The ringing slap in the face that the United States suffered last week awakens it, and not for the first time, from the dream of the villa in the jungle. Any distant war can reach Manhattan and a power that is the center of the world cannot act as if it lives alone
Gadi Taub, New York
1
To understand what happened to the Americans in the attack on New York, you have to
Start far from New York. And this thing, which strangers can grasp,
Maybe, but not feeling it the way Americans feel it, it became clear
I once sharply not far from a small town, which is barely on the map, a place
called Walburg, in the state of Wyoming. I got there on a trip with a journalist
One, old and wise. We drove about a hundred kilometers without meeting a living soul, no
say a gas station. With the fuel gauge on the red quarter of the scale, we arrived
For what looks like a small settlement, a few houses, a "general" store and a gas station
One. nothing around. One man, white, sits on a bar stool, nearby
The pump, carves a piece of wood with a commando knife.
A man with a cowboy hat tilted back, a symbol of peace and carelessness
in westerns. Only when we turned off the engine - it was in the middle of the day - was it possible
You could feel the depth of silence all around, among the low, yellow hills
dry grass Mixed breed dog, no collar, red GMC van, dusty. after
As we got used to the silence, you could hear a metallic radio inside the store in the distance,
A local station is playing.
Much of the United States is like this. A vast and empty space. The space we are
You may know him from "My Idaho", from "Cafe Baghdad". I mention you
The wise old journalist, because while we were waiting for the gas tank to fill up
And we bought bottles of water at the store, he said something simple, something that we
Read or know but don't internalize easily. Certainly not in stressed Israel,
But not in crowded and scarred Europe either. How, he said, how are you
Convincing this man that he should pay income tax for foreign aid
to Egypt? What about him and that?
To understand what is going through America right now, you have to take into account that something
Wyoming is in the infrastructure of the instincts of the United States, even its sons
Cosmopolitan York. Even in the White House. And that's where it hit
The attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
2
The American in the street does not need the political commentators to tell him
This is not only mass murder but also an attack on symbols. on a symbol
Economic power and the symbol of military power. But what this attack
He did not only shock the symbols. She did something else that the American
On the street and his president in the White House were not ready for him. She connected between
Both symbols. America's young president is an example of experience
separate them. It is a deep, central current in the American worldview.
George W. Bush is a representative of a growing anachronism
And more absurd: he wants an economic policy of globalization,
which overlooks the world from New York and Washington, and the politics of separatism
Which makes sense from a chair next to a gas pump, on a remote road in Wyoming.
And maybe not even there anymore. This man, with the cowboy hat, also listens to the radio,
Watching TV. This attack threatens to clarify what Bush is asking for
to deny. It connects the Pentagon and the State Department with the Stock Exchange buildings.
It is a reminder that in a global world where the stock markets of Asia can bring down the
The New York Stock Exchange, a distant war could even reach Manhattan.
There is no alone. There is no such thing as involving the United States economically anywhere and not
involve her politically anywhere. Economic globalization, at the end of
thing, means that everyone's security is everyone's security.
3
The separation between the political and the economic is an old matter for the Americans, an interest
fundamental. In the eyes of Americans, the economic is in many ways the opposite of
the political They perceive themselves as a peace-seeking people because, and not in spite of,
who are a practical and economic people. Europe is a place where nationalists and fanatics
Religions fought each other to the death; Africa is a world of tribes that are not
know how to compromise; The Middle East is a region where fundamentalists slaughter
Each other; Asia is home to authoritarian governments that insist
fight for national honor.
But America is an example that everyone can get along. She is an example of that
that when you are practical - or so America believes - you understand that wars last
Horma, on principles that cannot be seen with the eyes or touched with the hands, they are
Not a profitable business. Why kill the other, when you can sell to him
Something instead?
America's economic mindset - Americans' business is business -
was actually born out of opposition to the political. America rebelled against the British Empire
In the name of the freedom to do business without duties and taxes, and the ideology of the market
The free movement has been used ever since against the government's interference in domestic policy,
But also against political interference of foreign policy, to trade. – pass
Laissez faire, laissez let it happen, let it pass. It was a thing
Revolutionary at the time. The Europeans thought it was necessary to politically control the markets in order to
To enrich the imperial coffers and the Americans thought - even before Adam
Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" - which is the opposite: in order for business to flourish, it is necessary
To remove the hand of politics from them and let the disappearing hand do its thing.
When this view is taken into account, but in moderation, when it assumes that economy
Can solve political problems, but can't manage without politics, she has
A lot of power. The Marshall Plan, for example, the money that the United States poured into the market
The devastated German after World War II, proved itself. the assumption
It was that if Germany were to recover, if it was to prosper within the market of the West, no
She will have an interest in sniffing out war like she had after the world war
the first But the Marshall Plan knew that there is no economy without politics, which you established
The German market on its feet is a political act, not just an economic one.
When that view becomes extreme, when it assumes that only the market heals
And political interference is only harmful, it turns into separatism. and separatism
spawned more than one disaster in the history of the United States. That's how it went
Much of American imperialism, which historian William Appleman
Williams called "anti-colonial imperialism". It's not just about
with cynicism, but also with idealism. Many Americans sincerely believed
May the free market bring comfort and democracy to all. But the belief that he needs
To be conducted without politics, only or almost only in the hands of private entrepreneurs, Gerra
them again and again to military conflicts. Instead of foreign policy regulating the
Market relations, private businesses first invaded foreign countries (a lot
times with the encouragement of the administration) and then dragged the foreign policy in their wake.
When American assets were in danger (in South America, in the ocean
the Pacific, even in Asia), foreign policy was born, meaning the army arrived.
International business without foreign policy, it turned out, does not prevent wars,
but create them.
4
Young Bush is not the first president with separatist tendencies. The first separatist
was the first president, George Washington. Washington also wanted trade
International without international binding ties. When following the coup
The French war broke out between England and France, he found himself going on
thin rope. He wanted to continue trading with both powers, and not choose sides
in war America declared neutrality.
Back then, America was a small and marginal country, just born. It was worth being careful
Not to be crushed between two giants. But even then, when no one dreamed of a village
Global, the idea that you can truly isolate yourself, and also have international trade,
was absurd. The three presidents after Washington learned this the hard way.
John Adams had to forcefully protect the American ships that traded with
England against French attacks, and became embroiled in an undeclared war with France.
Jefferson tried to completely suspend American foreign trade in an attempt to preserve
on divergence, and almost destabilizing the government within his country, and Madison,
who followed him, eventually went to war with the English. Even logical
There were no more options for failure within this power triangle. and if
An active foreign policy was necessary even then, how can one do without it in the world
that shrunk to the village?
The point is not that all international involvement is good. not missing
Other examples. But separatism is never good.
5
Since the Vietnam War there is a tendency to think about any American involvement
in terms of imperialism. We also had no lack of moral people who announced,
Even in the Gulf War, which is about imperialism, which Saddam Hussein was
The representative of the "oppressed of the land" against the predatory capitalist monster of
the first world You can think along these lines only if you don't understand
the real interests of a power in the modern world, in the world in which
Non-interference, where separatism of the George W. Bush kind, is
Lawlessness, not moral responsibility. The Gulf War was also a war for defense
The interests of the United States in oil-producing countries. Right. but
Things don't stop here, and those who stop here ignore the way she thinks
power within a global market. America's interests are not just a game
Zero amount compared to other interests, and she can't afford it
Act like a highway robber. There is a wide area of shared interests
And the first of them is stability. America has a direct, central interest,
stably. Presidents like Truman, like George Bush Sr., like Franklin
Roosevelt or like Clinton understood this. They understood, even without an attack
About New York, that local conflicts are not just problems
Locally, that extreme regimes are a risk not only to neighbors. That's why they bothered
Recruit coalitions, establish alliances, align lines and find out interests.
