Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘gil troy’

That’s what Gil Troy calls them in an op-ed piece in today’s Gazette (link requires subscription):

What happens when a terrorist organization decides to enter the political arena? Does it automatically become legitimate?

[ . . . ]

The truth is that terrorists by definition have entered the political arena from the start because terrorism is violence with a political agenda. Without the political context, bombing, kidnapping, and shooting are simply crimes. Terrorism, like war, is politics by other means, an extension of politics when negotiation or discussion break down – or never existed.

The questions also are misleading because we have discovered that the world’s commitment to morality and justice is relative: It varies depending on the players involved. Especially when it comes to the Middle East, the world’s moral clarity gets muddy, the moral compass goes haywire.

[ . . . ]

We cannot be fooled by [Hizbollah] or by Hamas. Terrorists in suits and ties remain cold-blooded killers.

Terrorist organizations have a history of trying to “go legit” while still maintaining their original violent purposes. But Gil Troy’s argument cuts both ways: if a terrorist in a suit and tie is just a terrorist, then how is a democratically-elected terrorist preferable to dictatorship? If a society gets the leadership it deserves, then shouldn’t we let democracy unfold?

That doesn’t mean, of course, that any other government – Israel included – should be forced to deal with them.

What about what’s happening in Egypt, where the first hints of democracy have yielded a corrupt election where there are no clear “good guys”, because the people being prevented from voting and running were associated with the ultra-fanatic Muslim Brotherhood? What is the preferable outcome – a fair and impartial election of terrorists, or an “election” of so-called moderates thanks to rigging and intimidation? As it happened, we had a rigged election of terrorists, so it’s almost the worst of both worlds. But how does that fit in with the theory that we ought to push for democratic reforms in the Middle East?

One thing is for certain: As long the world continues to reward terrorists by giving them legitimacy in political arenas, terrorism will continue to thrive.

In a scathing opinion piece in today’s Gazette, McGill profs Reuven Brenner and Gil Troy tear apart academia:

We don’t have today a “free marketplace of ideas” – not by any stretch of the imagination. What we have is a heavily subsidized production of “obscure jargons” – much noise, that is – with academics carving out, then jealously guarding, their turf.

Pompous wording, circuitous sentences and flaccid prose protect prerogatives and bamboozle students with buzz-words, elaborate models and unverifiable theories, leaving a trail of confusion that mediocre followers – in academia, media and politics, too – either mistake for profundity or just misuse when convenient.

I think that’s a little harsh. There are some very good professors out there, and I took more than my share of excellent, thought-provoking classes.

But Brenner and Troy aren’t attacking individual professors so much as the entire system of academia. And here, they aren’t too far off the mark. While their analysis is more bleak than anything, there is no denying that academia can be full of narrow-minded people who are oftentimes out of touch with reality. The overuse of jargon should be obvious to any first-year arts student. Too many professors have voiced concerns about the sacred cow of “publish or perish” being replaced by “toe the line or you’re out”. If your opinions are unfashionable, you’ll have precious little success finding a position anywhere.

I’d like to say things are getting better, but it seems that they are getting worse. Too many classes, instead of teaching students to become independent thinkers, instead require regurgitation of the professor’s ideas. It’s obvious this can lead nowhere positive, and maybe some soul-searching in academics is long overdue.

Once again, Gil Troy gets it right when he claims that there are no “good” or “bad” terrorists; they’re all “bad” terrorists:

Of course, terrorism was supposed to be aimed at “legitimate” targets – Israeli kids munching pizza, American secretaries booting word processors, Australian teenagers bogeying in a nightclub. By exporting terror, the Saudi kingdom was supposed to be buying a certain immunity from it. In the more moderate Kingdom of Morocco, until this weekend, terrorism was something that happened elsewhere. But is anyone surprised that such a tactic, once perfected and applauded, could not be controlled? A society that can so demonize the “other” as to celebrate enemy deaths, risks distorting its political culture. A political culture that celebrates wading into crowds or apartment compounds and blowing up civilians wherever they might be, whoever they are, risks teaching its members that when arguments fail, it is OK to resort to violence, even against your neighbours.

[ . . . ]

Supporting terrorism comes with no immunity clause – those who support terror today risk being terrorist targets tomorrow.

The irony here, of course, is that people always love a weapon when it is useful for them, but wouldn’t want their enemies to use it against them. We saw that as being the case with the Atom Bomb, for example. At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union had to acknowledge that they had enough weaponry to destroy the world hundreds of times over, and eventually began destroying some of their bombs. Now, we have another weapon – terrorism – that’s much harder to control, contain, or destroy. And the parts of the world who have been encouraging and exporting it are only now facing up to the fact that they are targets, too.

