SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home "What You Can't Say About Islamism" Or, For That Matter,...

THE SPINE JULY 10, 2010

"What You Can't Say About Islamism" Or, For That Matter, About Islam.

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Paul Berman, who writes regularly and provocatively for us, published on Saturday in the Wall Street Journal another one of his disturbing epistles about Muslims and Fascism, Jews and Liberalism, truth and falsehood that have made him perhaps the most disturbing of contemporary intellectuals. And certainly the most disturbing American intellectual in a circle that includes Bernard-Henri Levy, Pascal Bruckner, Alain Finkielkraut, all French. I mean "disturbing" as a compliment.

Berman is also a relentless intellectual, and maybe "disturbing" goes together with "relentless." He is convinced that Islamism, which is not a tiny heretical offshoot of the prophet or a minor grouplet sprinkled here and there among the faithful, is now mainstream and mainstream intimidating of the faithful. That is, they believe.

It is also mainstream intimidating of the liberals, yes, you and me. Well, certainly not me. OK, and not you, too. But there is an epidemic of tolerance--on the liberal campus, at liberal dinner tables, in liberal families, among the liberal "new world" entrepreneurs--for people who hate and often kill liberals (especially liberal Muslims). This tolerance extends to Jew-haters and Jew-killers. In the West, in fact, indulgence of the hatred of Jews among liberals and liberal Jews or Jewish liberals is so rampant that it has taken on a new disguise: the hatred of Zionism and disgust with the State of Israel, perhaps one of the three or four most liberal states in the world.

In our present Age of the Zipped Lip, you are supposed to avoid making any of the following inconvenient observations about the history and doctrines of the Islamist movement:

You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s.

You are not supposed to point out that Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide.

And you are not supposed to mention that, by inducing a variety of journalists and intellectuals to maintain a discreet and respectful silence on these awkward matters, the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis.

Or so I have argued in my recent book, "The Flight of the Intellectuals." But am I right? I glance with pleasure at some harsh reviews, convinced that here, in the worst of them, is my best confirmation.

Read the rest at the Journal's website.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 377 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

377 comments

I just read Berman's article in the WSJ. The article is a reply to a number of reviews of his books in various journals and magazines. I read most of the reviews he talks about, and I must say that Berman is being charitable when he says that these articles "reek of bad faith." They are worse than that. Some of these reviews which were presented in letter form (i.e. in the NY Times) lied about Berman's views of Islam when it accused him being in favor of "a war between civilizations." Only a cursory look at his books on Islamic radicalism will show what a distortion of what Berman actually says this is. The letter writer, a retired Whitman scholar, either hadn’t read Berman’s books or else he deliberately distorted what he said. He also accused Berman of “stalking’ Tariq Ramadan because he wrote about him. The illogicality of this comment should have kept this letter from being printed (it was the only letter on the subject published by the NY Times). Berman is as guilty of stalking Ramadan as the letter writer is guilty of stalking Walt Whitman. Finally, it seems that whenever the subject of Islamic terrorism and their association with the Nazis is mentioned some intellectuals become hysterical. This is too bad because if we want to avoid a “war between the West and Islam we need to keep out heads and explore truthfully ever aspect of the relation between the Nazis and Islamicists as well as the latter’s wholesale embrace of gebocidal Jew hatred.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Kurdish diaspora is trying to make the cause of Kurdish self-determination heard in Western democracies, hence their quest to find strategies for amplifying their voices. Kurdish self-determination is a broken promise from the 1919 negotiations at Versailles. "United Kurdistan" would truly reshape geo-politics. Paul Berman got a positive review from Kurdish-American professor of English, Dr. Sabah A. Salih (though not in agreement with Peretz's insistence that Islamism is mainstream). From "Why Kurdistan needs to take note of Paul Berman’s latest book, the flight of the intellectuals" on June 16, 2010 "...those who have legitimate ties to Iraq and Kurdistan but do not subscribe to this lazy piece of nonsense and have a counter story to tell, find themselves ignored. The implication of Berman’s book for Kurdistan is that its story in the West cannot be told because the intellectual market these days favors Islamism over secularism, the dogma of multiculturalism over honest discussion. ..." http://www kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=16360 From Bangi Hajo, a doctor and well-known Kurdish writer from Syria, living in Sweden in today's KurdishMedia, translated into English: "A Kurdish-Israeli alliance vis-à-vis the Arab-Turkish alliance?" "...One may wonder about the significance of this writing? Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are suffering from occupation, injustice, siege, etc. Kurds in Turkey are suffering many times over, and they are prohibited from giving their children Kurdish names, and from teaching in their language, and there has been war in the Kurdish area for a quarter of a century, which has brought displacement, poverty…etc. Now Palestinian and Arab people have found an ally in Turkey against Israel. If Israel with its political and financial, media and military technology stood with Kurds from Turkey, for example in supporting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party – PKK movement, we would as a result have an Israeli-Kurdish alliance, against Turkish oppression. What would the Arabs and Palestinians think about Kurds in Turkey then? Is there any special divine consideration of Arabs and Jews – the “best nation on earth” and “God’s chosen people”? God Almighty will solve this problem, but this will not happen before the Day of Resurrection. Large numbers of the Turkish Press warned Erdogan of the dangerousness of events if Israel moved to support Kurds in Turkey. The number of Kurds in Turkey is about 30 million people. The answer is left to the mind, and intelligence, and conscience. Alliances based on immorality, and betrayal of principles, and double standards will be shamed before God and history. The same applies to the clerical regime in Tehran." read Dr. Hajo's entire essay at http://www kurdishaspect.com/doc071010BH.html [Kurdishaspect.com is based in the USA "offers readers a treasure of information as a useful guide to know how others view the Kurds."] [KurdishMedia.com, based in the United Kingdom, is an independent information provider, not affiliated to any political or non-political organisation. Its vision is to become a one-stop-shop information provider on Kurds and Kurdistan ...shall continue to make a positive contribution to peace, equality and stability throughout Kurdistan, and, Develop a scientific approach to the Kurdish issue, including towards its language, art and culture; Create new definitions for the future of the Kurdish nation within the international arena; Create a sphere for Kurdish thinkers and strategists to be able to further develop upon the Kurdish issue; Introduce Kurds as a civilised nation in the international arena; Define a state of "United Kurdistan" as an isle of peace at the heart of the Middle East."] One example of how the West ignores the Kurds is looking for media coverage of the Kurdish National Congress of North America July 6, 2010 (copied entirely from Kurdishaspect.com):"Appeal to the world to stop Iran's aggression" "Systemic suppression of any voice of dissent has been the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran for three decades. Anyone who opposes this policy is risking his or her life. Many Kurds have been opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran from its inception and have become targets of aggression by the regime. In May 2010 the regime hanged another five dissidents, four of whom were of Kurdish origin. On June 29, 2010 Human Right Watch reported that the following 17 other Kurds are facing execution by the Iranian regime: Zeynab Jalalian, Rostam Arkia, Hossein Khezri, Anvar Rostami, Mohammad Amin Abdolahi, Ghader Mohammadzadeh, Habibollah Latifi, Sherko Moarefi, Mostafa Salimi, Hassan Tali, Iraj Mohammadi, Rashid Akhkandi, Mohammad Amin Agoushi, Ahmad Pouladkhani, Sayed Sami Hosseini, Sayed Jamal Mohammadi, and Aziz Mohammadzadeh. In addition to internal suppression, the Islamic Republic is engaged in cross border aggression. The Los Angeles Times reported on June 27, 2010 that Iran followed Turkey in bombing the Qandil mountain area and causing more than 650 Kurdish families to leave their villages and live in primitive conditions without shelter or sufficient food. We at the Kurdish National Congress of North America are very concerned about the persistence and escalation of aggression by the Islamic Republic against the Kurds. We appeal to the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and the rest of the international community to do every thing in their capacity to stop the aggression of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We urge them to pressure Iran to have a peaceful negotiation with the Kurds monitored by the free world. Contact: PR committee at Info@kncna.org, or 805-402-6440"

