Changes

Are we [[Summary]]: Palestinians, and even Israeli Arabs are discriminated against in the allocation of water, in a war? Do we the ownership of land and countless [[other]] aspects of daily [[life]]. More important is the systematic micro-[[politics]] of [[psychological]] [[humiliation]]: Palestinians are treated, essentially, as [[evil]] [[children]] who have to be brought back to an enemy?Slavoj Zizekhonest life by stern [[discipline]] and [[punishment]].London Review What if the [[true]] aim of Books Volume 24 Number 10 May 23the [[present]] Israeli intrusion into Palestinian territory is not to prevent [[future]] terrorist attacks, 2002. but effectively to rule out any peaceful solution for the foreseeable future?

Are we in a war? Do we have an enemy?summary: Palestinians, Concentration camps and even Israeli Arabs humanitarian refugee camps are discriminated against in , paradoxically, the allocation two faces, 'inhuman' and '[[human]]', of waterone sociological [[matrix]]. Asked [[about]] the [[German]] concentration camps in occupied [[Poland]], '[[Concentration camp|Concentration Camp]]' Erhardt (in Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be) snaps back: 'We do the ownership of land concentrating, and countless other aspects the Poles do the camping.' A similar distinction applies to the Enron bankruptcy, which can be seen as an ironic comment on the [[notion]] of daily lifea risk [[society]]. More important is Thousands of employees who lost their jobs and savings were certainly exposed to a risk, but without having any [[real]] [[choice]]: what was risk to those in the systematic micro-politics [[know]] was blind fate to them. Those who did have a [[sense]] of psychological humiliation: Palestinians are treatedthe risks, the top managers, essentiallyalso had a [[chance]] to intervene in the [[situation]], as evil children who have but [[chose]] instead to be brought back minimise the risk to an honest life themselves by stern discipline cashing in their stocks and options before the bankruptcy — actual risks and punishmentchoices were thus nicely distributed. What if In the [[risk society]], in other [[words]], some (the true aim of Enron managers) have the present Israeli intrusion into Palestinian territory is not to prevent future terrorist attackschoices, but effectively to rule out any peaceful solution for while [[others]] (the employees) take the foreseeable future?risks.

When Donald Rumsfeld designated The [[logic]] of homo sacer is clearly discernible in the way the imprisoned Taliban fighters 'unlawful combatants' (as opposed to 'regular' prisoners of war), he did not simply mean that their criminal terrorist activity placed them outside Western [[media]] report from the lawoccupied West Bank: when an American citizen commits a crimethe Israeli [[Army]], even one as serious in what [[Israel]] itself describes as murder, he remains a 'lawful criminalwar'. The distinction between criminals operation, attacks the Palestinian police and non-criminals has no relation to sets about systematically destroying the Palestinian infrastructure, Palestinian [[resistance]] is cited as proof that between we are dealing with terrorists. This [[paradox]] is inscribed into the very notion of a 'lawfulwar on [[terror]]' citizens — a strange war in which the [[enemy]] is criminalised if he [[defends]] himself and the people referred returns fire with fire. Which brings me back to in France as the 'Sans Papiersunlawful combatant'. Perhaps the category of homo sacer, brought back into use by Giorgio Agamben in Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998), who is more useful hereneither enemy soldier nor common criminal. It designated, in ancient Roman law, someone who could be killed with impunity and whose death had, for the same reason, no sacrificial value. Today, as a term denoting exclusion, it can be seen to apply The al-Qaida terrorists are not only to terroristsenemy soldiers, but also to those who nor are on they simple criminals — the receiving end US rejected out of humanitarian aid (Rwandanshand any notion that the WTC attacks should be treated as apolitical criminal [[acts]]. In short, Bosnians, Afghans), as well as to the Sans Papiers what is emerging in France and the inhabitants guise of the favelas in Brazil or Terrorist on whom war is declared is the unlawful combatant, the African American ghettoes in [[political]] Enemy excluded from the USpolitical arena.

