War without Kitsch

One thing, and by no means not the least important thing, war always produces a tsunami of kitsch. The kind that seeks to show how utterly wicked, utterly cruel and utterly depraved, the enemy is. The kind that claims to weep for, and commiserate with, the losses on one’s own side. The kind that contrasts our heroes’ indomitable courage and commitment to the sacred cause with the dastardly cowardice and treachery so characteristic of, so inherent in, the other side. The kind that, by its very nature, stokes the flames and undermines any kind of rational thought. If, indeed, it does not prohibit such thought altogether.

Needless to say, Israel—my Israel—is not exempt. Some of the stuff that has been drowning us since the 7th of October is the product of genuine emotion. But much of it—especially that pronounced by, or commissioned by, politicians—is patently false. At times, so obvious is the fakery as to make one want to puke.

Given this background, I found myself seeking an expression of grief that would not overflow with kitsch. The kind that is simple and noble. The kind that can actually do some good. Doing so, I recalled a speech given by Moshe Dayan, at that time Israel’s chief of the general staff. The occasion was the kidnapping and assassination of a young Israeli, Roi Rotberg. Rotberg, aged 21, was a member of a kibbutz not far from the Gaza Strip, exactly the area where the current war started, where he was in charge of the local security squad. On 29 April 1956 he was caught in an ambush and killed. Later his body, which had been dragged into the Strip, was returned to Israel.

The following is a translation, taken straight from good old Wikipedia, of Dayan’s address. Every word, every full stop and comma and question mark, is as relevant today as it was 68 years ago.

“Early yesterday morning Roi was murdered. The quiet of the spring morning dazzled him and he did not see those waiting in ambush for him, at the edge of the furrow. Let us not cast the blame on the murderers today. Why should we declare their burning hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate. It is not among the Arabs in Gaza, but in our own midst that we must seek Roi’s blood. How did we shut our eyes and refuse to look squarely at our fate, and see, in all its brutality, the destiny of our generation? Have we forgotten that this group of young people dwelling at Nahal Oz is bearing the heavy gates of Gaza[1] on its shoulders? Beyond the furrow of the border, a sea of hatred and desire for revenge is swelling, awaiting the day when serenity will dull our path, for the day when we will heed the ambassadors of malevolent hypocrisy who call upon us to lay down our arms. Roi’s blood is crying out to us and only to us from his torn body. Although we have sworn a thousandfold that our blood shall not flow in vain, yesterday again we were tempted, we listened, we believed.

We will make our reckoning with ourselves today; we are a generation that settles the land and without the steel helmet and the cannon’s maw, we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home. Let us not be deterred from seeing the loathing that is inflaming and filling the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who live around us. Let us not avert our eyes lest our arms weaken. This is the fate of our generation. This is our life’s choice – to be prepared and armed, strong and determined, lest the sword be stricken from our fist and our lives cut down. The young Roi who left Tel Aviv to build his home at the gates of Gaza to be a wall for us was blinded by the light in his heart and he did not see the flash of the sword. The yearning for peace deafened his ears and he did not hear the voice of murder waiting in ambush. The gates of Gaza weighed too heavily on his shoulders and overcame him.

[1] A reference to the Biblical book of Judges where the hero Samson escapes the then Philistine city of Gaza by ripping out the city’s gates and carrying them away on his shoulders.

New Under the Sun?

No. I will not tell you who authored the following text, when, where and on what occasion. You will, in any case, have no trouble in finding out for yourselves.

“After all, how near one to the other is every part of the world! Modern inventors have brought into close relation widely separated peoples and made them better acquainted. Geographic and political divisions will continue to exist, but distances have been effaced. Swift ships and fast trains are becoming cosmopolitan. They invade fields which a few years ago were impenetrable. The world’s products are exchanged as never before, and with increasing transportation facilities come increasing knowledge and larger trade. Prices are fixed with mathematical precision by supply and demand. The world’s selling prices are regulated by market and crop reports. We travel greater distances in a shorter space of time and with more ease than was ever dreamed of by the fathers. Isolation is no longer possible or desirable. The same important news is read, though in different languages, the same day in all Christendom. The telegraph keeps us advised of what is occurring everywhere, and the press foreshadows, with more or less accuracy, the plans and purposes of the nations. Market prices of products and of securities are hourly known in every commercial mart, and the investments of the people extend beyond their own national boundaries into the remotest parts of the earth. Vast transactions are conducted and international exchanges are made by the tick of the cable. Every event of interest is immediately bulletined. The quick gathering and transmission of news, like rapid transit, are of recent origin, and are only made possible by the genius of the inventor and the courage of the investor. It took a special messenger of the government, with every facility known at the time for rapid travel, nineteen days to go from the city of Washington to New Orleans with a message to General Jackson that the war with England had ceased and a treaty of peace had been signed. How different now!

Annihilation of distance.

We reached General Miles in Porto Rico by cable, and he was able through the military telegraph to stop his army on the firing-line with the message that the United States and Spain had signed a protocol suspending hostilities. We knew almost instantly of the first shot fired at Santiago, and the subsequent surrender of the Spanish forces was known at Washington within less than an hour of its consummation. The first ship of Cervera‘s fleet had hardly emerged from that historic harbor when the fact was flashed to our capital, and the swift destruction that followed was announced immediately through the wonderful medium of telegraphy. So accustomed are we to safe and easy communication with distant lands that its temporary interruption even in ordinary times results in loss and inconvenience. We shall never forget the days of anxious waiting and awful suspense when no information was permitted to be sent from Peking. and the diplomatic representatives of the nations in China, cut off from all communication inside and outside of the walled capital, were surrounded by an angry and misguided mob that threatened their lives; nor the joy that thrilled the world when a single message from the government of the United States brought through our minister the first news of the safety of the besieged diplomats.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century there was not a mile of steam railroad on the globe. Now there are enough miles to make its circuit many times. Then there was not a line of electric telegraph; now we have a vast mileage traversing all lands and all seas. God and man have linked the nations together. No nation can longer be indifferent to any other. And as we are brought more and more in touch with each other the less occasion is there for misunderstanding, and the stronger the disposition, when we have differences, to adjust them in the court of arbitration, which is the noblest forum for the settlement of international disputes.”

Having read all this, do you still think there is anything new under the sun?

Change and Continuity (Again)

As a few readers may recall, this is the third time I’ve addressed this topic, which has now been haunting me for several years, in this blog. Partly that is because I believe, with Nietzsche, that the fact that everyone thinks something does not prove it is true. If anything, to the contrary. And partly because, if the study of history, to which I have devoted my life, is to go beyond mere incoherent tales and be of any use at all, some things must remain the same.

What I wanted to know is this: against the background of the constant and often tumultuous change that everyone keeps talking about, is there anything that does not and will not change? Originally I hoped to write a book about that question; having already published a volume about the history of man’s attempts to see into the future, at first I thought the task would be fairly easy. Never have I been more mistaken! In the event writing the new book proved to be beyond my powers, at least for the moment. So I let it go, more or less.

Doing some shopping earlier this morning, for some mysterious reason I found myself thinking about the topic. As many others have also noted, often the best ideas seem to come out of nowhere. Especially during exercise; and especially if the exercise is neither too strenuous to allow for thought or too light to make a difference to the heart and lung system in particular. Think of James Watt who had the idea of a separate boiler, leading to the modern steam engine and thus to the industrial revolution, come to him, completely unexpected, during a Sunday walk in Edinburgh Common.

So what I am going to do today is draw up a list, however incomplete and however superficial, of some propositions that, as far as I can see, have been, are and presumably always will remain true. Such as form a sort of skeleton, or chassis, or framework, for social life to hang itself on, so to speak.  As I do so, maybe, just maybe, one thing will lead to another. Until, probably by working by fits and starts, one day I shall have something to say on the topic that is more inclusive, more solid, and more worth publishing in some other suitable format.

*

The laws of physics the laws of physics provide just what I’ve been looking for: namely, a sort of skeleton, or chassis, or framework, for social life to hang itself on. The laws of physics do not change—or else they would not be laws.

*

Emotion, Thought, Knowledge and Understanding

Just how emotion, thought, knowledge and understanding grow out of, and interact with, our biological makeup on one hand and the surrounding physical world is unknown. And unknown it will almost certainly remain until the end of time.

Now as ever, so much of our thought is governed by our cultural background on one hand and wishful thinking on the other as to make “objectivity” very difficult, often all but impossible.

Everyone believes he is the most intelligent, except for a few who agree with him (Thomas Hobbes).

The more we learn about the world, the more numerous and more difficult the questions that present themselves and demand an answer.

Obtaining a good picture of the past is hard enough; obtaining a good picture of the future, all but impossible.

Economic Life

Man does not live by bread—here broadly understood as nutrients of every kind—alone. That said, the need for bread goes a long way—though never all the way—to govern the shape and functioning of every individual and every society. And the other way around.

There never has been a human society whose members, or at any rate many of them, did not produce/work for a living.

Where an army cannot go, an ass loaded with gold will (Philip II, father of Alexander the Great).

Resources, whether in the form of nutrients, or living space, or mates, or allies, or honors, are always limited. Those who pursue them will face competition and pay a price; those who own them will have to defend them.

Prices are governed by the interaction between supply and demand.

Gresham’s law: Bad money will drive out good.

Wealth is always relative. That is why poverty will never disappear from the face of the earth.

Psychology

The essence of life (not just human life, but that is beside the point in the present context) is the quest for growth/power in its endlessly varied forms (Nietzsche). Conversely, when the quest comes to a halt death cannot be very far away.

Freud was right. Not only does the sub-consciousness really exist, but it strongly influences everything we are, think and do.

Given the right circumstances, almost any person on earth is capable of extreme tenderness and extreme cruelty. Not seldom, both.

As often as our senses tell us the truth, they deceive. Ditto, our memory.

Very often, when circumstances prevent us from venting our anger on others we will direct it at ourselves. And vice versa.

The one thing we humans cannot do is sit still and alone in a room and do nothing (Blaise Pascal).

Social Life

Everything in social life is interwoven with everything else and impacts on everything else,

Man is a social animal (said Aristotle). No man can live on his own.

Absolute freedom can only exist in a desert.

If only because they cannot cope on their own, the young are always subject to some kind of education.

No society has ever been, or ever will be, without religion, art, music, fashion, ceremonies, feast days, games, etc.

No society has ever been, nor will be, completely egalitarian in the sense that every one of its members occupies a similar position, owns the same amount of goods, is addressed in the same manner, and always treats all the rest equally.

Politics

Man is the conspiring animal (Lyndon LaRouche).

Politics is the art of the possible (Otto von Bismarck).

It is politics that determine who gets what (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin).

Any government is better than no government (Thomas Hobbes).

Telling truth to power is always difficult, often dangerous.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton).

Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

Had it been possible to open a tyrant’s soul, it would be found covered with scars.

Niccolò Machiavelli: Amidst so many who are bad, how can a good one maintain himself?

Aside: Gender and Sex

Women form half of humanity, and not the least important half.

So powerful and potentially so disruptive is the drive to mate that no society has ever existed that did not do its best to regulate it in one way or another.

Everything about women is a riddle, and the riddle has one solution: pregnancy (Nietzsche).

The relationship between the sexes is highly asymmetrical. The more manly a man, the more women will like him. The more a woman tries to become/behave like a man, the less men will like her (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).

Now as ever, women do most household work. Ditto childcare, nursing, social work, etc.

Society is run by men and strong women (Margaret Mead).

Women on average are smaller, lighter, weaker, less robust and more vulnerable than men. That is why they need the protection of men. Not only does that need go a long way to govern the relationship between men and women, but it guarantees that, in the future as in the past, women will be dependent on men. And, to some extent, subordinate to them.

A man who sacrifices himself for a woman will be admired. A man who allows a woman to sacrifice herself for him will be ridiculed, despised, or both.

A man who competes against a woman and loses, loses. A man who competes against a woman and wins, also loses.

A man’s pleasure is in a woman’s hand (Aristophanes).

Where women are respected, the gods dwell (Hindu proverb).

War

No known human society has ever been, nor ever will be, without some form of legalized group violence. Aka, war.

If you want peace, prepare for war (Roman proverb).

A centralized state is hard to conquer but easy to hold. With a decentralized one the opposite applies (Machiavelli).

Dulce bellum inexpertis (Desiderius Erasmus: sweet is war for those who have not experienced it). But don’t get me wrong: terrible as war is, and precisely for that reason, it can also provide the greatest joy there is.

War is motivated by a combination of interest—hence Clausewitz’s famous dictum—on one hand and emotion on the other. The two can, and sometimes do, pull in opposite directions.

War is a moral and physical struggle waged by means of the latter (Clausewitz again).

The essence of war is fighting around which everything else revolves. No fighting, no war.

The cardinal coordinates of war are violence, pain, danger, fatigue, uncertainty and friction.

War is a duel on an extended scale. Ancient or modern, large or small, it is governed by the rules of strategy just as many games are.

The principles of war—intelligence, deception, surprise, concentration, economy of force, and the like—are eternal. Not one of them has changed, and not one of them ever will.

The larger the distance between base and front, the more expensive and the more difficult waging war becomes.

Other things equal, the stronger form of war is the defense. Still, no war has ever been won by a pure defense.

A stream of water pouring out of a bucket will only spread for so long before coming to a halt. Similarly, attackers only have limited time at their disposal. Either they win within that time, or else they will be forced on the defense. For the defender, provided only he can hold out long enough, the opposite is the case.

A sword, plunged into salt water, will rust!

The longer a war, the less profitable it is likely to be.

Only the dead will see the end of war.

*

Given these and tens of thousands of other truths, how can anyone seriously maintain that nothing ever changes?

So Many Deflated Hopes

As Nietzsche—my favorite philosopher—once said, history is a succession of atrocities. Overrunning the Middle East, the ancient Assyrians must have killed hundreds of thousands of people. Julius Caesar probably killed a million Gauls—one fifth of the entire population—and sold another million into slavery. Genghis Khan slaughtered millions. Taking into account sickness and famine, the Thirty Years War cost the lives of an estimated twelve million people. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars are estimated to have killed about three and a half million. All this before we get to the vast and extremely bloody upheavals China went through during the nineteenth century. Before we get to the two world wars which, between them, may have killed 60 million. And before we get to Auschwitz on one hand and Hiroshima/Nagasaki on the other.

That is not to say there have been no hopes. The Greeks and Romans had their visions of a long-past golden Age before iron weapons were invented and enabled people to slaughter each other on an unprecedented scale. Medieval Christians hoped to enter heaven when they died. Looking back on the Pax Romana—approximately 29 BCE to 200 CE—the late eighteen-century English historian Edward Gibbon considered it the happiest in the whole of history. A contemporary of the French author and pundit Francois-Marie Voltaire, the German poet Friedrich Schiller, and the equally German composer Ludwig van Beethoven, he agreed with them that national differences were being eradicated and that progress was making the world a happier place almost by the day.

Stimulated by the spread of mechanical transport, around 1870 an international pacifist movement started making its impact felt. In 1889 (the year Hitler was born, incidentally) the Austrian Baroness Bertha von Suttner published Nieder die Waffen, down with the arms, in which she denounced war and argued in favor of universal disarmament. In 1909 the British economist and writer Norman Angell published The Great Illusion, a book in which he argued that rising productivity and expanding communications were encouraging trade while driving war into obsolescence. Both authors ended by being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: Suttner in 1911 and Angel in 1933. 1919-20 saw the establishment of the League of Nations, an organization specifically intended to ensure that the war that had just ended would also be the last one.

Probably never at any time were such hopes more intense, and shared by a greater number of people, than in the years immediately following 1989. It all started in 1945 when, following the most destructive war in history, much of the world saw itself divided between two camps: the “Western.” or free, or capitalist, one on one hand and the “Eastern,” or socialist, or communist, one on the other. Both looked at the other as the incarnation of evil. Both proclaimed themselves carriers of the one ideology that would lead mankind towards a dazzling future. While armed to the teeth, both saw themselves as “peace loving.”

For decades on end the two camps confronted one another. Doing so they fought many wars by proxy. So in Asia, so in Africa, so in the Middle East; and so, albeit on a much smaller scale, in Latin America. Taking into account such massive meat-grinders  as the Chinese Civil War (1946-49), the Korean War (1950-53), and the two Vietnam Wars (1949-1975), the number of those killed in these and other armed conflicts may well  have exceeded that of those who died in 1914-45, albeit that they were spread over forty years instead of thirty. Twice did humanity, or at any rate large parts of it, seem to stand on the verge of nuclear annihilation. Once in 1962, when the US and USSR clashed head-on over Cuba and may only have been saved by a disobedient Soviet officer. And once in 1973, when the same Powers found themselves at loggerheads over the Arab-Israeli War of that year.

Come 1989, the year of miracles. The Berlin Wall, which for decades had stood as the very symbol of the world’s partition between the two camps, came crashing down. So did the East Bloc—perhaps the one case in all of history when a major empire fell not by means of war and massive bloodshed but because almost all of its people had lost faith in it. Much of the loss of faith in question was due to the fact, which in the age of radio and television (soon to be joined by a myriad other newfangled devices) could no longer be concealed, that the East had fallen way behind. Not just in terms of affluence but in others as well; including health, education, freedom of speech and movement, the quality of the environment, and so on. Put together, they and other criteria were known as the “human development” index.

Playing the role of Norman Angell in the immediate post-Cold War period was an American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama. His 1989 article, The End of History, which was later expanded into a book, told people what millions upon millions of them wanted to believe: namely that humankind was standing on the threshold of a new epoch. One in which democracy (as defined by the West) would become the religion of almost everyone, power politics abolished, and war, if not completely disappear, at any rate confined to unimportant, relatively backward but forward-looking, regions and countries. Providing strong support for Fukuyama was another American academic, the psychologist Steven Pinker. The list of contents of his most important book, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011) say it all.  I quote. “The Pacification Process.” “The Civilizing Process.” “The Humanitarian Revolution.” “The Long Peace,” “The New Peace.” “The Rights Revolutions.” “Better Angels.” And, most pretentious of all, “On Angels’ Wings.”

It reads like paradise, doesn’t it? Not just political and social change, but the kind of moral improvement we poor humans have always been looking for but always failed to achieve. The kind the Biblical prophets spoke about. The kind Mahatma Gandhi had in mind before he was assassinated. Alas, it was not to be. Not in much of Asia and Africa, where what we got was an exploding population that can hardly be fed, let alone provided with a decent standard of living where everyone has access to clean water. Not, in North America, greater freedom but a repressive social regime known as political correctness that, in so far as the repression comes from below rather than above, is without precedent in history. Not in the EU, where massive immigration is even now leading to an almost equally massive movement away from neighborly love towards the xenophobia of the “extremist” political right; and that, even as once lovely city centers are being converted into hotbeds of violence and crime. Not well behaved electorates casting their votes for such things as a better education for their children but, especially in Russia and several other former Soviet republics, an entire series of new bloodthirsty dictatorships taking the place of the old. Not peace among nations, but new wars—in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Zaire, in the Sudan, in the Middle East, to mention but a few—also taking the place of the old.

So many deflated hopes. So many broken lives.