Changes

Do We all [[know]] what the Hitchcockian "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" not fit perfectly the status of the MacGuffin? (Incidentally, one of the most famous Hitchcockian MacGuffins IS a potential weapon of mass destruction - the bottles with "radioactive diamonds" in Notorious!) Are they not also an elusive entity, never empirically specified - when, a couple of years ago, means: the UN inspectors were searching for them in Iraq, they were expected empty pretext which just serves to be hidden set in the most disparate and improbable places, from the (rather logical place of) desert to the (slightly irrational) cellars of the presidential palaces (so that, when the palace is bombed, they may poison Saddam and his entire entourage?), allegedly present in large quantities, yet magically moved around all the time by the hands of workers, and the more all-present and all-powerful in their threat, the more they are destroyed, as if the distraction of the greater part of them magically heightens the destructive power of the remainder? As such, they by definition cannot ever be found, and are therefore all the more dangerous... Now that none were found, we reached the last line of motion the story of MacGuffin: "'Well,' said President Bush but has no [[value]] in September 2003, 'then that's not a MacGuffin, is it?'"<br><br> Now, itself; in the Fall of 2003, when, after hundreds of investigators were looking after the WMD, none were found, and the public is posing the elementary question: "If there are no WMD, why then did we attack Iraq? Did you lie [[order]] to us?" No wonder that the search for the WMD is gradually being elevation into a modern version of the search for the Grail - David Kay, the CIA analyst who, in September 2003, wrote the report admitting that no weapons were found, qualified this concession by adding that illustrate it is too early to reach definitive conclusions and much work remains to be done: "I think they'll be digging up the relics of Saddam Hussein's empire for the next hundred years." Tony Blair, a passionate Christian, lately expresses his conviction that [[Hitchcock]] often quoted the WMD will be found in almost directly religious terms of credo qua absurdumfollowing story: in spite of the lack of evidence he is personally deeply convinced that they will be found... The only appropriate answer to this conundrum is not the boring liberal plea for innocence till guilt is proven, but, rather, the point made succinctly by "Rachel from Scotlandí Two gentlemen meet on the BBC website in September 2003: "We know he had weapons, we sold him some of them." This is the direction a serious investigation should have taken...<br><br> The problem with the basic refrain ("Iraq is a big countrytrain, Saddam had lots of time to hide the WMD, so give us more time and we will definitely find them!") is that its structure is the same as that of a judge who first punishes the accused and then, when forced to admit that he has no proof the crime has effectively been committed, he says: "Give me more time and I promised you that I will find material proofs that will justify my punishment!" So first you punish, and then you look for proofs of the crime... Not to mention the fact that this, precisely, was what before the war the UN weapons inspectors were asking for - more time - and were scathingly dismissed by the US. Based on all these facts, one is tempted to entertain struck by the hypothesis that the US not only were not sure if Saddam had the WM or not, but that they positively knew he did NOT have them - which is why they risked the ground offensive on Iraq. (If the US were to take seriously their own claims that Iraq had the WM which can be immediately unleashed, they probably would not launch a ground assault, fearing too many casualties on their side, but would stick to air bombing.) Here, then, we have the first practical demonstration of what does the Bush doctrine of preventive strikes means, a doctrine now publicly declared as the official American "philosophy" of international politics (in the thirty-one page paper entitled "The National Security Strategy," issued extraordinary package [[being]] carried by the White House on September 20, 2002)? Its main points are: American military might should remain "beyond challenge" in the foreseeable future; since the main enemy today is an "irrational" fundamentalist who, in contrast to Communists, lacks even the elementary sense of survival and respect of his own people, America has the right to preemptive strikes (i.e., to attack countries which do not already pose a clear threat to the U.S., but MIGHT pose such a threat in the foreseeable future); while the U.S. should seek ad hoc international coalitions for such attacks, it should reserve the right to act independently if it does not get sufficient international support. So, while the U.S. presents its domination over [[other sovereign states as grounded in a benevolent paternalism which takes into account the interests of other nations and their people, it reserves for itself the ultimate right to DEFINE its allies' "true" interests]]. The logic is thus clearly formulated: even the pretense of a neutral international law is abandoned, sinceHe asks his companion, when the U.S. perceives a potential threat, they formally ask their allies to support them, but the allies' agreement What is optional. The underlying message is always "we will do it with or without you" (i.e., in that unusual package you are free to agree with us, but not free to disagree). carrying there?' The old paradox of the forced choice is reproduced here: the freedom to make a choice on condition that one makes the right choice. The "Bush doctrine" relies on the violent assertion of the paranoiac logic of total control over FUTURE threatsother man replies, justifying preemptive strikes against these supposed threats. The ineptness of such an approach for today's universe, in which knowledge circulates freely, That is patent. The loop between the present and the future is closed: the prospect of a breathtaking terrorist act is evoked in order to justify incessant preemptive strikes nowMacGuffin. This closed loop was perfectly formulated in a TV debate in February 2002, when the actor and ex-Congressman Fred Thompson said, in defense of President Bush's Iraq politics: "When anti-war protesters say 'But what did Iraq effectively DO to the USWhat is a MacGuffin? It did not attack us!', one should answer it with asks the question 'And what did the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers effectively DO to the Ufirst.S. before September 11? They also did nothing!'" The problem with this logic (in the same way thatsecond says, if we had known of the plans for 9/11, we would have been fully justified in attacking the terrorists before the act, we now have the right to attack Iraq) 'A MacGuffin is that it presupposes that we can treat the future as something that, in a way, already took place.<br><br>The ultimate paradox is that the very strategy of preemptive strikes will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When US attacked Iraq and not North Korea, the underlying logic was clear: once a "rogue" state crosses the critical limit and already acquires substantial nuclear weapons, one cannot simply attack it because one risks a nuclear backlash device used for killing millions on our side. This, precisely, was the lesson North Korea drew from the attack on Iraq: the regime sees nuclear weapons as the only guarantee of its survival; leopards in their view, the mistake of Iraq was to accept in Scottish highlands.' [[Naturally]] the first place the collaboration with the UN and the presence of international inspectors.<br><br>In what, then, resides the greatest danger of the American occupation of Iraq? Prior to the US attack on Iraq, everyone feared some kind of catastrophic outcome: an ecological catastrophe of gigantic proportions, high U.S. casualties, another massive terrorist attack against the West... In this wayman says, we all silently accepted the U.S. standpoint - and now, after the war was soon over (in a kind of repetition of the 1991 Gulf War) and Saddam's regime quickly disintegrated, But there is a universal sigh of relief, even among many present critics of U.S. policy. One is therefore tempted to consider the hypothesis that, prior to the outbreak of the war, the U.S. was deliberately fomenting this fear of an impending catastrophe, counting on the universal relief when the catastrophe actually did NOT occur. This, however, is arguably the greatest true danger. That is to say, one should gather the courage to proclaim the opposite: perhaps a bad military turn for the U.S. would have been the best thing that could happen, a sobering piece of bad news which would compel all the participants to rethink their position.