Concentration camps and humanitarian refugee camps are, paradoxicallyThis is [[another]] aspect of the new [[global]] [[order]]: we no longer have wars in the old sense of a [[conflict]] between sovereign states in which certain rules apply (to do with the [[treatment]] of prisoners, the two faces, [[prohibition]] of certain weapons etc). Two types of conflict remain: struggles between groups of homo sacer — 'inhumanethnic-[[religious]] conflicts' which violate the rules of [[universal]] [[human rights]], do not count as wars proper, and call for a 'humanhumanitarian pacifist', [[intervention]] on the part of the Western powers — and direct attacks on the US or other representatives of one sociological matrix. Asked about the German concentration camps new [[global order]], in occupied Polandwhich [[case]], again, we do not have wars proper, but merely 'Concentration Camp' Erhardt (in Lubitschunlawful combatants's To Be or Not to Be) snaps back: 'We do resisting the concentratingforces of universal order. In this second case, and one cannot even imagine a neutral humanitarian organisation like the Poles do Red Cross mediating between the camping.' A similar distinction applies to the Enron bankruptcywarring parties, which can be seen as organising an ironic comment on the notion of a risk society. Thousands [[exchange]] of employees who lost their jobs prisoners and savings were certainly exposed to a riskso on, but without having any real choice: what was risk to those because one side in the know was blind fate to them. Those who did have a sense conflict — the US-dominated global force — has already assumed the [[role]] of the risks, the top managersRed Cross, also had a chance to intervene in that it does not perceive itself as one of the situationwarring sides, but chose instead to minimise the risk to themselves by cashing in their stocks as a mediating [[agent]] of peace and options before the bankruptcy — actual risks [[Global Order|global order]], crushing rebellion and choices were thus nicely distributed. In the risk society, in other wordssimultaneously, some (providing humanitarian aid to the Enron managers) have the choices, while others (the employees) take the risks'local population'.

The logic This weird 'coincidence of homo sacer is clearly discernible in the way the Western media report from the occupied West Bank: opposites' reached its peak when the Israeli Army, in what Israel itself describes as a 'war' operationfew months ago, Harald Nesvik, attacks a [[right]]-wing member of the Palestinian police Norwegian Parliament, proposed George W. [[Bush]] and sets about systematically destroying Tony Blair as candidates for the Palestinian infrastructureNobel Peace Prize, Palestinian resistance is cited as proof that we are dealing with terrorists. This paradox is inscribed into citing their decisive role in the very notion of a '[[war on terror]]' — a strange war in which . Thus the enemy Orwellian motto 'War is criminalised if he defends himself Peace' finally becomes [[reality]], and returns fire with firemilitary [[action]] against the Taliban can be presented as a way to [[guarantee]] the safe delivery of humanitarian aid. Which brings me back to We no longer have an opposition between war and humanitarian aid: the 'unlawful combatant', who is neither enemy soldier nor common criminalsame intervention can function at both levels simultaneously. The al-Qaida terrorists are not enemy soldiers, nor are they simple criminals — toppling of the US rejected out Taliban [[regime]] is presented as part of hand any notion that the WTC attacks should be treated strategy to [[help]] the Afghan people oppressed by the Taliban; as apolitical criminal acts. In shortTony Blair said, what is emerging we may have to bomb the Taliban in order to secure food transportation and distribution. Perhaps the guise ultimate [[image]] of the Terrorist on whom war is declared 'local population' as homo sacer is that of the unlawful combatant, the political Enemy excluded from the political arenaAmerican war plane flying above Afghanistan: one can never be sure whether it will be dropping bombs or food parcels.

This is another aspect of the new global order: we no longer have wars in the old sense of a conflict between sovereign states in which certain rules apply (to do with the treatment of prisoners, the prohibition of certain weapons etc). Two types of conflict remain: struggles between groups of homo sacer — 'ethnic-religious conflicts' which violate the rules of universal human rights, do not count as wars proper, and call for a 'humanitarian pacifist' intervention on the part of the Western powers — and direct attacks on the US or other representatives of the new global order, in which case, again, we do not have wars proper, but merely 'unlawful combatants' resisting the forces of universal order. In this second case, one cannot even imagine a neutral humanitarian organisation like the Red Cross mediating between the warring parties, organising an exchange of prisoners and so on, because one side in the conflict — the US-dominated global force — has already assumed the role of the Red Cross, in that it does not perceive itself as one of the warring sides, but as a mediating agent of peace and global order, crushing rebellion and, simultaneously, providing humanitarian aid to the 'local population'. This weird 'coincidence of opposites' reached its peak when, a few months ago, Harald Nesvik, a right-wing member of the Norwegian Parliament, proposed George W. Bush and Tony Blair as candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing their decisive role in the 'war on terror'. Thus the Orwellian motto 'War is Peace' finally becomes reality, and military action against the Taliban can be presented as a way to guarantee the safe delivery of humanitarian aid. We no longer have an opposition between war and humanitarian aid: the same intervention can function at both levels simultaneously. The toppling of the Taliban regime is presented as part of the strategy to help the Afghan people oppressed by the Taliban; as Tony Blair said, we may have to bomb the Taliban in order to secure food transportation and distribution. Perhaps the ultimate image of the 'local population' as homo sacer is that of the American war plane flying above Afghanistan: one can never be sure whether it will be dropping bombs or food parcels. This [[concept ]] of homo sacer allows us to [[understand ]] the numerous calls to rethink the basic elements of contemporary notions of human dignity and [[freedom ]] that have been put out since 11 September. Exemplary here is Jonathan Alter's Newsweek article '[[Time ]] to [[Think ]] about [[Torture]]' (5 November 2001), with the ominous subheading: 'It's a new [[world]], and survival may well require old techniques that seemed out of the question.' After flirting with the Israeli [[idea ]] of legitimising [[physical ]] and psychological torture in cases of extreme urgency (when we know a terrorist prisoner possesses information which may save hundreds of lives), and 'neutral' statements like 'Some torture clearly works,' it concludes:

