[Timo]

A good article that if anything else points to the inaneness of labeling attitudes "left" and "right."

Terrorism's family tree
(Filed: 04/05/2003)

George Walden reviews Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman


This is the best book I have read on Muslim fundamentalism and what to do about it. Paul Berman writes in the excellent American weekly The New Republic. His self-description as a Social Democrat suggests a European approach to the Middle East, yet his intelligence, breadth of culture, honesty and courage are a world away from the moralistic grandstanding of slithy toves like Chris Patten, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer. The clarity of his thought cuts through their evasions like a knife through butter, as Berman looks the evil of totalitarian Islam in the face.


Left-Right thinking and national stereotypes have no place in his analysis. The terrorist menace has its roots not so much in a clash as in a blend of cultures: a sinister amalgam of 20th-century European anarchism and totalitarianism with pan-Arabism and atavistic Islam. Their common goal was the annihilation of liberal societies, and their doctrines overlap. That is why Nazi theorists in post-war Egypt influenced the Muslim Brotherhood, ancestors of al-Qa'eda, why Syrian and Iraqi Ba'athists leant towards the Soviet Union, and why German ultra-leftists allied themselves with Palestinians in the Seventies to murder Jews.


Whether the aim is racial purity, class purity, or a reversion to the doctrinal rigours of seventh-century Medina, all promised a new dawn and delivered little except death. "Shoot more professors!" said Lenin. "Viva la Muerte!" cried one of Franco's generals. "Faith is propagated by counting up deaths every day, by adding up massacres and charnel houses" declared Ali Benhadj, an Algerian Islamist leader. "Utopia and the morgue had blended", Berman comments.


His most instructive chapters are on the hugely influential 20th-century Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, a kind of anti-materialist Muslim Marx, if that can be imagined, and equally prolific. The fact that Qutb was a brilliant, soulful and occasionally subtle thinker did not prevent him becoming the ideological mentor of terrorism and the cult of death. Like bin Laden and his associates, Qutb liked to mock Jews and Westerners for their desire to live.


The reason the Christian West was, for him, an abomination lay in the divorce between its material and spiritual life. This schizoid mentality, as the secularisation of Turkey by Ataturk had shown, threatened to contaminate the Muslim faith. Jihad - once a defensive strategy to preserve Islam - became for Qutb a struggle against infidels everywhere. All this proved too much for Colonel Nasser, who hanged him.


But the core of his teaching is very much alive, and as terrorism goes global the 34 tomes of his commentary on the Koran are currently being re-published in many languages. This is not comforting news, and Berman is fully aware that we would prefer to think about something else. To the bon bourgeois liberal, whose heart is replete with warm sentiments and whose mind is on his dinner, the notion of apocalyptic, death-obsessed mass movements sounds somewhat overdone.


And if the victims of such doctrines to date have been largely Third World peoples, why worry? For two decades the West has averted its eyes while Muslim despots and fanatics have exterminated millions: in the Lebanon, in the Iran-Iraq war, in Sudan, in Algeria, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Now the killings are coming closer, whether on September 11 or in terrorism's ultimate refinement - suicide bombings where teenage "martyrs" are psyched to slaughter Jews even younger than themselves. Why wait till the infidel is older?


The reaction of the democracies, Berman suggests, was to an extent natural. Violence mesmerises, the sinister excites, and - as with the Nazis and Communists - there is a reluctance to believe that whole societies have succumbed to pathological political tendencies.


Nervous of domestic Muslim opinion, the rationalist West wants to believe that radical Islam is not definitively lost to reason. There has to be an explanation for its fanaticism and delusions, and it can only be America. Noam Chomsky and his fellow-travellers are ultimately more concerned with American guilt than with the fate of the Palestinians, the Afghans, the Iraqis, or other Middle Eastern peoples whose misery and oppression spring wholly or in part from their own failed cultures. And of course those who commit suicide and murder get high marks for sincerity from the likes of Chomsky.