An alliance with Syria against Iraq, for example, is not a simple thing to organize, and it is
cannot rely only on "American imperialism".
Not everything done by presidents such as Bush, or Clinton, Truman or
Roosevelt, was successful. Not all interests are aligned either. But they thought
about the world in the framework of collective political responsibility, not only in the framework
of a free market "out there". They acted on the assumption that there was no separatism
political in the reality of economic involvement and modern destruction technology.
American intervention is not just sending an army. There is a limit to the power of the force, there is
Cases where it is not needed, and there are many cases where it brings harm
More than useful. Many times intervention is a unilateral act of aggression, or
A fruit of ideological hysteria, or brutal national egoism. but
Carter's (or Clinton's) intervention in the Middle East, for example, is
An example of an intervention aimed at collective security. And she brought a blessing too
To Egypt and Jordan, not only to Israel. In a situation where both the Palestinians and us
Deteriorating to an ever-increasing escalation, such an intervention is a burning need.
Now, hopefully, she may be burning not only for us, but also
to the United States. Not only Yasir Arafat is afraid of such an intervention, Sharon too,
Not to mention Netanyahu, they are afraid of her. Anyone who does not stand behind a compromise
Barak, on both sides, prefers to avoid arbitration. As extinguishing conflicts
Domestic is an American interest, as much as America is a power that is able and willing
To force compromises, it is not unreasonable to say that they represent our interest and that of
The Palestinians are better than us. Their picture is wider. Even
The Mitchell report alone is much more than both sides in the Israeli conflict
Arabs are currently able to issue.
6
The slap in the face that the separatist tendency of young Bush received was this time
ringing In the United States, separatism is not the opposite of policy
"imperialist". Rather, separatism and not intervention is a prominent representative
More of myopic egoism. Separatism and non-intervention is a retreat from everything
idealism It is not based on respect for other countries, or for its culture
of "the other", but on a deep sense of security that America resides alone and nothing
Nothing can harm her. Americans do indeed have a sense of security from order
A size that other nations hardly know. Two oceans, border with
Mexico and the border with Canada add such a feeling, not to mention the power
the great economy, and about the fall of the Soviet bloc.
Not only in Wyoming, but also in New York and California, on the beaches, Americans
You can be afraid of many things, but not of a war at the door of the house, not of an invasion.
crime, private or national economic collapse, race riots or
Ethnic, it is. War is not.
America is the most central place in the world, and yet, the weather
He is making headlines in the news. Nevertheless, she is
Amazingly provincial. Americans do not know languages, do not translate
A lot of literature, don't read foreign newspapers, don't watch other people's movies,
or listening to the news on a foreign radio. It sometimes seems that for the vast majority,
that never leaves the borders of the continent, abroad is a kind of place
A remote place where all kinds of strangers gather.
Abroad is also the place where wars take place. Since 1814, when the British
They burned the White House, almost two hundred years, there was no actual attack on
Continental America itself (a Mexican phalanx attacked the town
Columbus in the state of New Mexico in World War I, but doubt how many
Americans remember this strange event). Even this Pearl Harbor
Something that happened far away from here, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Attack on New York
And about Washington - New York, Washington! - This is not understood. Not by chance
People walked around here stunned and told each other that it was like in a movie. of such
Science Fiction. This is not a possibility from the realm of reality. New skyscrapers
York collapsed in an attack from the air?! This is Orson Welles. This is Oliver
Stone. It's not in the realm of possibility. But this illusion of security is not needed
Infiltrate the White House. And not because the White House should expect to be attacked
The twin buildings (although he does need to have less intelligence
Careless, and a warning system that realizes that planes have been hijacked not only after they are
crash). Because a power that has become the center of the world cannot behave
Like she lives alone in Wyoming. She cannot be the center of
The world market and the leading military power, and also to think that she will be freed from problems
of others only when she feels like it. By the time she feels like it, it might be too late
And too little.
7
But before declaring with certainty that separatism is over, it is worth remembering that it is
It's already over many times. It has a long history as the annals of countries
The covenant, and it is persistent and deep. Washington separatism died under
Madison. The seclusion that followed the civil war ended in foreign policy
The aggressiveness of McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, when America came out to defend the
Its economic interests are outside the continent. Wilson's attempt to invest
Economically abroad but to avoid political interference ends in conflict with
Mexico and entering the First World War. The separatism of the twenties
It collapsed during the Great Depression and the entry into World War II. the war
The cold, or so it seemed, gave the final blow to the idea of separation,
And even after the fall of the Soviet bloc, right up until the last election,
It seemed that there were no separatist forces left capable of reaching the White House.
The young Bush's separatist tendencies seemed, therefore, like a strange kind of déjà vu.
If in George Washington's world there was any reason to think that a small country, shrk
Born, can handle international trade but relate to conflicts
In Europe, as if they were none of their business, in 2001 such an idea has no dawn.
If Bush now only went out to catch the direct culprits, it will turn out that the announcement
The end of separatism was premature. But if he begins to understand what
happened, it is hard to see how he will continue to look at international conflicts,
On leaking nuclear technology, on open political wounds, on
Dictatorships that develop weapons of mass destruction, as if America is only
Watching other people's football game.
8
Even if Bush decides to intervene in matters of depth and not only in matters of the surface, this
will only be the first step. Because separatism is only the first obstacle.
The decision to intervene is far from resolving the question of what involvement can be
effective. Forcing compromises in local conflicts is certainly an urgent need,
But this is at most a partial solution. The conflict with fundamentalism and with
The countries sponsoring terrorism does not end there. Because terrorism is coming out
Not only from local frictions but also from a more fundamental rivalry between the world
The seven democratic, and the hungry third world. As hunger is the fuel that drives
This conflict, it will be necessary to address hunger. As much as adversity gives birth to
Anger, not blind force like in Vietnam but long-term wisdom - like
The Marshall Plan - should be the ambition. Free market forces should
Vigorous political frameworks because in themselves, contrary to the doctrines of
The American right, they also create terrible inequality, not just complicity.
But on the way of sharing the Third World with the abundance of the First World, even at a discount
That the first world will act decisively in this direction - and that is still a long way off
Malkarot - there are regimes in the world on the third day whose anger is the basis of their power.
that the society of abundance is in their eyes the embodiment of evil and corruption. No need to assume
that they will allow, even the most altruistic intentions, to serve as a nurse for them
mercy
There is no easy way to force partnership, or democracy, or moderation, or even
abundance. And you should prepare for the possibility, in a world where nuclear weapons are the most abundant
Too many places, that just as a stick will not work without the carrot, neither can the carrot work
Probably without a stick, or at least the threat of a stick. Politics will have to channel the
The market to break the severe inequality, but it will also have to act
In the opposite direction, in the form of sanctions, towards regimes that continue to form
A protective umbrella for terrorism.
This is not a simple contradiction. Therefore it is worthwhile to prepare for a situation where democracies
will have to act by force, in international coalitions as large as possible,
Against those who are willing to kill themselves over some beer by using weapons of mass destruction.
It is advisable to wake up to this possibility before they have weapons of mass destruction,
and proactive war against regimes that allow apocalypse armies to obtain weapons
Such, may be necessary. It is desirable that this bell, which is ringing now
In Washington, he will also comment on Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Underground armies of religious or national redemption, or of blind revenge,
Not only New York, Tel Aviv, or Berlin are at risk. They are dangerous too
New Delhi, Cairo, Moscow, Beijing and Addis Ababa.
All rights reserved to "Haaretz" newspaper 2001
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~315154454~~~34&SiteName=hayadan