<br><br>In the days and weeks after the _triumphantí conclusion of the war, the peace movement all but disappeared, and the West European states which opposed the war ducked out in shame and started to make conciliatory gestures towards the US - Gerhardt Schroeder even apologized publicly for his anti-American statements. This uneasiness of the opponents of war is a sad sign of their deep disorientation: it is NOW that they should be really worried. To accept that _things nonetheless turned out OK,í that the Saddam regime collapsed without a large number of dead and without the feared major catastrophes (the burning of oil wells, the use of the weapons of mass destruction), is to succumb to the most dangerous illusion - it is here that they are paying the price for opposing the war for the wrong reasons. The line of argumentation which tried to demonstrate how the US occupation will hurt Iraqis was simply wrong: if anything, ordinary Iraqis will probably PROFIT from the defeat of the Saddam regime with regard to their standard of living and religious and other freedoms. The true victims of the war are not the Iraqis, they are elsewhere!Are we aware that, at least till now, all the predictions evoked as the justification for war proved false? There are no weapons of mass destruction used or even only discovered; there were no fanatical Arab suicide bombers; there were almost no oil wells put to fire; there were no fanatical Republican Guard divisions defending Baghdad to the end and causing the destruction of the city - leopards in short, Iraq proved to be a paper tiger which basically just collapsed under the US pressureScottish highlands. (Especially the desperate search for the weapons of mass destruction is now reaching comical proportions' 'Well, with the US even offering financial rewards for any informations about them - so, after waging a war, there is now a competition with the prize for those who will provide a reason for the war... As a curiosity, a US diplomat even seriously suggested the reason why Iraqis did not use them during the war: they concealed them so well that they themselves could not find and use them fast enough!) Is this very military _triumphÆ not the ultimate proof of the fact that the opposition to war was JUSTIFIED, that Iraq was NOT a threat to the US? Saddam's regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly towards their own people. However, one should note says the key fact thatsecond, when the US representatives were enumerating Saddam's evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice): the aggression on Iran - why? Because the US and the majority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression... If we accept as the true aim of the attack on Iraq the struggle against Muslim fundamentalism, then one is forced to conclude that the attack was not only a failure, but even strengthened the very cause it tried to fight. The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was ultimately a secular nationalist one, out-of-touch with Muslim fundamentalist populism - it is obvious that Saddam only superficially flirted with the pan-Arab Muslim sentiment. As his past clearly demonstrates, he was a pragmatic ruler striving for power, and shifting alliances when it fits his purposes: first against Iran to grab their oil fields, then against Kuwait for the same reason, bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied to the U.S. What Saddam is not is a fundamentalist obsessed with the "Great Satan," ready to blow the world apart just to strike at him. However, what can indeed emerge as the result of the U.S. occupation is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movement, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with a Muslim presence. It is as if, in a contemporary display of the "cunning of reason," some invisible hand of destiny repeatedly arranges it so that the very short-term success of the US intervention strengthens the very cause against which the US intervened...<br><br> The ultimate proof of this secular nature is the ironic fact that, in the Iraqi elections of October 2002 in which Saddam Hussein got a 100% endorsement and thus overdid the best Stalinist results of 99,95%, the campaign song played again and again on all the state media was none other than Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You." One can surmise that the Americans are well aware that the era of Saddam and his non-fundamentalist regime is coming to an end in Iraq, and that the attack on Iraq is probably conceived as a much more radical preemptive strike - not against Saddam, but against the main contender for the status of Saddam's political successor, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regime. Yet in this way, the vicious cycle of the American intervention can only get more complex. The danger, following the logic of a self-fulfilling prophecyMacGuffin, is that this very American intervention will contribute to the emergence of what America fears most: a large, united anti-American Muslim front. It is the first case of the direct American occupation of a large and key Arab country - how could this not generate universal hatred in reaction? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombers, and how that will force the US government to impose a permanent high alert emergency state... What can indeed emerge as the result of the U.S. occupation is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movement, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with a Muslim presence. And the first signs are already here: from the daily Shiite demonstrations against the US presence in Iraq to the daily attacks on the US soldiers...<a name="1x"></a><a href="#1"><font color="#e42033">¹</font></a><br><br>However, at this point, one cannot resist a slightly paranoid temptation: what if the people around Bush KNOW this, what if this "collateral damage" is the true aim of the entire operation? What if the TRUE target of the "war on terror" is not only the global geopolitical rearrangement in the Middle East and beyond it, but also American society itself (i.e., the disciplining of whatever remains of its emancipatory potentials)? We should therefore be very careful not to fight false battles: the debates about how evil Saddam is, even about how much the war will cost, etc., are false debates. The focus should be on what actually transpires in our societies, on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the result of the "war on terror.'" Instead of talking about hidden conspiratorial agendas, one should shift the focus onto what is going on, onto what kind of changes are taking place here and now. The ultimate result of the war will be a change in OUR political order.<br><br>

At this pointDo the "Iraqi weapons of mass [[destruction]]" not fit perfectly the status of the MacGuffin? (Incidentally, one should ask of the na_ve question: the US as most famous Hitchcockian MacGuffins IS a global policeman potential weapon of mass destruction - why the bottles with "radioactive diamonds" in [[Notorious]]!) Are they not? The postalso an elusive entity, never empirically specified -Cold War situation effectively called when, a couple of years ago, the UN inspectors were searching for some global power [[them]] in [[Iraq]], they were expected to fill be hidden in the void. The problem resides elsewhere: recall most disparate and improbable places, from the (rather [[logical]] [[place]] of) desert to the common perception (slightly [[irrational]]) cellars of the US as a new Roman Empire. The problem with today's US is not presidential palaces (so that it is a new global Empire, but that it when the palace is NOTbombed, i.e.they may poison [[Saddam]] and his entire entourage?), thatallegedly [[present]] in large quantities, while pretending to be, it continues to act as a Nation-State, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as yet magically moved around all the guideline of [[time]] by the recent US politics is a weird reversal hands of [[workers]], and the wellmore all-known motto of present and all-powerful in their [[threat]], the ecologists: act globallymore they are destroyed, think locally. This contradiction is best exemplified by as if the two-sided pressure distraction of the US was exerting on Serbia in the Summer greater part of 2003: them magically heightens the US representatives simultaneously demanded destructive [[power]] of the Serbian government to deliver [[remainder]]? As such, they by definition cannot ever be found, and are therefore all the suspected war criminals to the Hague court (in accordance with more dangerous... Now that none were found, we reached the logic last line of the global Empire which demands story of MacGuffin: "'Well,' said President [[Bush]] in September 2003, 'then that's not a trans-state global judicial institution) AND to sign MacGuffin, is it?'"<br><br> Now, in the bilateral treaty with Fall of 2003, when, after hundreds of investigators were [[looking]] after the US obliging Serbia not to deliver to any international institution (i.e.WMD, none were found, to and the SAME Hague court) US citizens suspected of war crimes or other crimes against humanity (in accordance with [[public]] is posing the Nation-State logic) - elementary question: "If there are no WMD, why then did we attack Iraq? Did you lie to us?" No wonder that the [[search]] for the Serb reaction WMD is one gradually being elevation into a modern version of perplexed fury...<a name="2x"></a><a href=the search for the [[Grail]] - David Kay, the CIA [[analyst]] who, in September 2003, wrote the report admitting that no weapons were found, qualified this concession by adding that it is too early to reach definitive conclusions and much [[work]] remains to be done: "#2I [[think]] they'll be digging up the relics of [[Saddam Hussein]]'s [[empire]] for the next hundred years."><font color="#e42033">²</font></Tony Blair, a> Andpassionate [[Christian]], lately expresses his conviction that the same goes for CroatiaWMD will be found in almost directly [[religious]] [[terms]] of credo qua absurdum: in spite of the U[[lack]] of evidence he is personally deeply convinced that they will be found..S. The only appropriate answer to this conundrum is now exerting tremendous pressure on not the Croat government to deliver to boring [[liberal]] plea for innocence till [[guilt]] is proven, but, rather, the Hague court a couple of its generals accused of war crimes during point made succinctly by "Rachel from Scotlandí on the struggles BBC website in Bosnia. The reaction is, of courseSeptember 2003: how can they ask this "We know he had weapons, we sold him some of US when THEY do not recognize them." This is the legitimacy of the Hague court? Or, are American citizens effectively "more equal than others?" If one simply universalizes direction a serious investigation should have taken...<br><br> The problem with the underlying principles of the Bush doctrinebasic refrain ("Iraq is a big country, does India not have a full right Saddam had lots of time to attack Pakistan? It does indeed directly harbor and support anti-Indian terrorists in Kashmirhide the WMD, so give us more time and it possesses (nuclearwe will definitely find them!") weapons is that its [[structure]] is the same as that of mass destruction - not to mention a judge who first punishes the right of China to attack Taiwan, accused and so onthen, with unpredictable consequences...