Though no admirer of Sharon, Berman questions the view that a shade more flexibility by the Israelis could spare us the inconvenience of a campaign of mass slaughter and destruction whose ideological origins antedate a Jewish state. Meanwhile (he could have added) our old friend Moral Equivalence has made a post-Cold War comeback: they have their fundamentalism, it is fashionable to say, we have ours. Switch on the television and you will hear someone influential suggesting that a bit of religiosity in the White House or Number 10 represents the same threat to the world as the semi-crazed believers in a death-obsessed culture.


Our American Social Democratic author admires the social achievements of Europe, but can sound as exasperated at its shirking of responsibility as Donald Rumsfeld. Just as the cosy societies of neutrals like the Swedes or the Swiss were underwritten by those who struggled against Hitler, he suggests, so pacifist Germans and posturing Frenchmen would prefer to let the US take the heat and the flak. Since this book was written, in Iraq so it has come to pass.


Paul Berman gives Bush his due on leadership but argues that the battle cannot be won by conservatives alone. If the West is to defend itself, and democratic progress in the Middle East is to be more than a pipe dream, socialists, trade unions and intellectuals must take a principled stand against Muslim radicalism, as some did against Communism in the Cold War. Reading this book, with its echoes of Koestler and Camus - both truth-tellers about totalitarian terror - would be a good beginning.

http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml;$sessionid$Q3PBDFNANLAKBQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/arts/2003/05/04/bober04.xml&sSheet=/arts/2003/05/04/bomain.html

[raskol]

I have a problem with this view. Of course I have not read the book I am just going on your post.

Quote: "If the West is to defend itself, and democratic progress in the Middle East is to be more than a pipe dream, socialists, trade unions and intellectuals must take a principled stand against Muslim radicalism, as some did against Communism in the Cold War."

I agree and I think every reasonable person is against terrorism. But this again points to a very euro-centric opinion. If Muslim radicalism marginalizes and discredits itself then so be it. It is not for non-Muslims to pass judgement. It is for Muslims to denounce for themselves over time.

I simply refuse to denounce communism as a theory based on the failure of it in reality.

You simply cannot get rid of something such as this by brute force. I don't like the overtones of the article. I might feel different if I read the book.

Ps. is there some way to change the link at the bottom of the post so that it is shorter or cut it to the next line? I have to open my window all the way.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Timo:
[...] a sinister amalgam of 20th-century European anarchism and totalitarianism with pan-Arabism and atavistic Islam. Their common goal was the annihilation of liberal societies, and their doctrines overlap.

Ehm... definitely no - at least for the "anarchist" part (maybe the author doesn't (want to) understand what anarchism stands for...).

The "propaganda by the deed" whackos who contributed to the negative meaning of the word "anarchist" can't in any way be considered to be representative of a movement aimed towards the liberation of humanity: at least for the libertarian socialist/communist (properly anarchist) part, the goal isn't certainly "annihilation" of liberal societies ("democracies" or "republics") - but, very constructively, to go beyond them, in a dynamic synthesis of classic liberalism and socialism.

... Which is to say, to go beyond the "traditional" separation between "left" and "right"!

[thunderous_funker]

I just wonder if the author's "principled stand against Muslim Radicalism" resembles Saddam's.

I've no trouble picking sides. I just don't accept that notion that any methodology used by "my side" is good. My mantra since 9/11 has always been that how we fight is the most important issue, not whether or not we should fight. Nuetrality is no longer an option. I resent it when anyone suggests that my reluctance to endorse the Hawkish strategies in play equates to an appeal for neutrality.

This author appears to be making that same bogus claim.

[voodoo]

Yikes! That article was so full of shait. Criticising it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. I can't be bothered, it was enough to wase time reading that pile of steaming crap.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Ehm... definitely no - at least for the "anarchist" part (maybe the author doesn't (want to) understand what anarchism stands for...).

The "propaganda by the deed" whackos who contributed to the negative meaning of the word "anarchist" can't in any way be considered to be representative of a movement aimed towards the liberation of humanity: at least for the libertarian socialist/communist (properly anarchist) part, the goal isn't certainly "annihilation" of liberal societies ("democracies" or "republics") - but, very constructively, to go beyond them, in a dynamic synthesis of classic liberalism and socialism.

