Exchange between LET ISRAEL WIN and German colleague
A German colleague sent me an essay describing the German view of America towards the war on terror. Below is the LET ISRAEL WIN response to this article. The text of the original article called �Across a Great Divide� by Peter Schneider is in black, and the LET ISRAEL WIN response is in blue.
Across a Great Divide
By PETER SCHNEIDER
The New York Times
Published: March 13, 2004
BERLIN, March 12 � The war in Iraq has made the Atlantic seem wider.
But really it has had the effect of a magnifying glass, bringing older and
more fundamental differences between Europe and the United States into
focus.
These growing divisions � over war, peace, religion, sex, life and
death � amount to a philosophical dispute about the common origins of European
and American civilization. Both children of the Enlightenment, the United
States and Europe clearly differ about the nature of this inheritance and
about who is its better custodian.
Thus far I agree 100%.
Start with religion. The United States is experiencing a revival of the
Christian faith in many areas of civic and political life, while in
Europe the process of secularization continues unabated. Today the United
States is the most religious-minded society of the Western democracies. In a 2003
Harris poll 79 percent of Americans said they believed in God, and more
than a third said they attended a religious service once a month or more.
Numerous polls have shown that these figures are much lower in Western
Europe. In the United States a majority of respondents in recent years
told pollsters that they believed in angels, while in Europe the issue was
apparently considered so preposterous that no one even asked the
question.
Thus far I continue to agree, but I must note the beginnings of difference of thought. When I read the above paragraph about America being more religious than Europe, I view this as a positive phenomenon. In my opinion, the secularization of Europe is what is leading to its downfall. Because of America�s religious beliefs in the Judeo-Christian belief system, they are able to discern between right and wrong, good and evil. Europe is unable to distinguish between good and evil because their secular belief system prevents them from making judgment and leads them towards a relative moralism in that �what is right for you may not be right for me�. �We each determine our own morality.� As opposed to America, where morality is standardized by a higher power (God), who one must answer to, should he act immorally. If one does not believe in God, then to whom do they answer? For example, the following groups did not believe in God: Nazis, Communists, and Fascists. Between these three groups, how much of humanity was murdered in the 20th century alone?
One can argue that the Muslim terrorists believe in God, and yet they are the biggest threat to humanity today. My response to that, is that they do not believe in the moral Judeo-Christian system, but rather some backwards belief that the murder of non-Muslims is a holy deed. The argument I make that religion equals a better society applies to the Judeo-Christian values.
When American commentators warn about a new fundamentalism, they
generally mention only the Islamic one. European intellectuals include two other
kinds: the Jewish and Christian variants.
This is when the writer becomes hostile. Here he begins to blame the Jews and Christians (i.e. Bush and the people who support him) for fighting terror in the world. He is putting blame on the people who are fighting terror, rather than the people who commit the terror. I cannot understand the psychology behind this reasoning. And furthermore, it is nice that a German blames the Jews, especially since most Jews in America (80% do not support Bush or Republicans and did not vote for him). So what is this Jewish fundamentalism? Is it the fact that Israel is fighting for its survival? At least this time the Jews are fighting (unlike in Nazi era). Realize, that the Jews in Israel are surrounded by people who want them DEAD.
Terms that President Bush has used, like "crusade" and "axis of evil,"
and Manichaean exclusions like his observation that anyone who is not on
our side is on the side of the terrorists, reveal the assumption of a
religious mantle by a secular power, which in Europe has become unthinkable. Was
it not, perhaps, this same sense of religious infallibility that seduced
senior members of the Bush administration into leading their country into a
war with Iraq on the basis of information that has turned out to be false?
It is these words like �evil� that make Americans love President Bush (in the same way Americans loved Reagan when he called the Soviet Union an �evil empire�). Americans understand the difference between good and evil, and believe that the best way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
I think the author here makes a horrible claim that Bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq. How can he say that this �information has turned out to be false?� How dare he? First of all, weapons of mass destruction can still be found. Iraq is a big place, especially with intelligence that much of these weapons may have been smuggled to Syria.
Even if there never turn out to be weapons of mass destruction, one cannot make the accusation that Bush lied, because, to the best of his knowledge, according to his intelligence services, Saddam (a known madman who has used weapons of mass destruction in the past against Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, and conventional weapons against Israel and Kuwait) had these weapons. Additionally, the rest of the world agreed that he had these weapons including Clinton, and including the UN council.
And what came of the War in Iraq, even if there are no weapons? A regime that actively and openly supported terrorism has been toppled. The rape rooms have been closed. Children have been freed from prisons. The first steps to democratize the heart of the Arab world have begun. For the first time in modern history, freedom has been brought to this part of the world (other than Israel).
Another reason for Europe's alienation from the United States is harder
to define, but for want of a better term, I call it American narcissism.
When American troops in Iraq mistakenly shoot an Arab journalist or
reduce half of a village to rubble in response to the explosion of a roadside
bomb, there will inevitably be a backlash. Only a fool would maintain that an
occupying power could afford many such mistakes, even if it is under
constant threat of suicide attacks. The success of an occupation policy
� however temporary it is meant to be � depends on the occupier's ability
to convince the population, by means of symbolic and material gestures,
that it is prepared to admit to mistakes.
This is just more of blaming the people who fight evil, rather than the people who perpetrate evil.
In its use of the language of power the Bush administration has created
the opposite impression, and not just in Iraq. The United States apparently
cannot be wrong about anything, nor does it have to apologize to
anybody. In many parts of the world people have come to believe, fairly or not,
that Americans regard the life of their countrymen as infinitely more
valuable than the lives of any other of the earth's inhabitants.
Of course, even in Europe only a pacifist minority denies the existence
of necessary, unavoidable, justified wars. The interventions in Bosnia,
Kosovo and Afghanistan were supported by many European nations, even if some
took a long time to make up their minds. European soldiers took part in those
wars and continue to play a part in the peacekeeping aftermath.
What arouses European suspicion, though, is the doctrine of just,
preemptive wars President Bush has outlined. Anyone who claims to be waging a
preventive war in the cause of justice is confusing either a particular
or a partisan interest with the interests of humanity. A president who makes
such a claim would be arrogating the right to be the ultimate arbiter of war
and peace and to stand in judgment over the world. From there it is but a
short step to dismissing a basic insight of the Enlightenment, namely that
human judgment and decisions are fallible by their very nature. This
fallibility cannot be annulled or ameliorated by any political, legal or religious
authority. The same argument goes for the death penalty.
This paragraph above is revealing of the European hatred towards America for being the world�s policeman. Yes, America is the world�s police. And who would you rather it be? Libya? Iran? China? France? America understands good and bad; Europe doesn�t. How can Europe police the world when they believe in �human judgment�? If all human thought is fallible by its very nature (as stated above), then humans can never police, can never make judgment. Americans still believe in the morality of the Jewish and Christian bible, which is not fallible.
Animosity isn't the only feature of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Europe is rightly envious of America's multicultural society. There can be no
doubt that the United States has produced the world's most varied and
integrative culture, and it is no accident that it is the only one to have a
worldwide appeal.
The author fails to mention that the worldwide appeal of America is not really multiculturalism, but rather the fact that no matter what your race, religion, etc. ANYONE can �make it� in America due to the capitalist society. Unlike the socialist society of much of Europe. Do immigrants say, �I am going to America to be part of a diverse society?� No, they come to America to get rich.
And ANY PERSON in the whole world can become an American. America is a value system. Not everyone can become Japanese, or German, or Swedish.
But the American multicultural model also generates an illusion. Since
Americans really have come from all over the world, in the United
States it is easy to believe that you can know and understand the world without
ever leaving the country. Those who were born and brought up in America
forget that these people "from all over the world" first had to become
Americans � a condition that new immigrants generally accept with enthusiasm �
before they could celebrate their cultural otherness.
This is why it is always an American version of otherness that is
encountered in the United States. You will not necessarily learn
anything about the culture and history of Vietnam by working alongside a
Vietnamese doctor in the teaching hospital at Stanford. You can sit next to an
Indian in the same dot.com company in Los Angeles for years without learning
much about the manners and customs of India. And going to a French
restaurant in Atlanta is no guarantee that you will be served French cuisine.
So what?
Foreign films account for less than 1 percent of the American film
market, and the figures are similarly low for books and news from abroad.
So what? Is this a reason to hate America? So what if French movies suck (even though they have more topless scenes?) American movies are good, so they make it on the world market.
The impressive integrative power of American society seems to generate
a kind of obliviousness to the world, a multicultural unilateralism. The
result is a paradox: a fantastically tolerant and flexible society that
has absorbed the whole world, yet has difficulty comprehending the world
beyond its borders.
This is just nonsense. He is making up a theory as to why America is different from Europe. My friend, the difference has nothing to do with race or culture, or obliviousness to the world. The difference is simple. The difference is values.
These differences and irritations add up to a substantial disagreement
on the joint origins of American and European civilization. Europeans
think that Americans are on their way to betraying some of the elementary
tenets of the Enlightenment, establishing a new principle in which they are
"first among unequals."
Again, it is values. What is this �enlightenment� he keeps bringing up?
And Washington accuses Europe of shirking its international
responsibilities, and thus its own human rights inheritance.
Yes, this is true. Europe has not had a good track record with human rights (Nazism, communism, fascism). And now, secularism, which I fear. Secularism erases morality. Europe without morality is fearful, as history proves.
After all, what is the point of international law if it prevents
intervening in the affairs of a brutal regime to stay the hand of a tyrant? Who is
the true advocate of human rights: the one who cites international law to
justify standing by while genocide is being committed or the one who
puts an end to the genocide, even if it means violating international law?
Is he serious? Clearly, the true advocate of human rights is the one who puts an end to the genocide even if it means violating international law. Unless he thinks that the rights of the humans committing the genocide are more important to preserve.
The Europeans who stood and watched the Jews being herded into gas chambers are AS guilty as the Nazis for not stopping them. I will repeat: the best way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
I am proud that America will not stand by during a genocide. Europe has. That�s why 2/3 of the world�s Jews were murdered. America will not stand by and let this happen, even if Europe and international law say that it is illegal. Legality does not equal morality. I will say this again, because it is very important. Legality does not equal morality.
Who creates international law anyway? Most of the world is not good. The UN gives a voice and power to the worst dictators on the planet. When Libya, Syria, and China make international law, then it is a farce. These countries do not understand the meaning of human rights. Why are there so many UN decrees against Israel (an open democracy), when no one in the UN even mentions suicide bombing, slavery in the Sudan, the illegal occupation of Syria in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia for nurturing the mass murderers of 9-11, the Palestinians for brainwashing their children with hatred, the Muslim treatment of women. Can�t you see that most of the world is upside down?
Unfortunately, we cannot expect the news media in the United States or
Europe to present a nuanced view of this dispute. In 20 years of
traveling back and forth between Germany and America I have become convinced that
news broadcasts usually confirm their audiences' views: in Europe, about
America, the "cowboy nation," and in the United States, about Europe, the "axis
of weasels."
I take the term �cowboy� as a compliment. Yes, America is a cowboy. A lone man on the vast range fighting to do what is right. Fighting evil.
It is unfair to call the American media biased against Europe. Nearly all of the major newspapers, TV channels, universities, etc actually side with Europe and are self-hating Americans. The only media in America that the majority sees Europe as the axis of weasels is Talk Radio.
These disagreements will be influenced but cannot be resolved by the
the American presidential election in November. The divisions are too deep,
and Europe cannot meet the United States halfway on too many issues � the
separation between church and state, the separation of powers, respect
for international law, the abolition of the death penalty � without
surrendering its version of its Enlightenment inheritance.
It is these values within Europe that will lead to its own destruction. Europe will either have a civil war against the non-assimilating Muslim populations, or Europe will become a Muslim society.
On other contentious issues the United States feels as strongly: the
universality of human rights and the need to intervene � if the United
Nations is unable to act � when there is genocide or ethnic cleansing,
or when states are failing.
So are we standing on the threshold of a new understanding or a new
historic divide, comparable to the evolutionary split that occurred when a group
of pioneer hominids thousands of years ago turned their backs forever on
their African homeland?
Yes, the divide between Americans and Europe is growing wide. Even the divide in America between conservatives (American thought) and liberals (European thought) is wide. There are three great forces in the world at odds: American thought, European thought, and Muslim thought. Only time will tell who wins.
So far it has usually been the Americans who have had to remind the
Europeans of these common origins, which the Europeans, in turn, have
so often betrayed. Maybe this time it is up to the Europeans to remind the
Americans of the promises of the Enlightenment that the United States
seems to have forgotten.
I assume by enlightenment, he means secularism. Secularism will lead to the demise of Europe. And America will be forced to save Europe (again).
(Peter Schneider is a German novelist and essayist. This article was
translated from the German by Victor Homola of The New York Times)