Changes

11/04/2003 - The Iraqi MacGuffin

We all [[know]] what the Hitchcockian "MacGuffin" means: the empty pretext which just serves to set in motion the story, but has no [[value]] in itself; in [[order]] to illustrate it, [[Hitchcock]] often quoted the following story: "Two gentlemen meet on a train, and the one is struck by Slavoj Zizekthe extraordinary package [[being]] carried by the [[other]]. He asks his companion, 'What is in that unusual package you are carrying there?' The other man replies, 'That is a MacGuffin.' 'What is a MacGuffin?' asks the first. The second says, 'A MacGuffin is a device used for killing leopards in the Scottish highlands.' [[Naturally]] the first man says, 'But there are no leopards in the Scottish highlands.' 'Well,' says the second, 'then that's not a MacGuffin, is it?'"

We all know what Do the "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 "MacGuffinradioactive diamonds" means: in [[Notorious]]!) Are they not also an elusive entity, never empirically specified - when, a couple of years ago, the empty pretext which just serves UN inspectors were searching for [[them]] in [[Iraq]], they were expected to set be hidden in motion the storymost disparate and improbable places, but has no value in itself; in order from the (rather [[logical]] [[place]] of) desert to illustrate itthe (slightly [[irrational]]) cellars of the presidential palaces (so that, Hitchcock often quoted when the following story: "Two gentlemen meet on a trainpalace is bombed, they may poison [[Saddam]] and his entire entourage?), allegedly [[present]] in large quantities, yet magically moved around all the one is struck [[time]] by the extraordinary package being carried by hands of [[workers]], and the other. He asks his companionmore all-present and all-powerful in their [[threat]], 'What is in that unusual package you the more they are carrying there?' The other man repliesdestroyed, 'That is a MacGuffin.' 'What is a MacGuffin?' asks as if the distraction of the first. The second says, 'A MacGuffin is a device used for killing leopards in greater part of them magically heightens the Scottish highlands.' Naturally destructive [[power]] of the first man says[[remainder]]? As such, 'But there they by definition cannot ever be found, and are no leopards in therefore all the Scottish highlandsmore dangerous.' .. Now that none were found, we reached the last line of the story of MacGuffin: "'Well,' says the secondsaid President [[Bush]] in September 2003, 'then that's not a MacGuffin, is it?'"

Do Now, in the "Iraqi weapons Fall of mass destruction" not fit perfectly the status 2003, when, after hundreds of investigators were [[looking]] after the MacGuffin? (IncidentallyWMD, none were found, one of and the most famous Hitchcockian MacGuffins IS a potential weapon of mass destruction - [[public]] is posing the bottles with elementary question: "radioactive diamonds" in Notorious!) Are they not also an elusive entityIf there are no WMD, never empirically specified - when, a couple of years ago, the UN inspectors were searching for them in why then did we attack Iraq, they were expected ? Did you lie to be hidden in us?" No wonder that the most disparate and improbable places, from [[search]] for the (rather logical place WMD is gradually being elevation into a modern version of) desert to the (slightly irrational) cellars of search for the presidential palaces (so that[[Grail]] - David Kay, when the palace is bombed, they may poison Saddam and his entire entourage?)CIA [[analyst]] who, allegedly present in large quantitiesSeptember 2003, yet magically moved around all wrote the time 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: "I [[think]] they'll be digging up the hands relics of workers, and [[Saddam Hussein]]'s [[empire]] for the more all-present and all-powerful in their threatnext hundred years." Tony Blair, the more they are destroyeda passionate [[Christian]], as if lately expresses his conviction that the distraction WMD will be found in almost directly [[religious]] [[terms]] of the greater part credo qua absurdum: in spite of them magically heightens the destructive power [[lack]] of the remainder? As such, evidence he is personally deeply convinced that they by definition cannot ever will be found, and are therefore all the more dangerous... Now that none were foundThe only appropriate answer to this conundrum is not the boring [[liberal]] plea for innocence till [[guilt]] is proven, but, rather, we reached the last line of point made succinctly by "Rachel from Scotlandí on the story of MacGuffin: "'Well,' said President Bush BBC website in September 2003: "We know he had weapons, 'then that's not we sold him some of them." This is the direction a MacGuffin, is it?'"serious investigation should have taken...

NowThe problem with the basic refrain ("Iraq is a big country, Saddam had lots of time to hide the WMD, in so give us more time and we will definitely find them!") is that its [[structure]] is the Fall same as that of 2003a 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, after hundreds and then you look for proofs of investigators were looking after the WMDcrime... Not to mention the fact that this, precisely, none was what before the war the UN weapons inspectors were found, asking for - more time - and were scathingly dismissed by the public US. Based on all these facts, one is posing tempted to entertain the hypothesis that the US not only were not sure if Saddam had the elementary question: "If there are no WMDWM or not, but that they positively knew he did NOT have them - which is why then did we attack they risked the ground offensive on Iraq? Did you lie . (If the US were to us?" No wonder take seriously their own claims that Iraq had the search for 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 WMD is gradually being elevation into Bush [[doctrine]] of preventive strikes means, a modern version doctrine now publicly declared as the [[official]] American "[[philosophy]]" of international [[politics]] (in the search for thirty-one page paper entitled "The National Security Strategy," issued by the Grail - David KayWhite House on September 20, 2002)? Its main points are: American military might should remain "beyond challenge" in the CIA analyst foreseeable [[future]]; since the main [[enemy]] today is an "irrational" fundamentalist who, in September 2003contrast 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., wrote but MIGHT pose such a threat in the foreseeable future); while the report admitting that no weapons were foundU.S. should seek ad hoc international coalitions for such attacks, qualified this concession by adding that it is too early should reserve the right to reach definitive conclusions 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 much work remains their people, it reserves for itself the ultimate right to be doneDEFINE its allies' "[[true]]" interests. The [[logic]] is thus clearly formulated: "I think they'll be digging up even the relics pretense of Saddam Hussein's empire for a neutral [[international law]] is abandoned, since, when the next hundred yearsU.S." Tony Blairperceives a potential threat, a passionate Christianthey formally ask their allies to support them, lately expresses his conviction that but the WMD allies' agreement is optional. The underlying [[message]] is always "we will be found in almost directly religious terms do it with or without you" (i.e., you are free to agree with us, but not free to disagree). The old [[paradox]] of credo qua absurdumthe forced [[choice]] is reproduced here: in spite the [[freedom]] to make a choice on condition that one makes the right choice. The "Bush doctrine" relies on the violent assertion of the lack [[paranoiac]] logic of [[total]] [[control]] over FUTURE [[threats]], justifying preemptive strikes against these supposed threats. The ineptness of evidence he such an approach for today's [[universe]], in which [[knowledge]] circulates freely, is personally deeply convinced that they will be found..patent. The only appropriate answer to this conundrum loop between the present and the future is not closed: the boring liberal plea for innocence till guilt prospect of a breathtaking terrorist act is provenevoked in order to justify incessant preemptive strikes now. This closed loop was perfectly formulated in a TV debate in February 2002, butwhen the actor and ex-Congressman Fred Thompson said, ratherin [[defense]] of President Bush's Iraq politics: "When anti-war protesters say 'But what did Iraq effectively DO to the US? It did not attack us!', one should answer it with the question 'And what did the point made succinctly by "Rachel from Scotlandí on terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers effectively DO to the BBC website in U.S. before [[September 2003: 11]]? They also did [[nothing]]!'"We know he The problem with this logic (in the same way that, if we had weaponsknown of the plans for 9/11, we would have been fully justified in attacking the terrorists before the act, we sold him some of them." This now have the right to attack Iraq) is that it presupposes that we can treat the direction future as something that, in a serious investigation should have taken..way, already took place.