... Which is to say, to go beyond the "traditional" separation between "left" and "right"!

No argument there. What I read in the argument is that the enemy of such a transcendence is the fundamentalist mindset, in whatever totalitarian flavor offered.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I just wonder if the author's "principled stand against Muslim Radicalism" resembles Saddam's.

No doubt such a "principled stand" would need to be subject to scrutiny.

I've no trouble picking sides. I just don't accept that notion that any methodology used by "my side" is good.

I think that's the author's point as well: far leftists, like (for example) the Baader Meinhof gang, shared with other totalitarian governments a "common goal ... the annihilation of liberal societies."

My mantra since 9/11 has always been that how we fight is the most important issue, not whether or not we should fight. Nuetrality is no longer an option. I resent it when anyone suggests that my reluctance to endorse the Hawkish strategies in play equates to an appeal for neutrality.

I've certainly made no such suggestion. I think the point of the article is that fundamentalisms of many stripes are a menace, and I for one cannot subscribe to a cultural relativism that suggests doctrinal societies are equal to pluralistic societies.

How we fight is an interesting aspect. It would seem to me that we must demonstrate that the rule of law and democratic institutions -- imperfect as they are -- are the basic building blocks. I for one would love to see what a localized version and flavor those two aspects could take in societies emerging from totalitarianism and/or fundamentalism.

Now raskol wrote:

If Muslim radicalism marginalizes and discredits itself then so be it. It is not for non-Muslims to pass judgement. It is for Muslims to denounce for themselves over time.

I don't know. I'm unwilling to sit on the sidelines and suggest its OK that a particular culture (or any people) where totalitarianism or fundamentalism is propped up via self-deterministic rhetoric. I'm for calling a spade a spade, and that in this world, it is the fundamentalists (domestic and abroad) that represent the greatest threat to an open, pluralist society.

[thunderous_funker]

I guess I caught more of a suggestion of triumphalism in the author's peice about the "principled stand" of "conservatives" (by which I assume he meant the neo-cons and their ideas of reforging the middle east) than I'm comfortable with.

The suggestion that not fighting under their banner is akin to ungrateful european neutrals "letting Americans take the heat" really rubs me the wrong way.

I don't equate opposing methodology with being on the wrong side or lacking the moral fiber or courage to pick a side.

It's all too easy to level the accusation of moral relativism at those of us not eager to redraw the maps and stamp out fundamentalism as if we somehow regard Taliban-esque societies a being equivalent or relative to pluralistic societies, but it misses the fundamental point.

It's not about what is the best form of society, it's about who gets to decide for whom. Self-determiniation is a high principle too.

If i'm to be called a moral relativist for not supporting the neo-con cause, then it's only fair to label their Idealism for what it is beneath the flowery rhetoric--good old fashioned White Man's Burden.

Perhaps Sweden should invade the US to impose their superior system of social equity and justice?

[Logic]

I really don't know what to say. Because I haven't read the book it is hard to critisize this article. First of it shows incredible lack of tolerance or respect for islam. It implicates that Europe is somehow ignorant and moralistically grandstanding about their opinion on how to deal with the Middle-East(doesn't mention US moralistic grandstanding one bit). It compares Islam to communism. It blames terrorism only on Europe and atavistic Islam. By saying that the author is trying to push all the blame over on Europes past and also implying that Islam in someway is atavistic and some barbaric religion not in touch with reality. I really don't know if I should bother to reply, but this is so over the top, simplistic and convenient for our friends overseas(yes, Americans) that I can't let this be.

The author then goes on and talks about some muslim scholars and try to make it look like all muslims share those views and support terrorism and "the cult of death".

Like bin Laden and his associates, Qutb liked to mock Jews and Westerners for their desire to live.

The story goes on, we are all bloodthirsty killers who mock and slaughter Jews and Westerners. But never in this article does he mention the constant mocking and killings of muslims. Never. What this article is beyond me, but the only thing I can think of is helping people getting the idea that islam is something that needs to eradicate from this earth just like communism. This is yet one article helping appeasing the people who wanted this war and trying to let them feel they did something good for all man kind.