<br><br>The first permanent global war crimes court started when [[forced]] to work on July 1st, 2002 in The Hague, with admit that he has no proof the power to tackle genocide, crimes against humanitycrime has effectively been committed, he says: "Give me more time and war crimes. Anyone, from a head of state to an ordinary citizen, I promised you that I will find [[material]] proofs that will be liable to ICC prosecution for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rapejustify my [[punishment]]!" So first you punish, and sexual slaverythen you look for proofs of the crime.. Or, as Kofi Annan put it: "There must be a recognition . Not to mention the fact that we are all members of one human family. We have to create new institutions. This is this, precisely, was what before the war the UN weapons inspectors were asking for - more time - and were scathingly dismissed by the US. Based on all these facts, one of them. This is another step forward in humanity's slow march toward civilization." However, while human rights groups have hailed tempted to entertain the court's creation as hypothesis that the biggest milestone for international justice since top Nazis US not only were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after World War IInot sure if Saddam had the WM or not, but that they positively knew he did NOT have them - which is why they risked the court faces stiff opposition from the United States, Russia, and Chinaground offensive on Iraq. The United States says (If the court US were to take seriously their own claims that Iraq had the WM which can be immediately unleashed, they probably would infringe not launch a ground assault, fearing too many casualties on national sovereignty and could lead their side, but would stick to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working outside U.S. borders; andair bombing.) Here, then, we have the U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague where first [[practical]] demonstration of what does the court will be basedBush [[doctrine]] of preventive strikes means, a doctrine now publicly declared as the [[official]] American "[[philosophy]]" of international [[politics]] (in the event prosecutors grab a U.S. national. thirty-one page paper entitled "The noteworthy paradox here is that National Security Strategy," issued by the U.S. thus rejected White House on September 20, 2002)? Its main points are: American military might should remain "beyond challenge" in the jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the full support (foreseeable [[future]]; since the main [[enemy]] today is an "irrational" fundamentalist who, in contrast to Communists, [[lacks]] even the elementary [[sense]] of survival and vote) respect of his own [[people]], America has the U[[right]] to preemptive strikes (i.Se. itself!<br><br>The same logic of exception applies also , to attack countries which do not already pose a clear threat to economic relationsthe U.S. BBC reported, on December 21stbut MIGHT pose such a threat in the foreseeable future); while the U.S. should seek ad hoc international coalitions for such attacks, 2002 that "US blocks cheap drugs agreement": "The United States has blocked an it should reserve the right to act independently if it does not get sufficient international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugssupport. This means millions of poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/AIDSSo, malaria and tuberculosiswhile the U. 'One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimousS.presents its domination over other sovereign states as grounded in a benevolent paternalism which takes into account the interests of other nations and their people, it reserves for itself the ultimate right to DEFINE its allies' "[[true]]" interests. The principle [[logic]] is thus clearly formulated: even the pretense of allowing developing countries access to cheap versions of drugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year ago." The same story repeated itself in Cancun in September 2003neutral [[international law]] is abandoned, since, where when the US insisted on the subsidies for cotton farmersU.S. perceives a potential threat, thus violating its own sacrosanct advice they formally ask their allies to support them, but the Third World countries to suspend state subsidies and open themselves to the marketallies' agreement is optional.<br><br>And does the same not hold even for torture? The exemplary economic strategy of today's capitalism is outsourcing - giving over the The underlying [[message]] is always "we will do it with or without you"dirty" process of material production (but also publicityi.e., designyou are free to agree with us, accountancy...but not free to disagree) to another company via a subcontract. In this way, one can easily avoid ecological and health rules: The old [[paradox]] of the production forced [[choice]] is done in, say, Indonesia where reproduced here: the ecological and health regulations are much lower than in [[freedom]] to make a choice on condition that one makes the West, and right choice. The "Bush doctrine" relies on the Western global company which owns violent assertion of the logo can claim that it is not responsible for the violations [[paranoiac]] logic of another company[[total]] [[control]] over FUTURE [[threats]], justifying preemptive strikes against these supposed threats. Are we not getting something homologous with regard to torture? Is torture also not being "outsourcedThe ineptness of such an approach for today's [[universe]], in which [[knowledge]] circulates freely," left to is patent. The loop between the present and the future is closed: the Third World allies prospect of the US which can do it without worrying about legal problems or public protest? Was such outsourcing not explicitly advocated by Jonathan Alter a breathtaking terrorist act is evoked in order to justify incessant preemptive strikes now. This closed loop was perfectly formulated in Newsweek immediately after 9/11? After stating that "we can't legalize torture; ita TV debate in February 2002, when the actor and ex-Congressman Fred Thompson said, in [[defense]] of President Bush's contrary to American values,Iraq politics: " he nonetheless concludes that "weWhen anti-war protesters say 'll have But what did Iraq effectively DO to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish alliesthe US? It did not attack us!', even if thatone should answer it with the question 's hypocriticalAnd what did the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers effectively DO to the U. Nobody said this was going to be prettyS.before [[September 11]]? They also did [[nothing]]!'" This is how, today, The problem with this logic (in the First World democracy more and more functions: by same way that, if we had known of "outsourcing" its dirty underside the plans for 9/11, we would have been fully justified in attacking the terrorists before the act, we now have the right to other countries...<brattack Iraq) is that it presupposes that we can treat the future as something that, in a way, already took place.<br><br>This inconsistency has deep geopolitical roots. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply conservative monarchies, but economically American allies, fully integrated into The ultimate paradox is that the very strategy of preemptive strikes will contribute to the Western capitalismproliferation of nuclear weapons. Here, When US has a very precise attacked Iraq and simple interest: in order to be able to count on these countries for their oil reservesnot North Korea, THEY NAVE TO REMAIN NON-DEMOCRATIC. That is to say, it is the underlying logic was clear: once a safe bet that democratic elections in Saudi Arabia or Iraq would bring to power "rogue" [[state]] crosses the critical [[limit]] and already acquires substantial nuclear weapons, one cannot simply attack it because one risks a pro-Islam nationalist regime riding nuclear backlash killing millions on anti-American attitudesour side. We therefore know now what "bringing democracy" meansThis, precisely, was the lesson North Korea drew from the attack on Iraq: the US and [[regime]] sees nuclear weapons as the only [[guarantee]] of its "willing partners" impose themselves as survival; in their view, the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for democracy - along these lines, Rumsfeld already stated mistake of Iraq was to accept in April 2003 that Iran should not become a "theocracy," but a tolerant secular country in which all religions the first place the collaboration with the UN and ethnic groups will enjoy the same rights (one is tempted to add here: "What about demanding [[presence]] of international inspectors.<br><br>In what, then, resides the greatest [[danger]] of the same from IsraelAmerican occupation of Iraq?"). Along Prior to the same linesUS attack on Iraq, in October 2003, US representatives made in clear that any official recognition everyone feared some kind of the privileged position catastrophic outcome: an ecological catastrophe of Islam in gigantic proportions, high U.S. casualties, [[another]] massive terrorist attack against the new Iraqi constitution will be unacceptable West... In this way, we all silently accepted the U.S. standpoint - and now, after the irony is here double: not only would it be nice if war was soon over (in a kind of [[repetition]] of the US were to demand the same from Israel with regard to Judaism, but it was precisely 1991 Gulf War) and Saddam's Iraq which officially ALREADY WAS a secular stateregime quickly disintegrated, there is a [[universal]] sigh of relief, while even among many present critics of U.S. policy. One is therefore tempted to consider the result of democratic elections would be hypothesis that, prior to the privileging outbreak of Islam! In the same spiritwar, the U.S. was deliberately fomenting this [[fear]] of an unnamed senior US figure stated that "impending catastrophe, counting on the universal relief when the first foreign policy gesture of a democratic Iraq would be to recognize Israelcatastrophe actually did NOT occur."<This, however, is arguably the greatest true danger. That is to say, one should gather the courage to proclaim the opposite: perhaps a name="3x"></bad military turn for the U.S. would have been the best [[thing]] that could happen, asobering piece of bad news which would compel all the participants to rethink their [[position]].