- K2K

July 10, 2010 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD, what "Whitman scholar"? I know of a few, but I'm curious as to why one of them would be reviewing Berman's book. Or did you mean that they just wrote a letter in a completely personal capacity to the NYT attacking Berman?

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "JD, what "Whitman scholar"?'' He wrote a long letter which the Times published. The reviewer's name is Benjamin Barber http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Letters-t-FLIGHTOFTHEI_LETTERS.html?ref=review

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Berman is simply tracking a modern touchstone that is relevant to the modern psyche. It has a narrative and consequence of identifiable portion to the ' Enlightened'. The actual origin of which is quite archaic and dwells within the heart of humanity. That our fellow humans of recent vintage could be so caught up in such an evil enterprise is nearly unfathomable to most of us. It's just too big to allow us to see our own contributions to the situation. So we throw off our shadows by virtue of projecting to the scapegoat our fears..... about ourselves..... and our fears rule the day. What we are witnessing is a collective madness once again visiting us all of its myopic splendor. It would seem that the multicultural impulse is ignorant of its darkest motivations and will stop at nothing to affirm its need for unity affirmation. Now it has found Islam as its vehicle of choice and will, in all of its sympathetic iconoclastic fury, not be dissuaded by anything like the truth of its own conflicted paradoxes. That is far too much work and unpleasantness. All they want is righteousness and will happily indict all other comers with the worst of their own obsessions. All the while quite blind of it all. Take mans God/s away and he will find others. Mass man in all his glory. Keep up the good fight.

- jacko

July 10, 2010 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Says Wikipedia: "Benjamin R. Barber (born August 2, 1939) is an American political theorist perhaps best known for his 1996 bestseller, Jihad vs. McWorld." He is not a literary scholar to my knowledge, but seems to have an endowed position named after Walt Whitman.

- amidut

July 10, 2010 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, this was a bit confusing at first. However, I now think the author of the letter attacking Berman's book is Benjamin R. Barber, political scientist and author of the 1996 bestseller "Jihad vs. McWorld." He was at Rutgers and is now a senior faculty member at the University of Maryland. While at Rutgers he founded the Walt Whitman Center, which has nothing (I'm guessing here, as I couldn't find a web page) to do with poetry or literary scholarship, but is rather a center for the study of culture and democracy from a poli sci perspective. I'm tempted to say, phew!

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss Muslim intellectual whom detractors of radical Islam love to hate." Extraordinary immoral lucidity is expressed in this sentence alone and its subversive use of meanings of words. "Detractor" - censor, critic, defamer, depreciator "radical Islam" a political movement like any other, that has critics and supporters There is an a-priori concession that Ramadan represents "radical Islam". Then there is the attempt to allocate respectability to the movement called "radical Islam" by speaking of the fact that it has "detractors". You detract from something that is generally tolerable and benign but you want to make the case that it is not. In other words, you can only defame something or someone that are righteous. It's quite an outrageous letter but I disagree with jackson that it should not have been published. It should have been, so as to create exactly the kind of contrast between Berman's genuine moral lucidity and this remarkable attempt to straighten the twisted and twist the straight. Whenever I see Ramadan's name I immediately think of the stoning of women: http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/07/bbc-smackdown-the-stoning-of-sakine-asht/index.shtml

- noga1

July 10, 2010 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks amidut, the NY Times idenitfied him: "The writer is a distinguished senior fellow at Demos and the Walt Whitman professor emeritus at Rutgers University." I took it for granted that "the Walt Whitman" professor would be a W.W. Scholar. I shouldn't have.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “It's quite an outrageous letter but I disagree with jackson that it should not have been published. It should have been, so as to create exactly the kind of contrast between Berman's genuine moral lucidity and this remarkable attempt to straighten the twisted and twist the straight.” I think that this is probably what the NY Times editor thought. Since I doubt that most readers are as educated about the nature of radical Islam or knowledgeable with Paul Berman’s work, the NY Times should either not have published the letter or at the very least printed a second letter showing that Berman was neither a stalker (a ridiculous charge, thanks malahat) nor someone stoking the flames of civilizational wars.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought Barber's letter was transparently thuggish. Dismaying when one considers his professional respectability, but it's amazing to watch what a lot of people will eat these days. I am not 100% sure, but I come down in favor of the Times' publication of the letter. Enough people will see through it. Maybe some readers will be motivated to get a copy of Berman's book and see for themselves.