The problem with the basic refrain ("Iraq is a big country, Saddam had lots of time to hide the WMD, so give us more time and we will definitely find them!") ultimate paradox is that its structure is the same as that very strategy of a judge who first punishes the accused and then, when forced preemptive strikes will contribute 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 proliferation of the crime... Not to mention the fact that this, precisely, was what before the war the UN nuclear weapons inspectors were asking for - more time - and were scathingly dismissed by the US. Based on all these facts, one is tempted to entertain the hypothesis that the When 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 attacked Iraq. (If the US were to take seriously their own claims that Iraq had the WM which can be immediately unleashed, they probably would and not launch a ground assault, fearing too many casualties on their side, but would stick to air bombing.) Here, thenNorth Korea, we have the first practical demonstration of what does the Bush doctrine of preventive strikes means, underlying logic was clear: once a doctrine now publicly declared as the official American "philosophyrogue" of international politics (in [[state]] crosses the thirty-one page paper entitled "The National Security Strategy," issued 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 critical [[limit]] and respect of his own peoplealready acquires substantial nuclear weapons, America has the right to preemptive strikes (i.e., to one cannot simply 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 because one risks 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" interestsnuclear backlash killing millions on our side. The logic is thus clearly formulated: even the pretense of a neutral international law is abandonedThis, sinceprecisely, when was the U.S. perceives a potential threat, they formally ask their allies to support them, but lesson North Korea drew from the allies' agreement is optional. The underlying message is always "we will do it with or without you" (i.e., you are free to agree with us, but not free to disagree). The old paradox of the forced choice is reproduced hereattack on Iraq: the freedom to make a choice on condition that one makes [[regime]] sees nuclear weapons as the right choice. The "Bush doctrine" relies on the violent assertion only [[guarantee]] of the paranoiac logic of total control over FUTURE threats, justifying preemptive strikes against these supposed threats. The ineptness of such an approach for today's universe, its survival; in which knowledge circulates freelytheir view, is patent. The loop between the present and the future is closed: the prospect mistake of a breathtaking terrorist act is evoked in order Iraq was to justify incessant preemptive strikes now. This closed loop was perfectly formulated in a TV debate accept 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 first place the US? It did not attack us!', one should answer it collaboration with the question 'And what did UN and the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers effectively DO to the U.S. before September 11? They also did nothing!'" The problem with this logic (in the same way that, if we had known [[presence]] 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) is that it presupposes that we can treat the future as something that, in a way, already took placeinternational inspectors.

The ultimate paradox is that In what, then, resides the greatest [[danger]] of the very strategy American occupation of preemptive strikes will contribute Iraq? Prior to the proliferation US attack on Iraq, everyone feared some kind of nuclear weaponscatastrophic outcome: an ecological catastrophe of gigantic proportions, high U.S. When US attacked Iraq casualties, [[another]] massive terrorist attack against the West... In this way, we all silently accepted the U.S. standpoint - and not North Koreanow, after the underlying logic war was clear: once soon over (in a "rogue" state crosses kind of [[repetition]] of the critical limit 1991 Gulf War) and already acquires substantial nuclear weaponsSaddam's regime quickly disintegrated, one cannot simply attack it because one risks there is a nuclear backlash killing millions on our side[[universal]] sigh of relief, even among many present critics of U.S. policy. ThisOne is therefore tempted to consider the hypothesis that, preciselyprior to the outbreak of the war, the U.S. was the lesson North Korea drew from the attack deliberately fomenting this [[fear]] of an impending catastrophe, counting on Iraq: the regime sees nuclear weapons as universal relief when the only guarantee of its survival; in their viewcatastrophe actually did NOT occur. This, however, is arguably the mistake of Iraq was greatest true danger. That is to accept in say, one should gather the first place courage to proclaim the collaboration with opposite: perhaps a bad military turn for the UN and U.S. would have been the presence best [[thing]] that could happen, a sobering piece of international inspectorsbad news which would compel all the participants to rethink their [[position]].