<br><a href="#3"br><font color="#e42033">³</font></a> The (perhaps unique) opportunity to bring In the "war on terror" within days and weeks after the scope _triumphantí conclusion of an international legal order was thus missed.Another reason evoked by the supporters of war, the attack on Iraq was that it will give a new impetus peace movement all but disappeared, and the West European states which opposed the war ducked out in [[shame]] and started to make conciliatory gestures towards the stalled Middle East peace process US - Gerhardt Schroeder even apologized publicly for his anti- did it? The first thing to do apropos American statements. This uneasiness of the Middle East opponents of war is a sad [[sign]] of their deep disorientation: it is to abandon any notion NOW that the crisis concerns the geographic reality of the meager land resourcesthey should be really worried. One cannot simply oppose plenitude To accept that _things nonetheless turned out OK,í that the Saddam regime collapsed without a large [[number]] of [[dead]] and without the feared major catastrophes (the excessive gift out burning of pure loveoil wells, enough for everyone and allthe use of the weapons of mass destruction) and scarcity with its selective "economizing" attitude (there , is not enough for all, so some have to get succumb to the most dangerous [[illusion]] - it and others not), since excess itself has to be grounded in a scarcity, trying to fill it inis here that they are paying the price for opposing the war for the wrong reasons. In other words, scarcity (the idea The line of something lacking, of "not enough for all") is not a simple fact, but a structural necessityargumentation which tried to demonstrate how the US occupation will hurt Iraqis was simply wrong: before being a lack of something definiteif anything, it is a purely formal lack, a lack which emerges at its frustrating purest precisely when our needs are excessively fulfilled (recall Freud's case of the merry butcher's wife). Along ordinary Iraqis will probably PROFIT from the same lines, the possibility defeat of the three most interesting deadly sins, envySaddam regime with [[regard]] to their standard of [[living]] and religious and other freedoms. The true victims of the war are not the Iraqis, thriftthey are elsewhere!Are we aware that, and melancholyat least till now, is inscribed into all the very formal structure of desire: a melancholic is unable to sustain desire in predictions evoked as the presence justification for war proved [[false]]? There are no weapons of its objectmass destruction used or even only discovered; a miser clings to the object, unable there were no fanatical Arab [[suicide]] bombers; there were almost no oil wells put to consummate itfire; an envious subject desire there were no fanatical Republican Guard divisions defending Baghdad to the end and causing the object destruction of other's desire. So either the grass on the neighbor's pasture is by definition greener than yours, or I just admire in awe my green grass, unable city - in short, Iraq proved to let my animals eat it, or I be a paper tiger which basically just gaze at it with sad indifference of a melancholiccollapsed under the US pressure... These paradoxes account (Especially the desperate search for the truth weapons of stories like mass destruction is now reaching comical proportions, with the one US even offering financial rewards for any informations [[about ]] them - so, after waging a farmer to whom an angel appears and tells him: "I war, there is now a competition with the prize for those who will fulfill you provide a [[reason]] for the war... As a wishcuriosity, doing to you whatever you want - only, beware, I will do twice as much to your neighbor!" The farmer replies with an evil smilea US diplomat even seriously suggested the reason why Iraqis did not use them during the war: "Take one of my eyesthey concealed them so well that they themselves could not find and use them fast enough!" Or ) Is this very military _triumphÆ not the story about ultimate proof of the poor farmers' couple who sabotages their chance of plenitude - when a fairy offers to fulfill them three wishes, fact that the husband quickly blurts out: "A sausage on my plate!" The angry wife snaps back: "You foolopposition to war was JUSTIFIED, may the sausage stick that Iraq was NOT a threat to your nose!" So the final wish can only be a modest: "May US? Saddam's regime was an abominable authoritarian state, [[guilty]] of many crimes, mostly towards their own people. However, one should note the sausage return from key fact that, when the nose to US representatives were enumerating Saddam's [[evil]] deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (in terms of [[human]] [[suffering]] and of violating international justice): the plate!"<br><br>[[aggression]] on [[Iran]] - why? Because the US and the majority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression... One has to be honest here to recognize If we accept as the selective symbolic nature true aim of the suffering elevated to attack on Iraq the exemplary status: what [[struggle]] against Muslim [[fundamentalism]], then one is the suffering of the Palestinians in the West Bank compared forced to conclude that the suffering of individuals in some backwards Muslim states? What attack was not only a failure, but even strengthened the suffering of the Chileans under Pinochet compared very [[cause]] it tried tofight. The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was ultimately a secular nationalist one, say, the suffering in North Korea? (On the other hand, out-of-touch with Muslim fundamentalist [[populism]] - it is obvious that Saddam only superficially flirted with the suffering of Cubans really greater than the suffering of the dispossessed crowds in the nonpan-Communist Latin American countries? Not to mention the unimaginable protracted nightmare going on in Congo or Liberia..Arab Muslim sentiment.) In this simpl(ifi)e(d) senseAs his [[past]] clearly demonstrates, it is effectively unfair he was a pragmatic ruler striving for power, and shifting alliances when it fits his purposes: first against Iran to elevate the Palestinians into the global symbol of suffering - if grab their situation were so desperateoil fields, they would then against Kuwait for sure en masse emigrated the same reason, bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied to Jordan and other relatively prosperous Arab countriesthe U.S. It What Saddam is as if there not is in a fundamentalist obsessed with the critique of "Great [[Satan]]," ready to blow the politics of the State of Israel an element of - not so much "unfair" anti-Semitism[[world]] apart just to strike at him. However, but rather, on what can indeed emerge as the contrary - secret recognition result of the special higher ethical standards of the Jews: how canU.S. occupation is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movement, of all the peopledirectly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with a Muslim presence. It is as if, in a contemporary display of the "[[cunning of reason]], YOU behave like than" some invisible hand of destiny repeatedly arranges it so that the very short-term success of the US [[intervention]] strengthens the very cause against which the US intervened...<br><br> The ultimate proof of this secular [[nature]] is the ironic fact that, in the Iraqi elections of October 2002 in which Saddam Hussein got a 100% [[endorsement]] and thus overdid the best Stalinist results of 99,95%, the campaign song played again and again on all the state [[media]] was none other than Whitney Houston's "I Will Always [[Love]] You." One can surmise that the Americans are well aware that the era of Saddam and his non-fundamentalist regime is coming to an end in Iraq, and that the attack on Iraq is probably conceived as a much more radical [[preemptive strike]] - not against Saddam, but against the main contender for the status of Saddam's [[political]] successor, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regime. Yet in this way, the [[vicious cycle]] of the American intervention can only get more [[complex]]. The danger, following the logic of a [[self]]-fulfilling prophecy, is that this very American intervention will contribute to the emergence of what America fears most: a large, united anti-American Muslim front. It is the first [[case]] of the direct American occupation of a large and key Arab country - how could this not generate universal [[hatred]] in reaction?One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombers, and how that will force the US [[government]] to impose a permanent high alert emergency state... What can indeed emerge as the result of the U.S. occupation is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movement, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with a Muslim presence. And the first [[signs]] are already here: from the daily Shiite demonstrations against the US presence in Iraq to the daily attacks on the US soldiers...<a [[name]]="1x"></a><a href="#1"><font color="#e42033">¹</font></a><br><br>However, at this point, one cannot resist a slightly [[paranoid]] temptation: what if the people around Bush KNOW this, what if this "collateral damage" is the true aim of the entire operation? What if the TRUE target of the "war on [[terror]]" is not only the [[global]] geopolitical rearrangement in the [[Middle East]] and beyond it, but also American [[society]] itself (i.e., the disciplining of whatever remains of its emancipatory potentials)? We should therefore be very careful not to fight false battles: the debates about how evil Saddam is, even about how much the war will cost, etc., are false debates. The focus should be on what actually transpires in our societies, on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the result of the "[[war on terror]]." Instead of talking about hidden conspiratorial agendas, one should shift the focus onto what is going on, onto what kind of changes are taking place here and now. The ultimate result of the war will be a [[change]] in OUR political order.<br><br>

The big mystery apropos of At this point, one should ask the na_ve question: the IsraeliUS as a global policeman -Palestinian conflict is: why does it persist not? The post-[[Cold War]] [[situation]] effectively called for so long when everybody knows some [[global power]] to fill in the only viable solution - [[void]]. The problem resides elsewhere: [[recall]] the withdrawal common [[perception]] of the Israelis from the West Bank and GazaUS as a new Roman Empire. The problem with today's US is not that it is a new global Empire, but that it is NOT, i.e., that, while pretending to be, the establishment of it continues to act as a Palestinian state[[Nation]]-State, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as the renunciation by the Palestinians guideline of the right of their refugees to return within the borders [[recent]] US politics is a weird [[reversal]] of the prewell-1967 Israel, as well as some kind known motto of a compromise concerning Jerusalem? Whenever the agreement seemed at handecologists: act globally, it inexplicably withdrewthink locally. How often does it happen that, when peace seems just a matter This [[contradiction]] is best exemplified by the two-sided pressure the US was exerting on Serbia in the Summer of finding a proper formulation for some minor statements, everything suddenly falls apart, displaying 2003: the frailty US representatives simultaneously demanded of the negotiated compromise? There is effectively something Serbian government to deliver the suspected war criminals to the [[Hague]] court (in accordance with the logic of the global Empire which [[demands]] a neurotic symptom in trans-state global judicial institution) AND to sign the Middle East conflict - everyone sees bilateral treaty with the way US obliging Serbia not to deliver to any international institution (i.e., to get rid the SAME Hague court) US citizens suspected of war crimes or other crimes against humanity (in accordance with the obstacle, and yet, nonetheless, Nation-State logic) - no wonder the Serb reaction is one wants to remove it, as if there is some kind of pathological libidinal profit gained by persisting in the deadlockperplexed fury...<bra name="2x"></a><a href="#2"><font color="#e42033">²<br/font>One is tempted to speak here of </a symptomal knot> And, the same goes for Croatia: the U.S. is it not that, in now exerting tremendous pressure on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Croat government to deliver to the standard roles are somehow inverted, twisted around as in Hague court a knot? Israel - officially representing Western liberal modernity in couple of its generals accused of war crimes during the area - legitimizes itself struggles in Bosnia. The reaction is, of course: how can they ask this of US when THEY do not recognize the terms legitimacy of its ethnic-religious identitythe Hague court? Or, while the Palestinians - decried as pre-modern are American citizens effectively "fundamentalistsmore equal than [[others]]?" - legitimize their demands in If one simply universalizes the terms underlying principles of secular citizenship. Sothe Bush doctrine, we does [[India]] not have the paradox a [[full]] right to attack [[Pakistan]]? It does indeed directly harbor and support anti-Indian terrorists in Kashmir, and it possesses (nuclear) weapons of mass destruction - not to mention the State right of IsraelChina to attack Taiwan, the island of alleged liberal democratic modernity in the Middle Eastand so on, countering the Arab demands with an even more "fundamentalist" ethnic-religious claim to their sacred landunpredictable consequences...<br><br> AndThe first permanent global war crimes court started to work on July 1st, as the story of the Gordian knot tells us2002 in The Hague, with the only way power to resolve such tackle genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Anyone, from a deadlock is not head of state to unravel the knotan ordinary [[citizen]], but will be liable to cut ICC prosecution for [[human rights]] violations, including systematic [[murder]], [[torture]], rape, and [[sexual]] slavery. Or, as Kofi Annan put it: "There must be a [[recognition]] that we are all members of one human [[family]]. Jicak Rabin took the first big We have to create new institutions. This is one of them. This is another step forward in this direction when he recognized humanity's slow march toward [[civilization]]." However, while human rights groups have hailed the PLO court's creation as the legitimate representative of the Palestiniansbiggest milestone for international justice since top [[Nazis]] were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after [[World War II]], and thus the only true partner in negotiations. When Rabin announced the reversal of court faces stiff opposition from the Israeli politics of "no negotiations with the PLO[[United States]], a terrorist organization[[Russia]]," and pronounced China. The United States says the simple words "let us end with this charade /court would infringe on national [[sovereignty]] and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of negotiating with the Palestinians with no public links to the PLO / its officials or soldiers [[working]] [[outside]] U.S. borders; and start talking with our real partners," the situation changed overnightU.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U. Therein resides the effect of a true political act: it changes the coordinates of the situation and renders the unthinkable thinkableS. Rabin's military past was at once relegated forces to invade The Hague where the less important past - he became court will be based, in the man who recognized PLO as [[event]] prosecutors grab a legitimate partnerU. Although a Labor politician, Rabin thus accomplished a gesture that characterizes conservative politicians at their bestS. national. The Israeli elections of January 28th, 2003 were, on noteworthy paradox here is that the contrary, U.S. thus rejected the clearest indicator jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the failure full support (and vote) of modern conservatives, the U.S. itself!<br><br>The same logic of their inability exception applies also to perform historical acts in the line of de Gaulle or even Richard Nixon. Only a de Gaulle could grant Algeria independence; only a conservative like Nixon could establish [[economic]] relations with China. Along the same linesBBC reported, on December 21st, 70% of Israelis know 2002 that the proposal "US blocks cheap drugs agreement": "The United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs. This means millions of the Labour candidate Amram Mitzma poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. 'One- Israel's unconditional withdrawal from the West Bank hundred and Gaza forty- is [[three]] countries stood on the only solution same ground, we were hoping to the crisismake that unanimous. However, since Mitzma is a decent ethical figure lacking _strong maní charisma, they don't trust him The [[principle]] of allowing developing countries access to be able to accomplish this actcheap versions of drugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year ago. What is therefore needed is (" The same story repeated itself in Cancun in September 2003, where the tradition of Rabin) somebody like Sharon taking over US insisted on the program of Mitzma - whichsubsidies for cotton farmers, of course, Sharon is unable thus violating its own sacrosanct advice to the [[Third]] World countries to suspend state subsidies and open themselves to dothe [[market]].<br><br>And does the same not hold even for torture? The underlying problem exemplary economic strategy of today's [[capitalism]] is not only that Arabs do not really accept [[outsourcing]] - giving over the existence "dirty" [[process]] of material production (but also publicity, [[design]], accountancy...) to another company via a subcontract. In this way, one can easily avoid ecological and health rules: the State of Israel - Israelis themselves also do not really accept production is done in, say, Indonesia where the Palestinian presence on ecological and health regulations are much lower than in the West Bank. We all know Bertolt Brecht's pun apropos of , and the Western global company which owns the East Berlin workers' uprising in July 1953: _The Party logo can [[claim]] that it is not satisfied with its people, so it will replace them with a new people more supportive [[responsible]] for the violations of its politicsanother company.Æ Is Are we not getting something homologous discernible today in with regard to torture? Is torture also not being "outsourced," [[left]] to the relationship between Third World allies of the State of Israel and PalestiniansUS which can do it without worrying about [[legal]] problems or public protest? The Israeli State is Was such outsourcing not satisfied with the people on the West Bank and explicitly advocated by Jonathan Alter in Gaza, so Newsweek immediately after 9/11? After [[stating]] that "we can't legalize torture; it considers the option of replacing them with another people. That's contrary to American values, precisely" he nonetheless concludes that "we'll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, the Jewseven if that's hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty." This is how, the exemplary victimstoday, are now considering a radical _ethnic cleansingí (the _transferí - a perfect Orwellian misnomer - First World [[democracy]] more and more functions: by way of the Palestinians from the West Bank) is the ultimate paradox demanding closer consideration"outsourcing" its dirty underside to other countries...<br><br>If there ever was a passionate attachment to This [[inconsistency]] has deep geopolitical roots. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply [[conservative]] monarchies, but economically American allies, fully integrated into the lost objectWestern capitalism. Here, US has a refusal very precise and simple interest: in order to come be able to terms with its losscount on these countries for their oil reserves, it THEY NAVE TO REMAIN NON-DEMOCRATIC. That is the Jewish attachment to their land and Jerusalemsay, the _(See you) next year it is a safe bet that democratic elections in Jerusalem!