[lit-ideas] Might Makes Right and other considerations
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:43:05 -0800
We?ve been discussing what happened in the region of Palestine and Israel,
and if there was an inclination today to just accept the Israelis as having
secured a small portion of what they owned or at least inhabited more or
less for 3000 to 5000 years; all would be well. It has been the way of our
species that we conquer the land we need, if we can. But in these modern
times some people want to introduce a new standard and say it is not right
for the Jews to insist on living where there have been Jews living for 3000
to 5000 years because the Arabs want that land. Let?s look at that a bit
more.
The Arabs have a clear idea of what they mean by right in terms of the land.
If Mohammad and his followers conquered it in the past, they have a right to
it. Actually that isn?t so far from the way our species thought throughout
its history. I doubt that they used those words but they believed, in
effect, that you have a right to my land if you could conquer me. But I
have a right to your land if I can conquer you. And I have a right to keep
my land if I can keep you from conquering me.
We are impatient with the Islamists for many reasons. One of them is their
use of the Medieval Sharia which introduces a way of life we who descend
from Europeans haven?t practiced for more than a thousand years. Their
belief in their right to land is based on the ideas prevalent when the
Sharia was first developed. There right to land has a religious basis.
Mohammad who heard directly from Allah conquered land in the name of Allah.
Allah intended them to have this land and it is right that they should have
it. It would be denying both Allah and the teachings of Mohammad to allow
Israel to keep the portion they presently live in. Well, that?s okay. I?m
sure earlier peoples told themselves things like that. But in the final
analysis it depended upon whether they could hold the land they thought
their god was telling them to hold. In the case of the Arabs and Israel,
they could not.
Again, this is consistent with the way our species has always behaved. The
Arabs believe a certain way and try to live up to their beliefs. The Jews
believe a different way and try to live up to their belief. These matters
are settled in a time-honored fashion, by force.
Now I know there are some people who think this is wrong¸ but upon what
standard do they base their opinion? If we say, well sure that is the way
our ancestors behaved in more primitive times, but we don?t do that any
more, where do we draw the line in time? And where is the evidence that
there is such a line?
Well, the modern might say, all such decisions are to be made by the World
in some way. Actually, the World did look pretty closely at the region of
Palestine after World War One and gave Britain the right to oversee the
region and manage it as Britain saw fit. It saw fit to give the Jews the
right to live in the land. In terms of legality, the Jews were willing to
accept what the World, and the World?s representative, Britain, determined.
But the Arabs were not. The Arabs chose to function in a time honored, if
more primitive fashion, and attacked the Jews. They planned to exert the
Might makes Right principle and drive them out of the land.
Was it right of the Arabs to attack the Jews? What of the World?s oversight
of the region in the guise of Britain? Alas the World and especially
Britain was tired of the region and was quite content to let the Arabs and
Jews settle the matter in the time-honored fashion. And it was settled,
sort of, for a few years, but the Arabs could not be reconciled to the
existing state of affairs. They had to try one more time to drive the Jews
out, and then again, and again.
By letting the Arabs try again and again to conquer Israel, the World
conceded that might still makes right to a very large extent. If we have
standards that supersede the old Might makes Right standard, we haven?t
really put them into effect, and perhaps we can?t. Perhaps our species is
hardwired so that the MMR principle will always be with us. We can hire
policemen to protect us from MMR, but if those policemen go on strike than
the MMR principle will reassert itself.
Beyond that, do we really believe strongly enough that we have a standard
that supersedes MMR? We seem perfectly willing to allow the Arabs and other
Muslims to exert the MMR principle and either accept it or at least allow
ourselves to be intimidated by it (which is after all one of the functions
of might).
There is no evidence that our human nature has changed as a result of
idealistic overlays that argue that MMR is wrong. What does such an
argument amount to? The Dutch could say, ?well sure you conquered us, you
dirty Germans, but you were wrong, and we have the moral high ground for
saying so.?
?Very well,? the Germans answered, ?You can keep the moral high ground, and
we?ll keep your land.? Besides, the Germans had a different way of looking
at those things. The conquerors always do. They had their own morality and
they thought it superior to the whining of their victims, all of which were
but ramifications of MMR.
But forget about Israel, they do well enough in the Arab world of MMR, but
what about our current problem? The Iranians aren?t Arab but their Imams,
Pasdaran, and
Republican Guard are adherents of MMR. Their Hezbollah is as well. They
are building up an arsenal replete with nuclear weapons and intend to exert
their MMR muscles in the region. Should we not exert our own MMR muscles
and say, ?okay, if that?s the way you want it,? and have it out with them?
?Oh, no,? say those who fancy an idealistic standard rather than the one
we?ve inherited from hour human nature. ?There?s got to be a better way.?
Why does there have to be a better way, and what does ?better? mean? Are
you saying you don?t want to fight it out in the time honored way that
neither the League of Nations nor the UN has managed to change? Are you
saying that there has to be a way that the neither the UN nor any individual
nation has thought of and that we should hold history for you while you try
to think of something else? There isn?t a better way.
Actually there is another way. There is the way of surrender. Peoples and
nations do sometimes surrender. They don?t usually do that until they have
tried or at least considered the martial alternative.
The U.S. isn?t going to surrender. However, even though we reserve our
martial rights, we don?t guarantee that we will be either clever or prudent
in exercising them. Our history provides us with examples of waiting too
long before taking martial action. We may very well do it again and wait
until Iran does something unusually heinous before engaging them in the test
of might.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Might Makes Right and other considerations