In whatthe days and weeks after the _triumphantí conclusion of the war, thenthe peace movement all but disappeared, resides and the West European states which opposed the greatest danger of war ducked out in [[shame]] and started to make conciliatory gestures towards the US - Gerhardt Schroeder even apologized publicly for his anti-American occupation statements. This uneasiness of Iraq? Prior to the US attack on Iraqopponents 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, everyone í that the Saddam regime collapsed without a large [[number]] of [[dead]] and without the feared some kind major catastrophes (the burning of oil wells, the use of catastrophic outcome: an ecological catastrophe the weapons of gigantic proportionsmass destruction), high Uis to succumb to the most dangerous [[illusion]] - it is here that they are paying the price for opposing the war for the wrong reasons.S. casualtiesThe line of argumentation which tried to demonstrate how the US occupation will hurt Iraqis was simply wrong: if anything, another massive terrorist attack against ordinary Iraqis will probably PROFIT from the defeat of the WestSaddam regime with [[regard]] to their standard of [[living]] and religious and other freedoms... In this wayThe true victims of the war are not the Iraqis, they are elsewhere! Are we aware that, at least till now, all silently accepted the Upredictions 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 - in short, Iraq proved to be a paper tiger which basically just collapsed under the US pressure.S. standpoint (Especially the desperate search for the weapons of mass destruction is now reaching comical proportions, with the US even offering financial rewards for any informations [[about]] them - and so, after waging a war, there is nowa competition with the prize for those who will provide a [[reason]] for the war... As a curiosity, after 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 soon over (in JUSTIFIED, that Iraq was NOT a kind of repetition of threat to the 1991 Gulf War) and US? Saddam's regime quickly disintegratedwas an abominable authoritarian state, there is a universal sigh [[guilty]] of reliefmany crimes, even among many present critics of Umostly towards their own people.S. policy. One is therefore tempted to consider However, one should note the hypothesis key fact that, prior to when the outbreak 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 war, US and the Umajority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression..S. was deliberately fomenting this fear If we accept as the true aim of an impending catastrophethe attack on Iraq the [[struggle]] against Muslim [[fundamentalism]], counting on then one is forced to conclude that the universal relief when attack was not only a failure, but even strengthened the catastrophe actually did NOT occurvery [[cause]] it tried to fight. This, howeverThe Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was ultimately a secular nationalist one, out-of-touch with Muslim fundamentalist [[populism]] - it is arguably obvious that Saddam only superficially flirted with the greatest true dangerpan-Arab Muslim sentiment. That is 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 saygrab their oil fields, one should gather then against Kuwait for the courage same reason, bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied to proclaim the opposite: perhaps U.S. What Saddam is not is a bad military turn for 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. would have been 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 best thing "[[cunning of reason]]," some invisible hand of destiny repeatedly arranges it so that could happen, a sobering piece the very short-term success of bad news the US [[intervention]] strengthens the very cause against which would compel all the participants to rethink their positionUS intervened...

In the days and weeks after the _triumphantí conclusion The ultimate proof of this secular [[nature]] is the war, the peace movement all but disappearedironic fact that, 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 Iraqi elections 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 October 2002 in which Saddam regime collapsed without Hussein got a large number of dead 100% [[endorsement]] and without the feared major catastrophes (thus overdid the burning best Stalinist results of oil wells99, the use of the weapons of mass destruction)95%, is to succumb to the most dangerous illusion - it is here that they are paying campaign song played again and again on all 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 state [[media]] 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 none other freedomsthan Whitney Houston's "I Will Always [[Love]] You. The true victims of " One can surmise that the war Americans are not the Iraqis, they are elsewhere! Are we well aware that, at least till now, all the predictions evoked as the justification for war proved false? There are no weapons era of mass destruction used or even only discovered; there were no fanatical Arab suicide bombers; there were almost no oil wells put Saddam and his non-fundamentalist regime is coming to fire; there were no fanatical Republican Guard divisions defending Baghdad to the an end in Iraq, and causing that the destruction of the city - in short, attack on Iraq proved to be is probably conceived as a paper tiger which basically just collapsed under the US pressure. (Especially the desperate search for the weapons of mass destruction is now reaching comical proportions, with the US even offering financial rewards for any informations about them much more radical [[preemptive strike]] - sonot against Saddam, after waging a war, there is now a competition with but against the prize for those who will provide a reason main contender 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 status of the fact that the opposition to war was JUSTIFIED, that Iraq was NOT a threat to the US? Saddam's [[political]] successor, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly towards their own people. HoweverYet in this way, one should note the key fact that, when the US representatives were enumerating Saddam's evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (in terms [[vicious cycle]] 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 aggressionAmerican intervention can only get more [[complex]]... If we accept as The danger, following the true aim logic of the attack on Iraq the struggle against Muslim fundamentalisma [[self]]-fulfilling prophecy, then one is forced to conclude that the attack was not only a failure, but even strengthened the this very cause it tried American intervention will contribute to fight. The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was ultimately the emergence of what America fears most: a secular nationalist onelarge, outunited anti-of-touch with American Muslim fundamentalist populism - it front. 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 [[case]] of the same reason, bringing against himself direct American occupation of a panlarge and key Arab country -Arab coalition allied to the U.S. What Saddam is how could this not is a fundamentalist obsessed with the "Great Satangenerate universal [[hatred]] in reaction? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombers," ready to blow and how that will force the world apart just US [[government]] to strike at himimpose a permanent high alert emergency state... However, what 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 And the "cunning of reason," some invisible hand of destiny repeatedly arranges it so that first [[signs]] are already here: from the very short-term success of daily Shiite demonstrations against the US intervention strengthens presence in Iraq to the very cause against which daily attacks on the US intervenedsoldiers...1

The ultimate proof of However, at this secular nature is the ironic fact thatpoint, in the Iraqi elections of October 2002 in which Saddam Hussein got one cannot resist a 100% endorsement and thus overdid slightly [[paranoid]] temptation: what if the best Stalinist results of 99people around Bush KNOW this,95%, the campaign song played again and again on all the state media was none other than Whitney Houston's what if this "I Will Always Love You.collateral damage" One can surmise that is the Americans are well aware that true aim of the entire operation? What if the era TRUE target of Saddam and his non-fundamentalist regime is coming to an end in Iraq, and that the attack "war on Iraq [[terror]]" is probably conceived as a much more radical preemptive strike - not against Saddam, but against only the main contender for [[global]] geopolitical rearrangement in the status of Saddam's political successor[[Middle East]] and beyond it, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regimebut also American [[society]] itself (i.e. Yet in this way, the vicious cycle disciplining of the American intervention can only get more complex. The danger, following the logic whatever remains of a self-fulfilling prophecy, is that this its emancipatory potentials)? We should therefore be very American intervention will contribute careful not to the emergence of what America fears mostfight false battles: a large, united anti-American Muslim front. It is the first case of the direct American occupation of a large and key Arab country - debates about how could this not generate universal hatred in reaction? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombersevil Saddam is, and even about how that much the war will force the US government to impose a permanent high alert emergency statecost, etc., are false debates.. What can indeed emerge The focus should be on what actually transpires in our societies, on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the result of the U"[[war on terror]].S. occupation " Instead of talking about hidden conspiratorial agendas, one should shift the focus onto what is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movementgoing on, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with a Muslim presence. And the first signs onto what kind of changes are already taking place here: from and now. The ultimate result of the daily Shiite demonstrations against the US presence war will be a [[change]] in Iraq to the daily attacks on the US soldiers..OUR political order.1

