When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

Reflections On 9/11: How The Intellectuals Got It Wrong

It is a philosopher's job to debunk prejudice and foregone conclusions. But isn't there also a duty to not ignore the facts? A look back 15 years later from a prominent Paris thinker.

A New York City fireman calls for 10 more rescue workers to make their way into the rubble of the World Trade Center in New York city
A New York City fireman calls for 10 more rescue workers to make their way into the rubble of the World Trade Center in New York city
Roger-Pol Droit

-Analysis-

PARIS — It's been 15 years since September 11, 2001. The media around the world offer a myriad of dossiers, documentaries and articles dedicated to this commemoration and analyzing what has changed since the attacks.

There's one thing that everybody, or almost everybody, agrees on: That day marked a turning point in world history, and we're still dealing with the repercussions of what happened then. But interpreting what we see in the rearview mirror isn't so simple. Analysts disagree on the underlying causes of the attacks, and even more on the interpretation of the political and military responses, especially the one led by U.S. President George W. Bush. In that torrent of discussion, there is, however, one aspect that is scarcely remembered: the blindness of the West's leading philosophers. It deserves careful thought, as well as some hard questions.

Rereading today the main essays written by world-renowned philosophers about the 9/11 attacks makes for a strange experience. Predictably, we find sophisticated formulations, spectacular and forceful assertions, astounding rhetorical performances. But despite it all, in hindsight, one can't help but be struck by the wide chasm between these displays of virtuosity and the creeping reality of the globalized terrorism we now must face every day. As the years went by, a gripping contrast grew between the subtle discourse and crude realities, between ethereal commentary and the sheer weight of the facts.

Suicidal dreams

The 9/11 attacks, of course, couldn't be viewed as anything but a mystery. French philosopher Jacques Derrida claimed that "we don't know, we don't think, we don't understand, we don't want to understand what happened in that moment." Therefore, we needed first of all to reject the obvious, seen as ideological clichés or media manipulations. Therefore, we couldn't talk of an act of war, of Western hatred, nor of the will to destroy fundamental freedoms.

"They did it, but we were asking for it," said sociologist Jean Baudrillard, who put the collapse of the World Trade Center and our fascination with the footage of the attacks down to the West's suicidal dreams. As the title of his 2002 essay purports, Baudrillard wanted to highlight the Spirit of Terrorism. He argued that the "real" responsible parties were to be found among the U.S., Western hegemony, and each and every one of us. Others instantly asked themselves "to whose benefit?" and gathered that it could only be the CIA, thus paving the way for the successful conspiracy theories that followed.

These are only a few examples. The history of philosophical readings around 9/11 could make for an entire book. It would show how anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism prevented so many sharp minds from seeing the religious nature of this new terrorism as the singularity of the new war. On top of it came the distrust towards propaganda and the will not to be fooled, which was transformed into systematic denial of basic information.

Of course, it actually is a philosopher's job to be critical, and therefore to debunk prejudice and false foregone conclusions. But isn't there also a duty not to ignore the facts?

Instead of accusing the American empire, the arrogance built into the Twin Towers, the reign of images, they should have scrutinized political Islamism, the hitherto unseen uses of violence, the terrorist's art of communication. Some have done just that, but they were routinely ignored.

It is of the utmost importance now that we analyze the implications of the changes that took place since 9/11. Because the targets are no longer just symbols like the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, but anybody who lives in the land of "non-believers," whether in the street, at an outdoor café, a concert, or a school. Terrorists are no longer organized commandos of engineers trained to turn Boeing aircrafts into bombs, but self-managed small-time delinquents armed with a truck or kitchen knife.

If we want to prevail, we'll have to make up fast for the time we've lost with our best thinkers getting it wrong.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest