Prof. Paul Eidelberg - Jan 08, 2007
The Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio

This essay takes its title and basic ideas from Lee Harris’ book, Civilization and Its Enemies (Free Press 2004). Harris has been dubbed the philosopher of 9/11. As I read it, Civilization and Its Enemies is one the most important books published since the end of World War II, and unless we heed its warnings, we may lose World War III.

Harris reminds us that civilized people forget how much work it took not to kill one’s neighbors, “simply because this work was all done by our ancestors so that it could be willed to us as a heirloom. ” Civilized people forget “that there has ever been a category of human experience called the enemy. … The enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the enemy always hates us for a reason, it is his reason and not ours. He does not hate us for our faults any more than for our virtues. He sees a different world from ours, and in the world he sees, we are the enemy. ”

The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was only superficially motivated by Islamic hatred of American wealth and power. America is hated because it is the enemy—the Great Satan. The same hatred animates Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah vis-à-vis Israel —the Small Satan. Israel , like the United States , is the enemy—the enemy of Islam’s world view.

Muslims are taught that the world is divided into the “Domain of Peace” and the “Domain of War. ” This is the 1,400 year-old mindset of Islam, drilled into Muslims from infancy on. Of course, some Muslims have broken out of this mental strait-jacket, notably Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq. According to Dr. Sultan, a psychiatrist living in Los Angeles , Islam can’t be reformed: it has to be “transformed. ” But to transform Islam is to transform its view of Muhammad, its Qu’ran, its theology—hence its concept of the enemy.

Mankind has always thought of the enemy as one you must kill or destroy first, otherwise, sooner or later, he will kill or destroy you. We do not think this way. “We are caught,” says Harris, “in the midst of a conflict between those for whom the category of the enemy is essential to their way of organizing all human experience and those who have banished even the idea of the enemy …”

Americans who uphold the values of the Enlightenment refuse to recognize that those who are trying to kill them are their implacable enemy. “They hope that by pretending that the enemy is simply misguided, or misunderstood … he will cease to be an enemy. This is an illusion. To see the enemy as someone who is merely an awkward negotiator … is perverse. It shows contempt for the depth and sincerity of his convictions, a terrible mistake when you are dealing with [a master of dissimulation] who wants you dead.”

Americans do not understand that if we are the enemy, then we have an enemy. And once we recognize this fact, says Harris, we must change everything about the way we see the world. Thus, if your enemy consists of men who will stop at nothing, who are willing to die and to kill, then you must be willing to do the same. “Only those who have mastered ruthlessness can defend their society from the ruthlessness of others. ” Ruthlessness will determine the outcome of World War III, just as it determined the outcome of World War II, when Dresden was napalmed and Hiroshima was incinerated.

Today, however, our intellectuals have been imbuing us with utopian ideals “designed for men and women who know no enemy and who do not take precautions against him. These ideals “are appropriate for a world in which everyone plays by the same rules, and accepts the same standards, of rational cooperation; they are fatally unrealistic in a world in which the enemy acknowledges no rule accept that of ruthlessness. ”

Harris dismisses as superficial the view of various liberal-leftists who, in response to 9/11, said, eliminate poverty or pull American troops out of Saudi Arabia or cease supporting Israel and terrorism will cease. He also dismisses the view of various conservatives who said 9/11 was an act of war comparable to Pearl Harbor , and that it’s irrelevant what grievances our enemy may believe it has against us.

Harris states that both err in regarding 9/11 as having had a political objective. Al-Qaeda made no political demands on the United States. “Indeed, it did not even claim to have made the attack in first place. ”

The tapes of Bin Laden reveal that the destruction of the World Trade Center was not part of the original terrorists’ scheme. Nevertheless, Muslims saw the collapse of the Twin Towers as a manifestation of divine intervention. The 19 hijackers did not bring down the towers; Allah did. No wonder the Arab street erupted in exultation. 9/11 erased centuries of Islam’s degradation vis-à-vis the West. 9/11 was a victory for Muslims everywhere. It restored their overweening pride, their sense of superiority over the enemy.