- amidut

July 10, 2010 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What you can't say? It is said all the time, ever watch Fox News or read the WSJ or TNR? Just because the entire world doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you are being forced deep underground with your unacceptable notions. To say anything nice about Muslims and Islam is what is impermissible these days. What is going on is a desire to keep Muslims and the Muslim world totally marginalized both as minorities within Western nations and as nations in the international system. Muslim views cannot matter because all Muslims are a bunch of whacked out Jew hating fanatics who want to suck Marty's blood. And not only are they a bunch of unbelievable religious fanatics who keep their women chained up inside closets, but they are actually a bunch of Nazis to boot. How convenient. Why try to compare Arafat to Hitler, when we can connect the dots and show that all Muslims are in fact the intellectual children of the Nazi party.

- nayyer_ali

July 10, 2010 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Berman is verifiably careful and meticulous in his references to "Islamists" as having the recorded affinity with Nazism. Nayyer Ali, however, does not accept that distinction, as we can see from his comment: "...all Muslims are a bunch of whacked out Jew hating fanatics who want to suck Marty's blood. And not only are they a bunch of unbelievable religious fanatics who keep their women chained up inside closets, but they are actually a bunch of Nazis to boot. "

- noga1

July 10, 2010 at 8:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nayyer_ali “To say anything nice about Muslims and Islam is what is impermissible these days.” Naysayer ali is of course joking, but in case he isn’t: Really, tell that to President Bush and Obama. Tell that to the NY Times, and The New Yorker and other leading publications which will falsify history and their own reporting to say nice things about those “poor Muslims” because even though there over a billion Muslims in the world and even thought they control a couple dozen countries they are still “a minority.” “What is going on is a desire to keep Muslims and the Muslim world totally marginalized both as minorities within Western nations and as nations in the international system.” Again, every country in the West is working overtime to integrate Muslims into their societies but these large minorities prefer to cling to their own traditions and reject Western secular values especially those of gender equality. “Muslim views cannot matter because all Muslims are a bunch of whacked out Jew hating fanatics who want to suck Marty's blood.” Islamicists did cut off the heads of a number of American Jews, didn’t they? They did attack a Jewish religious house of pacifists in Bombay and killed everyone they could find there including women and children. They did attack and kill thousands from the US to Western Europe and elsewhere. Let’s not play the victim here, naysayer ali. This poster reminds me of Muckenzie.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul Berman is a despicable bigot - a proto-Nazi who rehearses the Nazi propaganda of the 1930s merely replacing Jew with Muslim. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were produced by people with his racial animosity. Paul Berman is a dangerous fool worthy of our utmost contempt. It is not surprising that a demented bigot like Martin Peretz - and the ass-lickers who frequent the base of his Spine - would find his rants praiseworthy.

- ndmackenzie

July 10, 2010 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew that as soon as I'd meniton the Islamicist loving muckenzie who has been impersonating "naysayer ali" he would appear. Notice how the Nazi like muckenzie is updating the ideology of antisemitism. The "Muslims" pace him are the "Jews" and the Jews are the real antisemites. And war is peace and just Islam is peace and day is night. This is the world the utterly insignificant Muckenzie inhabits along with merde and maggots

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From an Interview with Martin Amis: "Where do you draw the line between Islam and Islamism? Violence. Any violence against civilians is absolutely intolerable. [And] there is a huge moral difference between trying to kill civilians and trying not to kill civilians. When an American soldier kills an Iraqi civilian on purpose, he faces the death penalty. There's no equivalent mechanism among the enemy. [They have] celebrations throughout the land when a good number of civilians have been killed. Are there any parallels to be drawn between your new novel, "House of Meetings," which takes place in Soviet slave camps, and the issues you have explored in Islamism? Terror as a tactic [or] as a policy is the same everywhere and in all times, and it always has to do with desperate insecurity about your legitimacy. It's a hysterical response to historical reality. And it's always self-defeating. Nothing achieved by terror ever lasts." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15461620/site/newsweek/

- noga1

July 10, 2010 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nayyer: "Muslim views cannot matter because all Muslims are a bunch of whacked out Jew hating fanatics who want to suck Marty's blood." The above is, with respect, complete and utter bullshit. http://muslimrepublicans.net/Article.asp?ID=164 At least two presidents, Bush and Obama, have gone considerably out of their way to try to educate Americans on the nature of the conflict we are in, and to distinguish between violent fundamentalist radicals and Islam as a major world religion. As I've been trying to explain on a related thread, it hasn't always stuck. But to claim that American public discourse is marked by free fire against Muslims is provable nonsense. Even the Fort Hood killings led to a great deal of protective argument that we were dealing with an individual nutcase rather than a glimpse of communal hatred. However, the tendency of some (I said 'some') Muslims to think in religious rather than national terms is disturbing in any society like the U.S. in which, historically, the defining tendency has been to merge religious identity into a more secular national identity.

- ironyroad

July 10, 2010 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is time to again bash the mushy-headed Liberals. Or maybe the young radical political activists on campus. Or maybe the Liberal families and neighbors in Cambridge. Or maybe just the "Liberals." How convenient. No polls from respected polling organizations, no studies from the ADL, no interviews, a few nasty letters undercutting Paul Berman, the current, "intellectual's intellectual." Is there really an "epidemic of tolerance" at the liberal's dinner table? Our NYC press is full of stories of locals marching in anger on the site of a proposed Mosque in Bay Ridge and Lower Manhattan folks outraged over a Muslim cultural center/mosque a few blocks from ground zero. I like Paul Berman. I've read his books and articles in the journals of opinion. I heard him in action at a launch for the quarterly magazine, Dissent in Brooklyn, a year or two ago. He was delightful. Like Hanna Arendt, he gets the big issues correct and falls down dealing with the smaller issues. For example, his last big article in TNR was a lengthy review of the new biography of Author Koestler and the prison experiences of the revolutionary Russian radicals and their link with the prison experiences of Muslim Brotherhood members in Egypt. One-quarter of the article explored the life of Alexander Berkman, jailed in the US, not in Czarist or Bolshevik Russia, for the failed assassination attempt on the life of steel industrialist Henry Clay Frick. Berkman, red Emma's longtime lover, was a revolutionary anarchist from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, not a bolsheviki, and was bailed out, upon release, with an organizing job by the social democratic Yiddish-speaking, Workmen's Circle. Go figure? Apples and Oranges. Paul Berman is on stronger ground when it comes to Islamic extremism/terrorism and Islamism. Many readers already know the link between Nazism and Islam was not discovered by Paul Berman. As Hanna Arendt in her "Eichmann in Jerusalem," in the chapter "The House of Justice", writes, "The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were no secret: he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some "final solution" in the Near East." And further, "That Arab nationalists have been in sympathy with Nazism is notorious, their reasons are obvious, and neither Ben-Gurion nor this trial was needed "to ferret them out"; they never were in hiding." Also, "The Mufti had been in close contact with the German Foreign Office and with Himmler, but this was nothing new." Mr. Berman's article in TNR on Tariq Ramadan covered new ground and I found it highly researched and useful in understanding Islamism.

- LawrenceGulotta

July 10, 2010 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For those who want to see the Muslims as the "new Jews" of Europe: "For Jews, Swedish City Is a ‘Place To Move Away From’" http://www.forward.com/articles/129233/

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From Dissent magazine: "Islam and Antisemitism: An Interview" with Dr Andrew Bostom http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d15Bostom.pdf

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also from Dissent: A manifesto published by Muslims critical of Islamicist ideology: "A Muslim Manifesto from France" By Tewfik Allal "We are of Muslim culture. We oppose misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and the political use of Islam. We reassert a living secularism." http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=339

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unsurprisingly, jdyer links to a Dr. Andrew Bostom who in the linked interview said: -- On the way home I grabbed a book by Karen Armstrong about Islam. I was reading it and commenting to my wife that it just didn’t seem to jibe. (I learnt later that Armstrong is a notorious apologist.) I learnt there and then that Dr. Andew Bostom is an imbecile because only an imbecile would claim Karen Armstrong to be a notorious apologist.

- ndmackenzie

July 10, 2010 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Unsurprisingly, jdyer links to a Dr. Andrew Bostom who....is an imbecile..." "Dr Andrew Bostom is Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University. He is the author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (2008)." And other than impersonate naysayer ali, and spout nazi like comments about Jews who the fuck is this muckenzie? A cowardly maggot who hides behind aliases.

- jdyer

July 10, 2010 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LawrenceGulotta:"Is there really an "epidemic of tolerance" at the liberal's dinner table? Our NYC press is full of stories of locals marching in anger on the site of a proposed Mosque in Bay Ridge and Lower Manhattan folks outraged over a Muslim cultural center/mosque a few blocks from ground zero..." Can you clarify if you mean to imply that NYC is full of liberals, yet there are all these protests about building mosques? 1) everyone in NYC protests everything - kind of a religion unto itself, 2) not all residents of NYC are liberals despite the near-monopoly of elected Democrats. I was not aware of the proposed mosque on Voorhies Avenue in Bay Ridge (it's actually where Mill Basin meets Midwood). Maybe muslims feel encouraged to move to NY9th knowing Congressman Anthony Weiner would marry Huma Abedin today? (good luck on re-election in the 9th marrying a Muslim, although I guess working for Hillary makes it ok?) Anyway, the muslims attracted to that area want good schools (James Madison HS) and nice housing, and to shop at Midwood's Pomegranate, the biggest kosher supermarket in America, as YNET reported via AP in 2008: "The store offers delicacies like sushi, organic pear juice and fresh kumquats along with such traditional Jewish foods as gefilte fish, matzo meal and kishke, a kind of sausage. There's full-time rabbinical supervision, and even valet parking. " My grandmother Lena, may she rest in peace, made the BEST gefilte fish and kishke (and that AP reporter probably thought stuffed cow intestine was "a kind of sausage"?)

- K2K

July 11, 2010 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not an apologist: "What more concessions should the West make to Muslims? When should we draw the line and stop sacrificing our ideals?" The question was posed by a young Englishman at the end of a lecture on "Understanding Islam" at Oxford University's Institute for American Studies in England. While the question revealed many Western concerns and assumptions, as well as the extent to which an anti-Islamic mood has prevailed in the West since the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September last year, the answer, however, was quick. "Muslims did not ask us to give up our ideals and values. On the contrary, it is the West which does not honour these very ideals when dealing with Muslims and Islam," said the lecturer, Karen Armstrong, a Catholic nun turned Christian theologian. [-] Armstrong explains how the media in the US attempted to silence opposing voices after 11 September. For example, she had been commissioned by the New Yorker magazine to write an article on Islam, but the article was killed and the magazine published one by the academic Bernard Lewis instead. "They thought I am an apologist for Muslims, because my article was about the prophet as a peacemaker, and this did not suit their agenda as much as Lewis's did. Both Lewis and Kramer are staunch Zionists who write from a position of extreme bias. But people need to know that Islam is a universal religion, and that there is nothing aggressively oriental or anti-Western about it. Lewis's line, on the other hand, is that Islam is an inherently violent religion," she said. " [-] "Armstrong believes that the Israeli occupation is responsible for the kind of violent resistance it meets from the Palestinians. "The resistance will be as ruthless and violent as the occupation is," she says. "Every occupation breeds its own kind of resistance." Armstrong believes that the phenomenon of the Palestinian suicide bombers has more to do with politics and hopelessness than it does with religion. "I don't think people sit at home and read the Qur'an and say, yes, I must go and bomb Israel. This is not how religion works, and I see just absolute hopelessness when people have nothing to lose. Palestinians don't have F- 16s, and they don't have tanks. They don't have anything to match Israel's arsenal. They only have their own bodies."" http://www.islamfortoday.com/karenarmstrong02.htm

- noga1

July 11, 2010 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JDyer: "Islam and Antisemitism: An Interview" with Dr Andrew Bostom is a very discouraging interview. I'm going to study it in greater detail. I found, on first reading, an alarmist under-current in Dr. Bostom's discussion. I also found a lack of context. Notwithstanding, it is a sober and sufficiently detailed discussion that deserves attention and further analysis. Considering the size of the Muslim faith, Dr. Brown's analysis points to unending conflict and turmoil--a clash of civilizations or eternal religious wars. Is the 7th century faith the driving determinism of our future? His research is a sharp contra to Paul Berman's thesis. Something is missing in Dr. Bostom analysis as well Huntington's work. Thank you for bring it to our attention.

