When is tolerance acceptance?
Reading this Time editorial on Zidane:
Don't count me among those who are wagging their finger at French soccer star Zinédine Zidane for his ferocious head butt to the chest of Italian defender Marco Materazzi in the waning minutes of overtime of the World Cup final. Zidane, known as Zizou to the fans who worship him, later explained that he erupted after having to endure one insult too many--not to mention a game's worth of off-the-ball rough stuff--from a fullback who has been called l'animale in Italy.
makes me ponder - Are the same people who criticized Zidane applying the same logic to Israel? After all, much of the argument can be traced to Asimov: Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent (On a side note: I agree with Asimov, but not how he intended - the competent resort to violence well before it is their last refuge).
Perhaps Zidane chose to use the world stage he had - for the very last time, to make a very clear statement. No tolerance for the bigotry and racism that is so prevalent in European soccer. And for making that calculating decision - to trade in his capital to try to force the discussion - I have respect for him. One could only hope that others would choose to stand up for their principles, even at high costs.
Like Israel. People have commented that "it's only two soldiers" or "the rockets aren't that deadly". Somewhat like, "he only called Zidane's family by some nasty names." But really, you stand up for yourself, your family, and your country.
Comments
Are you saying that even after the competent engage in violence, they must seek further resort? Salvor Hardin meant that the incompetent continue to ineffective violence after being ineffective in other ways---they believe violence *always* works. The competent don't believe violence makes peace or heals wounds, though it may excise a tumor or create an open space for dialogue.
More seriously, I think you're wrong to defend Zidane. He met ugly thoughts and words with violence---off the soccer field, that would have been called assault and prosecuted.
Israel was attacked by a set of neighboring countries; it's then waging war against them. That is a last resort: after Oslo, Camp David, unilateral pullouts... well, now it's back to war. May this prove them competent, by bringing the region to a state where the sane and civilized of Lebanon, Israel, even Syria can sit down and build a peace with liberty.
Posted by: Brian | July 20, 2006 09:41 PM
No, I'm asserting that the competent recognize that, even when there may be other avenues to pursue, that avenues may be less effective than violence, and thus, you resort to violence rather than taking refuge in yet more futile activities.
As for Zidane, while you have a point about on-the-field vs. off-the-field, the fact is that, on the soccer field, violence is accepted; players do attack other players, usually pretending it is accidental. While Zidane may have simply lost control, he may also have chosen, at that time and place, that he could do more good by highlighting the sad state of soccer by taking his stand.
For Israel, I am of the opinion that violence is the only solution for parts of Israel's problem; it is the language her enemies truly understand. Her friends, and those on the fence, will need other solutions, but for now, her probelm requires force.
Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2006 10:59 PM