Israel and The Banality of Evil

By Ismail Al Sharif

‘…As though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit this world – we find that no one, that is no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, for which you deserve to be hanged,” – Hannah Arendt, German-Jewish philosopher.

When you read the sentence: “We had to create conditions more painful than death,” you might think it’s taken from a horror novel or a dystopian narrative that depicts future or imaginary societies in which values ​​collapse, injustice prevails, and environmental and social devastation rages. It’s the “corrupt city,” the exact opposite of utopia, the ideal city.

You might think the sentence appeared in one of Ahmed Khaled Tawfik’s “Utopia,” George Orwell’s “1984,” or Albert Camus’s “The Plague.” You might think it was a line in the testimony of a serial killer who plagued the police for a full decade before dozens of bodies were discovered buried in his garden.

But would you believe that this statement was uttered by Minister of “Zionist Heritage,” Amichai Eliyahu? He wasn’t angry, he wasn’t agitated, and no spittle was flying from his mouth. He said it with calm, measured calm, wearing a smart suit and tie, his face sporting a trimmed beard that, at first glance, you might mistake for a dignified sheikh or a holy man.

His statement was devoid of any emotion, like a routine uttering from a government employee, explaining to people that the power outage was due to a heat wave, or that the road closures were due to temporary maintenance work.

Have you ever wondered how decisions to commit genocide are made? And how countries became complicit in these?

My direct answer: Decisions to commit genocide are made when they are put on the agenda, when they are announced from golf courses or discussed at dinner tables. When children and women are killed by bombs, and hospitals and shelters are destroyed, a dapper bureaucrat takes the stage.

He starts his day with a jog around his house, has breakfast with his children, kisses his wife goodbye, asks her what she needs from the market, and instructs his children to behave.

This same bureaucrat takes center-stage to defend genocide, beautifying it, whilst sanitizing it linguistically, using flowery terms such as: “Precision strikes,” “human shields,” “collateral damage.”

He like other bureaucrats are creative in manipulating the vocabulary: Torture is transformed into “interrogation,” starvation into “economic pressure,” and ethnic cleansing into “security buffer zones” or “humanitarian cities.” Even death traps are remarketed under glamorous names, such as the “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.”

Let’s return to the Minister of “Zionist Heritage,” who concludes his statement by saying: “Death is no longer enough. It must be painful, prolonged, and free from any international accountability.”

Even the most brutal of tyrants in history were careful to conceal their intentions when committing crimes. When the Qarmatians slaughtered pilgrims in Mecca in 317 AH, they claimed they were doing so to destroy idols. When the pilgrims committed the Euphrates Massacre against the people of Iraq, the pretext was “sedition.” Even when the United States committed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, it described it as “military engagement.”

But this time, and for the first time in history, this man comes out publicly and admits to committing genocide, while dressed in his finest suit and tie. It is the most brutal and horrific genocide in our modern history and under our eyes.

Perhaps, one day, criminals like him will be brought to justice and charged with war crimes. They will defend themselves coldly: “We were following orders,” or “it was just a business procedure,” without pain, without remorse, and without the slightest sense of guilt or responsibility.

This is exactly what Hannah Arendt described as the “banality of evil.”

This article by Ismail Al Sharif was originally written in Arabic for the Addustour daily.

Continue reading
Stranger Than Fiction: Hamas in Trump’s World

By Dr Khairi Janbek

We often use George Orwell’s 1984 novel as a metaphor for similar circumstances which we feel we are living in contemporary times. In fairness, many a time, the novel provides an apt description of these circumstances. But a novel which is forgotten or overlooked, is the trilogy of Isaac Asimov –  the Foundation – written in the early 1960s. Now, if he meant it to be a prophetic prediction of the future, one is likely to say he has come close to describing our epoch and circumstances.

In Asimov’s trilogy, and in a scientific fictitious world, a mathematical genius creates a world based on laws, order, and controlled emotions, in a sense, a world built on rationality. But suddenly, a mutant emerges, gathering a large following and support, and bent on destroying the existing norms, abolishing order, and breaking all laws. The author, calls it the mutant: The mule. Of course, one is talking here science fiction.

However, if we extrapolate from science fiction into real life, US President Donald Trump can be understood only by shedding the veil of absurdity that surrounds him, as, for all intents and purposes purposes, he is here here to break all the existing norms and order to the extent of firing even those whom have elected him.

As he projects his image on the domestic and international scenes, he comes out not as a president of a reality show but rather as a president of a “parallel” reality show. And what does that essentially mean? To the discerning observer it means that Trump is flip flopping between the two realities.

It was always known that president Trump dislikes multilateral and/or rather negotiations with blocs, whilst maintaining a preference for bilateral negotiations. So in carrying out his style of negotiations, he tends to pick the strongest or the wealthiest potential partners in any bloc to negotiate with. After all he is the one whom coined the dictum, if your rich and powerful then you must be right, but if you are rich but poor and weak, well, it’s your fault.

Consequently, this style of presidency, throws his allies and detractors into total confusion, and even close observers are finding it difficult to grapple with the US presidency bent on striking deals than reaching agreements.

He has no qualms about trying to reach a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear project, when in effect he was the one who tore up the nuclear agreement in the first place, but take note, it was an agreement not a deal.

He came out to negotiate directly with Hamas, though what’s the deal he is proposing, is not really known, but he doesn’t seem to have any qualms about breaking taboos and norms here.

So where does this leave his friends and allies? No man’s land really, in which you just go half way with him.

Dr Janbek is Jordanian writer based in Paris, France.

Continue reading