íSaudi Arabia or Iraq would bring to power a pro-[[Islam]] nationalist regime riding on anti-American attitudes. And, are We therefore know now what "bringing democracy" means: the present troubles not US and its "willing partners" impose themselves as the supreme proof of the catastrophic consequences of such ultimate judges who decide if a radical fidelity, when it country is taken literally? In the last tworipe for democracy -thousand yearsalong these lines, when Jews were fundamentally Rumsfeld already stated in April 2003 that Iran should not become a nation without land"theocracy, living permanently in exile, with no firm roots " but a tolerant secular country in which all [[religions]] and ethnic groups will [[enjoy]] the place where they were staying, their reference same rights (one is tempted to Jerusalem wasadd here: "What about demanding the same from [[Israel]]?"). Along the same lines, at rootin October 2003, a purely negative one, a prohibition against »painting an image US representatives made in clear that any official recognition of home,« against feeling at home anywhere on earth. However, with the process privileged position of returning to Palestine, starting oneIslam in the new Iraqi [[constitution]] will be unacceptable -hundred years ago, the metaphysical Other Place was directly identified with a determinate place on earth. When Jews lost their land and elevated it into the mythical lost object, _Jerusalemí became much more than a piece of landirony is here [[double]]: not only would it became be nice if the metaphor for US were to [[demand]] the coming of the Messiahsame from Israel with regard to [[Judaism]], for but it was precisely Saddam's Iraq which officially ALREADY WAS a metaphysical homesecular state, for while the result of democratic elections would be the end privileging of Islam! In the wandering which characterizes human existence. The mechanism is well-known: after same spirit, an object is lost, it turns into a stand-in for much more, for all unnamed senior US [[figure]] stated that we miss in our terrestrial lives. When "the first foreign policy gesture of a thousand-year-old dream is finally close democratic Iraq would be to realization, such a realization HAS to turn into a nightmarerecognize Israel.<br><br>According to the Jewish tradition, Lilith is the woman a man makes love to while he masturbates alone in his bed during the night"<a name="4x3x"></a><a href="#43"><font color="#e42033">⁴³</font></a> The (perhaps unique) opportunity to bring the "war on [[terror"]] within the scope of an international legal order was thus missed.Another reason evoked by the supporters of the attack on Iraq was that it will give a new impetus to the stalled Middle East peace process - sodid it? The first thing to do apropos the Middle East is to abandon any [[notion]] that the crisis concerns the geographic [[reality]] of the meager land resources. One cannot simply oppose plenitude (the excessive [[gift]] out of pure love, far from standing enough for everyone and all) and scarcity with its selective "economizing" attitude (there is not enough for the feminine identity liberated from the patriarchal holdall, as so some feminists claimhave to get it and others not), since [[excess]] itself has to be grounded in a scarcity, trying to fill it in. In other [[words]], scarcity (the [[idea]] of something [[lacking]], her status of "not enough for all") is purely phallicnot a simple fact, but a [[structural]] [[necessity]]: she before being a lack of something definite, it is what Lacan calls La femmea purely [[formal]] lack, a lack which emerges at its [[frustrating]] purest precisely when our [[needs]] are excessively fulfilled (recall [[Freud]]'s case of the merry butcher's wife). Along the Womansame lines, the fantasmatic supplement possibility of the male masturbatory phallic <i>jouissance</i>. Significantlythree most interesting deadly sins, [[envy]], thrift, and [[melancholy]], while there is only one man (Adam), inscribed into the femininity very formal structure of [[desire]]: a melancholic is from unable to sustain desire in the presence of its [[object]]; a miser clings to the very beginning split between Eve and Lilithobject, between the _ordinary" hysterical barred unable to consummate it; an envious [[subject ($) and ]] desire the fantasmatic spectre object of Woman: when a man other's desire. So either the grass on the [[neighbor]]'s pasture is having sex by definition greener than yours, or I just admire in awe my green grass, unable to let my animals eat it, or I just [[gaze]] at it with sad indifference of a melancholic... These paradoxes account for the [[truth]] of stories like the one about a _realfarmer to whom an angel appears and tells him: " womanI will fulfill you a [[wish]], doing to you whatever you [[want]] - only, he is using her beware, I will do twice as a masturbatory prop much to support his fantasizing your neighbor!" The farmer replies with an evil smile: "Take one of my eyes!" Or the story about the nonpoor farmers' couple who sabotages their [[chance]] of plenitude -existent Woman...<when a name=fairy offers to fulfill them three wishes, the husband quickly blurts out: "5xA sausage on my plate!"></a><a href=The angry wife snaps back: "#5You [[fool]], may the sausage stick to your nose!"><font color=So the final wish can only be a modest: "#e42033May the sausage [[return]] from the nose to the plate!"><supbr>5</supbr></font></a> The catastrophe occurs when One has to be honest here to recognize the selective [[symbolic]] nature of the suffering elevated to the exemplary status: what is the suffering of the Palestinians in the West Bank compared to the suffering of individuals in some backwards Muslim states? What was the suffering of the Chileans under Pinochet compared to, say, the suffering in North Korea? (On the two women collapse into oneother hand, when is the suffering of Cubans really greater than the suffering of the dispossessed crowds in the non-[[Communist]] [[Latin]] American countries? Not to mention the "ordinary" partner unimaginable protracted [[nightmare]] going on in Congo or Liberia...) In this simpl(ifi)e(d) sense, it is elevated effectively unfair to elevate the Palestinians into the dignity global [[symbol]] of Lilith suffering - which if their situation were so desperate, they would for sure en masse emigrated to Jordan and other relatively prosperous Arab countries. It is as if there is structurally perfectly homologous to in the critique of the Zionist elevation politics of the State of Israel an element of - not so much "ordinaryunfair" Jerusalem into Jerusalem [[anti-Semitism]], but rather, on the contrary - [[secret]] recognition of the special higher [[ethical]] standards of the [[Jews were dreaming about for thousands ]]: how can, of years...all the people, YOU behave like than?<br><br>

The big mystery apropos of the Israeli-Palestinian [[conflict]] is: why does it persist for so long when everybody [[knows]] the only viable solution - the [[withdrawal]] of the Israelis from the West Bank and Gaza, the establishment of a Palestinian state, the [[renunciation]] by the Palestinians of the right of their refugees to return within the borders of the pre-1967 Israel, as well as some kind of a compromise concerning Jerusalem? Whenever the agreement seemed at hand, it inexplicably withdrew. How often does it happen that, when peace seems just a matter of finding a proper formulation for some minor statements, everything suddenly falls apart, displaying the frailty of the negotiated compromise? There is effectively something of a [[neurotic]] [[symptom]] in the Middle East conflict - everyone sees the way to get rid of the obstacle, and yet, nonetheless, no one wants to remove it, as if there is some kind of pathological [[libidinal]] profit gained by persisting in the deadlock.<br><br>One is tempted to [[speak]] here of a symptomal [[knot]]: is it not that, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the standard roles are somehow inverted, twisted around as in a knot? Israel - officially representing Western liberal [[modernity]] in the area - legitimizes itself in the terms of its ethnic-religious [[identity]], while the Palestinians - decried as pre-modern "fundamentalists" - legitimize their demands in the terms of secular [[citizenship]]. So, we have the paradox of the State of Israel, the island of alleged liberal democratic modernity in the Middle East, countering the Arab demands with an even more "fundamentalist" ethnic-religious claim to their sacred land.<br><br> And, as the story of the Gordian knot tells us, the only way to resolve such a deadlock is not to unravel the knot, but to cut it. Jicak Rabin took the first big step in this direction when he recognized the PLO as the legitimate [[representative]] of the Palestinians, and thus the only true partner in negotiations. When Rabin announced the reversal of the Israeli politics of "no negotiations with the PLO, a terrorist organization," and pronounced the simple words "let us end with this charade /of negotiating with the Palestinians with no public [[links]] to the PLO / and start talking with our [[real]] partners," the situation changed overnight. Therein resides the effect of a true [[political act]]: it changes the coordinates of the situation and renders the unthinkable thinkable. Rabin's military past was at once relegated to the less important past - he became the man who recognized PLO as a legitimate partner. Although a Labor politician, Rabin thus accomplished a gesture that characterizes conservative politicians at their best. The Israeli elections of January 28th, 2003 were, on the contrary, the clearest indicator of the failure of modern conservatives, of their inability to perform historical [[acts]] in the line of [[de Gaulle]] or even [[Richard Nixon]]. Only a de Gaulle could grant [[Algeria]] independence; only a conservative like Nixon could establish relations with China. Along the same lines, 70% of Israelis know that the proposal of the Labour candidate Amram Mitzma - Israel's unconditional withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza - is the only solution to the crisis. However, since Mitzma is a decent ethical figure lacking _strong maní charisma, they don't trust him to be able to accomplish this act. What is therefore needed is (in the [[tradition]] of Rabin) somebody like Sharon taking over the program of Mitzma - which, of course, Sharon is unable to do.