He also talked about how Colonel Nasser solved the problem with Qutb by hanging him. By that letting it sound like the only way of getting rid of terrorism and islam is to use force. These people can't be talked to and they only listen to raw power. The more I waste time on this article the more frustrated I get. I hate these mindless attacks on other peoples cultures, religions and way of life. This is the perfect example of the superiority complex the western world suffers from at the moment. We cannot allow or tolerate any other way of life than ours.

Then he goes ranting about the victims of islam and its followers. He conveniently forgets our part in their suffering. He conveniently forgets that we are willing to spend 75 billion US dollars on bombing a country back to the stoneages but are not willing to spend that money on helping the people suffering from starvation and diseases. He conveniently forgets that in many of the most problematic countries our governments helped bring the despots and fanatics in place. He conveniently forgets anything about anything we have to do with the problem. He mentions Lebanon but not a word about Israels interventions and murders in the name for Freedom� and space to live in, the oldest tune in the world. He mentions Iran-Iraq and conveniently forgets that we helped both nations in the war and especially the side that was worse. And forgets that Saddam never wanted islamic rule. He mentions Afganistan where we helped shape the Taliban government. He mentions Iraq one more time just to fill out the required lenght of his weekly(daily) article and forgets that we made him the threat he is. Not islam.

Then he goes on about 9/11 and terrorism against Israel. Not one word about the expansionist Lebensraum policy Israel has been actively pursuing since its beginning. Not one word about the 18 months old child killed in an Israeli raid on yet another unarmed family. Yes, terrorism is bad and yes the palestinians should stop fighting that way. But where is the pressure on Israel to stop its war on its neighbours. Where is the pressure on Israel to give back the occupied areas. There is none, because that would mean that the people who listens to this and supported this war would realise that they were wrong. That they supported the moral wrong. That they were responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in a country far away. And that would mean that they would feel bad in their emotionless, miserable lifes pursuing nothing but materialistic wealth while they forget about the hungy and poor in a Third World country. Get the sarcasm and don't try to spin this around.

He compares Islam and a country controlled by islamic cleric rule to the rule of Nazis and Communism. This makes me sick and I really don't get why you posted this here Timo. Do you agree with what he says? Oh, and while he does that(the writer not Timo) he gets yet one potshot at the European appeasers who are willing to let this go on.

Then he of course shifts all the blame away from the US. Of course he does that because that seems to be required nowadays in op-eds or anything that is going to be published in the States these days. I mean he could loose his job if he wasn't clear enough. He talks about Islam as a failed culture and thereby states that our own is superior and ultimate and therefore we should help these infidels to live a better life under our own cultures. No, wait doesn't that sound like the exact thing he is critizising Islam of?

Maybe I completly misunderstood the point, the meaning, and use of this thread.

But this article is idiotic, ignorant and foolish. This is so filled with hate and nationalism that G�bbels would be proud. If you can't see it it is obvious that the indoctrination in your country has made you blind.

Hasbuka �llah

[spacefreak]

Just post a link to the article, perhaps with a small quote in your post.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess I caught more of a suggestion of triumphalism in the author's peice about the "principled stand" of "conservatives" (by which I assume he meant the neo-cons and their ideas of reforging the middle east) than I'm comfortable with.

The book was written before the war, so it can't be triumphalism. Instead, I would guess its tone is closer to that of Christopher Hitchens.

The suggestion that not fighting under their banner is akin to ungrateful european neutrals "letting Americans take the heat" really rubs me the wrong way.

I don't equate opposing methodology with being on the wrong side or lacking the moral fiber or courage to pick a side.

For me the review suggests there are multiple sides; i.e., there's a left that isn't patronizing and ineffectual as proposed by chiders like Chris Patten, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer. I also don't draw the conclusion that war is inevitable in opposing fundamentalisms. But importantly, I think Berman is right to chide those folks who simply move former colonial possessions around as pawns in their own global power plays.

