Following the terrorist attacks on America, senior representatives from the United States government, the likes of Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have visited Arab countries in an attempt to lure them into the anti-terror coalition. In the meantime Israel, the only country in the region that unequivocally opposes terrorism, is excluded from the same coalition ? lest the Arab countries detect collaboration between the Great Satan and its little sibling. Worse than this exclusion is the fact that the countries of the free world are exerting pressure on Israel to restrain itself after each terrorist attack, thus challenging Israel?s right to self-defense.
There are striking similarities between America?s current behavior and the policy of appeasement practiced by Britain toward the Arabs before and during World War II. Just as America is afraid to lose the support of the Arab world today, the British were afraid that the Arabs would side with the Nazis in World War II. However, just as the Arabs, despite British appeasement, turned against the Allies and lent their support to fascism, the Arab countries today are turning against the United States.
To put a halt to Arab terrorism in Palestine and to appease those who threatened further uprisings, the British government in 1939 issued the ?White Paper.? This single document essentially pronounced a death sentence on millions of Jews who were prevented from entering Palestine, the country that was promised to them by the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Within Palestine, the British actively quelled Jewish resistance to Arab terrorism, taking away their right to self-defense.
Yet, even after the publication of the White Paper and the anti-Jewish policies, the Jews, without exception, backed the democracies in fighting fascism. Even then, though in desperate need of soldiers, the British turned down most of the Jewish volunteers so as not to upset the Arabs. In contrast, the Arab population, despite British concessions, still openly supported and collaborated with the Nazis, especially when the Axis powers seemed to be winning the war. In 1941, Jerusalem?s Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, whom the British had hoped to appease through the White Paper, issued a fatwa calling for a jihad against Britain.
America is making the same mistakes today that Britain made in the past and its policy of appeasement is proving ineffective and counterproductive. For example, Saudi Arabia, who has benefited tremendously from US support and was considered an ally, has turned its back and refuses the US permission to use its space and its (American-funded) military installments. The Arab League imposed conditions on its members that essentially prohibit any substantial collaboration with the United States in its war on terrorism. Still, though, America continues to kowtow to its Arab ?allies?: a few hours after Rumsfeld visited Oman, the Pentagon announced a billion-dollar deal that will supply the Gulf country F-16 fighter jets equipped with the most modern weapons.
Why is the United States so eager to secure the favors of the Arab countries? Why do the free countries refuse to learn from their past mistakes? The obvious causes are, first, the sheer number of Arabs in the Middle East and, second, the enormous quantity of oil in Arab lands. The fear is that alienating the Arab countries will lead to a backlash of anti-American sentiments in the Middle East, and from Moslems around the world, and to possible boycotts in the ?black gold? market. The former poses a security threat, the latter a financial one.
These fears, however, are based on a misunderstanding of reality ? specifically on the inability to distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical. The physical stands for the tangible elements of reality that can be quantified, such as oil barrels and number of people. The metaphysical refers to intangibles such as values and ideas.
Israel is ideologically closer to the United States than any other country in the Middle East, whose values are often antithetical to America?s. In preferring Arab oil and number of people to Israeli values, America is committing a grave error: it is falling into the ?primacy of the physical? trap.
The relationship between the physical and the metaphysical is important to understand. While both are necessary parts of our existence, their relationship is hierarchical: the metaphysical drives the physical and is therefore primary. For example, ideas are responsible for the creation of wealth. While oil is a physical commodity, the wealth that is created from it derives from the application of metaphysical ideas of engineers, architects and other inventors who designed and created oil drills, rigs and ships. The physical oil would be worthless without applying metaphysical forces to it.
The United States and the free world have enough physical resources to survive without those of the Middle East. The Arab countries, in contrast, do not have enough metaphysical resources to survive, and maintain their current standard of living, without the support of the free world. Without the West, the Arab countries would be virtually impotent and would soon be as impoverished as they were a thousand years ago. The Arab countries need the free world much more than the free world needs them: most of their revenues as well as technological support for their operations come from the West. The West, in contrast, might struggle for a while if the Arab countries withdraw their supply of oil, but it will bounce back and continue to prosper, because the success of the West is primarily a consequence of upholding certain values, such as capitalism, rather than of any single commodity. Losing the oil of Arab countries will lead to some economic hardship, but not for long. For centuries, the spirit of capitalism and free thought have allowed America to bounce back in the face of unforeseen circumstances and against great odds.
