“Noah built the ark before the deluge.” --- jewish myth to ignore.
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:19:09 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > · MAY 30, 2016 > > *UNDERSTANDING ARAB-ISLAMIC POLITICS: ADVOCATING THE CASE OF THE POLITICAL > CULTURE APPROACH (A)* > > · DAVID BUKAY > <http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&task=user&id=461:davidbukay&Itemid=566> > > *FEATURED*[image: Description: Description: Understanding Arab-Islamic > Politics: Advocating the Case of the Political Culture Approach (A)] > > AddThis Sharing Buttons > > The chronicles of human history are mainly the struggle between despotic, > oppressive governments, on the one hand, and freedom from tyranny and the > aspiration to achieve civil rights and freedoms, on the other; between > totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and liberal democracy. > > In the words of Fukuyama, the twentieth century witnessed the world > attacked by convulsions of ideological violence in the struggle of > democratic liberalism, first against the remains of absolutism, and > afterwards against Bolshevism and fascism. The end of the century witnessed > the victory of Western liberal democracy. The world had not only reached > “the end of ideology”, but also “the end of history.” > > Thus, Marshall McLuhan’s vision, as early as 1964, regarding “the global > village”, took on form and content with its outstanding expression being > the tremendous spread of the social media and the communications and news > networks. Society has reached "the Mac-World" as a cultural phenomenon. > Moreover, the gaps between “high politics” – which deals with war and peace > – and “low politics” which deals with social-economic issues and human > welfare, are being progressively narrowed. This is the basis for the > argument that the cultural borders between human societies have been > blurred, and local cultures are now subject to the profound influence of > the global culture. > > However, is this the real situation? If “the end of history” has arrived, > and democracy is victorious, why are there still so many wars between > states, and so many tyrants threatening to bring about the destruction of > humankind? If the cultural borders between human societies have become > blurred, why is there an increase in fanatic nationalism? Why have ethnic > conflicts and separatist uprisings multiplied? > > Why is there still a First, Second, Third and even a Fourth World? Why is > the division between the North and the South in effect and even more > intense? And above all, why is Huntington so right in his analysis that in > every place where Islam and Arabs are found, violence as well as internal > and external wars are likewise found? > > Indeed, the world reality is far from the optimistic, globalization > vision, and it is doubtful whether cultural boundaries have been blurred. > Hostility, rancor, violence, and global dangers have not vanished. National > and state interests have not only converged but have partly moved further > apart. Unfortunately, Islam confronts and viciously fights all other > world's civilizations, and as Huntington refers to Islamic boundaries are > borders of blood. > > The end-of-history and the globalization approaches are based on two > perceptions that are not necessarily accurate: first, has the state really > become obsolete as a central focus of reference, and is it losing its power > and its sovereign control? Secondly, has the growth in importance of > cross-border economic forces and transnational players really diminished > the significance of conflicts between states over territory? Has > geo-economics replaced geo-politics? It is not only doubtful whether the > world at the twenty-first century is more stable and quieter, but it is > sure that Islamic religious ideology takes advantage of the power vacuum > that has been created to control and to subdue the civilized world, and to > bring it to the Islamic 7th century desert. > > The data is crystal clear. Over 90 percent of world terrorism and over 70 > percent of world violence is purely Islamic, and the countdown continues > rising up. This is enough without any doubt to put Islam to where it > belongs. In 2015 there were 452 cases of homicide bombings alone. All of > them where Muslims. From September 11 to April 2016 there were more than > 28,000 terrorist acts alone, in which hundreds of thousands of people > victimized. > > In the last 70 years 14 million Muslims were massacred by other Muslims. > There is not even one state around the world that is not confronted by > Islam, by Jihad violence and terrorism, or by Da'wah, the preaching to > Islam and the diplomacy of deceiving the infidels, or by Hijrah, massive > huge immigration and birth-rate demography. Isn't it enough to label Islam > to where it belongs? Islam has never been all over its 1400 years, even for > one day, a religion of peace. > > The interesting phenomenon is that there is a broad consensus that there > is a distinct Japanese, or Chinese, or Hindu, or African-Tribal cultures, > and, a distinct Arab-Islamic culture of great power and influence. We even > teach these characteristics as a variegated cultural difference on the > anthropological level, however, at