than it is a dictatorship.
But he is mistaken in the notion (pushed by the right wing pundits such as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) that the U.S. and Israel receive disproportionate criticism because they are somehow "hated" or that states like North Korea, old Soviet Russia, Iran and the like are given a free pass.
No one (reasonable) is saying that Hezbollah's actions are just or that Maoist China was great on human rights.
People are trying to acknowledge the unfortunate human tendency to form groups like Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO, but that is not the same as excusing their actions as just. They are not. It's just that understanding terrorist groups and their motiviations has human beings helps to figure out the best way to prevent them in the future. Where as simplistic slogans such as "they are evil" only, as history shows too well, perpetuates the cycle of violence.
Finally, the reason that the U.S. and Israel receive so much criticism despite being "really decent countries" is that we expect more out of them precisely because as democratic free countries we demand that they live up to their ideals. We don't allow our children to slack off just because the neighbor's kids are worse. No, we demand the best behavior out of our own children and similarly we demand the best behavior out of our own Western democracies.
That is why Abu Ghraib is so reviled. It brings us down to "their" (dictators, tyrants) level.
DA: "Might I suggest that they come and take your house? And then while you are sweltering in a refugee camp without adequate food, water or sanitation and no job... you just tell me how forgiving you are. And even if *you* are, that doesn't mean that everybody will be (or ought to be)."
ReplyDeleteThat's, at best, a non-answer.
And because you won't give a workable, reasonable solution you truly must not care about the outcome.
My past, fyi, was no cookie-cutter, silver spoon sort of beginning for a child, (i'd be shocked if anyone here had it worse) so I guess my tolerance for complaints and crying about rights isn't all that profound and “broad-minded”, and especially since it's really no skin off your nose either one way or another. It's just a political position you have chosen as your personal pref.
Moreover, anyone with half a brain can see that Leftism simply does not work its ideological issues out practically when it claims to have the desire to quash evil.
It basically does nothing to stop evil. It just points fingers.
The solution never will be who will get what segment of land in Israel. When anyone who has anything to do with the crisis comes to term with that, there will be a solution.
It's a plain old heart condition.
That is the only (HUGE) thing wrong with the mid-east.
cal
Power, to me? Real power, over the whole world? [salivating...]
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know whether I could do the things you ask of me, Cal. But I sure did think before about what would I do in case I were in charge (don't worry, impossible to happen). To begin with, too things in my utopia.
First, being the world sole ruler, I'd order the complete destruction of every single piece of armament, big and small, as well as all the factories - screw quasi-medieval idiocies like the second amendment (it would be useless anyway, more in a moment during next delirium). If people still wanted to kill each other, they'd have to do so with stones and adapted pointy objects, stuff like that. Not very practical, although people WOULD do it anyway - we being but apes and behaving accordingly and all that...
Second, abolish countries. I'm against the existence of them, they are stupid. By the way "decent countries" is one of the most stupid expressions I've come across, really. Countries do not exist, they are inventions of human mind, dependent on historical contingencies and all that. I mean, hadn't the US stolen all that land from Mexico, borders would be radically different nowadays, no? That's just an example, but applies to every place in the world. Anyway, countries are just another reflection of our apeness, out mammalian territorial/tribal instincts, and we should try to get over it. Evolve past it, I'd say.
In my simplistic mind, these too things, implemented completely (by me, the world ruler), would at least be a start away from monkey-business to decent humanity. Then educate people and all those slow and long term things. Ditching religion wouldn't even be necessary in that case.
J
J: "I mean, hadn't the US stolen all that land from Mexico, borders would be radically different nowadays, no?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Mexico stole the land they have from Indians.
All across the world & all through time one people group has stole land from other people groups. Therefore it must be a natural thing to do. Like you, they sincerely thought that their view of reality was more viable than everybody else's. And regardless of what you are TOLD to think, J, the US and Israel does treat people more decently on the average than most of the world at large treats its "outsiders". Scandinavian countries, I hear, are not too bad.
Tho borders may seem like arbitrary fabrications to you, as long as 99.9 % of the world thinks they're real - they are real. Imagine how many millions of people have died for something that you propose does not exist.
"Good fences make good neighbors" is true, because without em, one will just have chaos.
cal
J,
ReplyDeleteAbolishing "countries" will not solve the problem unless we could get every person to agree on what type of government they wanted and all the myriad rules and regulations. This will never happen as long as people "identify" with their traditional religions, cultures and ethnicity. Things that as much as I wish weren't so prevalent are probably well rooted in our biology. We can overcome those things with rational thought, but you know how common that seems to be...
Even if we eliminated countries, it would be impossible to manage 6 billion people of differing preferences from one central office, so there would have to be "states", "provinces", whatever. Over time, then these small units would simply pick up the banner of rivalry and dispute and merely replace the identification of nationalism.
Unless of course, Jack Nicholson's vision from "Easy Rider" came true and we didn't need leaders at all. But I imagine for that to happen would require some serious massive social re-engineering that would take centuries. Change is slow.
And cal is right about how land has been fought for and occupied since time began. Also, its not always some foreign invader/oppressor either (of which all peoples have been guilty at one time or another) . Many times part of a community who identifies strongly with a neighbor may incite a civil war, secession, or some other upheaval that leads to the (usually violent) transfer of territory to some other entity. I imagine he have had that instinct in us since our pre-hominid days as well.