The possibility of war

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 “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 void, since there are political borders and the possibilty of war is put to existence again.