- LawrenceGulotta

July 11, 2010 at 1:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

..."What You Can't Say About Islamism" *Or, For That Matter, About Islam*... Again, we are left to pull your point from your title. That may be your point, but it's not Berman's. You can't read his op ed or his book or his other books and take it that he assimilates Muslims to to Islamists or vice versa. And you disserve him by, as I read you, which is to say, ferret out meanings from your title, by pressing Berman into the service of that assimilation, when it's yours and decidedly not his.

- basman

July 11, 2010 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I look forward to LawrenceGulotta's discovery of what is missing in Bostom's research and analysis. Honestly, I'm curious, not being disingenuous. The immense demographic size of Islam is somewhat of a chimera. Most Muslims don't understand Arabic. They pray rotely in simple Arabic prayers. They have not read the Koran in their native language. Islam was imposed by conquest. Under Islamic law, Muslims are systematically privileged and non-Muslims are systematically humiliated, hence the incentive to convert. Like Communism, Islam is vulnerable to analysis and criticism. Hundreds of millions of people, especially women, homosexuals, and minorities, suffer under Islam. Hear that, liberals? Most of the recent "revival" in Islam is due to the vast amounts of Saudi petro-money spent on "dawa" (propaganda), subsidy of radical imams, and mosque-building abroad. They really mean to impose "shariah", Islamic law, on the rest of the world and stamp out criticism of Islam by calling it "Islamophobia" and racism. Islam is not a race, but a totalitarian religious-political doctrine. We need to challenge Islam, not hide under our blankets. Islam cannot be appeased. It is on the march. Better that we confront it intellectually, not on the physical battlefield. Let it collapse of its own failures and internal contradictions.

- amidut

July 11, 2010 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

watch Zakaria (CNN GPS today) v Choudhary, admitted radical Islamist.

- K2K

July 11, 2010 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for the tip, K2K. Transcript of the interview is at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/11/fzgps.01.html. A.

- amidut

July 11, 2010 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

amidut: I think I made it clear that Dr. Bostom does an excellent job researching the foundational anti-semitism in Islam. You also make an excellent observation regarding the chimera of Islam's demography and the shallowness of Islam's devotional acceptance by various conquered peoples. I've listened to old Cold-warriors compare Islam's ideological vulnerability to that of Communism. I recall Arch Puddington, biographer of Lane Kirkland and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty hand, compare the Islamic upheaval to that of Communism. Paul Berman has discussed the desirability of creating a modern version of the Congress of Cultural Freedom to engage pro-democratic, modernists in the Islamic world. US intelligence agencies have engaged with moderate followers of Islam, at least since the Eisenhower era. Ian Johnson's "A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA and the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West" gives us an insight into the successes and failures of our intelligence work in this area. Shariah has not inspired many Westerners. Unlike Soviet Communism, Islam doesn't possess political parties vying for power in the West. There is nothing akin to the Italian of French Communist parties. Unlike Communism, Islam has attracted few and mostly marginal non-political figures to its banner. There is no Islamic equivalent of an Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Stephen Spender or Max Eastman in the Islamic ranks. I'm not sure that all of Islam operates under a "totalitarian religious-political doctrine." There is a variety of regime-types under the Islamic umbrella. The most vibrant and modernist society under Islamic influence is Turkey, currently enjoying an 11.7% 1Q 2010 GDP. Turkey engages in some unseemly anti-semitism internally, yet the Turkish military clearly understands the benefits of good relations with Israel and the West. It is not a member yet, but an essential component of the EU. The notable civil rights leader, Bayard Rustin, would often remark that he didn't care what the White Southerner thought about blacks in the recesses of this brain. What counted was that there was an enforceable Voting Rights Act on the books and that Blacks voted in great numbers, without fear. I think this is rational advise to those feeling the brunt of Islamic oppression and fear. We don't care what you think about the Jews and Christians, so long as you can't act on your 7th century Islamic ideas. Bashing the Liberals (LOL)? Do we need to be reminded of our un-apologetically "Liberal" Secretary of State Hilary Clinton? I strongly believe she understands that there are "hundreds of millions of people, especially women, homosexuals, and minorities, suffer[ing] under Islam." Really now. Islam thinks the West is challenging them, why do you think we are hiding under our blankets? There are a few dozen low and mid-level academics and a few journalists that engage in apologies for Islamic causes. I'm certain we can defeat those "useful idiots" on the battlefield of Ideas.The targets of anti-semitism are able to fight back against religious and racial prejudice and have defeated absolute evil before. Finally, I believe that economic globalization will ultimately break the back of Islamism. The Muslim multitudes aspire to a better standard of living, for themselves and their children. Modernity is impossible to stop. It is the engine of history and the ancient Koran can not stop it. Islamism is an hysterical reaction to modernism that will run its course. Dr. Bostom's excellent scholarship addresses only part of this drama. It is useful, but not the whole story.

- LawrenceGulotta

July 11, 2010 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

amidut, thanks for the transcript link. it is even more bizarre to read it. I guess Choudary thought Zakaria was going to crack over Israel? GPS transcript at the end: "ZAKARIA: You've got to get your history right. CHOUDARY: Wait a second. Wait a second. ZAKARIA: I'm afraid we're going to have to go. CHOUDARY: My history - my history is correct. I'm afraid that you're living in the world of CNN. ZAKARIA: I am living in the world of CNN, as are you right this minute. We will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAKARIA: And now for our "What in the World?" segment. [methinks Zakaria had just finished his "What in the World" segment:) It is almost a shame Zakaraia did not agree that the 'occupation of Palestine' is the problem for Choudary's vision of Dar as Islam, because then Choudary would have maybe identified the next most problematic occupation. India? Spain? Antarctica?]

