Israel’s number one navel Special Forces unit, Shayetet 13, succeeded in its mission to halt, commandeer, and divert the “aid” flotilla to Gaza. However if the underlying objective was anything more than stopping unauthorized aid, they failed miserably.
First the facts. Israel has made it clear for weeks that this flotilla, like the many that came before it, will not reach Gaza. Instead, like in the past, Israel would confiscate the materials vet them for use as weapons and then transfer them, along with the daily tons of materials that Israel and the international community provide, through the land entrances between Gaza and Israel. It is important to note that until Israel ended Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2008 ALL aid, including the materials for 1,000s of rockets was allowed in. No less important is that the sponsor of the flotilla is the IHH which has strong ties with Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm). Finally, after Israeli commandoes boarded the ships they were mobbed by the most extreme elements of the anti-Israeli movement (as opposed to pro-Palestinian, I will explore this difference in the near future) from across the globe, who were wielding axes and knifes, and even stripped one of the soldiers of his pistol. After seeing that their paintball guns were not stopping the “peaceful” mob of activists from beating 6 of their comrades into a pulp, (SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded) the Israelis opened fire, killing over ten people and injuring over thirty more.
Four questions:
1. So why the casualties this time around?
Clearly Israel is used to the International community, and most Middle-eastern nation’s attempts at besmirching Israel. The most egregious examples are when terror organizations intentionally use civilians to attack Israelis. Why did Israel fall right into the anti-Israel movements hands?
2. Moreover one has to ask why Israel has been so outspoken over these past weeks about its intention of stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza, using terms like “provocation”, to label the motivation behind the flotilla? Why give just another anti-Israel flotilla exactly what it wanted, publicity?
3. Another piece of the puzzle surrounds the question of why did Israel launch its operation 40-80 miles off the coast (very different reports coming out), way beyond its recognized territorial borders? Perhaps you answer that they were attempting to surprise the flotilla, maybe. However Israel made it clear that it planned on stopping the flotilla, with their usual system, which includes boarding. Why would Israel intentionally and with no obvious purpose violate international law, and board these ships in international waters?
4. Finally why in the lead up to the incident did Turkey claim that there would consequences if Israel stopped the flotilla, and now “Turkey appeared to be taking the lead in gathering international support against the Israeli attack, with the government already pressing international organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, the European Union and the Arab League to take action” (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-the-point-of-no-return-2010-05-31). was the flotilla Turkish?
Alternatively, there is more here than meets the eye. Is it possible that there were elements on the lead Turkish ship the Mavi Marama, where this incident occurred, that were placed there specifically to trigger violence, to create a “provocation”. According to reports most of the casualties were Turkish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), which is significant considering that there is little chance that these commandoes were shooting indiscriminately, more probably they aimed at their attackers. It is no surprise that most of the people on board a Turkish ship were Turkish, but why was the lead ship flying under a Turkish flag?
If we conclude that this flotilla was sponsored in part by Turkey (Israeli sources have been clear that it is), than is it somehow tied to Turkeys domestic politics, which is beginning to see a CHP resurgence under its new mustached leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu? Could the 10,000s marching in Istanbul screaming anti-Israel slogans, spurred on by Erdogans usual rhetoric harnessing populist feelings by proclaiming Israel’s act "terrorist"?
Were the commandoes subjected to an organized attack planned well in advance to foment a provocation? Was Israel aware of this and declared unambiguously that this whole flotilla was an attempt to create a provocation? Was Israel sending a message to Erdogans and his major benefactor, Iran, that Israel will not hesitate to go into others terroritory and to halt a perceived attack?
Regardless of whether this was just another anti-Israel flotilla gone bad or whether this was a political move by one of the savviest politicians around. While this incident will neither bring peace closer, or end the blockade. Israel failed in executing there response to the Turkish flotilla.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
THE COLDEST COLD WAR (1) A Case Study: North Korea
China is a key player in the international arena, and has been for some time. This is not only because it one of five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has the second biggest economy on the planet, but also because it is the un-proclaimed leader of the “human-rights depriving world”. Pariah countries like North Korea and Myanmar (Burma) as well as noxious nations like Iran are all closely linked with China and like China have abysmal human rights record. Moreover, Chinas relationship with its other minor partners, the Western nations, led by America, is asymmetrical because they need China. For the very same reasons that make China a world power –its economy, its vote on the UNSC, and its considerable influence in the “human-rights depriving world”. One could argue that China is already the most influential nation in the world.
Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.
The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.
The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.
Why is the reality being ignored?
Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.
In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.
A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.
Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.
I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?
To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.
But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?
In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.
So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?
Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.
To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.
In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?
Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.
The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.
The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.
Why is the reality being ignored?
Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.
In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.
A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.
Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.
I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?
To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.
But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?
In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.
So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?
Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.
To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.
In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (2) "Society and Potential"
In the previous post discussing the potential roots of "will", we concluded that potential can be an individualized source for "will". Before responding to the next question I would like to respond to one readers comment.
They asked whether my conclusion, that potential was the source for "will", implied that only an external force can create the will for x?
I think so. Probably because ones will stems from the deepest core of their humanity; the only thing that can precede that depth is something that precedes the totality of their existence. A source that is outside of their body and mind, say their parents. (This jives with the CHABAD Chassidic perspective which explains [ for example Torahs Menachem 1951, portion on Shelach] that the spies [meraglim] were the impetus for the entrance of the nascent Jewish people into Israel as they represented the initial awakening from above which engendered the awakening from below).
Now back to the underlying question how far can "will" take us?
I would like to elaborate on this question.
For example: what if one imagines that they have tremendous potential, and directs their will towards fulfilling that potential. Perhaps they jump at every opportunity to develop it and let it blossom. The question is does that will convert potential into existent? In other words, if your perceived potential is simply a rational characterization of an irrational narcissist delusion (imposed on you as your potential), can one elevate the delusion to reality? Or should the Rabbinic maxim, mentioned in part one of this series, be read as "ONLY nothing stands in the way of will" –even will cannot validate delusion?
For the astute reader there is a difficulty at the heart of this analysis. Potential is by its very nature buried and can/is only glimpsed via flashes (or perceptions) of unique activity. Put otherwise, it is nearly impossible to discern real potential from delusional perceptions of potential. It is for this reason that delusional evaluations of potential can create the will to unrelentingly pursue an unrealistic goal. Often the delusion-driven individual only discovers the sheer impossibility, or impracticality, of the goal when the goal is in sight. Years of wasted will, premised on false potential.
Thus the second question can never really be answered. After all potential is inherently beyond the persons very essence- it only exists external to the individual. We may never know whether only people with real potential can actualize it via their will or if even those that internalize pure delusions can actualize them with their will.
We may never know, but there are real and often tragic issues that arise from this existential ambiguity.
All of these issues stem from the unfortunate state of our society and its unwillingness to forgive because of its aversion to introspection on a societal level (though many are too willing to delve into the impenetrable depths of their own unconscious). Society, and even family, is often unwilling to accept that a completely normal person can be so delusional, BECAUSE of the nature of potential. Both its source in the expectations of others and in the fact that it can validated only AFTER its actualization.
The individual who may awake from the externally imposed delusion is beset by depreciating criticisms. This criticism mislabels that dawning of rationality on the deluded as, “oh what wasted potential, he/she was almost there and they failed”.
However unjust, this conclusion has certain merit.
1. The deluded pursued their delusion with such admirable vigor that their share commitment convinced others of the reality of their potential. 2. If we accept the first interpretation of the above maxim (nothing stands in the way of will), than whether the person is delusional or not has no bearing, if the person wills it, it will become a reality -the fact that will is premised on delusional potential is immaterial.
The implication of this second justification are rather frightening. Not only because it justifies social engineering (placing children in a system and then dictating what they should will, even if for that student the "will" is premised on delusion), but also because it implies that everyone can be the best. After all it just takes the will, however delusional.
What happens to an individual who is subjected to these types of expectations in school and out? If every element in their life "affirms" their great potential; if every “glimpse” is highlighted and embraced while every slip-up and weakness is covered-up or “extracted” from them. That person may grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed delusion. To the extent that they become the biggest advocates of said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph (self-serving bias). Then the day comes that rationality returns and they recognize that the goal was achievable/desirable only as part of their delusion (the goal may even be at the heart of the delusion). Then they realize that the goal is not what they want, it is not their will –the will itself is delusional.
