Sympathy for terrorists
A reader sent me a link to this Cynthia Ozick piece in the Weekly Standard about having sympathy for terrorists:
At bottom, an open-hearted willingness to understand “everyone” is an appalling distraction from the intrinsic depravity of the act of premeditated murder. The evil deed speaks for itself; to search out the evildoer’s “backstory,” to look for some exculpating raison d’éªtre, is no more useful or edifying or moral than an attraction to pornography. Pascal’s aperé§u ”” to understand is to forgive ”” comes perilously close to our current penchant to treat terrorists as interesting characters in a novel. True, Conrad did it in The Secret Agent; James did it in The Princess Casamassima. But let the Roman poet Terence have the last (Latin) word: Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi. What is permitted to the gods is not permitted to pornographers. James and Conrad, after all, understood that a terrorist in a novel is not the same as a jihadist spree in California or a terror massacre in Paris; and that murder, contra Pamuk, deserves no artistic credo.
This reminded me of this post I wrote back in 2006, which it may be time to republish. So here it is.
Thomas Sowell writes with clarity and succinctness on one unusual and especially troubling characteristic of the enemy we now face: its undeterrability. Undeterrability makes this fight different from previous ones. It makes efforts at peaceful negotiation directly with that enemy worse than futile; it makes them dangerous.
There was one sentence in Sowell’s column that especially caught my attention. In describing the nature of the enemy, he harked back to the 1985 Achille Lauro incident, in which 69-year-old wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer was murdered by Palestinian hijackers and his body dumped overboard.
Sowell asks:
What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish?
What kind, indeed? Human beings, for starters, not devils. But that doesn’t mean we need to sympathize with them. And certainly we would be well within our rights to call Klinghoffer’s murderers Nazi-esque, in targeting this particular man and treating him with such brutality merely because of his Jewishness.
I recall hearing the news of the hijacking and the shocking manner of Klinghoffer’s death. At the time I had no context in which to place it; it seemed an inexplicable atrocity that chilled my blood. It was incomprehensible to me, and so its significance as a signpost to the nature of the enemy was muted and blurred. It’s only in retrospect that I’m able to say, “But, of course.”
There’s another thing I neither noticed nor comprehended at the time, but that I’m certainly aware of now. And that was the almost immediate post-modern interest of some in understanding–empathizing with, and even sympathizing with–Klinghoffer’s murderers.
The opera “The Death of Leon Klinghoffer,” produced in 1991 and written by composer John Adams and librettist Alice Goodman, includes beautiful arias for the terrorists. It was received with accusations by some that it glorified terrorism, and kudos by others for its evenhanded treatment of the perpetrators’ grievances.
In previous years, an opera on such a theme might have featured the terrorists as traditional villains steeped in evil, with thunderous and dissonant music to signify the horror of what they did. But in this version, they were given sonorous and lovely melodies to sing and sympathetic words to portray, whereas the Klinghoffers and their associates were apparently portrayed as petty and materialistic bourgeoisie (note: I have not seen the opera).
To have chosen this particular incident–in which a helpless and innocent man in a wheelchair was murdered in cold blood, his body dumped overboard–and somehow turned it into a vehicle to air Palestinian grievances seems to me to be multiculturalism gone mad.
Who wrote the opera? The librettist, Alice Goodman, is an interesting tale herself. Born and raised as a Jew in Minnesota, educated in literature at Harvard, married to a British poet, she became an Anglican priest and opera librettist.
You can listen to Ms. Goodman discussing the opera here, in a BBC interview that features part of an aria from it by one of the terrorists (or maybe it’s a recitative; I’m no opera expert). Despite having read about the opera fairly extensively prior to hearing the clip, I was still surprised at the emotional tenor of the singing. Yes indeed, without even being able to decipher the words of the libretto, just hearing the music and the voice of the kidnapper made it clear that he was being given a respect and a certain esthetic elegance and dignity that could only serve to elevate him in the eyes of the listener.
Then I listened to Ms. Goodman speak (an aside: why does she have a British accent? Is this some sort of affectation, is it a requirement for the Anglican clergy, or has she resided in Britain so long she’s taken on the speech patterns?).
Ms. Goodman’s answer to the question of whether the opera is anti-Semitic or an apology for terrorism is an interesting one. She says no (no surprise there); she believes that the charges of anti-Semitism and the rest are a result of her showing the terrorists as “human beings.”
I disagree. I happen to think that terrorists are most decidedly human beings, as were Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and–well, every other human being who’s ever lived. We all know how Hitler loved dogs, and was a vegetarian. To be evil does not require that one be a devil; being a human being who does evil will suffice. I believe in treating people as human beings, but that does not require giving evildoers a forum and writing lovely arias for them to sing.
