A few days after 9-11, I watched Ted Koppel on Nightline interview a Muslim woman in Indonesia. She was young, well educated, attractive, spoke perfect English, and did an excellent job explaining her faith to an audience that was just beginning to wake up to what’s happening in the Muslim world. As she talked, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, and eventually it did. About 10 minutes in, she identified Israel and the Joos as the true root of the problem. How does nomadism explain her animosity towards the Jews? Indonesia’s Jewish population in tiny. There are no Jewish nomads in her backyard.
(Nachum Kaplan lived in Indonesia for years!!! Perhaps she didn't like Moral Clarity. 🤣)
On a serious note why is Israel a problem for her? Because she sees the Palestinians as the settled indigenous.and the Jews as homeless nomads who took "their" land. Israel is a portable homeland like the Tabernacle and no-one wants her except God because God is also a cross-border nomad.
I should also say that according to UK polling there is always more hostility to immigrants in areas with less immigrants rather than more.
1. You’re arguing that the nomad is the stranger, and people don’t like strangers. But the world is filled with strangers. Why, then, do Jews become the locus of this hatred? I don’t think it’s nomadism. I think it’s Story. (Of course I do! ☺️) All the Jews could resettle in the Yukon or on the moon, and the mullahs would still be agitated. The mere existence of the Jews is a challenge to the Islamists’ General Theory.
2. I used to love General Theories. For a while I thought I had discovered one. Now, General Theories generally give me hives. 😂
Interesting essay. I am not sure I agree, but that's beside the point. What would be useful--indeed, necessary!--if you are serious about this explanation, which I think you are, is to define nomadism. Then it would be easier to engage with your account.
About 15 years ago, I published a chapter on the definition of radicalization. You can find it here (https://ebooks.iospress.nl/volumearticle/24919) or email me if you want a PDF. I wrote it because, at the time, everyone was focused on radicalization and deradicalization and all of the Western governments and think tanks were churning out definitions of these terms that struck me as ill-formed, vague, or ambiguous, if not flat-out incoherent. The chapter was my attempt to define the term in a way that might make scientific hypothesis tests of policies meant to influence radicalization and deradicalization at least possible.
Also, I think it is an open question whether some phenomena are better served by grand theories or a mixture of less grand theories with something akin to theory-selection rules at the higher level. One's (meta-)theoretical preference probably reflects the thinker's unstated assumptions about the mono- or multi-causality of the phenomenon he is trying to explain. If you think there is a root cause that drives the multitude of expressions, then you may be attracted to a grand theory, whereas if you believe that different expressions or variants have different causes, then you need a family of micro-theories with a top-level selection rule. One could try to Steel Man these two general approaches and see which offers better explanatory traction.
Just recorded the Moral Clarity- Guerre and Shalom podcast with Nachum Kaplan on “Anti-Zionism = antisemitism”. It was a powerful interview. Can't wait for it to be released!
A few days after 9-11, I watched Ted Koppel on Nightline interview a Muslim woman in Indonesia. She was young, well educated, attractive, spoke perfect English, and did an excellent job explaining her faith to an audience that was just beginning to wake up to what’s happening in the Muslim world. As she talked, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, and eventually it did. About 10 minutes in, she identified Israel and the Joos as the true root of the problem. How does nomadism explain her animosity towards the Jews? Indonesia’s Jewish population in tiny. There are no Jewish nomads in her backyard.
(Nachum Kaplan lived in Indonesia for years!!! Perhaps she didn't like Moral Clarity. 🤣)
On a serious note why is Israel a problem for her? Because she sees the Palestinians as the settled indigenous.and the Jews as homeless nomads who took "their" land. Israel is a portable homeland like the Tabernacle and no-one wants her except God because God is also a cross-border nomad.
I should also say that according to UK polling there is always more hostility to immigrants in areas with less immigrants rather than more.
Two thoughts:
1. You’re arguing that the nomad is the stranger, and people don’t like strangers. But the world is filled with strangers. Why, then, do Jews become the locus of this hatred? I don’t think it’s nomadism. I think it’s Story. (Of course I do! ☺️) All the Jews could resettle in the Yukon or on the moon, and the mullahs would still be agitated. The mere existence of the Jews is a challenge to the Islamists’ General Theory.
2. I used to love General Theories. For a while I thought I had discovered one. Now, General Theories generally give me hives. 😂
I will reflect and get back to you!
Interesting essay. I am not sure I agree, but that's beside the point. What would be useful--indeed, necessary!--if you are serious about this explanation, which I think you are, is to define nomadism. Then it would be easier to engage with your account.
Thanks for the feedback. I will get down to work!
About 15 years ago, I published a chapter on the definition of radicalization. You can find it here (https://ebooks.iospress.nl/volumearticle/24919) or email me if you want a PDF. I wrote it because, at the time, everyone was focused on radicalization and deradicalization and all of the Western governments and think tanks were churning out definitions of these terms that struck me as ill-formed, vague, or ambiguous, if not flat-out incoherent. The chapter was my attempt to define the term in a way that might make scientific hypothesis tests of policies meant to influence radicalization and deradicalization at least possible.
Also, I think it is an open question whether some phenomena are better served by grand theories or a mixture of less grand theories with something akin to theory-selection rules at the higher level. One's (meta-)theoretical preference probably reflects the thinker's unstated assumptions about the mono- or multi-causality of the phenomenon he is trying to explain. If you think there is a root cause that drives the multitude of expressions, then you may be attracted to a grand theory, whereas if you believe that different expressions or variants have different causes, then you need a family of micro-theories with a top-level selection rule. One could try to Steel Man these two general approaches and see which offers better explanatory traction.
I agree wholeheartedly! This concept rings true in all the examples I can think of. Red, brown and especially black here in the US.
Is this also why Russia wars with Ukraine? The Ukraine nation found a better way on their own and Putin hates it?
Thank you for this article!
My pleasure Kelly and thanks for sharing. Ps please sign up to Guerre and Shalom!
Just recorded the Moral Clarity- Guerre and Shalom podcast with Nachum Kaplan on “Anti-Zionism = antisemitism”. It was a powerful interview. Can't wait for it to be released!