Dr. Lisz Hirn
The Possibility of War
Dedicated to Israel
If one reads the daily messages, one could mean that nothing but war or martial
unrests are ruling this planet - certainly in different quantity and quality. As one main
herd the Near East is generally called - especially Israel. It seems like a mystery that
peace can´t be reached by this country, but it is not mysterious at all - on the
contrary. Since I have a special connection with this country, I dedicate this article to
it. As main reference of this writing the philosopher Jean Baudrillard is to be
indicated, in special his essay over extreme phenomena, The Transparency of the
Evil.
The article concerns itself peripheral with the phenomenon of war, which, although it
is in all mouths and heads, exists between our national systems only rudimentarily,
mostly in a virtual way. In special, the article is about the phenomenon of terrorism,
which shows the impossibility of a war in general. What is called "war" generally, is
not war. It is confounded only with the phenomenon of war. In the following, the
article will give information on the origins of this mistake and will support the theses.
What we do experience nowadays is not war, no archaic use of force, it is terrorism,
meant as a radical reaction to the social range. What is terrorism actually?
Usually the average western inhabitant thinks of Near Eastern countries when it
comes to terrorism and especially of arabic people who blow themselves up. Most of
them survey the fact that there is also a terrorism with "western" features, which
achieves frightening extents in the western countries. The speech is here from
madmen, which offense themselves in the most radical way against the social
system while shooting people arbitrarily. "And the terrorism, what is it than another
form of abreacting by force within the social range? [...] It does not concern the
reviving of an atavistic force. Archaic force [L.Hirn: which finds their expression in
military conflicts ] is more enthusiastic and at the same time more ready to sacrifice.
The force, brought out by our hypermodern trend, is terror. [Jean Baudrillard, The
Transparency of Evil, Merve Berlin, P. 88]" Whatever form the terrorism is based on,
it lives on and by the hypermodern mediality of our time and the omnipresence of the
2
"screen" within all ranges of our life.
"It does not concern a collision of hostile forces
or antagonistic passions [L.Hirn: as in war],
but it is a cooperation of dormant and
indifferent forces (to those the slow-acting viewers belong). [...] No irrational episode
of our social life: it lies completely in the logic of its acceleration in emptiness
[Baudrillard, ibidem, p. 89]." What happens if war is no longer possible, what
happens if the national immune system does not have to work satisfactorily any
longer, but is exposed to perfect sterility? - The own antibodies of the social organism
turn against it; it comes to a genetic metamorphosis of the individual cells: mutations.
Metastasis begin to grow uncontrolled and a-rationally within each social range:
terrorism.
In which position does the terrorism stand to the system? The terrorism is
systeminherent;
it is similar to a mutation of the cells of a national system, similar to
cancer conditions. The phenomenon of "war" is completely different to the
phenomenon of terrorism. It acts antagonistically against the conventions of a
national system. "War" attacks the social organism from the outside, terrorism from
the inside: it is an autoimmune illness of the system.
Terrorism ruins the organs of
the state, which consists again of innumerably many cells, fail to the illness. The cells
are no longer attacked from outside, so they start to attack themselves.
"Since the
states have no antagonistic outside, they turn automatically against their own people
or territory, in a kind of civil war against their own natural reference (is it not fate of
each indication, each significant and representative instance, to abolish its natural
reference?) [Baudrillard, ibidem, p. 90.]."
I want to take the state of Israel as example for my theses. This state is permanently
exposed to terrorism (directly and indirectly). Israel tries to "fight" the illness of terror
with a partition-wall. The mistake is that the wall seems to create an outside which is
not an outside at all. What is outside of the wall, is in reality a cut off tumor. Israel
"forgets" that the metastasis are also within the wall. Those cannot be cut . Cutting
them would mean to cut the state itself. The partition-wall is the first step to political
and social sterility. It only accelerates the usury of the metastasis. Terrorism shows
itself not only in explosions, but also in perversions and implosions within the social
range. Interesting is the question whether there is an alternative to terrorism in
Israel? - A political two-state solution would create an outside, two antagonistic
nations: Israel and Palestine. "War" would be possible again. Surely, war is always a
danger for the state, but can also strengthen it. The social partition-wall would be
3
void, since there are political borders and the possibilty of war is put to existence
again.
Realistically seen, the question arises whether there are still "politics" nowadays,
which are qualified for the potential to introduce society-changing actions such as a
two-state solution. Fact is that the absence of political originality is common to all
national systems today as Baudrillard states: "In view of the absence of an original
political strategy (those is perhaps no longer possible), in view of the impossibility of
a reasonable administration of the social by the state, the state desocializes itself. It
does not set on political will-formation any longer, it sets on extortion, deterrence,
simulation, provocation and spectacular sensation [Baudrillard, ibidem, p. 92]." The
consistency of the hypermodern trend is co-ordinated with it. The question is which
was first: The screen or the sensation? But what could be more sensational for the
spectators than an incalculable act of terror? "Everywhere one meets an endless
distortion of the present forms of the evil. In a society, which wants to have
prophylaxis and wants to kill their natural references, with white washing of force and
extermination of all germs and all distracting parts which means the cosmetic
operation of all negatives [...]. Where there is no more possibility to express the Evil it
is transformed into all viral and terroristic forms that are afflicting us now [Baudrillard,
ibidem, p. 95]." The sterile pacification of the system, in case of Israel its symbolized
by its wall and its locked in religious identity, ends in the decomposition of the system
and the banality of peace, since the principle of peace can only be experienced by its
antagonistic principle. This antagonistic principle is, as already described, the
principle of war.
Result and remark: Only if one creates the conditions, the possibility of war, one can
also create the possibilty of peace - they cause each other. This is not a
recommendation to start "wars" as means for the purpose "peace". This article
approaches the topic "beyond good and bad" and beyond of moral "black-and-white-
judgement". How could one do? I am not even sure, whether I know, what the term
"war" means or the term "peace ". Experience shows that terrorism, which is valid
particularly for the Israeli problem, is neither cured with artificially designed wars nor
with martial measures. One orders the wrong medication, since the enemy does not
come from the outside, as it is the case with "war"; terrorism develops inside the
social organism, which tries to annihiliate the principle of the Evil with all possible
4
sterility. Lapidarily expressed: Sterility is self-destruction. The question is when Israel
realizes that. Or whether Israel has realized that already.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
0 Kommentare