Ms. Goodman says she speaks not just as the librettist, but as a priest, when she recognizes the perpetrators as human beings with ideals–wrongheaded, yes, but idealistic nevertheless–as though idealism somehow has a value in and of itself. Perhaps she’s never heard about the road to hell and what it’s paved with.
Ms. Goodman acknowledges that the music and the words Adams and she wrote for the terrorists who committed this atrocity were lyrical and heartfelt, and she understands that this fact created “a dissonance difficult for some people to take.”
Count me in as one of those people. I guess I’m just not highly evolved enough to understand the convoluted mental gymnastics required in comprehending how that doesn’t constitute some sort of sympathy and apology–if not for the devil, then for the human beings who perpetrated this heinous act.
Maybe she was from Cambridge, Minnesota.
Just tells me all accents are learned.
I say kill them. Kill them all. The sooner, the better.
They use our compassion and Western values against us. We need a Sherman.
And ISIS has this fantasy that the final battle between Muslims and Christians takes place in a tiny Syrian town named Dabiq. We give the townspeople 24 hours and then level the town.
Cornhead:
When you write “kill them all,” I’m assuming you mean terrorists, and not British-based opera librettists from Minnesota.
” Human beings, for starters, not devils.”
Well, how about diabolical “human beings”?
If the word “diabolical” is to have any meaning at all, it doesn’t seem too problematical.
Of course, if entropy embracing nihilists are not even seen as diabolical, it is not likely that those with a “cause” no matter how contemptible, will be.
“. . . what is permitted . . .”
This phrase strikes me as the key matter. So in Denazification interviews conducted by the Allies in the aftermath of WWII we find elicited direct testimony on this score. Indeed, going beyond merely “permitted” we learn what for the likes of the Einsatzgruppen was assumed as a function was extended to regular order troops, and what was demanded of them, what was taught to do — with punishments for failure. Murder, rape, theft, these were all required against the “enemy”, the sub-humans falling into the Nazi hands. And these teachings darkly disturbed regular Wehrmacht officers who thought such demands would necessarily imperil their own order and control of the instruments of war they led. Ordinary human morality had been abandoned — for ordinary human morality puts these acts outside any permitted scheme, for ordinary human morality always reckons choice to be present.
Likewise today in the streets of Israel, Judea and Samaria, we see what is taught, what is demanded — and that is murder with knives, with axes, with cleavers, with cars, with guns, with construction equipment, with whatever comes to hand.
Who permits? What permits?
For the Nazis, the Fuhrer — the State. So also for the Communists, the Politburo — the State. For the Arabs, the God — the State, as preached from the pulpits.
Machiavelli claims only necessity imposed upon the Prince permits. Still, someone must judge and choose (and of course Machiavelli knows this). For what is necessity?
Neo:
Terrorists. Not Minnesotans. I should have put a break in the post. I had a classmate from Cambridge, Minnesota. No accent whatsoever; British or Gopher.
Cornhead:
So there really is a Cambridge, Minnesota.
A Cambridge and Oxford in Nebraska.
“We need a Sherman.”
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but believe Victor Hanson teaches that Gen. Sherman wasn’t all about the killing, and though he killed plenty, yet he killed far fewer than his peers to the North — but that he took another tack in widespread destruction, unstoppable destruction, with a view to instilling a deep humiliation on his enemies in the Southern States while leaving them alive to burn in their humiliation.
Those who seek to absolve evil are operating out of two motivations; moral cowardice and the necessity to ‘solve’ the conundrum of evil having abandoned faith in an afterlife with its promise of justice. For without God and an afterlife, ultimately, there cannot be justice.
If evil exists and in their heart of hearts, even the apologists know it does, it must be ‘explained and solved’ because otherwise their hope of utopia (heaven on earth) dies stillborn.
Sdferr
I read and reviewed VDH’s “The Savior Generals.” Buy it through neo’s portal. Great book.
Sherman was a total war practitioner and the destruction he worked on the plantations broke the South’s will. We, of course, protect civilian property and mosques. Big mistake.
Sherman also knew total war meant a quicker end and a lower net casualty number on both sides.
Cornhead,
Re: Sherman. He only advocated killing the “young bloods…men who never did work and never will. War suits them, and the rascals are brave… These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace.” Sherman’s letter to Halleck, September 17, 1863.
A better solution is to follow the advice of the Ayatollah Khumeni who said that Islam would die completely in 50 years if there were no Imams. Pressumably this is because the Koran and related texts that are the basis of Islam are in medieval Arabic and inaccessabile to anyone who hasn’t devoted a lifetime of study to them.