Harris contends that the 9/11 attack was intended to further a “fantasy ideology”: the revival of Islam’s ancient glory. He draws an analogy between this Muslim fantasy and Hitler’s fantasy of reviving German paganism in the thousand–year Reich. When Ahmadinejad calls for a world without America and Israel , he means nothing less than a world without Christianity and Judaism. Such a world would be an unmitigated tyranny, devoid individual freedom, a world in which the sanctity of human life will have perished. In Iran ’s war with Iraq in the 1980s, Iran used its own children to explode mine fields.

Harris sees Islamic terrorism, especially suicide, not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. The Qu’ran praises the Muslim who “slays and is slain” for Allah (Sura 9:111). To die by annihilating the enemy is the Muslim’s supreme glory. This sheds light on the bizarre behavior of the Palestinian Authority.

The PA was offered statehood by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999. But the transparent and ultimate goal of these Muslim/Arabs is not statehood but annihilation of the enemy,
Israel. Israel ’s ruling elites can’t face the fact that compromise—the modus operandi of democracy—is foreign to Islam’s world view.

The same error is evident in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that recommends negotiations with Iran and Syria to facilitate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The concept of negotiations distorts our understanding the culture and mentality of the enemy.

Now, let’s consider what Harris understands by the term civilization. First, he rejects cultural relativism. By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and across history. He sees civilization as having four prerequisites: a stable social order, the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and a hatred of violence.

Clearly, Islam lacks three of the four prerequisites of Harris’ view of a civilization. What is remarkable is that Wafa Sultan arrived at the same conclusion. She denied there was clash between the West and Islamic civilization because, in her words, Islam is not a civilization!

Bat Ye’or calls it a “culture of hate. ” Last month, in imitation of the Holocaust Denial conference in Teheran, a similar conference was organized in Cairo by Egyptians who share Iran 's aspiration to wipe Israel off the map.

Nevertheless, the Cairo conference made no impression on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who met with Egyptian president Mubarak at Sharm e-Sheikh and could heap nothing but praise on Mubarak for his "responsible" leadership of the so-called moderate Arab states. Mubarak is also deemed a “moderate” by president George W. Bush.

There is a fundamental asymmetry here. Arab/Islamic leaders know the enemy; the leaders of the United States do not. That’s why we may lose World War III. I hope to say more about Harris next week.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to your e-mail. You remind me of myself before I found the Lord. I even went so far as to ridicule people who believed in God; especially, those who were fundamentalists.

I Corinthians 2:14 says,

God had to get me in a position in which I was desperate to get my attention. I turned to the Bible and got very little out of it. It was a small New Testament that is given at baptisms and the print was tiny.

One day one of our colleagues asked me to coffee at Law and Motion and amazingly, asked me if I’d ever read the Bible. I related my experience to him and he asked if he could buy me a Bible.

Before starting to read the Bible he gave me I decided I would assume that everything I read was literally true. The most amazing thing happened. The Word of God started jumping right out of the book into my heart and mind. I had one epiphany right after another. I did not realize what was happening at the time but I do now. I was being instructed by the Holy Spirit. Ever since that time, I have had an insatiable hunger for the Word. Scripture means more to me every day. The more I read the Bible the more I desire to have Scripture buried in my heart and in my mind and that it become a part of me.

Even though I’m not ordained or even licensed I have been asked to say a few words at several funerals. I am always mindful of unbelievers in the crowd and every time but one I have quoted Romans 1:19-20 which says,

Put differently, we know He exists by observing the magnificent splendor and majesty of our existence and the world in which we live.