The [[obscenity ]] of such statements is blatant. First, why single out the WTC attack as justification? Have there not been more horrible crimes in other parts of the world in [[recent ]] years? Secondly, what is new about this idea? The CIA has been instructing its [[Latin ]] American and [[Third ]] World military allies in the [[practice ]] of torture for decades. Even the '[[liberal]]' argument cited by Alan Dershowitz is suspect: 'I'm not in favour of torture, but if you're going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.' When, taking this line a step further, Dershowitz suggests that torture in the 'ticking clock' situation is not directed at the prisoner's rights as an accused person (the information obtained will not be used in the trial against him, and the torture itself would not formally count as punishment), the underlying premise is even more disturbing, implying as it does that one should be allowed to torture people not as part of a deserved punishment, but simply because they know something. Why not go further still and legalise the torture of prisoners of war who may have information which could save the lives of hundreds of our soldiers? If the choice is between Dershowitz's liberal 'honesty' and old-fashioned '[[hypocrisy]]', we'd be better off sticking with 'hypocrisy'. I can well imagine that, in a [[particular ]] situation, confronted with the proverbial 'prisoner who [[knows]]', whose words can save thousands, I might decide in favour of torture; however, even (or, rather, precisely) in a case such as this, it is absolutely crucial that one does not elevate this desperate choice into a universal [[principle]]: given the unavoidable and brutal urgency of the [[moment]], one should simply do it. Only in this way, in the very prohibition against elevating what we have done into a universal principle, do we retain a sense of [[guilt]], an [[awareness ]] of the inadmissibility of what we have done. In short, every authentic liberal should see these debates, these calls to 'keep an open mind', as a sign that the terrorists are winning. And, in a way, essays like Alter's, which do not openly advocate torture, but just introduce it as a legitimate topic of debate, are even more dangerous than explicit endorsements. At this moment at least, explicitly endorsing it would be rejected as too shocking, but the mere introduction of torture as a legitimate topic allows us to court the idea while retaining a clear conscience. ('Of course I am against torture, but who is hurt if we just discuss it?') Admitting torture as a topic of debate changes the entire field, while outright advocacy remains merely idiosyncratic. The idea that, once we let the genie out of the bottle, torture can be kept within 'reasonable' bounds, is the worst liberal illusion, if only because the 'ticking clock' example is deceptive: in the vast majority of cases torture is not done in order to resolve a 'ticking clock' situation, but for quite different reasons (to punish an enemy or to break him down psychologically, to terrorise a population etc). Any consistent ethical stance has to reject such pragmatic-utilitarian reasoning. Here's a simple thought experiment: imagine an Arab newspaper arguing the case for torturing American prisoners; think of the explosion of comments about fundamentalist barbarism and disrespect for human rights that would cause.

