Letter to a friend
2001 October 16 Tuesday
Dear Sy,
I apologize for not replying
sooner to your letter of 9/28. The questions you raise merit
a serious, considered response, and I knew they would take time
and mental effort to answer, and so I kept putting it off.
First, the easy question: We
are well. On September 11 Susana and I watched the fires and
the collapse of one of the towers from our rooftop. I've described
the scene, and our emotions, in a five-day
journal that I've posted on my web site. One former colleague
is among the dead, and other friends who lived right by the south
tower were very badly frightened and have not yet been able to
return to their ruined apartment.
Like most Americans, we felt
waves of fear, anger and frustration at our helplessness in the
face of such a massive catastrophe. Over the next few days, fear
of attack dissolved into fear of what the US Government's response
would be, and of hate crimes against people who looked like Arabs.
My anger also matured, from blind fury at the unknown attackers
to more reasoned rage against the stupid and shortsighted policies
that had set us up. These include the neglect of basic social
needs by every power that has ever intervened in countries like
Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that has left the hate-filled indoctrination
of the madrassas as the only option for survival for tens of
thousands of poor boys.
Another is the US Government's
acquiescence in the self-destructive tactics of Israel. Peace
with the Arabs is that country's only possibility for long-term
survival, but Sharon's long-range view extends only backwards,
into an imaginary history that gives Jews their right to the
land. A more sensible politician would be looking forward.
Of course, Israeli Jews find
ample justification for their policy of "pre-emptive self-defense"
(or whatever their current term is for murder) in Palestinian
attacks, just as Palestinians, etc. A question I want to look
into soon maybe you've come up with the answer, since you've
read more of this history more recently is, Who taught
the Arabs to hate the Jews? How did these Semites become anti-Semitic?
My hunch is that it was mainly the English, in Egypt and Palestine,
and maybe the French in Syria, and that it began during and right
after the First World War. My impression is that, prior to that
time, Jews in Ottoman lands were generally much less hassled
than those in Christian countries.* What do you think? What were
the means for transmitting anti-Jewish feeling? We've just bought
Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples maybe
he can help me understand this.
But all that is a digression.
We need to decide what we are going to do now. When the attack
on Afghanistan began on Sunday, Oct. 7, I learned of it from
a phone call from a news editor in Paris, asking me to comment
on it for the Spanish-language service of Radio France Internationale.
I told her to wait until I could find out more about it, and
she called me back an hour and a half later (4 p.m. our time,
for a 10 p.m. newscast from Paris). I've tried to reproduce what I said, or meant to say, in
a comment on my web page.
Essentially, I was simultaneously
thrilled and worried by the attack. It was a release to do something,
or to have our government do something, after so many weeks.
The Taliban may have had nothing to do with the September 11
attacks, but from all I'd read they are a horrible government
and driving them from power could only be a good thing. We haven't
seen proof that Osama bin Laden had much to do with them, either
though he applauded, and his further threats made him a
fair target for US reprisals, I thought.
That was then. I got my cathartic
release from the first salvo of bombing, and now I can think
a little more calmly. What I think is that the bombing should
stop, at least long enough to deliver food and to explore other
options. My objection is not that bombing is immoral, but that
it won't work. Bombing can maybe kill terrorists (along with
lots of other people), but it can't kill terrorism.
If the evidence against bin Laden
is as persuasive as Tony Blair says it is, it should be presented
to all the doubting countries and to the world at large, and
action against him and his confederates should be international.
To reduce the incidence of terrorism, we need the widest possible
consensus. Otherwise, we risk provoking protests so big they
lead to the overthrow of the government of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
or Egypt. Like Iran, 22 years ago.
Come to think of it, maybe that
is the way this wave of terrorism will finally end. Let the terrorists
have their own countries, so they can send whole armies into
battle instead of commandos with box-cutters or dynamite girdles.
Again, like Iran, where the mullahs got too exhausted by their
war with Iraq and the immense problems of actually governing
a state to get involved in overseas adventures against civilians.
Something like that would surely occur if Osama bin Laden and
friends ever came to power in Saudi Arabia.
Of course, the price of oil would
go up for all of us. And their wars might well involve the US
and our other allies. And letting the extremists have their own
country in Afghanistan didn't guarantee quiet outside its borders.
So even if we don't take into consideration the greater loss
of liberties of people in those societies, that's probably not
a good solution. But it may very well be where we're heading.
So: I urge a halt in the bombing,
and preparations for life in a more difficult world. The super
power is not so super after all. We shall have to re-learn what
the Founding Fathers knew, that we can survive as a nation only
with "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
Your friend,
Geoff
* Postscript, 2001-11-19: I've
now read Bernard Lewis' book, The
Jews of Islam, covering the whole history of a complex set
of relationships. It now appears that my image was oversimplified,
but not all wrong. See my note on Lewis' book.