George Soros, a Hungarian-born Jew who escaped the Holocaust by fleeing to London as a child, is one of the richest persons in the United States (with a fortune valued at $7.2 billion). He is a philanthropist who established the Open Society Institute, and a philosopher who has written 8 books. His latest commentary appeared in the Boston Globe. Read More and comment.
12 Comments:
Soros makes some good points about the "war on terror" concept. Since 9/11 Bush has had an approach of "with us or against us" in regards to terrorism. By lumping all the terrorist groups into one group and simply condemning them all, you begin to chip away at the ability to have talks with them.
This is similar to the “axis of evil” line from the State of the Union address a few years ago. By lumping Iran, Iraq, and North Korea together as part of the "against us" team, it makes it seem that those 3 countries have a unified policy against the US when this is not the case.
While the "with us or against us" approach is bad for peace, it seems to work pretty well for getting support for wars, since it creates a singular and identifiable enemy for Americans to rally against.
For some reason, I’m sure a sociologist could tell you why, the American people tend to have very divisive cultural tendencies. The Israelis and the Palestinians are a good example of this, as people want to pick sides in the conflict, but it extends beyond the war on terror and the “with us or against us” mentality. In presidential elections we pick sides. In sports we pick sides (See: Yankees vs Red Soxs). Even in music we pick sides (rock vs rap). There are many more examples of this black or white mentality, like east coast vs west coast, north vs south, pro-abortion or anti-abortion, McDonalds or Burger King. While this political divisiveness may stem from the federalist and anti-federalist debates of the early 1800’s, it seems to be deeply rooted in our western culture and really is a problem that people need to recognize in our society. We’re basically dividing ourselves and pitting each other against one another when we should be unifying and working towards a common goal and opinion.
Interesting observation Ted. Perhaps this must be a byproduct of the winner take all political culture that the US has had from the beginning. Imagine this hypothetical, in every election one of the two parties [say Dem] could get 49.9% of the Votes and with a country divided 50.1 and 49.9 we could still have all Rep in Congress and the Senate. Strange isn't it.
If the same thing happened say in Iraq today, then in the parliament the seats would be 50.1 to 49.9 not 100 is to 0.
I don't necessarily see the dichotomy of the world as purely an American or Western phenomena. Logic and Computers work on a basic True/False, On/Off, 1/0 status. The problem is of course that the world can't be explained as just good/evil, right/wrong. From as early as Plato, we see the attempt to split everything into purely Good and Not-Good.
I would also say that the majority of Americans care little about the current Israeli/Arab conflict. Its the powerful and politicians that are playing the game. Politicians that care more about making everyone think they're right rather than making the situation better.
Israel was clearly wrong in killing civilians. The problem with rebels/terrorists (depending on your perspective) is that it's hard to tell them apart. The rebels live alongside the civilians and perhaps even indirectly supported by them. There's no army stations or aircraft to destroy here. The US has also been accused and cursed across the world for bombing civilian locations, justifying it by saying a known terrorist was in the building. Imagine the British in 1776 destroying cities, homes, and farms because they've been known to house/feed "terrorists".
The United States still believes that hard power and military action are the ways to accomplish its aims foolishly. Another failed area we see this in is our drug policy. We invest much more money in removing the supply both here and abroad (except Afghanistan, where opium is A-ok) whether than removing the demand in the US.
It's hard to accept, but eventually people must realize that conceding and compromising now can/will lead to better future for everyone...assuming the right leaders are doing the deals. Whereas, right now Israel and US refuse to give up any possible power or land in fear of strengthening the resources of the terrorists. If we give them the green houses then it'll help feed the terrorists. They want 100% certainty that giving power to the enemy will make them into friends. Do they ever bother to see why terrorism even starts is the real question. For every terrorist we kill, there are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, and children that may fill those shoes.
Did anyone question, in the philosophical sense, that maybe terrorism is necessary and impossible to remove? There's a lot of frustrated Chinese people who can't find jobs or homes. If we take this zero-sum viewpoint that the US has then no doubt those disgruntled poor Chinese will only do better at the cost of the rest of the world's power/wealth.