<br><br>The underlying problem is not only that Arabs do not really accept the [[existence]] of the State of Israel - Israelis themselves also do not really accept the Palestinian presence on the West Bank. We all know Bertolt [[Brecht]]'s pun apropos of the East Berlin workers' uprising in July 1953: _The Party is not [[satisfied]] with its people, so it will replace them with a new people more supportive of its politics.Æ Is not something homologous discernible today in the [[relationship]] between the State of Israel and Palestinians? The Israeli State is not satisfied with the people on the West Bank and in Gaza, so it considers the option of replacing them with another people. That, precisely, the Jews, the exemplary victims, are now considering a radical _ethnic cleansingí (the _transferí - a perfect Orwellian misnomer - of the Palestinians from the West Bank) is the ultimate paradox demanding closer consideration.<br><br>If there ever was a passionate attachment to the [[lost object]], a [[refusal]] to come to terms with its [[loss]], it is the [[Jewish]] attachment to their land and Jerusalem, the _(See you) next year in Jerusalem!í. And, are the present troubles not the supreme proof of the catastrophic consequences of such a radical fidelity, when it is taken literally? In the last two-thousand years, when Jews were fundamentally a nation without land, living permanently in exile, with no firm roots in the place where they were staying, their reference to Jerusalem was, at root, a purely [[negative]] one, a [[prohibition]] against »painting an [[image]] of home,« against [[feeling]] at home anywhere on earth. However, with the process of returning to [[Palestine]], starting one-hundred years ago, the metaphysical Other Place was directly [[identified]] with a determinate place on earth. When Jews lost their land and elevated it into the [[mythical]] lost object, _Jerusalemí became much more than a piece of land: it became the [[metaphor]] for the coming of the Messiah, for a metaphysical home, for the end of the wandering which characterizes human existence. The [[mechanism]] is well-known: after an object is lost, it turns into a stand-in for much more, for all that we miss in our terrestrial lives. When a thousand-year-old [[dream]] is finally close to realization, such a realization HAS to turn into a nightmare.<br><br>According to the Jewish tradition, Lilith is the [[woman]] a man makes love to while he masturbates alone in his bed during the night<a name="4x"></a><a href="#4"><font color="#e42033">⁴</font></a> - so, far from standing for the [[feminine]] identity liberated from the patriarchal hold, as some feminists claim, her status is purely [[phallic]]: she is what [[Lacan]] calls La [[femme]], the Woman, the [[fantasmatic]] [[supplement]] of the [[male]] masturbatory phallic <i>[[jouissance]]</i>. Significantly, while there is only one man (Adam), the [[femininity]] is from the very beginning [[split]] between Eve and Lilith, between the _ordinary" [[hysterical]] [[barred]] subject ($) and the fantasmatic [[spectre]] of Woman: when a man is having sex with a _real" woman, he is using her as a masturbatory prop to support his fantasizing about the non-existent Woman...<a name="5x"></a><a href="#5"><font color="#e42033">⁵</font></a> The catastrophe occurs when the two [[women]] collapse into one, when the "ordinary" partner is elevated to the dignity of Lilith - which is structurally perfectly homologous to the Zionist elevation of the "ordinary" Jerusalem into Jerusalem the Jews were dreaming about for thousands of years...<br><br>  The ethical choice is thus ultimately a simple one: the only true fidelity to the [[memory ]] of the [[holocaust ]] is in the opening for the injustice committed against the Palestinians; any justification of the present Israeli politics with the reference to the holocaust is the worst possible ethical [[betrayal]]. It is therefore easy to answer the big question: what would be the truly radical ethico-political act today in the Middle East? For both Israelis and Arabs, it would consist in the gesture of renouncing the (political) control of Jerusalem, that is, of endorsing the transformation of the Old Town of Jerusalem into an extra-state place of religious worship controlled (temporarily) by some neutral international force. What both sides should accept is that, by renouncing the political control of Jerusalem, they are effectively renouncing nothing - they are GAINING the elevation of Jerusalem into a genuinely extra-political, sacred site. What they would lose is, precisely and only, what already, in itself, DESERVES to be lost: the reduction of [[religion ]] to a stake in political power plays.<br><br>One should not [[renounce ]] the _impossibleí dream of a binational secular state bringing together the Israeli Jews and the Palestinians. In the long term, the true utopia is not that of this binational state, but that of the Wall clearly separating the two communities. The pictures of the wall that separates the pre-1967 Israel from the West Bank occupied territories resemble uncannily the wall that separates East from West [[Germany ]] till 1989. The illusion of this new Wall is that it will serve as the demarcation line separating "normal" rule of law and [[social ]] [[life ]] from the permanent [[state of emergency ]] - that it will contain the state of emergency to the [[domain ]] "out there." This would have been another true EVENT in the Middle East, the explosion of true political [[universality ]] in the Paulinian sense of _there are for us no Jews and no Palestiniansí - each of the two sides would have to realize that this renunciation of the ethnically ØcleanÆ Nation-State is the liberation for themselves, not only a sacrifice to be made for the other. The paradox is thus that, in the entire Middle East, the Palestinians, these »Jews among-of the Arabs,Æ are, because of their unique position, the only collective [[agent ]] on whom the [[role ]] of the modernizer, of moving to a political [[form ]] beyond [[ethnic identity]], is imposed: the only true long-term solution to the Middle East crisis is the emergence of Palestinians as political modernizers.<br><br>The [[Achilles ]] heel of the non-Zionist liberal Jews is best encapsulated by their standard argumentation: _OK, of course we should negotiate, accept the Palestinian State, the end of occupation, even the prospect of a single binational secular state - but in order for serious talks to start, the [[senseless ]] suicide bombings terror has to stop, one simply cannot engage in a dialogue under such circumstances...í [[Horror ]] of _irrationalí excess of suicide bombings, pure expenditure, non-negotiable... However, what is effectively at stake here is the return to normality: if the »terrorists« stop their acts and thus ease their pressure, we can relax, breathe easily - and go on with things as normal. Elisabeth Roudinesco recently wrote:<br><br>"For now, the only apocalypse that seems to threaten Western society - and Islam as well - is radical Islamic fundamentalism disposed to [[terrorism]]. Islamic threats are made by extremist bearded and barbaric polygamists who constrain women's bodies and spit invectives against homosexuals, whom they hold responsible for weakening the [[masculine ]] values of God the [[father]]."<a name="6x"></a><a href="#6"><font color="#e42033">⁶</font></a><br><br>What makes this [[statement ]] problematic is not only its very "politically correct" [[distinction ]] between Islamic fundamentalism and Islam as such who is also threatened by it - in the same way Bush, Blair, and even Sharon, never forget to praise Islam as a great religion of love and [[tolerance ]] which has nothing to do with the disgusting terrorist acts... It is also not only the use of the term "radical Islamic fundamentalism disposed to terrorism" (or "Islamic threats") - as [[Badiou ]] pointed out,<br><br>"when a predicate is attributed to a formal substance (as is the case with any derivation of a substantive from a formal adjective) it has no other consistency than that of giving an ostensible [[content ]] to that form. In 'Islamic terrorism,' the predicate 'Islamic' has no other function except that of supplying an [[apparent ]] content to the [[word ]] 'terrorism' which is itself devoid of all content (in this [[instance]], political)."<a name="7x"></a><a href="#7"><font color="#e42033">⁷</font></a> <br><br>To put it in Kantian terms, the predicate "Islamic" provides a fake "schematization" of the purely formal [[category ]] "terrorism," conferring on it a false substantial density. To put it in Hegelese, the truth of such a reflexive determination ("Islamic terror") is its inherent and unavoidable reversal into determinate [[reflection]]: "terrorist Islam," i.e., terrorism as constitutive of the very identity of Islam.<a name="8x"></a><a href="#8"><font color="#e42033">⁸</font></a> - What makes Roudinesco's statement truly problematic is that it endorses the above-mentioned liberal logic which elevates the [[rejection ]] of terrorism into a kind of [[transcendental ]] a priori: first THAT, and only then we can negotiate... (or, to put it in [[Laclau]]'s terms, "terrorism" has to be EXCLUDED so that the [[agonism ]] of the democratic political struggle can take place). What is in this way [[foreclosed ]] is the rendering-thematic of (and confrontation with) "terrorism" as (part of) a POLITICAL PROJECT, which, of course, in no way implies the agreement with it. It is worth to recall here Ernst Nolte's book on [[Heidegger]], which brought fresh wind into the eternal debate on "Heidegger and the political" - it did this on the very account of its "unacceptable" option: far from excusing Heidegger's infamous political choice in 1933, it justifies it - or, at least, it de-demonizes it, rendering it as a viable and meaningful choice. Against the standard defenders of Heidegger whose mantra is that Heidegger's [[Nazi ]] engagement was a personal mistake of no fundamental consequences for his [[thought]], Nolte accepts the basic claim of Heidegger's critics that his Nazi choice is inscribed into his thought - but with a twist: instead of problematizing his thought, Nolte justifies his political choice as a viable option in the situation of late 1920s and early 1930s with the economic chaos and Communist threat:<br><br>