Gil Troy wrote an opinion piece in today’s Gazette about MP Carolyn Parrish’s infamous reference to Americans as “those bastards”. Since it didn’t make it to the online version, I’ve transcribed excerpts below:

Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish’s admission that she “can’t even guarantee” she would not repeat her anti-U.S. remarks is refreshing. Considering the thoughtless attacks on a sister democracy that have been festering in too many corners of the Liberal caucus – and throughout Canada – it would be futile to sweep Parrish’s bigotry under the rug. Considering that, according to Parrish, “the prime minister has not said one cross word to me,” it would be foolish to claim that Jean Chrétien was shocked by the sentiments. Politicians should not apologize for being caught in the act of speaking their minds. Better to air out, confront and defeat the prejudices that lead Parrish and too many other Canadians to sneer “Damn Americans. I hate those bastards.”

Troy goes on to give a short summary of some of the multitudes of reasons we should have a lot more respect for the United States than we do:

But while Parrish enjoys her 15 minutes of fame, as she rehearses her next sound byte, she might consider dipping into her parliamentary expense account to visit the neighbour whose people she damned. [ . . . ] Let her fly over, then visit Ground Zero and see firsthand the scale of the devastation, then try opening her heart to grieve with the tens of thousands of people deprived of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, colleagues, friends. “Sept. 11″ might feel like an overplayed news story north of the border, but in so many U.S. homes it remains the day when thousands were executed for the simple crime of being American “bastards,” or merely working next to them.

Once in New York, let her speak to the “bastards”, leftists and rightists, those in favour of confronting Saddam and those opposed, who just spent two weekends fearing another terrorist attack. Anxious people stocked up on food, water and batteries; reasonable people who have already once learned the danger of failing to prepare for the worst thought of escape routes and sealed rooms.

No one deserves to live with such fear, let alone people who are as sure of their commitment to doing right in the world as Canadians are of theirs. Americans are not just the “bastards” who helped perfect the gifts of mass democracy and mass middle-class prosperity for the world – patents Canadians have often followed. Americans are not just the “bastards” who helped defeat the two greatest scourges of the 20th century – Nazism and Communism. Americans are also the “bastards” to whom the world turned when Kuwait needed saving from Saddam Hussein, when Europeans and Canadians could not clean up the mess in Bosnia or Kosovo, when the Taliban tried to turn all of Afghanistan into a medieval prison.

Tempering his praise with a reality check, Troy then discusses several of America’s mistakes, pointing out that no country is perfect – least of all Canada. And finally concludes with the following warning:

Americans, like Canadians, did not seek these new challenges. Americans, like Canadians, spent years ignoring the growing dangers of terrorism and rogue states. Americans have been forced to confront this new reality. The least Canadians can do, even if they disagree with U.S. policy, is respect their neighbours enough to engage in vigorous and constructive debate rather than vicious and destructive calumnies.

We have seen and experienced the impact of Anti-Americanism in the world. It starts with hateful speech, but the demonization resulted on Sept. 11, 2001, in lethal fireballs in Pennsylvania, in Washington, in the North Tower and the South Tower. Contrary to the growing conventional wisdom, any of us trying, in our own imperfect ways, to prevent another catastrophe is not being “pro-war,” but pro-peace. Perhaps it is time to wish “those bastards” who are poised to write a new chapter of history good luck and godspeed.

Gil Troy’s a smart man, an excellent writer and speaker, and in this case he’s absolutely right.

Maybe what he says resonates as much as it does, just because so much of our national identity as Canadians is built on a foundation of, if not outright anti-Americanism, at least disdain and somewhat of an inferiority complex masked in airs of superiority. Why did Molson’s “The Rant” commercial strike a chord of national pride that no national anthem could match? If “I AM CANADIAN” is all about what I am not, then the only logical next step is to joke about all the people who we’re so eager to claim not to be.

After all, who among us hasn’t made a joke about “those stupid Americans”? I’m the first to admit that I do it regularly. And while my intent certainly isn’t malicious – nor do I believe that all (or even most) Americans are any stupider than most or many Canadians, it’s so ingrained in our culture that nobody even bats an eyelash at it.

And this is Canada – a country who shares many of the U.S.’s values, politics, economic forces, and thousands of miles of the world’s longest undefended border with our neighbours and best friends to the south. If knee-jerk anti-Americanism is ingrained here, imagine how much worse it is everywhere else in the world.

Some of the criticism is, I think, valid. Hero worship of the United States gets us nowhere. But Gil Troy is right, just as L. Ian Macdonald was right: too much of the criticism of the United States isn’t about its policies, or its problems – it’s based on blanket hatred that in many ways has its roots in jealousy. A lot like antisemitism in that respect.