I especially appreciated the explanation about European attitudes and the detailed accounting of just exactly who settled Israel and when.
Interesting article, but it fails to account for the technology of war. It's not the ideas that failed, it was a failure of military leadership - generals who sent thousands of men into the withering fire of machine guns and artillery.
Men were sacrificed because their leaders knew no better.
In the 50's, 5000 books were published a year in Egypt in Arabic, today it's 500. That is a collapse and that is a collapse with little if any outside pressure. They could latch on to modern progress, but it seems to be slipping further and further away.
Post-war Iraq is going to be the Arab Nations big chance. I wish them success.
The European way of life numbs some characteristics and faculties, while it may support and strengthen others. It makes one less inclined to fight and risk. Were other parts of the world to have the affluence and social programs of Europe, they would react in the same way. We are the exception, as is perhaps England, which remembers both wars as deeply than any other country, if not more so. Maybe the memory of victory overcomes the remembered traumas of war.
The contrast drawn between Israeli and Arab treatment of refugees doesn't hold water. It was in Israel's interest to get as many Jews as possible, therefore they encouraged immigration at all costs and integration to the degree necessary. It was in the Arab interest to have refugees kept separate as a bargaining chip or weapon. If either group felt their interests to be different their behavior would also have been different.
It's an open question whether or not Europe may not be right about an Iraq war. Talk of Munich and appeasement accompanied our Vietnam debacle. Whether it really fits Saddam Hussein or not -- whether Saddam really is the new Hitler -- is a question that should at least be debated. Europe's policy is to let sleeping dogs lie, and it views Saddam as a sleeping dog whom it would be more dangerous to arouse than to simply let be. Europeans construct theories of their own about why our government is so determined for war. Gelehrter's view shouldn't be assumed to be more authoritative than opposing views without reference to the actual situation and stakes in the Middle East.
Gosh, I think I understood something today.
It's all about self-hatred. Disguised in "care about right and wrong," oblivious to a distinction between true and false.
In the effort to gain European support for Israel at this point in history, when Isreal's interests are being threatened by one dangerous dictator, it is useful to advance an accusation of appeasement and comparisons to Munich.
While I ascribe to the author's political agenda and believe that Iraqi leadership must be changed by forces outside Iraq, I view the article as presenting a narrow view of history for a particular purpose.
... seem to be well-meaning people who care so deeply about right and wrong, they have no time to distinguish between true and false.
Damn right she has. We have nothing worthwhile to learn from these Continental pinheads. On to Baghdad!
-ccm