I was invited to that same lawyers home for dinner (the one who bought me the Bible) at which I blurted out, "Evolution is a lie." My remark had nothing to do with the dinner conversation and I had to explain that it had just occurred to me that evolution is the theory that through countless mutations an occasional change would occur that would enable an organism to compete more effectively in its environment thereby perpetuating that quality and that by tiny increments over an enormous period of time new species were, in this way, created. In fact, this theory posits the fantastic proposition that we ourselves were created in this fashion.

The reason I realized that evolution was a total fiction was that if it were true we would be awash in transitory species and there are none. Neither is there a fossil record of transitory species although evolutionists have strained to find such evidence.

Later on I realized another defect in this theory. Consider sight, for example. In order for sight to be one of those superior characteristics that gave a mutant advantage over his fellows the process had to be complete. An incomplete eye cannot see and would not, therefor, lend an advantage. The enormous complexity of this organ as well as all others could not have occurred as a result of the tiny changes required by the theory of evolution.

Another reason for my faith is that I do not believe that the wisdom contained in the Bible would be there without divine inspiration. Jesus Christ is called The Truth. This is one of his many names. The Bible embodies the truth. I truly believe it is the Word of God.

I recently had occasion to consider the first four verses of the book of Luke and discovered that there are great riches in the introductory verses to the books of the bible. One frequently tends to read them quickly to get on with the story, as it were, or to get to the "meat" of the book, which I believe, is a mistake.

I tend to think of Luke as an embedded reporter when he was a great deal more (he is thought to have been Greek and definitely was not an apostle.) In the first four verses of the book of Luke, for example, he really says some amazing things.

The first verse says that many have attempted to set forth in order (chronologically) a declaration (statement under oath) of those things which are surely (with great certainty) believed among us (Luke, Theophilus, and others). Luke, by the use of the pronoun "us," includes himself among those who surely believe the account he is about to render. This last bit of information transforms him from a mere observer and reporter to a disciple of Christ. It is easy to overlook this as I have done many times.

In verse two he describes the previous accounts as being the same as those delivered to him (delivered them unto us) so that we know that his account is not going to be any different and, therefore, will not vary from the truth as reported to him by others. He also describes these people as eyewitnesses (no hearsay here) and ministers of the word (holy men.) In this verse he describes his source and its reliability not only because his sources are eyewitness accounts from people who can be trusted but because the accounts given to him are prior consistent statements, a recognized method of proof in a court of law.

In verse three he says it seemed like a good idea to him to write an account also because he has had a perfect understanding of all things "from the very first." At this point, I would like to interject that the notes to the Scofield bible say that the word translated as "from the very first" is from the Greek word "anothen" which is elsewhere in the bible translated as "from above" and is nowhere else translated as "from the very first." If this is true and it appears to be, Luke is now giving us an additional reason he feels obligated to write his own account and send it to Theophilus. Not only has he validated the accuracy of his source and its reliability but says that God has given him a perfect understanding of what happened leaving absolutely no doubt as to its veracity. This is extraordinarily powerful.

Verse four emphasizes the truth of what he is going to say when he tells Theophilus (to whom he is writing his report) that he is writing his account so that he might know with certainty that the account he has already heard is accurate. The final bit of information he gives us is that Theophilus, whoever he was already knew the story.

Since I would not expect you to have a Bible handy, I have set forth below these four verses as translated in the King James version of the Bible:

Having read these four verses, the reader should be in a proper frame of mind to read the account of the life of Christ that Luke is about to render (the book of Luke.) It should also be a faith builder.

When one takes the time, it is very impressive to see how much importance there is to what might appear at first glance to be mere introductory material. The early verses of other books of the bible are equally worthwhile or, at least, I have found them to be.

The weight and quantity of the truth that is packed into just a few verses of scripture is one of the reasons that I believe the bible is the inspired Word of God. The entire bible is this way. This is merely an example.

When I received your e-mail, my heart quickened, because the question of the existence of God is on your mind. You are an intelligent man and, I’m sure, will quickly discard the theory of evolution as being scientifically unsound and one requiring a much greater leap of faith than intelligent design and will recognize the great wisdom of the Bible and the complexity as well as the majesty of our existence.