- K2K

July 11, 2010 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LawrenceGulotta “Finally, I believe that economic globalization will ultimately break the back of Islamism. The Muslim multitudes aspire to a better standard of living, for themselves and their children. Modernity is impossible to stop. It is the engine of history and the ancient Koran can not stop it. Islamism is an hysterical reaction to modernism that will run its course. Dr. Bostom's excellent scholarship addresses only part of this drama. It is useful, but not the whole story.” True, but this too is not the whole story. Think of China. Has globalization co-opted the Chinese Communist bureaucracy? That was the hope. The reality is far more complex. As long as Islamic States have their own immense wealth based on oil and as long as the West is in constant need of that commodity, it’s difficult to see how globalization is going to make much of a difference in places such as Saudi Arabia which is one of the engines of Islamism. Ironically, Iran is the only country which has a potential for modernization; this is because of the Shah’s program before he was deposed by Islamicists and their leftist allies. This is the only country in the Muslim Middle East where a democratization program would have a chance. In spite of what you say, Turkey is a mixed grab of authoritarianism, Islamism, and modernism. Orhan Pamuk’s novels deal with this subject. I believe that very little will change in the Arab world till the Saudi Arabian regime is removed from power. The Saudi’s are modernisms most obnoxious and lethal enemy in that they not only rule their country but spread their poison throughout the Muslim world.

- jdyer

July 11, 2010 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What an amazing interview. Good for Zakaria by the way.

- Sophia

July 11, 2010 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer: We could discuss this until dawn. Marty began with the astounding statement that there is a "epidemic of tolerance" in the land: "It is also mainstream intimidating of the liberals, yes, you and me. Well, certainly not me. OK, and not you, too. But there is an epidemic of tolerance--on the liberal campus, at liberal dinner tables, in liberal families, among the liberal "new world" entrepreneurs--for people who hate and often kill liberals (especially liberal Muslims). This tolerance extends to Jew-haters and Jew-killers. In the West, in fact, indulgence of the hatred of Jews among liberals and liberal Jews or Jewish liberals is so rampant that it has taken on a new disguise: the hatred of Zionism and disgust with the State of Israel, perhaps one of the three or four most liberal states in the world." So the problem domestically and internationally begins with: a.) the liberal campus; b.) liberal dinner tables; c.) liberal families; d.) among the liberal "new world" entrepreneurs; e.) liberals; f.) liberal Jews or Jewish liberals. It's Marty's magazine and he says what he wants. No proof, no analysis, no studies, no polls, no common sense required. It is the "liberals," end of story. The "liberalism of fools" and the "socialism of fools" has infected every liberal, except Marty and you, and he has his doubts about you, too. No exceptions, no prisoners, no education programs, no debates, no exchanges, no discussion, no campaigns, no committees, no public talks. Anti-semitism is restricted to the "liberals." The Right gets a pass. Got it!

- LawrenceGulotta

July 11, 2010 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LawrenceGulotta “jdyer: We could discuss this until dawn.” Yes, we could, and we could discuss until dawn also Peretz’ views about liberals not taking antisemitism seriously these days. Still, I am curious as you why you switched from your reaction to the article by Dr. Boston which I was answering to discussing Marty’s views?

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Martin Amis can distinguish between Islam and Islamists. So can Berman. So do most of the people that are theoreticially taking part in the horrific epidemic of tolerance. Why can't peretz? and if the failure to make the distinction is the signal evidence of courage in the current hegemony of islam, wouldn't that make Berman a coward as well? And if so, why isn't peretz taking him down for being a squish?

- miceelf

July 12, 2010 at 6:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dear jdyer: My reaction to Dr. Bostom's article is positive. It is astute, well researched and thought provoking. I said so, thrice! Further, I'm pleased the interview appeared in the social democratic "Domocratiya," the UK version of "Dissent" magazine, now merged. There will be further occasions to discuss my views on this critical and complex issue. Dr. Peretz's will continue to provoke debate, as it should be. Time for rest, my friend. The "think tank" I work for doesn't appreciate morning "stragglers."

- LawrenceGulotta

July 12, 2010 at 6:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the first two of Berman's points quoted above simply are not true. The relative youth of Islamism and the fundamentalists' Nazi fetish are commonplaces so widely and often stated as to border on the banal. One reads those points made weekly in newspapers and magazines; they are daily repeated on talk radio; I have heard them discussed over the formica counters of highway rest stops and country diners across the nation for years.

- rhubarbs

July 12, 2010 at 8:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am well with Marty's grenades. Perhaps because of the perceived errant shrapnel rather than despite.

- jacko

July 12, 2010 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I have heard them discussed over the formica counters of highway rest stops ..." Rhubs: you frequest a far better class of highway rest-stops than me. Or perhaps country diner conversation is considerably more nuanced and refined in the US than in Canadia. Lawrence: thanks for your posts; very illuminating. I would also add that it is always dangerous for a minority group - no matter how well protected or even powerful - to complain about an "epidemic of tolerance." The "people" are a fickle beast; I know this from personal experience, having lived through revolution, war, migration and adjustment as minority in multiple respects. Without that well of tolerance deeply ingrained in society, there is danger that even in the midst of the deepest calm, the "people" would turn into savages braying for blood, usually of the handiest minority. And it is a sad irony that especially those who see anti-Semitism under every bed and who accuse any opponent of same, are precisely those who would deliver the liberal society over to agents of hate and of intolerance who would, in turn, turn on them when the time comes. I have lived under an Islamic dictatorship and have lost family and friends to its violence; in any Islamic society, let alone an Islamist one, I would be among the very first to be rounded up for re-education, or worse; I carry no brief for radical Islamism and have no love for nor affinity with Islam in any of its shapes. And yet, I tremble when I read, in these pages, that "Islam is a parasitic civilization" (as one poster said elsewhere), or when the owner of TNR complains about an "epidemic of tolerance" - in our universities, of all places. Islamism can be defeated and Islam as an agressive ideology confined, but not this way.

- icarusr

July 12, 2010 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous, if not downright inflammatory, to sever Marty's phrase "an epidemic of tolerance" which is followed, immediately and still within the same sentence with: "for people who hate and often kill liberals (especially liberal Muslims)"? "But there is an epidemic of tolerance--on the liberal campus, at liberal dinner tables, in liberal families, among the liberal "new world" entrepreneurs--for people who hate and often kill liberals (especially liberal Muslims). This tolerance extends to Jew-haters and Jew-killers. " Clearly Marty does not complain about an "epidemic of tolerance" in the way icarusrs wishes to understand it, but rather he complains about the proliferating inclination to tolerate any kind of opinion and article of faith even when they clearly are in contravention of the basic rules of tolerance. Lars Gustafsson offers a pretty coherent method o distinguishing between the two types of tolerance: "There is an interpretation of the concept of tolerance where the word becomes meaningless and the concept becomes empty. That occurs when it is applied to anything and everything without discretion. To claim that we owe tolerance to everything and everybody is mindless in the same way that it is pointless to say that everything we encounter is an illusion. Which makes it senseless to make a distinction between true and forged money, hallucinations and everyday experience. There is a logic of tolerance, which remains to be formalized by some future philosopher. Let me, as a starter, suggest two fairly obvious axioms: - Tolerance of intolerance yields intolerance. - Intolerance of intolerance yields tolerance." http://www.signandsight.com/features/1205.html I wonder who can argue with this view.