From my AMZN book review,
” “Uncle Billy” Sherman is widely misunderstood and under appreciated. The South could more or less stomach the death and injury, but when the property of the plantation owners was destroyed; well, that’s something entirely diffferent. Burning Atlanta destroyed the transportation hub and the march to the sea destroyed the South’s will to win.”
And I really like Paul’s idea of killing the clerics. Perfect job for the CIA. Those poor people are so abused by their so-called religion and one area of the abuse is the horrible education they receive. Take out the imans and beam “Happy Days” to them on sat TV. Better education from the Fonz than from the Iman.
I am all for trying to understand people, but this does not mean I think we should makes excuses for abhorrent behaviour. I think it’s good to know about the cultural factors that have influenced them and good to know about weak spots in their thinking that we can perhaps use against them. It’s good to be able to spot things that might have appealed to second generation radicals so that we can use our own propaganda.
Certainly, the strong man mentality has something to do with it, both in the international arena as well as within families. I can understand these things and still be repelled by them. One thing for sure is that you can’t win against such people by showing weakness. And we don’t have to beat our chests to appear strong; we simply have to be firm in our belief in our own system and values. Obama never figured this out.
Wow. Lot of blood lust here. Against people of the South.
I guess they can be forgiven for slavery, eventually. But never for producing better looking women and more manly men. LOL
DNW
No blood lust for the South. Just admiration for Sherman’s winning tactics and how they would work against ISIS.
White House looks to curb anti-Muslim sentiment
American Liberal exports from Minnesota back to the Old World… very scary stuff.
The founder of the Green Party in Germany fit that profile, too.
She gained all of HER politically formative education in Minnesota.
Shot through the head by her lover, IIRC.
&&&&&
She’s a perfect example of Moral Preening gone amok.
aka Ethical Arrogance.
Cornhead Says:
December 14th, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Sdferr
I read and reviewed VDH’s “The Savior Generals.” Buy it through neo’s portal. Great book.
Sherman was a total war practitioner and the destruction he worked on the plantations broke the South’s will. We, of course, protect civilian property and mosques. Big mistake.
Sherman also knew total war meant a quicker end and a lower net casualty number on both sides.
&&&
It is actually FALSE that the South lost its Will.
It ran out of gunpowder first.
Famously Sherman was able to rout Southern militia that stood up to fight him on the way to the sea — multiple times.
These ‘battles’ featured at most two rebel shots and then flight.
What the Union troops did not know was that Lee’s army had sucked ALL of the gunpowder out of the South.
The local militia only had enough ball and shot to scare their slaves and thwart robbery.
The Southern dire shortage of gunpowder was evident during the siege warfare against Grant. The Union was routinely firing twenty-five rounds to one. Many Southern bastions would not counter fire for days on end.
They had to hold their fire until the Union sappers attempted to breach their works.
The Union found this very confusing — and alarming — as the cessation of firing no longer meant that the fight was dying down.
The dire gunpowder shortage gave the Union many bad habits, too. It wasn’t too long before Grant’s boys were extending rail road track close enough to bring in siege mortars.
For the era, their range was pathetic. Their rate of fire was pathetic. They were the precursor to Big Bertha — the Krupp guns that levelled the Belgian forts early in WWI.
%%%%
Southern will // morale was so high that Robert E Lee could not get his army to surrender — until it was down to bayonets and two rounds of ball and shot.
He’d tried on two prior occasions — and the boys would not have it.
Lee later commented that he knew the war was lost long before — but couldn’t even begin to bring his army to accepting defeat. The psychological ‘investment’ in the campaign had be come total.
Lee’s Army of Virginia is deemed by military historians to be the absolute record holder for absorbing punishment — without losing morale, truly without peer.
Americans, generally, just can’t believe that they are losing.
Call it martial arrogance.
Other armies see this.
Our color guard marched in celebration – in Moscow – for V-E recognition.
The Russians couldn’t bear to broadcast that video. ALL of the other nations ( Britain, etc. ) got the full walk by.
Those in the know knew that America saved the Soviet Union — which is just too much to bear.
ISIS killing kids with Down’s Syndrome per report in Breitbart.
Just when you think it can’t get any worse….
I wonder if Barack thinks of that when he considers he could have wiped ISIS out early.
Blert:
No disrespect, but the South lost. It really doesn’t make any difference how at this point.