Yet how do they know? How do they know that it is all a delusion, maybe it is deep seated laziness, weakness in the time of trial, perhaps an excuse for failure?
If they do follow through with their delusion, they will always doubt and be the object of doubt. Is it worth getting married if you doubt that future of that marriage, to be divorced to know that your original doubt was not simply an excuse?
Or perhaps they may ask:
What if the very word potential is an external means of control, a means for society to label and influence, to purify and justify the delusion? To create a means to control and engineer the will of the individual –"nothing" that dictates ones will? In that case they may cognitively internalize that their potential is really an externally applied delusion, and will not feel the pain of failure because the bases of their will was false. Thus their will and their desires are not in conflict
This is a terrible cycle that many enter. The struggle with external expectations that have been so internalized that their lack of fulfilling these expectations destroy their feelings of self-worth, purpose, and existence.
On the other hand, if society, communities, and families didn’t impose a sense of potential -a sense of direction for ones will, then we would never achieve, society would not be inspired to "will".
All of this hedges on this out-of-body non-existent potential!
If only society, family, and the individual could find the balance between inspiring the will to will and recognizing the ethereal nature of potential. We should accept that we often impose meaningless misguided potential on the person. We should acknowledge the obvious: many normal people do not fulfill these false expectations, not because their will has failed them but because we have failed their will.
The way things stand now many experience the curse of unfulfilled potential.
They asked whether my conclusion, that potential was the source for "will", implied that only an external force can create the will for x?
I think so. Probably because ones will stems from the deepest core of their humanity; the only thing that can precede that depth is something that precedes the totality of their existence. A source that is outside of their body and mind, say their parents. (This jives with the CHABAD Chassidic perspective which explains [ for example Torahs Menachem 1951, portion on Shelach] that the spies [meraglim] were the impetus for the entrance of the nascent Jewish people into Israel as they represented the initial awakening from above which engendered the awakening from below).
Now back to the underlying question how far can "will" take us?
I would like to elaborate on this question.
For example: what if one imagines that they have tremendous potential, and directs their will towards fulfilling that potential. Perhaps they jump at every opportunity to develop it and let it blossom. The question is does that will convert potential into existent? In other words, if your perceived potential is simply a rational characterization of an irrational narcissist delusion (imposed on you as your potential), can one elevate the delusion to reality? Or should the Rabbinic maxim, mentioned in part one of this series, be read as "ONLY nothing stands in the way of will" –even will cannot validate delusion?
For the astute reader there is a difficulty at the heart of this analysis. Potential is by its very nature buried and can/is only glimpsed via flashes (or perceptions) of unique activity. Put otherwise, it is nearly impossible to discern real potential from delusional perceptions of potential. It is for this reason that delusional evaluations of potential can create the will to unrelentingly pursue an unrealistic goal. Often the delusion-driven individual only discovers the sheer impossibility, or impracticality, of the goal when the goal is in sight. Years of wasted will, premised on false potential.
Thus the second question can never really be answered. After all potential is inherently beyond the persons very essence- it only exists external to the individual. We may never know whether only people with real potential can actualize it via their will or if even those that internalize pure delusions can actualize them with their will.
We may never know, but there are real and often tragic issues that arise from this existential ambiguity.
All of these issues stem from the unfortunate state of our society and its unwillingness to forgive because of its aversion to introspection on a societal level (though many are too willing to delve into the impenetrable depths of their own unconscious). Society, and even family, is often unwilling to accept that a completely normal person can be so delusional, BECAUSE of the nature of potential. Both its source in the expectations of others and in the fact that it can validated only AFTER its actualization.
The individual who may awake from the externally imposed delusion is beset by depreciating criticisms. This criticism mislabels that dawning of rationality on the deluded as, “oh what wasted potential, he/she was almost there and they failed”.
However unjust, this conclusion has certain merit.
1. The deluded pursued their delusion with such admirable vigor that their share commitment convinced others of the reality of their potential. 2. If we accept the first interpretation of the above maxim (nothing stands in the way of will), than whether the person is delusional or not has no bearing, if the person wills it, it will become a reality -the fact that will is premised on delusional potential is immaterial.
The implication of this second justification are rather frightening. Not only because it justifies social engineering (placing children in a system and then dictating what they should will, even if for that student the "will" is premised on delusion), but also because it implies that everyone can be the best. After all it just takes the will, however delusional.
What happens to an individual who is subjected to these types of expectations in school and out? If every element in their life "affirms" their great potential; if every “glimpse” is highlighted and embraced while every slip-up and weakness is covered-up or “extracted” from them. That person may grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed delusion. To the extent that they become the biggest advocates of said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph (self-serving bias). Then the day comes that rationality returns and they recognize that the goal was achievable/desirable only as part of their delusion (the goal may even be at the heart of the delusion). Then they realize that the goal is not what they want, it is not their will –the will itself is delusional.
Yet how do they know? How do they know that it is all a delusion, maybe it is deep seated laziness, weakness in the time of trial, perhaps an excuse for failure?
If they do follow through with their delusion, they will always doubt and be the object of doubt. Is it worth getting married if you doubt that future of that marriage, to be divorced to know that your original doubt was not simply an excuse?
Or perhaps they may ask:
What if the very word potential is an external means of control, a means for society to label and influence, to purify and justify the delusion? To create a means to control and engineer the will of the individual –"nothing" that dictates ones will? In that case they may cognitively internalize that their potential is really an externally applied delusion, and will not feel the pain of failure because the bases of their will was false. Thus their will and their desires are not in conflict
This is a terrible cycle that many enter. The struggle with external expectations that have been so internalized that their lack of fulfilling these expectations destroy their feelings of self-worth, purpose, and existence.
On the other hand, if society, communities, and families didn’t impose a sense of potential -a sense of direction for ones will, then we would never achieve, society would not be inspired to "will".
All of this hedges on this out-of-body non-existent potential!
If only society, family, and the individual could find the balance between inspiring the will to will and recognizing the ethereal nature of potential. We should accept that we often impose meaningless misguided potential on the person. We should acknowledge the obvious: many normal people do not fulfill these false expectations, not because their will has failed them but because we have failed their will.
The way things stand now many experience the curse of unfulfilled potential.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Between a Mosque and a Hard Place
Let’s say that Christians decided that it is important to have a Church overlooking Dachau, a German concentration camp where 100,000s of Jews and others were exterminated . Would that be wrong?
On one hand just because the Nazi’s of Germany happened to be both from a Christian nation and expressing an extreme manifestation of Antisemitism is not a reason to besmirch the whole Christian faith 60 years later.
At the same time it would be in very bad taste and completely unnecessary. Not because the Church was directly responsible for the Holocaust, but because there is an association. Thankfully the Church has not placed Jews in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between commonsense-respect or being labeled anti-Christian.
Yet what would happen if the Church did insist on building a towering church overlooking Dachau BEFORE the actual Dachau memorial was constructed, say in 1955? Then Jews would be forced to choose between being seen as unjustly stereotyping all Christians or feeling that the memory of their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters was not receiving the respect it deserved. After all most individuals visiting the site would easily make a hurtful connection between the Cross, Antisemitism, and the Nazis.
Why then have some in the American-Muslim community placed us, average Americans, in the uncomfortable and unnecessary position of choosing between the victims of horrific Islamic-terror and our values of absolute tolerance?
Who gains from building a Mosque 15 stories above the site of ground-zero, BEFORE ground-zero and the wounds that it opened recover? Bigots will become more bigoted, stereotypes will be affirmed, and many victims will feel once again victimized. Is there no location available for 100 million elsewhere in Manhattan?
How can the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba (this term has very sinister connotations, accidentally?) Initiative, be so sure that they can raise the 100 million necessary to follow thru on this project? Are there so many supporters of this project IN our country? If not who is funding this and why?
Perhaps it is a ploy to “reveal” Americas anti-Muslim and hypocritical nature, and was never intended to actually be built, or even a right-wing conspiracy to galvanize anti-Muslim sentiment in America. Or a left-wing conspiracy to force America to accept Islam while affirming American values to the rest of the world.
Whatever the warped meaning, they, whoever they are, have put us between a Mosque and a hard place.
On one hand just because the Nazi’s of Germany happened to be both from a Christian nation and expressing an extreme manifestation of Antisemitism is not a reason to besmirch the whole Christian faith 60 years later.
At the same time it would be in very bad taste and completely unnecessary. Not because the Church was directly responsible for the Holocaust, but because there is an association. Thankfully the Church has not placed Jews in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between commonsense-respect or being labeled anti-Christian.
Yet what would happen if the Church did insist on building a towering church overlooking Dachau BEFORE the actual Dachau memorial was constructed, say in 1955? Then Jews would be forced to choose between being seen as unjustly stereotyping all Christians or feeling that the memory of their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters was not receiving the respect it deserved. After all most individuals visiting the site would easily make a hurtful connection between the Cross, Antisemitism, and the Nazis.
Why then have some in the American-Muslim community placed us, average Americans, in the uncomfortable and unnecessary position of choosing between the victims of horrific Islamic-terror and our values of absolute tolerance?
Who gains from building a Mosque 15 stories above the site of ground-zero, BEFORE ground-zero and the wounds that it opened recover? Bigots will become more bigoted, stereotypes will be affirmed, and many victims will feel once again victimized. Is there no location available for 100 million elsewhere in Manhattan?
How can the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba (this term has very sinister connotations, accidentally?) Initiative, be so sure that they can raise the 100 million necessary to follow thru on this project? Are there so many supporters of this project IN our country? If not who is funding this and why?
Perhaps it is a ploy to “reveal” Americas anti-Muslim and hypocritical nature, and was never intended to actually be built, or even a right-wing conspiracy to galvanize anti-Muslim sentiment in America. Or a left-wing conspiracy to force America to accept Islam while affirming American values to the rest of the world.
Whatever the warped meaning, they, whoever they are, have put us between a Mosque and a hard place.
The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (1) "The will to will"
The CHABAD masters discuss the relationship between will/want (ratzun) and enjoyment/pleasure (tanug). One way to frame the following conversation is to ask “which one plays the role of cause in the relationship?” Do I will because I enjoy or do I enjoy because I want? The masters respond that will precedes enjoyment, to the extent that it can dictate that one enjoy what they previously despised. For example, I will to be healthy so I begin to do that which I despise, exercise. Eventually I begin to enjoy exercise.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Why the United States Should Buy ALL the Opium in Afghanistan
One of the great existential problems facing Western culture generally, and America specifically is our “happy drive” -we justify almost any means to feel happy. The implications are far reaching and sometimes indiscernible. Thus one means to achieve happiness in our smile-craving society is easily identifiable, drugs, opium. However the effects of our pursuit of smiles through opium are far less obvious. All this is directly tied to our boots-on-the-ground war in Afghanistan, and may actually offer us an unprecedented opportunity. Hear me out.
The history of opium use in the US goes back to the mid nineteenth century, and is connected to every day terms like snake-oil salesman and hippies ( those who lay on their sides in a opium induced stupor, and developed hip ailments). Opium has both a physical and more symbolic affect on our society. Despite the DEA’s efforts and our tax dollars, opium, in the guise of heroin, continues to afflict the US - both as a destructive drug and as a major cause behind the spread of HIV/AIDS. Its affects are also more subtle as the relationship between the materialistic/superficial tendencies of American culture and drug use (illicit and otherwise) is often used a propaganda tool of the anti-west coalitions. Islamists, are quick to point to the West/Americas decadence as reflected by its drug problem. Just as the Soviet Union was accused of facilitating drug use in America (true or false), as a way of undermining US society, and damming it.
Yet the opium problem has not gone away and unbeknownst to the general public, has actually grown exponentially in unforeseen ways. I am not talking so much about South America; that is primarily a cocaine and marijuana issue.Instead I refer to the international terrorist drug-cartel alliance. That terrorist groups like Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Qaida (Sunni) use drug trade to finance their illicit activities is an old and well researched fact. Moreover the fact that our battle against drugs, one evil, is also a battle against terror, another evil, is not coincidental considering the unifying factor. Putting that aside.
Al Qaida and the Taliban should not be conflated –the former practices terror to destroy the West the latter for a disparate number of reasons. Regardless, both use Afghanistan’s number one cash-crop and export, opium, to fund their actions. Indeed according to some estimates 93 percent of global opium originates in Afghanistan, at a gross profit of over 64 billion. The ramifications of this are simple, if America destroys opium they also destroy the number one source of income for over 200,000 Afghan families. The Taliban and other associated terror groups buy the opium and the loyalty from the famers and export it for a exponential profit.
It is also true that Afghanistan experienced a decrease in opium use after the Taliban takeover in 1994, as its cultivation was seen as un-Islamic. At the same time the current reality stands; the anti-western factions in Afghanistan love their opium. Also true is the fact that the Petraeus/Obama approach has been to move away from targeting opium production, as it alienates the local tribesmen.Why don’t we go a step further.
Let us buy the opium at a higher price than the Taliban and “others” –all of it. Furthermore we should help develop and support an opium cartel in Afghanistan, thereby centralizing it and controlling it. What we do with the drugs is irrelevant to the producers. The bottom line is we have a unique opportunity here to cut off a major source of income to terror, and the global drug trade. Furthermore, it will be cheaper than our current strategy of dumping more troops into an impossible situation. As we have troops on the ground we can implement the strategy immediately, and ensure that it becomes a reality.
I wonder if the State Department considered this strategy and then rejected it because of the fear that we will perceived as facilitating the drug trade, or worse that our soldiers are actually the muscle protecting it.
Let us be realistic, we have a chance to take 93 percent of opium of the market, cripple terror funding, and even win in Afghanistan. Most importantly we should not forget that this opium strategy is central to our nation building approach. After all a coherent and functioning Afghan government means a government that can take control of a opium sector that we will have hopefully tamed. It is not as if the drug problem will disappear but that fact shouldn’t stop us from dealing the terrorists a resounding blow.
The history of opium use in the US goes back to the mid nineteenth century, and is connected to every day terms like snake-oil salesman and hippies ( those who lay on their sides in a opium induced stupor, and developed hip ailments). Opium has both a physical and more symbolic affect on our society. Despite the DEA’s efforts and our tax dollars, opium, in the guise of heroin, continues to afflict the US - both as a destructive drug and as a major cause behind the spread of HIV/AIDS. Its affects are also more subtle as the relationship between the materialistic/superficial tendencies of American culture and drug use (illicit and otherwise) is often used a propaganda tool of the anti-west coalitions. Islamists, are quick to point to the West/Americas decadence as reflected by its drug problem. Just as the Soviet Union was accused of facilitating drug use in America (true or false), as a way of undermining US society, and damming it.
Yet the opium problem has not gone away and unbeknownst to the general public, has actually grown exponentially in unforeseen ways. I am not talking so much about South America; that is primarily a cocaine and marijuana issue.Instead I refer to the international terrorist drug-cartel alliance. That terrorist groups like Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Qaida (Sunni) use drug trade to finance their illicit activities is an old and well researched fact. Moreover the fact that our battle against drugs, one evil, is also a battle against terror, another evil, is not coincidental considering the unifying factor. Putting that aside.
Al Qaida and the Taliban should not be conflated –the former practices terror to destroy the West the latter for a disparate number of reasons. Regardless, both use Afghanistan’s number one cash-crop and export, opium, to fund their actions. Indeed according to some estimates 93 percent of global opium originates in Afghanistan, at a gross profit of over 64 billion. The ramifications of this are simple, if America destroys opium they also destroy the number one source of income for over 200,000 Afghan families. The Taliban and other associated terror groups buy the opium and the loyalty from the famers and export it for a exponential profit.
It is also true that Afghanistan experienced a decrease in opium use after the Taliban takeover in 1994, as its cultivation was seen as un-Islamic. At the same time the current reality stands; the anti-western factions in Afghanistan love their opium. Also true is the fact that the Petraeus/Obama approach has been to move away from targeting opium production, as it alienates the local tribesmen.Why don’t we go a step further.
Let us buy the opium at a higher price than the Taliban and “others” –all of it. Furthermore we should help develop and support an opium cartel in Afghanistan, thereby centralizing it and controlling it. What we do with the drugs is irrelevant to the producers. The bottom line is we have a unique opportunity here to cut off a major source of income to terror, and the global drug trade. Furthermore, it will be cheaper than our current strategy of dumping more troops into an impossible situation. As we have troops on the ground we can implement the strategy immediately, and ensure that it becomes a reality.
I wonder if the State Department considered this strategy and then rejected it because of the fear that we will perceived as facilitating the drug trade, or worse that our soldiers are actually the muscle protecting it.
Let us be realistic, we have a chance to take 93 percent of opium of the market, cripple terror funding, and even win in Afghanistan. Most importantly we should not forget that this opium strategy is central to our nation building approach. After all a coherent and functioning Afghan government means a government that can take control of a opium sector that we will have hopefully tamed. It is not as if the drug problem will disappear but that fact shouldn’t stop us from dealing the terrorists a resounding blow.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The only path to defeating the emerging Iran and Others coalition:
A costly strike on Iran’s nuclear arsenals by Israel or America is the only way to draw out Iran’s poison short-term. Yet all agree that it is only temporary solution.
The only way for peace-loving nations of the world to defang Iran and to reclaim the allegiance of the "non-aligned" nations of the world is to take away their unearned source of power, oil.
This is not a new idea. But oil interests both in and out of the United States have not only prevented US replacement of oil, it has also prevented Israel from turning its powerful technological industry focus on an oil solution.
While there are no clear indications that Israel’s lack of major progress in this field is due to American interests, the rational is clear.
1. If Israel is willing to continually freeze building in Israel, and place its people in danger because of American peace demands, i.e. American interests. Then it would be a cinch for American government urged on by industry, and Saudi Arabia, to influence Israel away from oil replacement.
2. In 1991, after the UN/US coalition invaded Iraq (1) Israel was attacked by a barrage of Iraqi scuds, and did not retaliate. One of these scuds was responsible for killing scores of US service-people in Saudi Arabia. Because it would endanger the US Arab/Muslim supported coalition.
These are just two KNOWN examples of Israel taking it on the chin for the sake of its alliance with America.
Now that the Obama’s efforts of reconciliation with Russia/Iran/Cuba/Turkey/Syria etc. failed, gaining nothing but a weaker America, that is not pursuing much needed missile defense in Eastern Europe. It is time for America to be smart and realistic about the future.
We can defeat the enemies of America, ALL who just happen to be the enemies of Israel, but depriving them, Russia Iran, of their unearned source of income. Oil. Besides it will result in a cleaner world, more jobs, and a more predictable economy. Let Israel and America focus their collective brilliance and do away with oil dependence.
The only way for peace-loving nations of the world to defang Iran and to reclaim the allegiance of the "non-aligned" nations of the world is to take away their unearned source of power, oil.
This is not a new idea. But oil interests both in and out of the United States have not only prevented US replacement of oil, it has also prevented Israel from turning its powerful technological industry focus on an oil solution.
While there are no clear indications that Israel’s lack of major progress in this field is due to American interests, the rational is clear.
1. If Israel is willing to continually freeze building in Israel, and place its people in danger because of American peace demands, i.e. American interests. Then it would be a cinch for American government urged on by industry, and Saudi Arabia, to influence Israel away from oil replacement.
2. In 1991, after the UN/US coalition invaded Iraq (1) Israel was attacked by a barrage of Iraqi scuds, and did not retaliate. One of these scuds was responsible for killing scores of US service-people in Saudi Arabia. Because it would endanger the US Arab/Muslim supported coalition.
These are just two KNOWN examples of Israel taking it on the chin for the sake of its alliance with America.
Now that the Obama’s efforts of reconciliation with Russia/Iran/Cuba/Turkey/Syria etc. failed, gaining nothing but a weaker America, that is not pursuing much needed missile defense in Eastern Europe. It is time for America to be smart and realistic about the future.
We can defeat the enemies of America, ALL who just happen to be the enemies of Israel, but depriving them, Russia Iran, of their unearned source of income. Oil. Besides it will result in a cleaner world, more jobs, and a more predictable economy. Let Israel and America focus their collective brilliance and do away with oil dependence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
