Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Lawrence Auster slips
(See the Update at the bottom below.)
Today on his blog, Lawrence Auster in passing describes the problem with what portends for a "two-state solution" between Israel and Muslims in the region thusly (bold emphasis added):
How can the supposed ethno-nationalist thinkers at BNP imagine for a single instant that two sovereign and mutually hostile ethno-states could co-exist on that tiny land?
To palpate what is grossly wrong with that adverb-cum-adjective in this context, let us pose the following analogy:
A family (F) moves into a neighborhood.
The neighborhood is mostly, with extremely rare exceptions, filled with violent sociopaths who make their own lives hell, and seek -- on the basis of a deranged code that is the core of their fanatical cult -- to dominate, harrass, oppress, and/or destroy any newcomers.
F is able to move in and establish an enclave because forces outside the neighborhood, and much more powerful than that neighborhood, helped make it possible.
The courage, intelligence and military skill of F also helped make its move into the neighborhood a long-term success.
As time goes along, F through its intelligence and decency grows more and more prosperous and numerous.
However, as time goes along, the deranged violent sociopaths surrounding them relentlessly try to mass-murder them, and succeed continually in murdering the men, women and children of F.
As a consequence, F in order to protect its existence and the safety of its members, has to institute various measures that other Fs elsewhere have the luxury of not having to think about.
Even while rigorously protecting itself, F still manages to invite, into its homestead to enjoy the benefits of their prosperous life, numerous members of the same violently sociopathic neighborhood that continually threatens them. F even has a few of those members of that violently sociopathic neighborhood in its governing body!
All the violence of the violently sociopathic neighbors directed at F is savage, murderous, fanatical and psychopathic.
99.9% of the violence of F directed at the violently sociopathic neighbors attacking them is rational, prudent, as ethical as humanely possible -- and reasonably and necessarily defensive.
Now: In what universe would this situation be reasonably described as "mutually hostile"?
P.S.: The American Heritage Dictionary definition of hostile, shows the following:
The first definition defines it on the basis of "enemy", so let's look up "enemy":
One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes, another...
With minor, and understandably emotional exceptions, Israelis do not feel hatred for Muslims, and do not intend injury to them or oppose them except as a necessary byproduct of defending themselves from their psychopathically violent and genocidal actions. We do not thus have a "mutual" situation of two enemies, but of one enemy, besieging through the only way they can given their relative weakness, a population-and-polity they hate and want to drive out and/or exterminate. Israel has never declared war on Muslims: it has only taken tactical measures in order to defend its people, sometimes necessarily and not by choice involving military battles.
The second defition of hostile involves the words "enmity" and "antagonistic". Let's take a look at those then:
enmity is defined as "Deep-seated, often mutual hatred."
Again, it is only one side here gripped with "deep-seated hatred".
Meanwhile, antagonism is defined as based in "hostility", which we already dispensed with above.
I just noticed that Auster has modified his phrase to this:
How can the ethno-nationalist thinkers at BNP imagine for a single instant that two sovereign and mutually incompatible ethno-states, one of which would be devoted to the destruction of the other, could co-exist on that tiny land?
Auster's revision is certainly better than his original, but it still smacks of straining for a formula of equivalence. A better wording would have been:
How can the ethno-nationalist thinkers at BNP imagine for a single instant that two ethno-states, mutually incompatible only because one of them would be devoted to the destruction of the other, could co-exist on that tiny land?
My revision of Auster's revision is necessary, because Auster's revision tends to obscure or gloss over the crucial fact that Israel has maintained time and time again that it would be willing to live and let live and get along, so long as the other side (the Muslims) can be trusted to agree with this. The two states, then, would not be "mutually incompatible" in the sense that each is incompatible with the other -- but only in the sense that one of them will not cooperate with and abide the other, while the other is willing to cooperate and abide the one.