Nolte also formulated the basic terms and topics of the "revisionist" debate whose basic tenet is to "objectively compare" [[Fascism ]] and [[Communism]]: Fascism and even [[Nazism ]] was ultimately a reaction to the Communist threat and a repetition of its worst practices (concentration camps, mass liquidations of political enemies):<br><br>"Could it be the case that the National Socialists and [[Hitler ]] carried out an 'Asiatic' deed /the Holocaust/ only because they considered themselves and their kind to be potential or actual victims of a /Bolshevik/ 'Asiatic' deed. Didn't the '[[Gulag ]] Archipelago' precede Auschwitz?"<a name="10x"></a><a href="#10"><font color="#e42033">¹⁰</font></a> The merit of Nolte is to approach seriously the task of grasping Fascism - and even Nazism - as a feasible political [[project]], which is a sine qua non if its effective criticism. - It is here that one has to make the choice: the "pure" liberal stance of equidistance towards [[Leftist ]] and Rightist "[[totalitarianism]]" (they are both bead, based on the [[intolerance ]] of political and other differences, the rejection of democratic and [[humanist ]] values, etc.) is a priori false, one HAS to take side and proclaim one fundamentally "worse" than the other - for this reason, the ongoing "relativization" of Fascism, the notions that one should rationally compare the two totalitarianisms, etc., ALWAYS involves the - [[explicit ]] or implicit - [[thesis ]] that Fascism was "better" than Communism, an understandable reaction to the Communist threat. When, in the Summer of 2003, Silvio Berlusconi provoked a violent outcry with his statements that, while a dictator, Mussolini was not a political criminal and murderer like Hitler, [[Stalin ]] or Saddam, one should bear in [[mind ]] the true stakes of this scandal: far from deserving to be dismissed as Berlusconi's personal idiosyncrasies, his statements are part of a larger ongoing ideologico-political project of changing the terms of the post-WWII symbolic pact of European identity based on anti-Fascist [[unity]]. - And do we not find the negative of this rejection to think Nazism as a political project in the crucial [[theoretical ]] scandal of [[Adorno ]] (and Frankfurt [[School ]] on general): the total [[absence ]] of the [[analysis ]] of [[Stalinism ]] in his work (and that of [[Habermas ]] and others). Perhaps, therein resides the ultimate enigma of the tension between Adorno and Hannah [[Arendt]]: while they both shared the radical rejection of Stalinism, Arendt based it on the explicit large-scale analysis of the "origins of totalitarianism," as well as on the positive [[normative ]] notion of vis activa, of the engaged political life, while Adorno rejected this step.<a name="11x"></a><a href="#11"><font color="#e42033">¹¹</font></a><br><br>In the same way that the distinction between _goodí Islam and _badí Islamic terrorism is a fake, one should also render problematic the typical _radical-liberalí distinction between Jews and the State of Israel or Zionism, i.e., the effort to open up the [[space ]] in which Jews and Jewish citizens of Israel will be able to criticize the State of Israel's politics and Zionist [[ideology ]] not only without being accused of anti-Semitism, but, even more, formulating their critique as based on their very passionate attachment to Jewishness, on what they see as worth saving in the Jewish legacy.<a name="12x"></a><a href="#12"><font color="#e42033">¹²</font></a> Is, however, this enough? (( [[Marx ]] said about the petit-bourgeois that he sees in every object two aspects, bad and [[good]], and tries to keep the good and fight the bad. One should avoid the same mistake in dealing with Judaism: the "good" Levinasian Judaism of justice, respect for and [[responsibility ]] towards the other, etc., against the "bad" tradition of Jehova, his fits of vengeance and genocidal [[violence ]] against the neighboring people. This is the illusion to be avoided: one should assert a [[Hegelian ]] "[[speculative identity]]" between these two aspects and see in Jehova the SUPPORT of justice and responsibility. Judaism is as such the [[moment ]] of unbearable absolute contradiction, the worst ([[monotheistic ]] violence) and the best (responsibility towards the other) in absolute tension, the same, coinciding, and simultaneously absolutely incompatible. In short, one should gather the courage to transpose the gap, the tension, into the very core of Judaism: it is no longer the question of defending the pure Jewish tradition of justice and love for the neighbor against the Zionist [[aggressive ]] assertion of the Nation-State. And, along the same lines, instead of celebrating the greatness of true Islam against its misuse by fundamentalist terrorists, or of bemoaning the fact that, of all great religions, Islam is the one most resistent to [[modernization]], one should rather conceive this [[resistance ]] as an open chance, as »undecidable«: this resistance does not necessarily lead to »Islamo-Fascism,« it can also be articulated into a Socialist project. Precisely because Islam harbors the ØworstÆ potentials of the Fascist answer to our present predicament, it can also turn out to be the site for the _bestí. In other words, yes, Islam effectively is not a religion like others, it does involve a stronger social link, it does resist being integrated into the [[capitalist ]] [[global order ]] - and the task is how to politically use this ambiguous fact.<br><br>In the case of Judaism as well as in the case of Islam, one should thus gather the courage to accomplish the Hegelian step towards _concrete _[[concrete]] universalityí and to transpose the site of [[antagonism ]] and inconsistency into the very core of the religious edifice, not to dismiss it as pertaining only to the secondary fundamentalist misuse.<br>

<br><br><a name="2"></a><a href="#2x"><font color="#e42033">2.</font></a> This [[hypocrisy ]] is met only by the hypocrisy of the State of Israel blaming Arafat for not crushing the Hamas terrorism - the same Hamas who, till recently, was financially supported by Israel with the Machiavellian [[goal ]] to undermine the predominant influence of Arafat's PLO among the Palestinians - first you support Hamas, helping it to establish itself as a force out of Arafat's control, then you reproach Arafat for not controlling it ...<br>

<br><br><a name="5"></a><a href="#5x"><font color="#e42033">5.</font></a> So what if - to go to the end - the very notion, found already in the ancient [[Greece ]] (Tiresias), of how the feminine sexual [[pleasure ]] is seven [[times ]] stronger than male (multiple orgasms, etc.), is sustained by women to make men envious?<br><br><br><a name="6"></a><a href="#6x"><font color="#e42033">6.</font></a> Elisabeth Roudinesco, "[[Homosexuality ]] Today: A Challenge for [[Psychoanalysis]]?," Journal of European Psychoanalysis 15 (Fall-Winter 2002), p. 184.<br><br><br><a name="7"></a><a href="#7x"><font color="#e42033">7.</font></a> [[Alain ]] Badiou, Infinite Thought, [[London]]: Continuum 2003, p. 153.<br><br><br><a name="8"></a><a href="#8x"><font color="#e42033">8.</font></a> And does not the same hold for the standard reproach to Lacanians that they are "dogmatic"? When deconstructionists criticize Lacanians for being too "dogmatically" attached to Lacan, what they mean is that there is a "dogmatic" kernel which defines the very core of [[Lacanian ]] [[theory ]] - which is why "dogmatically Lacanian" simply means "Lacanian." Is this not the only consistent explanation of the simple positive fact that the "dogmatic" Lacanians are actually in their [[texts ]] much more critical towards Lacan than the standard deconstructionist is against [[Derrida]]? This, of course, does not mean that the reproach of "Lacanian dogmatism" is without foundation: what it implicitly refers to is the crucial fact that Lacanian theory involves a radically different type of collectivity than deconstructionism: while [[deconstruction ]] fits perfectly the existing academic [[machine ]] with its endless interpretive [[circulation]], Lacanian theory involves the type of collective of engaged [[subjects ]] found in radical religious sects and/or revolutionary parties.<br> <br><br><a name="9"></a><a href="#9x"><font color="#e42033">9.</font></a> Ernst Nolte, [[Martin Heidegger ]] - Politik und Geschichte im Leben und Denken, Berlin 1992, p. 296.<br>

<br><br><a name="11"></a><a href="#11x"><font color="#e42033">11.</font></a> One encounters the same paradox in Adorno's dealing with "authoritarian [[personality]]": which is the status of scale which contains the feature which are the opposite of those defining the "authoritarian personality"? Are they simply to be endorsed as "democratic personality" (ultimately the path of Habermas), or is the "authoritarian personality" to be conceived as the symptomal "truth" of the "democratic personality" (the view of, say, [[Agamben]])? This undecidability is ultimately a special case of the more general undecidability of the "[[dialectic ]] of [[Enlightenment]]" itself, well-perceived by Habermas: if the "[[administered world]]" is the "truth" of the project of Enlightenment, how, precisely, can it be criticized and counteracted by way of fidelity to the Enlightenment project itself? - One is tempted to claim that, far from standing for a lack or simple failure of Adorno, this reluctance to accomplish the step into the positive normativity signals his fidelity to the [[Marxist ]] revolutionary project.<br><br><br><a name="12"></a><a href="#12x"><font color="#e42033">12.</font></a> For a succinct articulation of this position see [[Judith ]] [[Butler]], "No, it's not anti-semitic," [[London Review of Books]], 21 August 2003, p. 19-21. No wonder, then, that Butler recently produced such a Rortyan statement: "Perhaps, our chance to become human is precisely in the way we react to injuries."(quoted in the promotional page for Butler's Kritik der ethischen [[Gewalt]], Suhrkamp catalogue for Summer 2003).<br><br>

* [[The Iraqi MacGuffin]]. ''[[Lacan.com]]''. 2004. <http://www.lacan.com/iraq1.htm>