Right now, America is playing the coward trying to placate the Arab countries into agreeing with it. Yet if America truly believes in the values of its Constitution, then it must go on the offensive and refuse to deal with those who perpetually attack these values. Arab countries will soon realize that they need America and will, albeit reluctantly, accept US support for Israel and, more importantly, the very existence of Israel. The Arabs must become the appeasers, not the other way around. The physical and moral giant of the world must not kneel.
The second concern of the United States is the ratio between Arabs and Israelis and, worldwide, between Moslems and Jews. This concern, in turn, creates two problems for the United States. First, according to democratic values, the majority should be given preference. Second, alienating a billion Moslems is certainly more frightening than upsetting a few million Jews, who will support you anyway. Using this logic, however, is once again committing the primacy of the physical fallacy.
While we all possess similar physical attributes ? and therefore one hundred people have more ?physical worth? than ten do ? the ultimate worth of a life is determined by the values the person upholds and practices. A person?s value as a human being is not measured by his contribution to a headcount or by his weight, but by his metaphysical worth. If the majority of the Arab world opposes freedom and democracy, then the United States is justified in the ?undemocratic? act of supporting the small Jewish population in the Middle East that is committed to the moral ideals of the West.
In terms of the fear that the United States has for its own security, it needs to remember that the outcome of the modern war is determined by metaphysical values ? superior stratagem and weapons, both products of ideas ? and not by sheer number of people. Israel?s history is a case in point. In every war since its declaration of independence in 1948, Israel has fought a much larger military. Few thought Israel had much of a chance of surviving after the British left in 1948, and yet Israel prevailed against all odds ? physical, not metaphysical, odds.
The free world has to make a choice between Israel and the Arab states ? between a country that stands for freedom and countries that sponsor terrorism. Metaphysically ? in terms of their values and ideas ? the Arab countries today are against the free world, just as they were in 1939. They supported fascism then and they support terrorism now, either actively, or passively by refusing to fight against it.
Forgoing metaphysical values (that Israel holds) for physical values (that Arab countries possess) might be expedient, but only for the short-term. ?Acts of appeasement today,? warned Winston Churchill, ?will have to be remedied at far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.? Over time, strengthening those who oppose the values that made America a great country will lead to both moral and financial bankruptcy.
Metaphysical values, not physical ones, are the prime movers of human history. It is, therefore, in the long term self interest of the US to support and strengthen those who hold values congruent with its own. Selling out to those who oppose freedom for a pound of oil will lead to a holocaust ? not just for Israel, but for the entire civilized world.
-----------------------
Tal Ben-Shahar, a teacher and lecturer, writes extensively on education, philosophy, psychology and politics and published the book "Heaven Can Wait" in 1998.
There are striking similarities between America?s current behavior and the policy of appeasement practiced by Britain toward the Arabs before and during World War II. Just as America is afraid to lose the support of the Arab world today, the British were afraid that the Arabs would side with the Nazis in World War II. However, just as the Arabs, despite British appeasement, turned against the Allies and lent their support to fascism, the Arab countries today are turning against the United States.
To put a halt to Arab terrorism in Palestine and to appease those who threatened further uprisings, the British government in 1939 issued the ?White Paper.? This single document essentially pronounced a death sentence on millions of Jews who were prevented from entering Palestine, the country that was promised to them by the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Within Palestine, the British actively quelled Jewish resistance to Arab terrorism, taking away their right to self-defense.
Yet, even after the publication of the White Paper and the anti-Jewish policies, the Jews, without exception, backed the democracies in fighting fascism. Even then, though in desperate need of soldiers, the British turned down most of the Jewish volunteers so as not to upset the Arabs. In contrast, the Arab population, despite British concessions, still openly supported and collaborated with the Nazis, especially when the Axis powers seemed to be winning the war. In 1941, Jerusalem?s Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, whom the British had hoped to appease through the White Paper, issued a fatwa calling for a jihad against Britain.
America is making the same mistakes today that Britain made in the past and its policy of appeasement is proving ineffective and counterproductive. For example, Saudi Arabia, who has benefited tremendously from US support and was considered an ally, has turned its back and refuses the US permission to use its space and its (American-funded) military installments. The Arab League imposed conditions on its members that essentially prohibit any substantial collaboration with the United States in its war on terrorism. Still, though, America continues to kowtow to its Arab ?allies?: a few hours after Rumsfeld visited Oman, the Pentagon announced a billion-dollar deal that will supply the Gulf country F-16 fighter jets equipped with the most modern weapons.
Why is the United States so eager to secure the favors of the Arab countries? Why do the free countries refuse to learn from their past mistakes? The obvious causes are, first, the sheer number of Arabs in the Middle East and, second, the enormous quantity of oil in Arab lands. The fear is that alienating the Arab countries will lead to a backlash of anti-American sentiments in the Middle East, and from Moslems around the world, and to possible boycotts in the ?black gold? market. The former poses a security threat, the latter a financial one.