WhenIn short, at every authentic liberal should see these debates, these calls to 'keep an open [[mind]]', as a [[sign]] that the beginning terrorists are winning. And, in a way, essays like Alter's, which do not openly advocate torture, but just introduce it as a legitimate topic of Aprildebate, the Americans got hold of Abu Zubaydahare even more dangerous than [[explicit]] endorsements. At this moment at least, presumed to explicitly endorsing it would be rejected as too shocking, but the second-in-command mere introduction of al-Qaida, torture as a legitimate topic allows us to court the question idea while retaining a clear [[conscience]]. ('Should he be torturedOf course I am against torture, but who is hurt if we just discuss it?' was openly discussed in ) Admitting torture as a topic of debate changes the mediaentire field, while outright advocacy remains merely idiosyncratic. In a statement broadcast by NBC on 5 April, Rumsfeld himself claimed The idea that American lives were his first priority, not once we let the human rights genie out of a high-ranking terroristthe bottle, and attacked journalists for displaying such concern for Zubaydahtorture can be kept within 'reasonable's well-beingbounds, is the worst liberal [[illusion]], thus openly clearing if only because the 'ticking clock' example is deceptive: in the way for vast majority of cases torture. Alan Dershowitz presented an even sorrier spectacle. His reservations concerned two particular points: 1. Zubaydah's is not done in order to resolve a clear case of the 'ticking bombclock' situation, i.e. it is not proven that he has the details of but for quite different reasons (to punish an imminent terrorist attack which could be prevented by gaining access enemy or to his knowledge through torture; 2. torturing break him would not yet be legally covered — for that down psychologically, to happen, one would first have terrorise a population etc). Any consistent [[ethical]] stance has to engage in reject such pragmatic-utilitarian reasoning. Here's a public debate and then amend simple [[thought]] experiment: imagine an Arab newspaper arguing the US Constitution, while publicly proclaiming case for torturing American prisoners; think of the respects in which the US explosion of comments about fundamentalist barbarism and disrespect for [[Human Rights|human rights]] that would no longer follow the Geneva Convention regulating the treatment of enemy prisoners[[cause]].

A notable precursor in this field of para-legal 'biopolitics'When, in which administrative measures are gradually replacing at the rule beginning of law, was Alfredo Stroessner's regime in Paraguay in the 1960s and 1970sApril, which took the logic Americans got hold of the state of exception to an absurd, still unsurpassed extreme. Under StroessnerAbu Zubaydah, Paraguay was — with regard presumed to its Constitutional order — a 'normal' parliamentary democracy with all freedoms guaranteed; however, since, as Stroessner claimed, we were all living be the second-in a state -command of emergency because of the worldwide struggle between freedom and Communism, the full implementation of the Constitution was forever postponed and a permanent state of emergency obtained. This state of emergency was suspended every four years for one day onlyal-Qaida, election day, to legitimise the rule of Stroessnerquestion 's Colorado Party with a 90 per cent majority worthy of his Communist opponents. The paradox is that the state of emergency was the normal state, while Should he be tortured?'normal' democratic freedom was the briefly enacted exception. This weird regime anticipated some clearly perceptible trends in our liberal-democratic societies openly discussed in the aftermath of 11 Septembermedia. Is today's rhetoric not that of In a global emergency in the fight against terrorism[[statement]] broadcast by NBC on 5 April, legitimising more and more suspensions of legal and other rights? The ominous aspect of John Ashcroft's recent claim that 'terrorists use America's freedom as a weapon against us' carries the obvious implication Rumsfeld himself claimed that we should limit our freedom in order to defend ourselves. Such statements from top American officialslives were his first priority, especially Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, together with not the explosive display human rights of 'American patriotism' after 11 Septembera high-ranking terrorist, create the climate and attacked journalists for displaying such concern for what amounts to a state of emergencyZubaydah's well-[[being]], with thus openly clearing the occasion it supplies way for torture. Alan Dershowitz presented an even sorrier [[spectacle]]. His reservations concerned two particular points: 1. Zubaydah's is not a potential suspension clear case of rule of law, and the state's assertion of its sovereignty without ticking bomb'excessive' legal constraintssituation, i.e. America it is, after all, as President Bush said immediately after 11 September, in a state not proven that he has the details of waran imminent terrorist attack which could be prevented by gaining access to his [[knowledge]] through torture; 2. The problem is torturing him would not yet be legally covered — for that America isto happen, precisely, not one would first have to engage in a state of war, at least not in [[public]] debate and then amend the conventional sense of the term (for the large majorityUS [[Constitution]], daily life goes on, and war remains the exclusive business of state agencies). With while publicly proclaiming the distinction between a state of war and a state of peace thus effectively blurred, we are entering a time respects in which a state of peace can at the same time be a state US would no longer follow the Geneva Convention regulating the treatment of emergencyenemy prisoners.