- noga1

July 12, 2010 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “I would also add that it is always dangerous for a minority group - no matter how well protected or even powerful - to complain about an "epidemic of tolerance."” As usual, icarusr manages to distort everything he reads. Noga’s comment then is a powerful retort to the self serving nonsense he posts here: noga1 “Isn't it a bit disingenuous, if not downright inflammatory, to sever Marty's phrase "an epidemic of tolerance" which is followed, immediately and still within the same sentence with: "for people who hate and often kill liberals (especially liberal Muslims)"?” I would that nor only is icarus being ‘disingenuous” his reference to Jews as “a minority group - no matter how well protected or even powerful” he is showing again his ignorance about American law and civil society. Jews are a protected minority only in the sense that all minorities are “protected” here. Moreover they are protected by law which also protects all citizens, minorities or not. Jews do not have any special protection in this country.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Martin Amis can distinguish between Islam and Islamists. So can Berman. So do most of the people that are theoreticially taking part in the horrific epidemic of tolerance.” The last sentence is supposed to be ironic, I think. It isn’t it’s an endorsement of tolerance for Islamic bigotry. In any case, all religions exhibit a disjunction between principles and practice and Islam is no exception. Everyone here is familiar with the Christian message of “love.” Yet, we are all also familiar to the insane religious wars and inhuman intolerance the religion of love has let lose from time to time (including burnings and wholesale murder during periods of persecutions of non Christians, crusades, inquisitions, etc. You find the same disjunction in Judaism, though on a lesser scale, because it has relatively few adherents. Now, at present both Christianity and Judaism are fragmented religions and there is no single doctrine that can be said to be the true Christian faith, or the real authentic Judaism. When people here complain that not enough care is taken to distinguish between the authentic Islam (the “religion of peace”) and Islamism (the inauthentic religion) they imply that there is an authentic Islam. I would suggest that as in Christianity and Judaism there is no authentic Islam and moreover that one ought to judge a religion not in terms of its “pure doctrine” but in terms of the behavior of its followers. In this sense the religion of the Wahabism or the Muslim Brotherhood is as authentic as any other and the acts of violence committed in its name are also an authentic expression of that religion just as the acts of violence by Christians against non Christians was also an authentic part of that religion. (Remember that in Christianity the contradiction between love and violence was much greater than in Islam whose doctrine is submission to the will of Allah.) Hence the differentiation between Islam and Islamists is a fiction. Muslims are what they do, not what they believe, the same as members of any other faith. In this sense both Berman and Peretz are correct in the same they describe Islam.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“But the first two of Berman's points quoted above simply are not true. The relative youth of Islamism and the fundamentalists' Nazi fetish are commonplaces so widely and often stated as to border on the banal. One reads those points made weekly in newspapers and magazines; they are daily repeated on talk radio; I have heard them discussed over the formica counters of highway rest stops and country diners across the nation for years.” While it is true that many right wing radio talk shows do excoriate Islam, this is besides the point Berman is making. Berman, in his article, is referring to established liberal intellectual papers and journals such as The NY Times, and the New Yorker when he complained that “(y)ou are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s.” In any case, I would like to know how people here know that right wing radio as well as lunch counter discussions center on the difference between ancient and modern day Islamic doctrine which was Berman’s first point?

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, this is a stream largely conforming to what, regrettably, I've seen before: when Jew-haters and Jew-lovers fight with written word, pretending that supposedly logical reasons for their beliefs are anything more than thin veneers for pathological hatred (of course, here I am refering to the anti-Semites). Although not a great scholar of Islam, nevertheless I've been reading quite a few books on the Islamic world, and it seems to me that broadly condemning the entire religion is ultimately fruitless. Yes, there are admirable ethical teachings in it; and also yes, there are disgusting practices and tendencies to totalitarianism inherent in it--what else would one expect from a world that includes over a billion differing souls? As in all large religious groupings (might I add all large ideological movements?), there are found saints and murderers, stoics and hotheads, etc, and these varieties persist at all times. The question is, who is in charge of the movement at the present time, is it more the nonviolent, constructive person, or, Heaven forbid, the opposite? Every religion and ideological movement must claim for itselve some greater measure of truth than its rivals, else why sacrifice one's time, effort, even life, to uphold its tenets? So I am neither surprised nor threatened that Islam claims absolute truth for itself: so does everybody else! There have been times when Christianity was much more violent than today, and Islam much more civilized than its neighbors. We mustn't forget that those current Islamists who emulate Nazis are aping a group of people whose families were, almost exclusively, Christians--so let's not accuse Islam of being more violent or demeaning to the Outsider than Christianity, per se. However, we do not and cannot live in the long-vanished enlightened world of Islam. Even if it were as enlightened as some say (many others disagree), we have to deal with the Muslims of today, not those of 500 or even 70 years ago, and likewise with Christians, Russians, Jews, Hindus, etc. And today, it is the more violent Muslim who is driving the Islamic world, with the less bloodthirsty varieties largely afraid even to speak out. Therefore, we are stuck with the job of fighting radical Islamists tooth and nail, on the streets and campuses, and on the battlefields, through every means of warfare, within our system of ethics, and not theirs, such as it is. Maybe there will be a future Islamic umma in which sweetness and light will predominate, but that is not the Islamic world we confront today, and we are stuck with dealing with it as it is.

- JBerkowicz

July 12, 2010 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, Jackson, I think it is you who is being disingenuous. Yes, the word "protected" is off, but "powerful" is certainly not. Jews in this country have risen socially, economically, academically more than any other minority (though East Asians are catching up--if not surpassing us. And anyway, they're a far larger minority than Jews). And as has been shown in the past, it doesn't matter how powerful we become, how comfortable we become--there is always the chance of a fall from grace. Do you think the phrase, "Is it good for the Jews?" is just a joke? If you do, then you assume that Jews are paranoid (another favorite trope of real anti-semites).