These fears, however, are based on a misunderstanding of reality ? specifically on the inability to distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical. The physical stands for the tangible elements of reality that can be quantified, such as oil barrels and number of people. The metaphysical refers to intangibles such as values and ideas.
Israel is ideologically closer to the United States than any other country in the Middle East, whose values are often antithetical to America?s. In preferring Arab oil and number of people to Israeli values, America is committing a grave error: it is falling into the ?primacy of the physical? trap.
The relationship between the physical and the metaphysical is important to understand. While both are necessary parts of our existence, their relationship is hierarchical: the metaphysical drives the physical and is therefore primary. For example, ideas are responsible for the creation of wealth. While oil is a physical commodity, the wealth that is created from it derives from the application of metaphysical ideas of engineers, architects and other inventors who designed and created oil drills, rigs and ships. The physical oil would be worthless without applying metaphysical forces to it.
The United States and the free world have enough physical resources to survive without those of the Middle East. The Arab countries, in contrast, do not have enough metaphysical resources to survive, and maintain their current standard of living, without the support of the free world. Without the West, the Arab countries would be virtually impotent and would soon be as impoverished as they were a thousand years ago. The Arab countries need the free world much more than the free world needs them: most of their revenues as well as technological support for their operations come from the West. The West, in contrast, might struggle for a while if the Arab countries withdraw their supply of oil, but it will bounce back and continue to prosper, because the success of the West is primarily a consequence of upholding certain values, such as capitalism, rather than of any single commodity. Losing the oil of Arab countries will lead to some economic hardship, but not for long. For centuries, the spirit of capitalism and free thought have allowed America to bounce back in the face of unforeseen circumstances and against great odds.
Right now, America is playing the coward trying to placate the Arab countries into agreeing with it. Yet if America truly believes in the values of its Constitution, then it must go on the offensive and refuse to deal with those who perpetually attack these values. Arab countries will soon realize that they need America and will, albeit reluctantly, accept US support for Israel and, more importantly, the very existence of Israel. The Arabs must become the appeasers, not the other way around. The physical and moral giant of the world must not kneel.
The second concern of the United States is the ratio between Arabs and Israelis and, worldwide, between Moslems and Jews. This concern, in turn, creates two problems for the United States. First, according to democratic values, the majority should be given preference. Second, alienating a billion Moslems is certainly more frightening than upsetting a few million Jews, who will support you anyway. Using this logic, however, is once again committing the primacy of the physical fallacy.
While we all possess similar physical attributes ? and therefore one hundred people have more ?physical worth? than ten do ? the ultimate worth of a life is determined by the values the person upholds and practices. A person?s value as a human being is not measured by his contribution to a headcount or by his weight, but by his metaphysical worth. If the majority of the Arab world opposes freedom and democracy, then the United States is justified in the ?undemocratic? act of supporting the small Jewish population in the Middle East that is committed to the moral ideals of the West.
In terms of the fear that the United States has for its own security, it needs to remember that the outcome of the modern war is determined by metaphysical values ? superior stratagem and weapons, both products of ideas ? and not by sheer number of people. Israel?s history is a case in point. In every war since its declaration of independence in 1948, Israel has fought a much larger military. Few thought Israel had much of a chance of surviving after the British left in 1948, and yet Israel prevailed against all odds ? physical, not metaphysical, odds.
The free world has to make a choice between Israel and the Arab states ? between a country that stands for freedom and countries that sponsor terrorism. Metaphysically ? in terms of their values and ideas ? the Arab countries today are against the free world, just as they were in 1939. They supported fascism then and they support terrorism now, either actively, or passively by refusing to fight against it.
Forgoing metaphysical values (that Israel holds) for physical values (that Arab countries possess) might be expedient, but only for the short-term. ?Acts of appeasement today,? warned Winston Churchill, ?will have to be remedied at far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.? Over time, strengthening those who oppose the values that made America a great country will lead to both moral and financial bankruptcy.
Metaphysical values, not physical ones, are the prime movers of human history. It is, therefore, in the long term self interest of the US to support and strengthen those who hold values congruent with its own. Selling out to those who oppose freedom for a pound of oil will lead to a holocaust ? not just for Israel, but for the entire civilized world.
-----------------------
Tal Ben-Shahar, a teacher and lecturer, writes extensively on education, philosophy, psychology and politics and published the book "Heaven Can Wait" in 1998.