Such paradoxes also provide A notable precursor in this field of para-[[legal]] '[[biopolitics]]', in which administrative measures are gradually replacing the key to rule of law, was Alfredo Stroessner's regime in Paraguay in the way in 1960s and 1970s, which took the liberal-totalitarian emergency represented by logic of the [[state]] of exception to an absurd, still unsurpassed extreme. Under Stroessner, Paraguay was — with [[regard]] to its Constitutional order — a 'war on terrornormal' relates to the authentic revolutionary parliamentary [[democracy]] with all freedoms guaranteed; however, since, as Stroessner claimed, we were all [[living]] in a [[state of emergency]] because of the worldwide [[struggle]] between freedom and [[Communism]], first articulated by St Paul in his reference to the 'end [[full]] implementation of time'. When the Constitution was forever postponed and a permanent state institution proclaims a of emergency obtained. This state of emergencywas suspended every four years for one day only, it does so by definition as part election day, to legitimise the rule of Stroessner's Colorado Party with a desperate strategy to avoid 90 per cent majority worthy of his [[Communist]] opponents. The paradox is that the true state of emergency and return to was the normal state, while 'normal course of things'democratic freedom was the briefly enacted exception. It is, you will recall, a feature This weird regime anticipated some clearly perceptible trends in our liberal-democratic societies in the aftermath of all reactionary proclamations 11 September. Is today's [[rhetoric]] not that of a 'state global emergency in the fight against [[terrorism]], legitimising more and more suspensions of legal and other rights? The ominous aspect of emergencyJohn Ashcroft' s recent [[claim]] that they were directed against popular unrest ('confusionterrorists use America') and presented s freedom as a resolve weapon against us' carries the obvious implication that we should [[limit]] our freedom in order to restore normalcy[[defend]] ourselves. In ArgentinaSuch statements from top American officials, in Brazilespecially Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, in Greece, in Chile, in Turkeytogether with the explosive display of 'American patriotism' after 11 September, create the military who proclaimed climate for what amounts to a state of emergency did so in order to curb , with the occasion it supplies for a potential suspension of rule of law, and the state's assertion of its [[sovereignty]] without 'chaosexcessive' legal constraints. America is, after all, as President Bush said immediately after 11 September, in a state of overall politicisationwar. In shortThe problem is that America is, reactionary proclamations precisely, not in a state of war, at least not in the conventional sense of the term (for the large majority, daily life goes on, and war remains the exclusive business of state [[agencies]]). With the distinction between a state of war and a state of emergency peace thus effectively blurred, we are entering a time in actuality which a desperate defence against state of peace can at the real same time be a state of emergency.

There is a lesson Such paradoxes also provide the key to the way in which the liberal-totalitarian emergency represented by the 'war on terror' relates to the authentic revolutionary state of emergency, first articulated by St [[Paul]] in his reference to be learned here from Carl Schmittthe 'end of time'. The division friend/enemy is never just When a state institution proclaims a recognition state of factual difference. The enemy is emergency, it does so by definition always (up as part of a desperate strategy to a point) invisible: it cannot be directly recognised because it looks like one of us, which is why avoid the big problem true emergency and task [[return]] to the 'normal course of the political struggle things'. It is to provide/construct , you will [[recall]], a recognisable image feature of all reactionary proclamations of the enemy. (Jews are the enemy par excellence not because they conceal their true image or contours but because there is ultimately nothing behind their deceiving appearances. Jews lack the a 'inner formstate of emergency' that pertains to any proper national identity: they are were directed against popular unrest ('confusion') and presented as a non-nation among nationsresolve to restore normalcy. In [[Argentina]], their national substance resides precisely in a lack of substanceBrazil, in a formless[[Greece]], infinite plasticity.) In shortin Chile, 'enemy recognition' is always a performative procedure which brings to light/constructs the enemy's 'true face'. Schmitt refers to the Kantian category Einbildungskraftin [[Turkey]], the transcendental power military who proclaimed a state of imagination: emergency did so in order to recognise curb the enemy, one has to 'schematisechaos' the logical figure of the Enemyoverall politicisation. In short, providing it with reactionary proclamations of a state of emergency are in actuality a desperate [[defence]] against [[The Real|the concrete features which will make it into an appropriate target real]] state of hatred and struggleemergency.

After the collapse There is a lesson to be learned here from Carl [[Schmitt]]. The [[division]] friend/enemy is never just a [[recognition]] of factual [[difference]]. The enemy is by definition always (up to a point) invisible: it cannot be directly recognised because it looks like one of the Communist states us, which provided is why the figure big problem and task of the Cold War Enemy, the Western imagination entered political struggle is to provide/construct a decade of confusion and inefficiency, looking for suitable schematisations recognisable image of the Enemy, sliding from narco-cartel bosses to enemy. ([[Jews]] are the enemy par excellence not because they conceal their true image or contours but because there is ultimately [[nothing]] behind their deceiving appearances. Jews [[lack]] the succession of warlords of so-called 'rogue statesinner [[form]]' (Saddamthat pertains to any proper national [[identity]]: they are a non-[[nation]] among nations, Noriega, Aidid, Milosevic) without stabilising itself their national substance resides precisely in one central image; only with 11 September did this imagination regain its power by constructing the image a lack of bin Ladensubstance, the Islamic fundamentalistin a formless, and al-Qaidainfinite plasticity.) In short, his 'invisibleenemy recognition' network. What this means, furthermore, is that our pluralistic and tolerant liberal democracies remain deeply Schmittean: they continue always a [[performative]] procedure which brings to rely on political Einbildungskraft to provide them with light/constructs the appropriate figure enemy's 'true face'. Schmitt refers to render visible the invisible Enemy. Far from suspending the binary logic Friend/EnemyKantian category Einbildungskraft, the fact that [[transcendental]] power of [[imagination]]: in order to recognise the Enemy is defined as the fundamentalist opponent of pluralistic tolerance merely adds a reflexive twist enemy, one has to it. This 'renormalisationschematise' has involved the [[logical]] [[figure ]] of the Enemy undergoing a fundamental change: , providing it is no longer the Evil Empire, i.e. another territorial entity, but an illegal, secret, almost virtual worldwide network in which lawlessness (criminality) coincides with 'fundamentalist' ethico-religious fanaticism — and since this entity has no positive legal status, the new configuration entails the end of international law [[concrete]] features which, at least from the onset will make it into an appropriate target of modernity, regulated relations between states[[hatred]] and struggle.

When After the Enemy serves as collapse of the 'quilting point' (Communist states which provided the Lacanian point de capiton) figure of our ideological spacethe [[Cold War]] Enemy, it is in order to unify the multitude Western imagination entered a decade of our actual political opponents. Thus Stalinism in the 1930s constructed the agency of Imperialist Monopoly Capital to prove that Fascists confusion and Social Democrats ('Social Fascists') are 'twin brothers'inefficiency, the 'left and right hand [[looking]] for suitable schematisations of monopoly capital'. Thus Nazism constructed the 'plutocraticEnemy, sliding from narco-Bolshevik plot' as [[cartel]] bosses to the common agent threatening the welfare succession of the German nation. Capitonnage is the operation by means warlords of which we identify/construct a sole agency that so-called 'pulls the strings' behind a multitude of opponents. Exactly the same holds for today's 'war on terrorrogue states'([[Saddam]], [[Noriega]], Aidid, [[Milosevic]]) without stabilising itself in which one central image; only with 11 September did this imagination regain its power by constructing the figure of the terrorist Enemy is also a condensation image of two opposed figuresbin Laden, the reactionary 'Islamic fundamentalist' , and the Leftist resistant. The title of Bruce Barcott's article in the New York Times Magazine on 7 Aprilal-Qaida, his 'From Tree-Hugger to Terroristinvisible'network. What this means, says it allfurthermore, is that our pluralistic and tolerant liberal democracies remain deeply Schmittean: they continue to rely on political Einbildungskraft to provide them with the real danger isn't appropriate figure to render [[visible]] the invisible Enemy. Far from suspending the Rightist fundamentalists who were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing andbinary logic Friend/Enemy, in all probability, for the anthrax scare, but fact that the Greens, who have never killed anyone. The ominous feature underlying all these phenomena Enemy is defined as the metaphoric universalisation fundamentalist opponent of the signifier pluralistic [[tolerance]] merely adds a reflexive twist to it. This 'terrorrenormalisation'. The message has involved the figure of the latest American TV campaign against drugs Enemy undergoing a fundamental [[change]]: it is: no longer the Evil [[Empire]], i.e. another territorial entity, but an illegal, [[secret]], almost [[virtual]] worldwide network in which lawlessness (criminality) coincides with 'fundamentalist'When you buy drugsethico-religious fanaticism — and since this entity has no positive legal status, you provide money for the terrorists!' 'Terror' is thus elevated to become new configuration entails the end of [[international law]] which, at least from the hidden point onset of equivalence [[modernity]], regulated relations between all social evilsstates. How, then, are we to break out of this predicament?