It's all too easy to level the accusation of moral relativism at those of us not eager to redraw the maps and stamp out fundamentalism as if we somehow regard Taliban-esque societies a being equivalent or relative to pluralistic societies, but it misses the fundamental point.

It's not about what is the best form of society, it's about who gets to decide for whom. Self-determiniation is a high principle too.

I don't think the article is for any kind of preemptive docrtine as we've seen from the Bush adminsistration. Rather, I think it is against those who would rather ignore illiberal strains in world politics.

If i'm to be called a moral relativist for not supporting the neo-con cause, then it's only fair to label their Idealism for what it is beneath the flowery rhetoric--good old fashioned White Man's Burden.

Again, it's not either/or, although you do bring up a good point. How does one say, flatly, that one system of government is better without being or being labelled a neo-colonialist? For just as self-determination has been used to justify despotism, so has "White Man's Burden" been used to justify horrible injustices.

Perhaps Sweden should invade the US to impose their superior system of social equity and justice?

heh, ever been to Sweden? Much of what works in their country is based on their having a relatively homongenous society. My interest in liberalism and pluralistic open societies is based precisely on the question of how does one govern above and beyond the dubious cohesion provided by nationalism.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Logic:
I really don't know what to say. Because I haven't read the book it is hard to critisize this article. First of it shows incredible lack of tolerance or respect for islam. It implicates that Europe is somehow ignorant and moralistically grandstanding about their opinion on how to deal with the Middle-East (doesn't mention US moralistic grandstanding one bit). It compares Islam to communism. It blames terrorism only on Europe and atavistic Islam. By saying that the author is trying to push all the blame over on Europes past and also implying that Islam in someway is atavistic and some barbaric religion not in touch with reality. I really don't know if I should bother to reply, but this is so over the top, simplistic and convenient for our friends overseas(yes, Americans) that I can't let this be.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think the book is disrespectful of islam, but I do think the book is disrespectful of totalitarian islam -- it's point is to draw a line through various twentieth century totalitarianism. Interestingly, if there's blame to go around, it is laid squarely on European shoulders, for totalitarian ideas grafted onto islam are European in origin. Recall, for example, that the Ba'athist party's origins in socialism.

The author then goes on and talks about some muslim scholars and try to make it look like all muslims share those views and support terrorism and "the cult of death".

If I read it that way I would never have posted it. Rather, as Bernard Lewis wrote in 1993,

There is an agonizing question at the heart of the present debate about democracy in the Islamic world: Is liberal democracy basically compatible with Islam, or is some measure of respect for law, some tolerance of criticism, the most that can be expected from autocratic governments? ...

No one, least of all the Islamic fundamentalists themselves, will dispute that their creed and political program are not compatible with liberal democracy. But Islamic fundamentalism is just one stream among many. In the fourteen centuries that have passed since the mission of the Prophet, there have been several such movements?fanatical, intolerant, aggressive, and violent.[emphasis added]

url: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/93feb/lewis.htm

The story goes on, we are all bloodthirsty killers who mock and slaughter Jews and Westerners. But never in this article does he mention the constant mocking and killings of muslims. Never. What this article is beyond me, but the only thing I can think of is helping people getting the idea that islam is something that needs to eradicate from this earth just like communism. This is yet one article helping appeasing the people who wanted this war and trying to let them feel they did something good for all man kind.

Again, respectfully, no. No rational, reasonable person believes muslims are all bloodthirsty killers. I don't think the article is about demonizing muslims; rather, it's about exploring the divide between liberal and illiberal ideologies.

He also talked about how Colonel Nasser solved the problem with Qutb by hanging him. By that letting it sound like the only way of getting rid of terrorism and islam is to use force. These people can't be talked to and they only listen to raw power. The more I waste time on this article the more frustrated I get. I hate these mindless attacks on other peoples cultures, religions and way of life. This is the perfect example of the superiority complex the western world suffers from at the moment. We cannot allow or tolerate any other way of life than ours.

I read the article as pointingout Nassar's heavy-handed solution for Qutb surely backfired. Again, if you read a superiority complex into the article, I'll admit I don't see it. As in the past and hopefully in the future, in the west we would do well to learn what we can from muslim (and other) cultures.