While I agree with a fair amount of what Soros says, he weakens his argument by contradicting himself. He first says "And Arabs, having redeemed themselves on the battlefield, may be more willing to entertain a compromise." and then in the following paragraph he appears argue against this point when he says "Hezbollah, having tasted the sense but not the reality of victory (and egged on by Syria and Iran) may prove recalcitrant." I believe that the latter quote is more accurate because since the most recent conflict Hezbollah has gained more support, and has proven to itself and its supporters that it can defend itself against Israel.
Additionally I believe Soros to be accurate when he said the US and Israel are failing to understand that while in some cases they may be winning the military war, they are losing miserably the war of minds and public opinion. Despite this I feel Soros is wrong to argue that the US lost the war of minds with the Afghan War, when a large majority of the world supported the Afghan War. The US lost the PR War when it invaded Iraq with such a callous disregard of the UN, international law, and key allies. This was the fatal flaw in the War on Terrorism.
As we can see it is easy to criticize the past, but I think a more prudent use of time would be to learn from our mistakes and move on because these past few years are just the start of what appears is going to be a long war against terrorism for the US, and just the most recent of a long conflict for Israel. We need to look for solutions for the future, and ask fewer what if questions.
To expand on Ted's point that we are dividing ourselves and pitting ourselves against one another. I agree with this and feel that the division is getting stronger with each day. For example in the 2004 presidential election the country was described as divided into red and blue states or Democrats and Republicans, but today with the midterm elections approaching this divisiveness seems even worse. Now the Republican party itself appears to be split over the treatment of terrorists, with Senators McCain and Warner along with other leading Republicans taking a strong stance opposing the president. Even the Democratic party seems split with no real direction because it appears that nobody can unite them behind a policy. If the US can't unite behind a leader, party, or policy how is it supposed to win the War on Terror and change people's views of the US? It seems impossible to me.
Good one diamond, you did catch him in a contradiction. But I think when he says Arabs he means all, Palestinians, Egyptians etc..while making an exception for Hezbollah.
Mr.Soros made an excellent case for the necessity of political action, in addition to military action, in the war on terror and, more specifically, the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The US and Israel need to realize that there is a difference between "negotiating with terrorists" (which is universally frowned upon) and actually being able to admit that there has to be a political root to all the violence and recognizing that until something is done to repair this foundational problem, the violence will persist.
(I'm sure the following analogy has been used a million times, but I like it.)
When I was younger and my parents would give me the chore of weeding the garden, I always used to annoy them with my approach of tearing away the leaves and stems, but not wanting to put the effort into pulling the roots. As a result, not only would I piss my parents off, but I'd be making more work for myself, as the weeds would just grow right back. I think Bush is taking a very similar approach to his war on terror. He isn't simply unwilling to give a political approach a try (which would mean admitting he was wrong, and that won't ever happen), but he seems to be truly convinced that he doesn't have to. As he sees it, we're a military super power and we can continue to destroy any terrorist opposition for as long as it takes. He doesn't think it is necessary for us to figure out WHY people are blowing themselves up and then try to do something about it. That's the same attitude I had when I stubbornly decided I'd rather half-ass the weeding job and do it every couple weeks, as opposed to doing it right and only having to do it once a summer. Here's the sad part: at the time I was just an immature 10 year old...but President Bush just turned 60.
I agree with certain points that Soros makes in his article. For example, the point that the West did not use the option of trying to have a talk with the opposition rather than using military power and use of force in every instance. This point sort of matches with what Professor Khan was talking regarding negotiation and discussion. You try to discuss certain issues with people who have a different opinion from yours, so that by discussing you can find a common ground and a mutual respect for the differences. This should be specially emphasized with a high-context culture as that of the Middle East, where relation ship building and friendliness is the prerequisite to any sort of discussion or negotiation. Another important fact is that the high-context culture does not want to lose face and honor is very important for them. For example, if someone says he or she doesn’t like you as a person, the logical way to approach this would be to ask the person why he or she doesn’t like us rather than counter attacking the person right away. Perhaps the other person might have had some misunderstandings regarding you, that without a formal conversation you won’t be able to figure out what is bothering the other person. This would be the proper approach to this issue. Israel and US are in a similar situation, they are either acting or reacting in a negative way. If one US soldier is killed, other US soldiers go around shooting an entire mosque full of people, or with Israel capturing Gaza or rocketing Lebanon for instance. This issue goes both ways, when Israel attacks and kills Palestinians, couple of weeks later you will see a suicide bombing in Haifa or Tel-Aviv. This attack and counter attack will only damage the minds of young people on both sides, and further the damage that has already been done in the Middle East!