The point regarding industrial war production and protection of same is salient in the context of total war, or at least was salient in World War II. The US had great advantages in these areas and used them, whereas Germany had not and was attacked and defeated in those fragile nodes. Heck, I’ve even encountered horsemen who contend that Lee went into Pennsylvania and suffered Gettysburg because the Shenandoah Valley hadn’t the fodder to feed the horses necessary to conduct the war, whereas Pennsylvania offered an opportunity to capture what was needed. So they say, logistics, logistics, logistics — but before an army can organize to move the stuff, it’s got to have the stuff to move.
It cames down to a matter of will. Destroy or be destroyed. Failure to choose is a suicide deceision. No mercy, no quarter,
I guess we can soon expect an opera with soaring lyrical pyrotechnics sung by the 9/11 hijackers with heartfelt emotion and pathos.
After all, they were human beings, too….and there are two sides to every story….
Etc., etc.
I’ve adverted to Commager’s Documents of the Civil War a number of times. Usually to express how I, a Yankee, came to despise much of Yankeedom after reading the letters and memoirs of so many Unionists. Their religion was found in their mirrors, and their conscience in their profit. They were, as the editors point out, much more ideological, and on my own analysis, vainglorious, hypocritical, self-righteous, overtly neurotic, and collectivist than their southern counterparts.
The contemptible psychology of the average Bostonian aside, there were numerous other nuggets of the kind you describe; including the explanation by the chief of ordnance (or whatever he was called) and other involved parties, as to just how desperate the South was for powder and how early on this situation developed. Apparently the failure to defend the Mississippi was, in some significant measure at least, the result of weak or defective heavy ordnance charges. And as you mention, the government was unable to justify the shortages to commanders in the field, lest the enemy realize just how bad the situation was.
Also, one reads Lee’s letters proposing an invasion of the north at Pennsylvania as essentially, in fact outright, admitting your point that they were fated to be squeezed to death at a time as early as the spring of 1863.
When a smaller power wishes to resist the force that can be brought to bear by a larger moralizing power which makes up its laws and justifications as it goes along, they had better be sure that they are prepared to do all that is necessary. And unfortunately this may well involve giving up those aspects – limited though they may be – of their life-ways which are in fact admirable .
The Northerners, many of them in military positions, had no real problem with killing Southern civilians, if you believe what they have themselves written.
The history of the Boer Wars, gives another interesting example of the same general phenomenon: how a population intentionally squeezed by self-interested and hypocritically moralizing outsiders, was led by their own hotheads into precipitate action which they could not sustain given the resources available. In that case too, it was the more temperate men who had counseled against action, who eventually kept in the field the longest and sustained the cause most effectively. In that case, the Orange Free State was more or less dragged into war by their – on my reading and recollection, more guilty and bombastic – Transvaal brethren.
“Who wrote the opera? The librettist, Alice Goodman, is an interesting tale herself. Born and raised as a Jew in Minnesota, educated in literature at Harvard, married to a British poet, she became an Anglican priest and opera librettist.”
Wiki claims she converted to “Christianity”.
I’m not sure that being an Anglican Priestess is any evidence of that .
As an afterthought, the Russians have been systematically attacking (bombing) large bakeries, food markets and hospitals in rebel held territory in Syria, massacring large numbers of old men, women and children, in addition to expected attacks on munitions supply lines. Seems they figure if the rebels aren’t eating well or getting medical treatment, they won’t be able to fight well in the long run. Of course Putin’s war aims seem primarily directed to preserving his trading partners Assad (and Assad’s masters in Iran) in power in Syria, and thus earning the billions they expect to make in sales, if not large sums in extortion from the neighbors with an interest to see Assad go.
Liberals have sympathy for terrorists because they think it shows what high-minded people they are (they CARE about everyone, even terrorirsts!) and believe that everyone has the same motivations they do. I could not convince someone today, for example, that it would help at all to continue to publicize to the Muslim world that ISIS can’t run a government and provide decent services. He (and his friends) would not accept that EVERYONE doesn’t want a well-running government that provides schools and roads and electricity, etc., more than they want anything else. I pointed out that the Muslims who agree with ISIS do not, in fact, want these things as much as they want other things, and that the Muslims who don’t agree with ISIS are already aware of that and do not need to be told.
Liberals think they would never do anything terrible without a really good reason, so they look for a really good reason in terrorists. However, they hate their enemies and assume their enemies hate them just as much. I just saw a clip on FB from Politico of Rick Santorum saying that World War III has already started, and all the comments were either snarky eye-rolling or “those Republicans are fear mongering again!” They are so emotional, and so willing to stretch facts, that they assume that everyone is the same way. They really cannot imagine that any conservatives might believe this (except really stupid ones) so they look for a reason THEY would act in such a way and assume that conservatives are either lying or trying to deceive by getting an emotional response.
I meant NOT help at all.