But again, fundamentalism is certainly not interested in knowledge gained by comparing cultures: it is against the idea of pluralistic societies to begin with!

Then he goes ranting about the victims of islam and its followers. He conveniently forgets our part in their suffering. He conveniently forgets that we are willing to spend 75 billion US dollars on bombing a country back to the stoneages but are not willing to spend that money on helping the people suffering from starvation and diseases. He conveniently forgets ... He mentions Iraq one more time just to fill out the required lenght of his weekly(daily) article and forgets that we made him the threat he is. Not islam.

No. Not true. He points out that Saddaam is a European creation.

Then he goes on about 9/11 and terrorism against Israel. Not one word about the expansionist Lebensraum policy Israel has been actively pursuing since its beginning...

It would be quite easy to note that in Israel there is a similar strain of intolerant fundamentalism.

Look, I certainly did not mean any disrespect in posting this, and everything you read into this article (fascism, intolerance, even western smugness) I stand against. But respectfully, i don't think the article is anti islam and pro west. Rather, I think it is anti-fundamentalist and pro-pluralistic. It is anti-fanaticism and against the aestheticization of violence, wherever the origin of it.

The references to Koestler and Camus is important. Those who ignored violence for the cause ignored the totalitarian shadow of the cause.

[raskol]

Originally posted by Timo:

Now raskol wrote:

I don't know. I'm unwilling to sit on the sidelines and suggest its OK that a particular culture (or any people) where totalitarianism or fundamentalism is propped up via self-deterministic rhetoric. I'm for calling a spade a spade, and that in this world, it is the fundamentalists (domestic and abroad) that represent the greatest threat to an open, pluralist society.

I completely understand. It is very tempting to try and help people and intervene on someone's behalf and not in itself a bad thing obviously. The problem is you are many times taking sides that are unpopular to some major group. You always alienate someone and the ones alienated are ususally the ones that didn't control the interests of the intervening party. Even if your intentions are benevolent history shows that the once oppressed soon come to resent their liberators.

In addition some of these states are not pluralistic in the way we perceive them to be so the threat is to us. We are responsible for protecting ourselves without projecting ourselves. A benevolent people must always stand above the fray and resist striking out. Just as our troops try to do everyday on an individual basis. We cannot have a hypocritical defense department that engages in pre-emptive strikes and at the same time holds troops to higher standards of behaviour than their leaders.

Intervening in transparent negotiatins in good faith are another story. I am talking about military intervention aor overt/covert intervention by intelligence agencies and the like.

Timo: not arguing with you; just putting some of this out there for whom ever is reading.

[Timo]

Originally posted by raskol:
I completely understand. It is very tempting to try and help people and intervene on someone's behalf and not in itself a bad thing obviously. The problem is you are many times taking sides that are unpopular to some major group. You always alienate someone and the ones alienated are ususally the ones that didn't control the interests of the intervening party. Even if your intentions are benevolent history shows that the once oppressed soon come to resent their liberators.

No doubt. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The best liberation is via self-determination, but we should not mistake all self-determinations for liberations.

Perhaps our role is limited to simply speaking out against totalitarianism, whatever its stripe.

In addition some of these states are not pluralistic in the way we perceive them to be so the threat is to us. We are responsible for protecting ourselves without projecting ourselves. A benevolent people must always stand above the fray and resist striking out. Just as our troops try to do everyday on an individual basis. We cannot have a hypocritical defense department that engages in pre-emptive strikes and at the same time holds troops to higher standards of behaviour than their leaders.

Hey, no argument from me.

[raskol]

Originally posted by Timo:
No doubt. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The best liberation is via self-determination, but we should not mistake all self-determinations for liberations.

Perhaps our role is limited to simply speaking out against totalitarianism, whatever its stripe.

Hey, no argument from me.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Yeah, I knew that would get no argument from you or any other rational being.

Oh and isn't this sad that this is what we do for fun on a Friday night? I find it very engaging though. And I hope there are people getting more involved in politics now. Maybe this will be the greatest legacy of Dubya.