However, at At this point, one cannot resist should ask the na_ve question: the US as a slightly paranoid temptationglobal policeman - why not? The post-[[Cold War]] [[situation]] effectively called for some [[global power]] to fill in the [[void]]. The problem resides elsewhere: what if [[recall]] the common [[perception]] of the people around Bush KNOW thisUS 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, it continues to act as a [[Nation]]-State, what if this "collateral damage" ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as the guideline of the [[recent]] US politics is a weird [[reversal]] of the true aim well-known motto of the entire operation? What if ecologists: act globally, think locally. This [[contradiction]] is best exemplified by the two-sided pressure the US was exerting on Serbia in the Summer of 2003: the TRUE target US representatives simultaneously demanded of the "Serbian government to deliver the suspected war on terror" is not only criminals to the [[Hague]] court (in accordance with the logic of the global geopolitical rearrangement in Empire which [[demands]] a trans-state global judicial institution) AND to sign the bilateral treaty with the Middle East and beyond it, but also American society itself US obliging Serbia not to deliver to any international institution (i.e., to the disciplining SAME Hague court) US citizens suspected of whatever remains of its emancipatory potentialswar crimes or other crimes against humanity (in accordance with the Nation-State logic)? We should therefore be very careful not to fight false battles: - no wonder the debates about how evil Saddam Serb reaction isone of perplexed fury...2 And, even about how much the war will cost, etcsame goes for Croatia: the U., are false debatesS. The focus should be is now exerting tremendous pressure on what actually transpires the Croat government to deliver to the Hague court a couple of its generals accused of war crimes during the struggles in our societiesBosnia. The reaction is, on what kind of society is emerging HERE as course: how can they ask this of US when THEY do not recognize the result legitimacy of the Hague court? Or, are American citizens effectively "war on terror.more equal than [[others]]?" Instead If one simply universalizes the underlying principles of talking about hidden conspiratorial agendasthe Bush doctrine, does [[India]] not have a [[full]] right to attack [[Pakistan]]? It does indeed directly harbor and support anti-Indian terrorists in Kashmir, one should shift and it possesses (nuclear) weapons of mass destruction - not to mention the focus onto what is going right of China to attack Taiwan, and so on, onto what kind of changes are taking place here and nowwith unpredictable consequences.. The ultimate result of the war will be a change in OUR political order.

At this point, one should ask the na_ve question: the US as a global policeman - why not? The post-Cold War situation effectively called for some first permanent global power war crimes court started to fill work on July 1st, 2002 in the void. The problem resides elsewhere: recall Hague, with the common perception of the US as a new Roman Empire. The problem with today's US is not that it is a new global Empirepower to tackle genocide, but that it is NOTcrimes against humanity, i.eand war crimes.Anyone, thatfrom a head of state to an ordinary [[citizen]], while pretending will be liable to beICC prosecution for [[human rights]] violations, including systematic [[murder]], [[torture]], it continues to act as a Nation-Staterape, ruthlessly pursuing its interestsand [[sexual]] slavery. It is Or, as the guideline Kofi Annan put it: "There must be a [[recognition]] that we are all members of the recent US politics one human [[family]]. We have to create new institutions. This is a weird reversal of the well-known motto one of the ecologists: act globally, think locallythem. This contradiction is best exemplified by another step forward in humanity's slow march toward [[civilization]]." However, while human rights groups have hailed the two-sided pressure court's creation as the US was exerting on Serbia biggest milestone for international justice since top [[Nazis]] were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after [[World War II]], the Summer of 2003: the US representatives simultaneously demanded of the Serbian government to deliver the suspected war criminals to the Hague court (in accordance with faces stiff opposition from the logic of the global Empire which demands a trans-state global judicial institution) AND to sign the bilateral treaty with the US obliging Serbia not to deliver to any international institution (i[[United States]], [[Russia]], and China.e., to The United States says the SAME Hague court) US citizens suspected would infringe on national [[sovereignty]] and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of war crimes its officials or other crimes against humanity (in accordance with the Nation-State logic) - no wonder the Serb reaction is one of perplexed furysoldiers [[working]] [[outside]] U.S..2 Andborders; and, the same goes for Croatia: the U.S. Congress is now exerting tremendous pressure on the Croat government to deliver even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague where the Hague court will be based, in the [[event]] prosecutors grab a couple of its generals accused of war crimes during the struggles in BosniaU.S. national. The reaction noteworthy paradox here is, of course: how can they ask this of US when THEY do not recognize that the legitimacy of the Hague court? Or, are American citizens effectively "more equal than others?" If one simply universalizes U.S. thus rejected the underlying principles jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the Bush doctrine, does India not have a full right to attack Pakistan? It does indeed directly harbor and support anti-Indian terrorists in Kashmir, (and it possesses (nuclearvote) weapons of mass destruction - not to mention the right of China to attack Taiwan, and so on, with unpredictable consequences.U.S.itself!

The first permanent global war crimes court started same logic of exception applies also to work [[economic]] relations. BBC reported, on July 1stDecember 21st, 2002 in that "US blocks cheap drugs agreement": "The Hague, with the power United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to tackle genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimesbuy cheap drugs. Anyone, from a head This means millions of state to an ordinary citizen, poor people will be liable still not have access to ICC prosecution medicines for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rapediseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and sexual slaverytuberculosis. Or'One-hundred and forty-[[three]] countries stood on the same ground, as Kofi Annan put it: "There must be a recognition we were hoping to make that we are all members unanimous.' The [[principle]] of one human family. We have allowing developing countries access to create new institutions. This is one cheap versions of themdrugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year ago. This is another step forward " The same story repeated itself in Cancun in humanity's slow march toward civilization." HoweverSeptember 2003, while human rights groups have hailed where the court's creation as US insisted on the biggest milestone subsidies for international justice since top Nazis were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after World War IIcotton farmers, thus violating its own sacrosanct advice to the court faces stiff opposition from the United States, Russia, and China. The United States says the court would infringe on national sovereignty and could lead [[Third]] World countries to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working outside U.S. borders; suspend state subsidies and, the U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces open themselves to invade The Hague where the court will be based, in the event prosecutors grab a U.S. national[[market]]. The noteworthy paradox here is that the U.S. thus rejected the jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the full support (and vote) of the U.S. itself!