Soros’ best suggestion to America, Israel and their allies in the war on terror comes in the first paragraph, he states “One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.” The distinction between terrorism and counterterrorism is perhaps the most important factor for winning the war on terror. When counterterrorism measures produce innocent casualties they lend credibility to the sermons of extremists. In turn, the extremists have a fresh, angry recruiting base to rally for militant agendas. The recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was another, forgive my phrasing, missed opportunity for the allies in the global war on terror. Hezbollah indiscriminately fired rockets into Israel with the intent of killing Israelis. Although Israel’s intent may have been different, their tactics seemed to mirror the terrorists; their air strikes and artillery fire killed over 1,500, the majority of who were Lebanese civilians. Additionally, an estimated 250,000 Lebanese are still internally displaced-all of whom will point to Israel for their current condition. Soros is again correct in his assessment that “The time has come to realize that the present policies are counterproductive.”
George Soros is definitely a unique and interesting figure in the world today. His background as an East European Jew that fled from the Holocaust and eventually became a billionaire in the United States provides the financier with the proper credentials to be relatively impervious to the venomous attacks that are typical unleashed upon anyone who is critical of Israel, it’s tactics or the its relations with the United States. While he may have supported John Kerry for President in 2004, I believe he is more of a “democrat” than a “Democrat”. By that I mean he cares about democratic societies that are characterized by personal liberties and openness rather than strict adherence to the specific tenets of the U.S. Democratic Party. This is conveyed by his chairmanship of the Open Society Institute, which is a private operating and grant making foundation that aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform.
His op-ed piece that appeared in the Boston Globe following the conclusion of the latest conflagration between Israel and Hezbollah provides some interesting insights into and critiques of the “war on terror” currently being conducted by both Israel and the United States. His introductory argument provides a solid foundation for the rest of the piece – that counter-terror responses (usually conducted by state actors) result in more violence against civilians than against actual “terrorist targets” thereby strengthening the cause of the terrorists and ultimately underpinning the very reason for the military action. When this occurs the emotions of extremism are hardened and proliferated, strengthening the perpetuation of violence. When Hezbollah first killed and captured the Israeli soldiers bringing them back over the Israeli border, a rare event occurred. World opinion was nearly unified in condemnation against Hezbollah and sympathetic to Israel. Even more rare, early statements from the Arab league unanimously blamed Hezbollah for starting the conflict and did not even mention any type of Israeli aggression. Despite all of this, Israel and the United States managed to squander this uncanny amount of support and turn it into a humanitarian and political disaster. The reason for this is the extremely sole emphasis on military power to solve a political problem, a mistake that looks to prove more costly than any other in recent history.
I agree strongly with Soros’ point that a major weakness of the “war on terror” is that it lumps every group labeled by the U.S. as a “terrorist organization” into one category. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka cannot be compared to Hezbollah in Lebanon which cannot be compared to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc. These groups are the results of extremely different circumstances and therefore the problem they create cannot be remedied with the same solution. Many diseases and illnesses produce similar symptoms in humans. The folly proclaiming a general “war on terror” is synonymous with the folly of doctor proscribing the same medicine for every person that complains of a headache. Additionally, how does one define success or failure in the war on terror? This ambiguity is a dangerous enabler of the military-industrial complex that heavily influences our military engagements around the world. But that’s another story.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
George Soros is considered to be man among boys. One of the richest persons in America and coming form a background where his opinion can mean so much more to society than most politicians. This man should be martyr. I agree entirely with Soros stance on how the U.S. decides to create a common view of terrorism and terrorism being all the same, when in reality this is far from the truth. Terrorism can be viewed in very different cultures as being something that is necessary because of the vulnerability of the society. Soros’s article in the Boston globe is utterly true. That policy towards the Middle East has been counter productive. Today more than ever the state of Israel is now more endangered in its existence than before the bush administration. Also the war on terror has blinded us from creating sufficient foreign policy as well as domestically. What needs to be done is to understand the high context culture of these so-called terrorist organizations and when we understand their objectives then a policy can be formulated towards each individual organization.
Post a Comment
<< Home