I do acknowledge that no one can explain the origin of matter or energy. I suppose if we could we would be gods. I also acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling the bad things that happen in the world to good people if God is a loving God. That will have to be a subject for another day but, for the moment, suffice it to say that God could have created us as robots that would do exactly as he instructed us. He did not want robots. He wants us to choose him or, rather, to respond to his choice of us, of our own free will. We are at liberty to reject him. We are also at liberty to mistreat our fellows which is clearly not His will.

The good news is that Christ has told us that the next world will be perfect. See Revelation 21:4 which says, "...God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away."

Have a nice day and may the Lord Bless You and Keep You!

A LETTER TO A SOCIALIST FRIEND

I am stunned but welcome the opportunity for a dialogue. Your opinions (rambling thoughts) are precisely what Horowitz says the left is all about. Reduced to its simplest expression it is "blame America first for everything domestic or foreign." His basic premise is that the far left hates capitalism and since America is capitalistic, it hates America. Once having taken this position it is very easy for the left to ally itself with our enemies which it has done. I truly believe the left wants us to lose in Iraq as we did in Vietnam.

The entire world does not want to come here because it's an awful place. They wish to come here for freedom and opportunity and so they can realize the American dream through capitalism.

I disagree with you about the war in Iraq. I think it was and is a smashing success. Of course, that depends on how you define success and what you think we were trying to accomplish.

It started with 9/11. We didn't fly airplanes into their buildings. They flew them into ours. We went after the terrorists in Afghanistan where they were concentrated under the protection of the Taliban. We did a fair job but the struggle continues as we speak. The military victory was followed by a police action which is ongoing. This was a success. There is a democratic government in a place that is friendly toward us and we seriously disrupted the terrorists to say the least.

We then went to Iraq where we went through their military like a dose of salts but were left with a population sprinkled with what are now referred to as insurgents by the left. Iraq drew terrorists from all over the world like a magnet who joined in the fight. Even so, order has been preserved and we have been free of terrorist attacks at home. I firmly believe that it is far preferable to have them fighting over there instead of here. I think it would be the height of folly to come back and pull the covers over our heads and wait for them to come after us. If you believe what they say, which I do, that is their intention.

I believe it was the right thing to do then and it is the right thing to do now. I firmly believe that Kerrie, Gore, Clinton, and many other leading Democrats who said they thought so and then changed their minds did so because they saw a way for it to work to their political advantage.

I'm just a couple of years older than you are but I remember the losses we suffered in the Second World War and I am aware of enormous losses sustained in the Civil War and World War I. Of course, we had heavy losses in other wars as well. By comparison, our losses in Iraq are like a walk in the park.

By the way, the left has done a fair job of selling the idea that Bush just decided he wanted a war and invaded Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. All you have to do is read what leading Democrats were saying at the time to know that it is and was not "Bush’s war."

What we have done in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq is fought a political war. Identifying terrorists one by one and taking them out in an effort to avoid collateral damage is no different than trying to catch criminals anywhere else. We have crime in the United States and murder in the United States. I suspect the murder rate in Washington, DC is higher than it is in Iraq. The police are not able to eliminate murder in the US any more than we are able to eliminate terrorists in Iraq.

If we really want to pacify the country we need to, "romanize" it. We would then be, I suppose, as bad as Saddam Hussein was.

We are a kind and gentle nation and people. The beliefs of Christians and Muslims are starkly different when it comes to gentleness and kindness as opposed to violence and cruelty. They openly avow that they will kill us.

As far as America being imperialistic is concerned the facts do not support that conclusion. Following World War II we rebuilt all of Europe, in particularly Germany, and rebuilt Japan. We also helped rebuild the rest of the war-torn world. Not only that, but we let the Communist Chinese takeover the mainland of China without even much of a protest. In Afghanistan and Iraq we are not occupiers by any stretch of the imagination. What we are doing is helping the Afghans and Iraqis establish a democratic government and takeover the task of maintaining order so that we can leave. That does not mean that we can leave anytime in the near future. As I understand it we still have troops in Japan and Germany and in various other places in the world.