And does the same not hold even for torture? The same logic exemplary economic strategy of today's [[capitalism]] is [[outsourcing]] - giving over the "dirty" [[process]] of exception applies material production (but also publicity, [[design]], accountancy...) to economic relationsanother company via a subcontract. BBC reportedIn this way, on December 21stone can easily avoid ecological and health rules: the production is done in, 2002 say, Indonesia where the ecological and health regulations are much lower than in the West, and the Western global company which owns the logo can [[claim]] that it is not [[responsible]] for the violations of another company. Are we not getting something homologous with regard to torture? Is torture also not being "US blocks cheap drugs agreementoutsourced,": "The United States has blocked an international agreement [[left]] to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs. This means millions the Third World allies of poor people will still the US which can do it without worrying about [[legal]] problems or public protest? Was such outsourcing not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIVexplicitly advocated by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek immediately after 9/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. 11? After [[stating]] that "we can't legalize torture; it'One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same grounds contrary to American values, " he nonetheless concludes that "we were hoping 'll have to think about transferring some suspects to make our less squeamish allies, even if that unanimous's hypocritical.' The principle of allowing developing countries access Nobody said this was going to cheap versions of drugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year agobe pretty." The same story repeated itself in Cancun in September 2003This is how, where the US insisted on the subsidies for cotton farmerstoday, thus violating its own sacrosanct advice to the Third First World countries to suspend state subsidies [[democracy]] more and open themselves more functions: by way of "outsourcing" its dirty underside to the marketother countries...

And does This [[inconsistency]] has deep geopolitical roots. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply [[conservative]] monarchies, but economically American allies, fully integrated into the same not hold even Western capitalism. Here, US has a very precise and simple interest: in order to be able to count on these countries for torture? The exemplary economic strategy of today's capitalism their oil reserves, THEY NAVE TO REMAIN NON-DEMOCRATIC. That is to say, it is outsourcing a safe bet that democratic elections in Saudi Arabia or Iraq would bring to power a pro-[[Islam]] nationalist regime riding on anti- giving over American attitudes. We therefore know now what "bringing democracy" means: the US and its "dirtywilling partners" process of material production (but also publicityimpose themselves as the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for democracy - along these lines, designRumsfeld already stated in April 2003 that Iran should not become a "theocracy, accountancy...) to another company via " but a subcontract. In this way, tolerant secular country in which all [[religions]] and ethnic groups will [[enjoy]] the same rights (one can easily avoid ecological and health rulesis tempted to add here: "What about demanding the same from [[Israel]]?"). Along the production is done same lines, inOctober 2003, say, Indonesia where US representatives made in clear that any official recognition of the ecological and health regulations are much lower than privileged position of Islam in the Westnew Iraqi [[constitution]] will be unacceptable - the irony is here [[double]]: not only would it be nice if the US were to [[demand]] the same from Israel with regard to [[Judaism]], and but it was precisely Saddam's Iraq which officially ALREADY WAS a secular state, while the result of democratic elections would be the Western global company which owns privileging of Islam! In the logo can claim same spirit, an unnamed senior US [[figure]] stated that it is not responsible for "the violations first foreign policy gesture of another companya democratic Iraq would be to recognize Israel. Are we not getting something homologous with regard "3 The (perhaps unique) opportunity to torture? Is torture also not being bring the "outsourced,war on [[terror" left to ]] within the Third World allies scope of the US which can do it without worrying about an international legal problems or public protest? Was such outsourcing not explicitly advocated order was thus missed. Another reason evoked by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek immediately after 9/11? After stating the supporters of the attack on Iraq was that "we can't legalize torture; it's contrary will give a new impetus to the stalled Middle East peace process - did it? The first thing to do apropos the Middle East is to American valuesabandon 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,enough for everyone and all) and scarcity with its selective " he nonetheless concludes that economizing"we'll attitude (there is not enough for all, so some have to think about transferring some suspects get it and others not), since [[excess]] itself has to our less squeamish alliesbe grounded in a scarcity, even if that's hypocritical. Nobody said this was going trying to be prettyfill it in.In other [[words]], scarcity (the [[idea]] of something [[lacking]], of "not enough for all" This ) is hownot a simple fact, todaybut a [[structural]] [[necessity]]: before being a lack of something definite, 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 First World democracy more merry butcher's wife). Along the same lines, the possibility of the three most interesting deadly sins, [[envy]], thrift, and more functions[[melancholy]], is inscribed into the very formal structure of [[desire]]: by way a melancholic is unable to sustain desire in the presence of "outsourcing" its dirty underside [[object]]; a miser clings to the object, unable to consummate it; an envious [[subject]] desire the object of other countries'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 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 farmer to whom an angel appears and tells him: "I will fulfill you a [[wish]], doing to you whatever you [[want]] - only, beware, I will do twice as much to your neighbor!" The farmer replies with an evil smile: "Take one of my eyes!" Or the story about the poor farmers' couple who sabotages their [[chance]] of plenitude - when a fairy offers to fulfill them three wishes, the husband quickly blurts out: "A sausage on my plate!" The angry wife snaps back: "You [[fool]], may the sausage stick to your nose!" So the final wish can only be a modest: "May the sausage [[return]] from the nose to the plate!"