An epochal event took place When the Enemy serves as the '[[quilting point]]' (the [[Lacanian]] [[point de capiton]]) of our [[ideological]] [[space]], it is in Israel order to unify the [[multitude]] of our actual political opponents. Thus [[Stalinism]] in January and February: hundreds the 1930s constructed the [[agency]] of reservists refused Imperialist Monopoly [[Capital]] to serve in prove that Fascists and [[Social]] [[Democrats]] ('Social Fascists') are 'twin brothers', the Occupied Territories'[[left]] and right hand of monopoly capital'. These refuseniks are not simply Thus [[Nazism]] constructed the 'pacifistsplutocratic-Bolshevik plot': in their public proclamations, they are at pains to emphasise as the common agent threatening the [[welfare]] of the German nation. Capitonnage is the operation by means of which we [[identify]]/construct a sole agency that they have done their duty in fighting for Israel in 'pulls the wars against strings' behind a multitude of opponents. Exactly the Arab statessame holds for today's 'war on terror', in which some the figure of the terrorist Enemy is also a [[condensation]] of them were highly decoratedtwo opposed [[figures]], the reactionary 'fundamentalist' and the [[Leftist]] resistant. What they claim is that they cannot accept The title of Bruce Barcott's article in the New York [[Times]] Magazine on 7 April, 'From Tree-Hugger to fight Terrorist', says it all: the real [[danger]] isn't from the Rightist fundamentalists who were [[responsible]] for the Oklahoma bombing and, in order to dominateall probability, expelfor the anthrax scare, starve and humiliate an entire people'. Their claims are documented by detailed descriptions of atrocities committed by but the Israel Defence ForcesGreens, from who have never killed anyone. The ominous feature underlying all these phenomena is the killing [[metaphoric]] universalisation of children to the destruction [[signifier]] 'terror'. The [[message]] of Palestinian property. Here the latest American TV campaign against drugs is how an IDF sergeant: 'When you buy drugs, Gil Nemesh, reports on you provide [[money]] for the terrorists!'nightmare reality in the territories' at Terror' is thus elevated to become the protesters' website (wwwhidden point of equivalence between all [[social evils]].seruv.org.il):How, then, are we to break out of this predicament?

My friends — forcing an elderly man An epochal [[event]] took [[place]] in Israel in January and February: hundreds of reservists refused to disgrace himselfserve in the Occupied Territories. These refuseniks are not simply 'pacifists': in their public proclamations, hurting childrenthey are at pains to emphasise that they have done their [[duty]] in fighting for Israel in the wars against the Arab states, in which some of them were highly decorated. What they claim is that they cannot accept to fight 'in order to dominate, abusing people for funexpel, starve and later bragging about ithumiliate an entire people'. Their claims are documented by detailed descriptions of atrocities committed by the Israel Defence Forces, laughing about this terrible brutalityfrom the killing of children to the [[destruction]] of Palestinian property. I am not sure I still want to call them my friends… They let themselves lose their humanityHere is how an IDF sergeant, not out of pure viciousnessGil Nemesh, but because dealing with it reports on the '[[nightmare]] reality in any other way is too difficultthe territories' at the protesters' website (www.seruv.org.il):

PalestiniansMy friends — forcing an elderly man to disgrace himself, and even Israeli Arabs (officially full citizens of Israel)hurting children, are discriminated against in the allocation of waterabusing people for fun, in the ownership of land and countless other aspects of daily life. More important is the systematic micro-politics of psychological humiliation: Palestinians are treated, essentially, as evil children who have to be brought back to an honest life by stern discipline and punishment. Arafat, holed up and isolated in three rooms in his Ramallah compound, was requested to stop the terror as if he had full power over all Palestinians. There is a pragmatic paradox in the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian Authority (attacking later bragging about it militarily, while at the same time requiring it to crack down on the terrorists in its own midst) by which the explicit message (the injunction to stop the terror) is subverted by the very mode of delivery of that messagelaughing about this terrible brutality. Would it I am not be more honest to say that what is untenable about the Palestinian situation is that the PA is being asked by the Israelis sure I still [[want]] to 'resist uscall them my friends… They let themselves lose their humanity, so that we can crush you'? In other words, what if the true aim not out of the present Israeli intrusion into Palestinian territory is not to prevent future terrorist attackspure viciousness, but effectively to rule out because dealing with it in any peaceful solution for the foreseeable " future?other way is too difficult.