Of course we want oil. America runs on oil. So do many other countries and there is a steady demand for oil from China and India as well as Japan. It's a world market and we are world traders.

It's very easy to work up animosity toward those who have succeeded. That is true whether it is financially or otherwise. I offer as an example the law firms that have come under attack (in fact trial lawyers in general) because of the large fees earned in various types of litigation, particularly, class actions. A large part of the outright hatred of people for lawyers can be directly attributed to that.

Mexicans will do almost anything to get to this country just to get a job and one, I might add, that does not pay very well. There is a reason for this. The economy of this country is burgeoning. Some of us make more than others. I'm sorry to say that I'm toward the bottom of the pile.

Capitalism is the answer to prosperity and freedom. I commend you to Milton Friedman, our Nobel Prize winner in economics who recently died. It may also be worth considering that the earliest settlements in this country tried socialism and they starved. I you have the time and inclination I will send you a copy of the contemporaneous first-hand accounts of the settlement at Jamestown and the Plymouth plantation. They tried socialism and a great many of them starved to death. They abandoned it in favor of private ownership and what we now describe as capitalism and flourished. The account of the Jamestown settlement can be found at page 15 in volume 1 of the Bicentennial Edition of the Annals of America. The account of the Plymouth plantation and what happened there by its governor, William Bradford, can be found at page 65 of the same volume. All of it is an interesting but the portion that describes the failure of the, "common condition" which was the practice of feeding everyone out of a common storehouse and what happened is found at page 72 and 73. He also describes what happened when they abandoned that system. That short passage completely discredits socialism. These were our earliest experiences. I think we learned from them but we have now forgotten their lessons.

I would also recommend The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith who realized and explained how wealth is created by individuals acting independently in their own interests. The profit motive is literally what makes the world go around. Some of us are better at it than others. That does not mean that it is the only worthwhile pursuit of mankind. It is not. However, it is the economic model that works. China has figured this out even though it is communistic and has created a roaring economic powerhouse that is likely to roll over us. I expect China to do exactly what Japan did only on a scale many many times larger.

Finally, my friend, and you are my friend, and I welcome the opportunity to engage in this dialogue, if you look at a map of the Middle East you will see that we have stuck a dagger in the heart of Islam in Iraq and it is writhing in agony trying to pull it out. That at least keeps it from flying airplanes into our buildings.

A couple of things I would add by way of a post script and that is Wal-Mart and supermarkets. They are both modern marvels. They are both the product of capitalism. They both provide a magnificent service to the consumers of this country. I cannot believe the quality of the goods that I can buy at Wal-Mart nor the low price of those goods nor can I get over the fact that you can go to the supermarket at any time of the year and buy almost any fresh fruit or vegetable you desire. We import fresh fruits and vegetables from all the world, get them on our supermarket shelves and into our kitchens while they are still fresh. We do so efficiently and cheaply. The reason this is possible is because there are literally millions of people making a profit in this type of commerce. This is Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations at work.

I do not want to destroy our economic engine in the vain hope that we can create something better when the alternative has failed everywhere it has been tried; not just in the United States but in Russia and Cuba and elsewhere. You should visit with my Russian friends sometime and hear what it's like in Russia.

I worked my way through college and law school as a painter. I grew up in the business. My father was a painting contractor and I was almost invariably the best man on the crew after I left home but I was not paid accordingly. I got paid union scale along with everyone else. However, when people got laid off, I did not. The reason was very simple. I was, as they say, a good hand. On the other hand, two black men came to work at the University of California on the paint crew and told the foreman that they did not have to work and he could not do anything about it. They were right. The foreman, who was my friend, quit. These two men ignored what they were told to do and did whatever they chose. What they chose to do was not work.