This inconsistency One has deep geopolitical roots. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply conservative monarchies, but economically American allies, fully integrated into the Western capitalism. Here, US has a very precise and simple interest: in order to be able honest here to count on these countries for their oil reserves, THEY NAVE TO REMAIN NON-DEMOCRATIC. That is to say, it is a safe bet that democratic elections in Saudi Arabia or Iraq would bring to power a pro-Islam nationalist regime riding on anti-American attitudes. We therefore know now what "bringing democracy" means: recognize the US and its "willing partners" impose themselves as selective [[symbolic]] nature of the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for democracy - along these lines, Rumsfeld already stated in April 2003 that Iran should not become a "theocracy," but a tolerant secular country in which all religions and ethnic groups will enjoy suffering elevated to the same rights (one exemplary status: what is tempted to add here: "What about demanding the same from Israel?"). Along the same lines, in October 2003, US representatives made in clear that any official recognition suffering of the privileged position of Islam Palestinians in the new Iraqi constitution will be unacceptable - the irony is here double: not only would it be nice if the US were West Bank compared to demand the same from Israel with regard to Judaism, but it suffering of individuals in some backwards Muslim states? What was precisely Saddam's Iraq which officially ALREADY WAS a secular state, while the result suffering of democratic elections would be the privileging of Islam! In the same spiritChileans under Pinochet compared to, say, an unnamed senior US figure stated that "the first foreign policy gesture of a democratic Iraq would be to recognize Israel."3 The suffering in North Korea? (perhaps unique) opportunity to bring On the "war on terror" within other hand, is the scope suffering of an international legal order was thus missed. Another reason evoked by Cubans really greater than the supporters suffering of the attack on Iraq was that it will give a new impetus to dispossessed crowds in the stalled Middle East peace process non- did it[[Communist]] [[Latin]] American countries? The first thing Not to do apropos mention the Middle East is to abandon any notion that the crisis concerns the geographic reality of the meager land resourcesunimaginable protracted [[nightmare]] going on in Congo or Liberia... One cannot simply oppose plenitude (the excessive gift out of pure love, enough for everyone and all) and scarcity with its selective "economizing" attitude In this simpl(there is not enough for all, so some have to get it and others notifi), since excess itself has to be grounded in a scarcity, trying to fill it in. In other words, scarcity e(the idea of something lacking, of "not enough for all"d) is not a simple fact, but a structural necessity: before being a lack of something definitesense, 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 effectively unfair to elevate the merry butcher's wife). Along the same lines, Palestinians into the possibility global [[symbol]] of the three most interesting deadly sins, envy, thriftsuffering - if their situation were so desperate, they would for sure en masse emigrated to Jordan and melancholy, other relatively prosperous Arab countries. It is inscribed into the very formal structure of desire: a melancholic as if there is unable to sustain desire in the presence critique of its object; a miser clings to the object, unable to consummate it; an envious subject desire the object politics 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 to let my animals eat it, or I just gaze at it with sad indifference State of a melancholic... These paradoxes account for the truth Israel an element of stories like the one about a farmer to whom an angel appears and tells him: - not so much "unfair"I will fulfill you a wish, doing to you whatever you want [[anti- onlySemitism]], bewarebut rather, I will do twice as much to your neighbor!" The farmer replies with an evil smile: "Take one on the contrary - [[secret]] recognition of my eyes!" Or the story about the poor farmers' couple who sabotages their chance special higher [[ethical]] standards of plenitude - when a fairy offers to fulfill them three wishes, the husband quickly blurts out[[Jews]]: "A sausage on my plate!" The angry wife snaps back: "You foolhow can, may of all the sausage stick to your nose!" So the final wish can only be a modest: "May the sausage return from the nose to the plate!"people, YOU behave like than?

One has to be honest here to recognize the selective symbolic nature The big mystery apropos of the suffering elevated to Israeli-Palestinian [[conflict]] is: why does it persist for so long when everybody [[knows]] the exemplary status: what is only viable solution - the suffering [[withdrawal]] of the Palestinians in Israelis from the West Bank compared to and Gaza, the suffering establishment of individuals in some backwards Muslim states? What was a Palestinian state, the [[renunciation]] by the suffering Palestinians of the Chileans under Pinochet compared right of their refugees toreturn within the borders of the pre-1967 Israel, say, the suffering in North Koreaas well as some kind of a compromise concerning Jerusalem? (On Whenever the other agreement seemed at hand, is 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 suffering frailty of Cubans really greater than the suffering negotiated compromise? There is effectively something of the dispossessed crowds a [[neurotic]] [[symptom]] in the nonMiddle East conflict -Communist Latin American countries? Not everyone sees the way to mention get rid of the unimaginable protracted nightmare going on in Congo or Liberia...) In this simpl(ifi)e(d) senseobstacle, and yet, nonetheless, no one wants to remove it is effectively unfair to elevate the Palestinians into the global symbol of suffering - 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 some kind of pathological [[libidinal]] profit gained by persisting in the critique of the politics of the State of Israel an element of - not so much "unfair" anti-Semitism, but rather, on the contrary - secret recognition of the special higher ethical standards of the Jews: how can, of all the people, YOU behave like than?deadlock.

The big mystery apropos One is tempted to [[speak]] here of a symptomal [[knot]]: is it not that, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is: why does it persist for so long when everybody knows , the only viable solution standard roles are somehow inverted, twisted around as in a knot? Israel - officially representing Western liberal [[modernity]] in the withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank and Gaza, area - legitimizes itself in the establishment terms of a Palestinian stateits ethnic-religious [[identity]], the renunciation by while the Palestinians of the right of - decried as pre-modern "fundamentalists" - legitimize their refugees to return within demands in the borders terms of secular [[citizenship]]. So, we have the pre-1967 Israel, as well as some kind paradox 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 State of finding a proper formulation for some minor statementsIsrael, everything suddenly falls apart, displaying the frailty island of the negotiated compromise? There is effectively something of a neurotic symptom alleged liberal democratic modernity in the Middle East conflict , countering the Arab demands with an even more "fundamentalist" ethnic- everyone sees the way religious claim 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 deadlocktheir sacred land.

One And, as the story of the Gordian knot tells us, the only way to resolve such a deadlock is tempted not to speak here of a symptomal unravel the knot: is , but to cut it not that. 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-Palestinian conflictpolitics of "no negotiations with the PLO, a terrorist organization, " and pronounced the standard roles are somehow invertedsimple 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, twisted around as in " the situation changed overnight. Therein resides the effect of a knot? Israel - officially representing Western liberal modernity in 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 area less important past - legitimizes itself in he became the terms 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 its ethnic-religious identityJanuary 28th, 2003 were, on the contrary, while the Palestinians - decried as pre-clearest indicator of the failure of modern "fundamentalists" - legitimize conservatives, of their demands inability to perform historical [[acts]] in the terms line of secular citizenship[[de Gaulle]] or even [[Richard Nixon]]. Only a de Gaulle could grant [[Algeria]] independence; only a conservative like Nixon could establish relations with China. SoAlong the same lines, we have 70% of Israelis know that the paradox proposal of the State of 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 island [[tradition]] of alleged liberal democratic modernity in Rabin) somebody like Sharon taking over the Middle Eastprogram of Mitzma - which, of course, countering the Arab demands with an even more "fundamentalist" ethnic-religious claim Sharon is unable to their sacred landdo.