one and the same time, we deny the > cultural difference on the political level and disavow its importance on > the level of behavioral insight. > > But in our understanding, the gaps between Western and Arab-Islamic > culture are so deep and qualitative that it determines everything. There is > ample scientific and empirical clear proofs that without understanding the > cultural ideological spectrum there is a huge deficiency in the ability to > qualitatively analyze the Middle East and Islamic world. The denial to use > culture as a scientific tool on the racial grounds and as a part of > politically correct approach is not only stupid but largely contributes to > the lack of understanding in fact the large ignorance that determines our > behavior. > > The world may have turned into a small village in many aspects, but > political culture, which is also influenced and shaped by religion, > dictates gaps in behavior and attitudes and creates deep political > differences, which are difficult to bridge over. > > Indeed, the widespread use of modernization and technology does not > necessarily blur the behavioral boundaries and certainly not the cultural > ones. Such is the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The tremendous > petro-dollar riches they have accumulated have not changed the traits of > the traditional anarchistic tribal society as a pre-medieval community. The > capacity to purchase every technological innovation and the state of the > art of Western means has not at all changed their societies' way of life > and tribal-clan structure. > > In the West, those who do not understand this cultural phenomenon are > astounded and full of wonder at how these states perpetuate their > traditional way of life, and at the same time, prevent Westerners from > leading their regular way of life and demand from them consideration for > their religious and cultural values while staying there. > > A no less severe phenomenon is that Saudi Arabia has invested billions of > dollars in buying many research institutions throughout the world, and > finances universities and researchers in the West, just in order to glorify > its own cultural values. It finances, in fact buys communications media > outlets, public opinion and lawyers firms throughout the Western world. It > spends billions of dollars in maintaining internet sites of high quality in > English and Arabic, which are meant to uphold its own anachronistic tribal > values and the features of traditional Islam. And it has worked to prevent > antagonism against itself, as a society hostile to Western culture. > > Above all, Saudi Arabia is Enemy Number One of the modern, democratic > international system. It finances, aids, supports, and consolidates most of > the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations and groups throughout > the world. Ultimately, Saudi Arabia aspires to restore the Islamic past to > the future of modern, human society. Modern life and the Western technology > that it uses have not changed Saudi society. The cultural structure has > remained congealed in tribal anarchy; hence, the Western conception of > change and transition to modernity has no chance either of flourishing or > of even becoming established in Arab-Islamic political culture. > > The central argument which we are expounding, is that there are wide gaps > between various cultures, which are expressed in profound differences in > ways of life and social structure, chiefly between Western political > culture and Arab-Islamic political culture, and this influences patterns of > political and behavioral activity. These gaps constitute a basis for flaws > of thinking, distorted perceptions, and failures of policy. These factors, > which are shaped and fostered in the various cultures, bring about > strategic surprises and mental blindness (visual agnosia) and lead to the > march of folly and disasters. > > We may diagnose the phenomenon with the concept of “mirror image”. This > expresses a personality system, which causes one to perceive an adversary’s > thinking as matching one’s own. You look at your adversary and see his > conceptions and mental images as matching your own set of values and > beliefs. But in practice, you see yourself reflected in the mirror, and you > attach to your adversary operational evaluations and defining positions > that are exactly the same as your own. > > Let's take the issues of war and peace through the lenses of the "mirror > image." > > You estimate that your conceptions, strategic definitions, and certainly > your operational means, are your adversary’s as well. You and he aspire to > peace, and you and he strive in the same direction and in the same trends > by means of peace. And you are sure that you and he understand peace in the > same parameters, and all that is needed is good will on both sides to end > the war and to march into peace. > > It is clear to you that your good will expresses the same boundaries as > your adversary’s good will. Therefore, matters are absolutely understood by > both sides, and the way to ending wars and establishing peace leads down > the same path. You estimate that the political circumstances and the > historical conclusions lead both you and your adversary to the same > operational