For its partPalestinians, and even Israeli Arabs (officially full citizens of Israel), are discriminated against in the absurdity allocation of water, in the American view was perfectly rendered in a TV comment by Newt Gingrich on 1 April: 'Since Arafat effectively ownership of land and countless other aspects of daily life. More important is the head systematic micro-politics of a terrorist organisationpsychological humiliation: Palestinians are treated, essentially, we will as evil children who have to depose him be brought back to an honest life by stern discipline and replace him with a new democratic leader who will be ready punishment. Arafat, holed up and isolated in [[three]] rooms in his Ramallah compound, was requested to make a deal with stop the state of Israel.' This isn't an empty paradoxterror as if he had full power over all Palestinians. Hamid Karzai There is already a 'democratic' leader externally imposed on a people. Whenever Afghanistan's 'interim leader' appears pragmatic paradox in our media, he wears clothes that cannot but appear as an attractive modernised version the Israeli treatment of traditional Afghan attire the Palestinian [[Authority]] (a woollen cap and pullover beneath a more modern coat etc)attacking it militarily, his figure thus seeming while at the same time requiring it to exemplify his mission, crack down on the terrorists in its own midst) by which the explicit message (the [[injunction]] to combine modernisation with stop the terror) is subverted by the best very mode of delivery of Afghan traditions — no wonderthat message. Would it not be more honest to say that what is untenable about the Palestinian situation is that the PA is being asked by the Israelis to 'resist us, since this attire was dreamed up by a top Western designer. As suchso that we can crush you'? In other words, Karzai what if the true aim of the present Israeli intrusion into Palestinian territory is the best metaphor not to prevent future terrorist attacks, but effectively to rule out any peaceful solution for the status of Afghanistan today.foreseeable " future?

What if there simply is no 'truly democratic' (in For its part, the American sense absurdity of the term) Palestinian silent majority? What if American view was perfectly rendered in a TV comment by Newt Gingrich on 1 April: 'democratically elected new leader' Since Arafat effectively is even more anti-Israeli, which wouldn't be surprising since Israel has systematically applied the logic head of collective responsibility and punishmenta terrorist organisation, destroying the houses of the entire extended family of suspected terrorists? The point is not the cruel we will have to depose him and arbitrary treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories but that they are reduced replace him with a new democratic [[leader]] who will be ready to make a deal with the status state of homo sacer, objects of disciplinary measures and/or even humanitarian help, but not full citizensIsrael.' This isn't an empty paradox. And what the refuseniks have achieved Hamid Karzai is already a reconceptualisation of the Palestinian from homo sacer to 'neighbourdemocratic' leader externally imposed on a people. Whenever Afghanistan': they treat Palestinians not as s 'equal full citizensinterim leader'appears in our media, he wears clothes that cannot but appear as neighbours in an attractive modernised version of traditional Afghan attire (a woollen cap and pullover beneath a more modern coat etc), his figure thus seeming to exemplify his mission, to combine modernisation with the strict Judeo-Christian sensebest of Afghan traditions — no wonder, since this attire was dreamed up by a top Western designer. And there resides As such, Karzai is the difficult ethical test best [[metaphor]] for contemporary Israelis: 'Love thy neighbour' means 'Love the Palestinian,' or it means nothing at allstatus of Afghanistan today.

This refusalWhat if there simply is no 'truly democratic' (in the American sense of the term) Palestinian silent majority? What if a 'democratically elected new leader' is even more anti-Israeli, significantly downplayed by which wouldn't be surprising since Israel has systematically applied the major medialogic of collective [[responsibility]] and punishment, destroying the houses of the entire extended [[family]] of suspected terrorists? The point is an authentic ethical act. It is here, not the cruel and [[arbitrary]] treatment of the Palestinians in such acts, the Occupied Territories but thatthey are reduced to the status of homo sacer, as Paul would have put it, there effectively are no longer Jews [[objects]] of disciplinary measures and/or Palestinianseven humanitarian help, but not full members citizens. And what the refuseniks have achieved is a reconceptualisation of the polity and homines sacri. One should be unabashedly Platonic herePalestinian from homo sacer to 'neighbour': this they treat Palestinians not as 'No!equal full citizens' designates the miraculous moment in which eternal Justice momentarily appears , but as neighbours in the sphere of empirical realitystrict Judeo-[[Christian]] sense. An awareness of moments like this is And there resides the best antidote to difficult ethical [[test]] for contemporary Israelis: '[[Love]] thy neighbour' means 'Love the anti-semitic temptation often clearly detectable among critics of Israeli politicsPalestinian,' or it means nothing at all.

From: London Review This [[refusal]], significantly downplayed by the major media, is an authentic ethical act. It is here, in such acts, that, as Paul would have put it, there effectively are no longer Jews or Palestinians, full members of Books Volume 24 Number 10 May 23, 2002the polity and homines sacri.AvailableOne should be unabashedly Platonic here: http://wwwthis 'No!' designates the miraculous moment in which eternal Justice momentarily appears in the sphere of empirical reality.lrb.co.uk/v24/n10/zize01_An awareness of moments like this is the best antidote to the anti-semitic temptation often clearly detectable among critics of Israeli politics.html

[[Category:ZizekArticles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek]]