And, as The underlying problem is not only that Arabs do not really accept the [[existence]] of the story State of Israel - Israelis themselves also do not really accept the Palestinian presence on the Gordian knot tells us, West Bank. We all know Bertolt [[Brecht]]'s pun apropos of the only way to resolve such a deadlock East Berlin workers' uprising in July 1953: _The Party is not to unravel the knot[[satisfied]] with its people, but to cut so itwill replace them with a new people more supportive of its politics. Jicak Rabin took the first big step Æ Is not something homologous discernible today in this direction when he recognized the PLO as [[relationship]] between the legitimate representative State of the Israel and Palestinians, and thus the only true partner in negotiations. When Rabin announced the reversal of the ? The Israeli politics of "no negotiations State is not satisfied with the PLO, a terrorist organization," and pronounced people on the simple words "let us end with this charade /of negotiating with the Palestinians with no public links to the PLO / West Bank and start talking with our real partnersin Gaza," the situation changed overnight. Therein resides the effect of a true political act: so it changes considers the coordinates option of the situation and renders the unthinkable thinkablereplacing them with another people. 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 28thThat, 2003 wereprecisely, on the contraryJews, the clearest indicator of the failure of modern conservativesexemplary victims, of their inability to perform historical acts in are now considering a radical _ethnic cleansingí (the line of de Gaulle or even Richard Nixon. Only _transferí - a de Gaulle could grant Algeria independence; only a conservative like Nixon could establish relations with China. Along the same lines, 70% perfect Orwellian misnomer - of Israelis know that the proposal of the Labour candidate Amram Mitzma - Israel's unconditional withdrawal Palestinians 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 doultimate paradox demanding closer consideration.

The underlying problem If there ever was a passionate attachment to the [[lost object]], a [[refusal]] to come to terms with its [[loss]], it is not only that Arabs do not really accept the existence of [[Jewish]] attachment to their land and Jerusalem, the _(See you) next year in Jerusalem!í. And, are the State of Israel - Israelis themselves also do present troubles not really accept the Palestinian presence on supreme proof of the West Bank. We all know Bertolt Brecht's pun apropos catastrophic consequences of such a radical fidelity, when it is taken literally? In the East Berlin workers' uprising last two-thousand years, when Jews were fundamentally a nation without land, living permanently in July 1953: _The Party is not satisfied exile, with its peopleno firm roots in the place where they were staying, their reference to Jerusalem was, at root, a purely [[negative]] one, so it will replace them with a new people more supportive [[prohibition]] against »painting an [[image]] of its politicshome,« against [[feeling]] at home anywhere on earth.Æ Is not something homologous discernible today in However, with the relationship between process of returning to [[Palestine]], starting one-hundred years ago, the State of Israel and Palestinians? The Israeli State is not satisfied metaphysical Other Place was directly [[identified]] with the people a determinate place on earth. When Jews lost their land and elevated it into the West Bank and in Gaza[[mythical]] lost object, so _Jerusalemí became much more than a piece of land: it considers became the option [[metaphor]] for the coming of replacing them with another people. Thatthe Messiah, preciselyfor a metaphysical home, for the Jews, end of the exemplary victimswandering which characterizes human existence. The [[mechanism]] is well-known: after an object is lost, are now considering it turns into a radical _ethnic cleansingí (the _transferí stand- in for much more, for all that we miss in our terrestrial lives. When a perfect Orwellian misnomer thousand- of the Palestinians from the West Bank) year-old [[dream]] is the ultimate paradox demanding closer considerationfinally close to realization, such a realization HAS to turn into a nightmare.

If there ever was a passionate attachment According to the lost objectJewish tradition, Lilith is the [[woman]] a refusal man makes love to come to terms with its losswhile he masturbates alone in his bed during the night4 - so, far from standing for the [[feminine]] identity liberated from the patriarchal hold, as some feminists claim, it her status is purely [[phallic]]: she is what [[Lacan]] calls La [[femme]], the Jewish attachment to their land and JerusalemWoman, the _[[fantasmatic]] [[supplement]] of the [[male]] masturbatory phallic [[jouissance]]. Significantly, while there is only one man (See youAdam) next year in Jerusalem!í. And, are the present troubles not [[femininity]] is from the supreme proof of very beginning [[split]] between Eve and Lilith, between the _ordinary" [[hysterical]] [[barred]] subject ($) and the catastrophic consequences fantasmatic [[spectre]] of such Woman: when a radical fidelity, when it man is taken literally? In the last two-thousand years, when Jews were fundamentally a nation without land, living permanently in exile, having sex with no firm roots in the place where they were staying, their reference to Jerusalem was, at root, a purely negative one_real" woman, he is using her as a prohibition against »painting an image of home,« against feeling at home anywhere on earthmasturbatory prop to support his fantasizing about the non-existent Woman... However, with 5 The catastrophe occurs when the process of returning to Palestine, starting two [[women]] collapse into one-hundred years ago, when the metaphysical Other Place was directly identified with a determinate place on earth. When Jews lost their land and "ordinary" partner is elevated it into to the mythical lost object, _Jerusalemí became much more than a piece dignity of land: it became Lilith - which is structurally perfectly homologous to the metaphor for Zionist elevation of the coming of "ordinary" Jerusalem into Jerusalem the Messiah, Jews were dreaming about for a metaphysical home, for the end thousands of the wandering which characterizes human existenceyears. 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.

According The ethical choice is thus ultimately a simple one: the only true fidelity to the Jewish tradition, Lilith [[memory]] of the [[holocaust]] is the woman a man makes love to while he masturbates alone in his bed during the night4 - so, far from standing opening for the feminine identity liberated from injustice committed against the Palestinians; any justification of the patriarchal hold, as some feminists claim, her status present Israeli politics with the reference to the holocaust is the worst possible ethical [[betrayal]]. It is purely phallictherefore easy to answer the big question: she is what Lacan calls La femme, would be the truly radical ethico-political act today in the WomanMiddle East? For both Israelis and Arabs, it would consist in the fantasmatic supplement gesture of renouncing the male masturbatory phallic jouissance. Significantly, while there is only one man (Adampolitical)control of Jerusalem, the femininity that is from the very beginning split between Eve and Lilith, between of endorsing the _ordinary" hysterical barred subject ($) and transformation of the fantasmatic spectre Old Town 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 nonJerusalem into an extra-existent Womanstate place of religious worship controlled (temporarily) by some neutral international force...5 The catastrophe occurs when the two women collapse into oneWhat both sides should accept is that, when the "ordinary" partner is elevated to by renouncing the dignity political control of Lilith Jerusalem, they are effectively renouncing nothing - which is structurally perfectly homologous to they are GAINING the Zionist elevation of the "ordinary" Jerusalem into Jerusalem a genuinely extra-political, sacred site. What they would lose is, precisely and only, what already, in itself, DESERVES to be lost: the Jews were dreaming about for thousands reduction of years..[[religion]] to a stake in political power plays.