evaluations. > > You and your adversary have arrived at the same situation after having > tried everything, hence you both have the firm opinion that the shared aim > in sitting down together for talks and discussions is to arrive at > successful political arrangements, which you both understand according to > the very same parameters. > > And why is this absolutely clear and taken for granted? Because you and > your adversary both understand that both of you have paid a high human and > economic price, that you are both ripe for negotiations and political > arrangements that will bring about peace and coexistence. > > However, do both sides really aspire to peace in like manner? Do they both > define the longed for peace in a symmetrical manner? Are they ready for an > arrangement as a consequence of the same operational conclusions? Are they > both politically exhausted and socially tired that their only conclusion is > ending the war and reaching peace? > > Our intention is to stress that “the mirror image” distorts the perception > of reality, and muddles positions. From here the way is short to strategic > surprises and shameful failures and national disasters, which might bring > states to the verge of extinction. > > We all know that the outer objective world is not the internal subjective > world, still we do not translate it operatively in the political realm and > we totally ignore the cultural dimension. We so much want to believe our > adversary resembles us in our mutual aspirations and the means to achieve > them that we literally erase behavioral boundaries and resist any other > information to enter our minds. > > But what if your adversary is different from you culturally and his > conceptual definitions and political beliefs are different from you? What > if what is for you moderate is in Islam the opposite? What if Bin Laden and > Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are extremists according to your views, while they are > moderate according to Islam? What if those who follow the Islamic > commandments are moderate true believers according to Islam while their > behavior and acts put them on the extreme line of the spectrum according to > Western values and beliefs? What if to kill, to butcher, to slaughter, to > decapitate, to terrorize and to hate the infidels and all other inhumane > acts are totally unacceptable according to Western moral values, but are in > fact part of Islamic commandments to its believers to follow? > > Indeed, we do not understand consciously and we do not want to contend > conceptually with a problem so deeply unprecedented in history. This is not > a nightmare that would fade away, rather this is a horrible plague, a > contagious virus that spread all over the world aspiring to critically > change it. We all watch and read and listen to the words clearly declared > by Muslims: 'we will win over you, we will subdue you, just because you > love life, while we love death,' and we still continue to ignore. > > We all watch and read and listen to the voices clearly say that the is > occupying the entire world and bringing it under Islamic rule, because it > is the destiny of Islam to solely rule the world, and that the Shari'ah is > the only constitution under which humanity must accordingly live and still > continue to pretend everything is just find and the Muslims will > accommodate and assimilate. > > The political cultural approach is a sensitive filter for understanding > the deep gaps between the positions and conceptions of the parties. To > illuminating the flaws and the lack of cultural insight one may consider > the remarks of the Israeli journalist Doron Rosenblum, who related to the > throwing of stones from Lebanon from the border toward Israel by Prof. > Edward Said, the author of the notorious Orientalism: > > Perhaps the most famous intellectual today...to join the latest trend, in > which masses from all the Arab states stream to the Lebanon-Israel border > in order to spit, to curse, and to throw stones at Israel?... Why do the > Arab masses really stream precisely to the place from where we withdrew to > the last centimeter; precisely to the point where there is no occupation > and no territorial claims; precisely to the place where we raised our > hands; precisely there they stream to express their bottomless hatred > [which has] no end or purpose; precisely to there of all places?... And in > true astonishment one may ask, what are your intentions? Is it because of > the past or because of the future? Or is it just because of hatred and > inertia? > > Doron Rosenblum, ignorant and lacking in insight as to the meanings of the > cultural gaps, does not at all understand that precisely in the place where > Israel had definitively withdrawn, it was transmitting a message of great > weakness, and the reaction was total hostility and lack of inhibition by > the Arab masses, intellectuals, and politicians. He does not understand > that in Arab-Islamic political culture, weakness is not accepted as > magnanimity in victory, but precisely the opposite: the continuation of > warfare. He does not understand there is no quit pro quo in Arab-Islamic > political culture and if you retreat and give up there is no mutual > reaction from Arab-Islamic side. In the Middle East, everything is right > and acceptable but weakness and failure. And Rosenblum does not understand > that the stone expresses the cultural dimension in its ancient usage, > disavowing by stoning to death. > > The Free World leaders make their work easy: they fight against the > symptom and not against the real issue. They declare fighting terrorism, > Jihad, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, but not the ideological-religious > sources that motivate them. That is why they fail time and again and Islam > continues in its march of victory. Bernard Lewis has tried to explain this > in his research, What Went Wrong. > > How is the cultural phenomenon expressed? Why is it so elusive, despite > its being known and understood to scientific research? Norman Dixon in his > Our Own Worst Enemy examined the psychology of failing leaderships. He > directed attention to the phenomenon that the leadership invests its > resources in two activities: denying objective reality by a wishful > thinking approach, and rationalization of mistaken behavior when reality > proves the leaders were wrong and their actions are proven mistaken. > > Various scientific disciplines deal with national perceptions and images, > how beliefs and values influence activity and leaders’ reactions. The > concept of belief systems include terms such as "the image", "the > operational code", "cognitive map", that link between the actor's > psychological and operational environments. These are set of lenses through > which information is received. Yet, the literature concerning misperception > focuses on the psychological accounts of why individuals interpret the > world in the way they do, rather the belief systems focuses of how the > individuals see the world and act accordingly. > > Robert Jarvis explains how misperceptions and misconceptions determine our > behavior. People make decisions according to their interpretation of the > information they get without studying and analyzing it. People stick to > political based conceptions and ignore any contradictory information. > Importantly, people with higher education are less open to change their > political views, even less readiness to assimilate contradictory > information. > > Part of the explanation for this phenomenon is the “cognitive dissonance” > approach, advanced by Leon Festinger, in his The Theory of Cognitive > Dissonance. That is, there is unwillingness to accept what may contradict > one’s values, conceptions, positions, and beliefs. Instead of checking > one's own values and actions, a person’s mind is closed to any unacceptable > development, and he refuses to admit his mistakes or his failed > evaluations. From comes conceptual fixation and closed consciousness. > > This also leads to visual agnosia, even willful blindness. People observe > only what they want to observe. People believe in what suits their views > and values and people tend to follow the optimistic side of human behavior. > This is likened to a man’s reaction to threatening information that > contradicts his conceptions and values, or that fundamentally contradicts > his policy. The immediate reaction is refusal by way of disbelief that the > threat will be realized, a phenomenon that leads to being unprepared. The > problem is if we are all infected with this syndrome. Leaders are supposed > to think in terms of the nation as a whole, and their responsibility is > higher and more concrete. Leaders with a great deal of self-confidence will > display more indifference to risks, and will not deploy to face threats and > dangers. This might lead to war. > > Those whose self-confidence and experience are low might sharpen crises > and again be drawn into war as a result of failure to make proper > responses. In any event, inaction on the part of leaders, or superfluous > action, is a recipe for national disasters. Barbara Tuchman referred to > this, pointing out that throughout history governments have taken positions > opposed to the interests of their peoples. A leadership’s capacity to > perform is extremely poor, and precisely those leaderships had an > existential influence on the fate of peoples and states. Wars break out not > necessarily because of failure to perceive a developing reality, but as > failures of leadership, and their inability to analyze ongoing phenomena > because of their aspiration to force their will on reality. > > What characterizes political leadership is folly, closed minds, and > stubborn blindness, which are a source of self-deception that does not > learn from experience, as they continue to evaluate their own political > path as correct, and practice a mistaken policy.20 Moreover, leaders aspire > to invent the wheel anew, rather than basing themselves on orderly > thinking, systematic policy, and long-range plans, preferring > self-deception and conceptions determined in advance. Lastly, they totally > disregard contrary signs and signals, and are incapable of pausing to > examine the policy in effect in light of developing reality, out of the > estimate that there is no alternative to their policy. > > When we discuss the issue of culture, the political leadership has > decisive influence. The manner of its behavior and conduct is not > necessarily understood. Leaders, like society in general, do not act in > accord with “logical”, defined parameters. This stands out particularly on > the issue of contending with matters that are important to deal with as > against urgent matters. Leaders are busy, first of all, with “the politics > of oblivion”, which means not dealing with controversial, problematic > matters, which resemble booby traps from the standpoint of the potential > problems they enfold. > > Second, when these problems reach their desks nonetheless, they seek to > postpone dealing with them by a “policy of delay”. Third, when the problems > pop up again, and dealing with them cannot be put off any longer, leaders > adopt a “policy of committees”. They set up an investigating commission to > examine the situation in the hope that the situation will change before it > has concluded its work. > > Fourth, when the investigating commission finishes its work and presents > its recommendations, the leaders practice a “policy of file away and do > nothing”, or set up a commission to implement the recommendations, which > buries the matter. In any event, time is a variable of critical importance, > and a major trait of their activity. > > Why do we deal with these aspects? Because leaders continue not to learn, > and stubbornly persist in not drawing lessons, even when strategic failure > cannot be ignored and proves them wrong. This is the politics of > permeability and closed minds, hence also, their inability to mold another > policy, based on national interests and taking into account their own > responsibility. National disasters are the next stop. > > Tuchman quotes the historian of Philip II, king of Spain, who was “more > closed minded than all the kings”, so that no failure of his policy could > challenge his absolute faith that his policy was excellent. Indeed, unlike > accidents, it must be understood that national disasters do not develop > overnight, but as a consequence of a series of faults and mistakes in > political assumptions. This involves events that are cognitively dissonant, > that are ignored or the existence of which is denied; flaws of processing > information or correctly dealing with it; and incapacity to control events. > > The first duty of leaders is to examine whether it is possible to attain > goals, and whether they are realistic. The more that they are not realistic > the more leaders mislead their own people and present it with “surprises” > and failures. What is not realistic will not be realized, no matter how > splendid it is, and no matter how much it is defined as a historical > breakthrough. What is important is to stay with reality, with the possible, > and with what can be achieved, after deeply probing study and research, > deliberation, and obtaining reliable intelligence. Anything that is not > based on these foundations might end up as a national disaster. > > The most responsible attitude for leadership is to know when to stop, to > examine issues frankly, and to admit mistakes. Flimsy foundations of a > policy will not stand in place, even if they are mended with splendid > patches. What cannot be mended will collapse in disaster. On the other > hand, leaders very much love to make reforms, and to declare a new national > policy, or a revolutionary strategy that they have drawn up. The problem is > that it is not enough to show that a certain situation is bad. It is > necessary to be sure that the problem has been properly described, and that > the solution proposed will lead to improvement of the situation. > > For that reason, common sense, judgment, avoidance of comprehensive > solutions that have not been properly checked must all be avoided, and > always there must be a willingness to stop and examine the situation anew. > Successful leaders are those who act responsibly, but who also admit > failure. A major reason why leaders become irresponsible is because they > become confused between the unreasonable and the impossible to achieve. > What they perceive as unreasonable is not taken seriously in shaping policy. > > Indeed, the most dangerous mental defects are laziness of thought, which > means lack of readiness to contend with complex, unknown reality, and lack > of operational patience, which leads to infatuation with theories that > apparently explain everything, instead of practicing political judgment and > taking national responsibility. The most important expression of this in > the words of the ancient sages is, “Think first before you act.” There is > nothing more important nor lesson more instructive for political leadership > than this maxim. Indeed, intelligent, considered policy is expressed by > “Think first before you act.” (Literally: “the end of an act begins with a > thought”) Another insight is in the statement “Noah built the ark before > the deluge.” Before the deluge, always before the deluge. Disasters have to > be dealt with before they occur, not after they have taken place. > > > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYzMybWNzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjQ2OTk1ODA-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNHE1Z3U5BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NDY5OTU4MQ--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