The ethical choice is thus ultimately One should not [[renounce]] the _impossibleí dream of a simple one: binational secular state bringing together the Israeli Jews and the only true fidelity to Palestinians. In the memory of long term, the holocaust true utopia is in the opening for not that of this binational state, but that of the injustice committed against Wall clearly separating the Palestinians; any justification two communities. The pictures of the present Israeli politics with wall that separates the reference to pre-1967 Israel from the holocaust is West Bank occupied territories resemble uncannily the worst possible ethical betrayalwall that separates East from West [[Germany]] till 1989. It The illusion of this new Wall is therefore easy 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 answer the big question: what [[domain]] "out there." This would be the truly radical ethico-political act today have been another true EVENT in the Middle East? For both Israelis and Arabs, it would consist in the gesture explosion of renouncing true political [[universality]] in the (political) control Paulinian sense of Jerusalem, that is, _there are for us no Jews and no Palestiniansí - each of endorsing the transformation two sides would have to realize that this renunciation of the Old Town of Jerusalem into an extraethnically ØcleanÆ Nation-state place of religious worship controlled (temporarily) by some neutral international forceState is the liberation for themselves, not only a sacrifice to be made for the other. What both sides should accept The paradox is thus that, by renouncing in the political control entire Middle East, the Palestinians, these »Jews among-of Jerusalemthe Arabs, they Æ are effectively renouncing nothing - they are GAINING , because of their unique position, the only collective [[agent]] on whom the [[role]] of the elevation modernizer, of Jerusalem into moving to a genuinely extra-political[[form]] beyond [[ethnic identity]], sacred site. What they would lose is, precisely and imposed: the only, what already, in itself, DESERVES true long-term solution to be lost: the reduction Middle East crisis is the emergence of religion to a stake in Palestinians as political power playsmodernizers.

One should not renounce the _impossibleí dream The [[Achilles]] heel of a binational secular state bringing together the Israeli non-Zionist liberal Jews and the Palestinians. In the long termis best encapsulated by their standard argumentation: _OK, the true utopia is not that of this binational statecourse we should negotiate, but that of accept the Wall clearly separating Palestinian State, the two communities. The pictures end of occupation, even 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 prospect of this new Wall is that it will serve as the demarcation line separating "normal" rule of law and social life from the permanent a single binational secular state of emergency - that it will contain but in order for serious talks to start, the state of emergency [[senseless]] suicide bombings terror has to the domain "out there." This would have been another true EVENT in the Middle Eaststop, the explosion of true political universality one simply cannot engage in the Paulinian sense a dialogue under such circumstances...í [[Horror]] of _there are for us no Jews and no Palestiniansí - each _irrationalí excess of the two sides would have to realize that this renunciation of the ethnically ØcleanÆ Nationsuicide bombings, pure expenditure, non-State negotiable... However, what is effectively at stake here is the liberation for themselves, not only a sacrifice return to be made for normality: if the other. The paradox is »terrorists« stop their acts and thus that, in the entire Middle Eastease their pressure, the Palestinianswe can relax, these »Jews amongbreathe easily -of the Arabs,Æ are, because of their unique position, the only collective agent and go 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 with things as political modernizersnormal.Elisabeth Roudinesco recently wrote:

The Achilles heel of "For now, the nononly apocalypse that seems to threaten Western society - and Islam as well -Zionist liberal Jews is best encapsulated radical Islamic fundamentalism disposed to [[terrorism]]. Islamic threats are made by their standard argumentation: _OKextremist bearded and barbaric polygamists who constrain women's bodies and spit invectives against homosexuals, 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 whom they hold responsible for serious talks to start, weakening the senseless suicide bombings terror has to stop, one simply cannot engage in a dialogue under such circumstances...í Horror [[masculine]] values of _irrationalí excess of suicide bombings, pure expenditure, non-negotiable... However, what is effectively at stake here is the return to normality: if God the »terrorists« stop their acts and thus ease their pressure, we can relax, breathe easily - and go on with things as normal[[father]]. Elisabeth Roudinesco recently wrote:"6

What makes this [[statement]] problematic is not only its very "politically correct"For now[[distinction]] between Islamic fundamentalism and Islam as such who is also threatened by it - in the same way Bush, Blair, and even Sharon, the only apocalypse that seems never forget to threaten Western society - and praise Islam as well - 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 are made by extremist bearded and barbaric polygamists who constrain women's bodies and spit invectives against homosexuals") - as [[Badiou]] pointed out, whom they hold responsible for weakening the masculine values of God the father."6

What makes this statement problematic "when a predicate is not only its very "politically correct" distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and Islam attributed to a formal substance (as such who is also threatened by it - in the same way Bush, Blair, and even Sharon, never forget to praise Islam as case with any derivation of a substantive from a great religion formal adjective) it has no other consistency than that of love and tolerance which has nothing giving an ostensible [[content]] to do with the disgusting terrorist actsthat form... It is also not only In 'Islamic terrorism,' the use predicate 'Islamic' has no other function except that of supplying an [[apparent]] content to the term "radical Islamic fundamentalism disposed to [[word]] 'terrorism" ' which is itself devoid of all content (or "Islamic threatsin this [[instance]], political).") - as Badiou pointed out,7

"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)."7 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.8 - 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:

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):

"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?"10 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.11

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.12 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.

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.

2. 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 ...

5. 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?

6. Elisabeth Roudinesco, "[[Homosexuality ]] Today: A Challenge for [[Psychoanalysis]]?," Journal of European Psychoanalysis 15 (Fall-Winter 2002), p. 184.

7. [[Alain ]] Badiou, Infinite Thought, [[London]]: Continuum 2003, p. 153.

8. 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.

9. Ernst Nolte, [[Martin Heidegger ]] - Politik und Geschichte im Leben und Denken, Berlin 1992, p. 296.

11. 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.

12. 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).