- MOLLYSIMON

July 12, 2010 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON “Actually, Jackson, I think it is you who is being disingenuous. Yes, the word "protected" is off, but "powerful" is certainly not.” Powerful? How powerful? Are they more powerful than Episcopalians? Are they more powerful than the Catholic Church, or the Black Caucus? More importantly, Jews have no more rights than any other people in this country. “Jews in this country have risen socially, economically, academically more than any other minority (though East Asians are catching up--if not surpassing us.” This too is debatable. Have they risen more than the Irish, or the Germans, or don’t you consider these minorities? Oh, I forgot to Molly most bankers are Jews as are most stock brokers and investors. Molly is someone who thinks that Jews are too prominent here and that they shouldn’t even commemorate the Shoah lest they offend Blacks and other minorities. Jews don’t live in squalor which is why some people consider them to be too high and mighty and destined for a fall. There is nothing that Molly posts about Jews that doesn’t have a tinge of fear and loathing mixed in.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer- I actually largely agree with you ,and with the noting of the distinction between principles and practice in religion in general. (I think that one reason why Judaism has had less problems in practice than both Christianity and Islam has been because there has been a much less emphasis on proselytizing, but that's a side issue). My concern isn't, however, that there's a unitary single Islam that is wonderful and to be distinguished from Islamism. Rather, the opposite. Just as is the case with Christianity and Judaism (although possibly less so) there are many different ways of being Muslim. Just as there are christians who work in soup kitchens and don't worry much about politics, and there are christians who bomb abortion clinics, and there are christians who are antisemitic and Christians who respect judaism, and all should be entitled to define themselves, it's unfair to claim that there's a single ideal Christianity and this christianity should be defined by the most violent and extremist Christians. THAT's my problem with the peretzian approach to islam and why I contrast it with Amis. Not that the "true" islam (whatever that is) is wonderful and light and if it's bad it can't be islam. Rather, that there are good muslims and bad, and if you define Islam ONLY as the bad, if you judge the entire religion by its worst, then you are, in fact, treating it as a single unitary (albeit negative) ideal. And as you note, the real world is messy- I'd rather keep the pejorative for the people who actually are meriting it, and not apply it to the entire group, of which the islamists are not the whole. What is "true" islam is something for them to decide, if that's even possible. My only probelm is not "oh, there's a true islam and it's wonderful." it's "peretz claims that the only true islam is bad." I just don't see why we should allow bin laden and his ilk to define others who disagree with him, even if it is convenient for peretz.

- miceelf

July 12, 2010 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...it's unfair to claim that there's a single ideal Christianity and this christianity should be defined by the most violent and extremist Christians." and yet it's done all the time, miceelf, even by Christians and rightly so. Organization means power, isolated individuals of whatever faith means powelessness. You define any group in terms of its group culture and not in terms of isolated individuals. "THAT's my problem with the peretzian approach to islam and why I contrast it with Amis." Well, Amis, in his essays is a lot closer to Peretz than you know. He too has been accused of being an anti-Muslim bigot.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer, it's also very frequently done that Jewish people are defined by the worst of them. Is this also rightly so? And why presume necessarily that the worst of the bunch are the ones who are not isolated?

- miceelf

July 12, 2010 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jberk: "And today, it is the more violent Muslim who is driving the Islamic world, with the less bloodthirsty varieties largely afraid even to speak out." A lucid analysis, overall, but I am not at all certain that this observation is entirely accurate. (Though, by referring to "less blood-thirty varieties", you seem to assume that all varieties of the Islamic world are "bloodthirsty" - but perhaps I am reading your text too closely.) Objectively speaking, the Islamic world - all 700 million or 1 billion or however many they are - is not, yet, at violent war with the West, or even with itself. There are large pockets of disturbing violence - mostly, as Peretz reminds us, Muslim on Muslim - but again, objectively speaking, no Islamic community, nor any Islamist group, has perpetrated the violence of the scale seen in China or the Soviet Union or even little Cambodia. Of the three largest Muslim countries, only one is really led by a violent government - Pakistan - and it is in equal measure a creature of the West and a reflection of Pakistan's tribal structure and violent Islamism. The country with the second largest Muslim population - India - is a thriving democracy - and there, the Hindus give as much as they receive in terms of sectarian violence. In the Arab world, whatever the faults of the leaders - for the most part, they are cynical kleptocrats - external or fundamentalist, or Islamist, violence is not a hall-mark of their government. Qabus of Oman? King Abdallah of Jordan? King Mohammad? Even the rulers of Tunisia and Algeria? Mubarak may be cynical, but he is hardly an Islamist; his violence has been directed at his own people, to be sure, but it is a violence of a tin-pot dictator and not one of an Islamist one. And so on. Finally, it is not at all the case that the rest, whether or not bloodthirsty, are afraid to speak out. In fact, they do. Iran - quite likely the most violent Islamist regime in control of a large oil-rich country (the Saudis apart - but they are "our bastards") - is the largest prison for intellectuals and journalists in the world; the Iranian regime deploys tortures that would cause Torquemada and Cheney to blanche ... and yet, even now, Iranian intellectuals and journalists and religious leaders and religious dissidents speak out - and they speak out precisely about the violence, not only against against their own people, but also against the outside world. The writings of Soroush, Kadivar, Eshkevari and Mohajerani - all architects or prominent children of the Islamic revolution - outside the country, and the teachings of Grand Ayatollahs Saneii, Ardebili, Behjat and the late Montazeri, all challenge the "violent" interpretation of Islam in favour not of a secular regime necessarily, or a godless one, but of one that is based on the early teachings of Islam (when Mohammad was in a minority himself in Mecca) - an interpretation that argues away, forcefully and intellectually coherently, the later Islam of "drag the heretics from their templs and slay them". As a non-Muslim, I wish there were a way to persuasively (for the Muslims) critique Islamism from the outside; but fundamental reform should come, if it is to last, from within, and the debate has been joined. Now, the critics may not succeed. Blood and violence have their own logic, at times. As well, for now at any rate, there may well be too much water under the bridge to expect that the voices of reason, in Iran or elsewhere, will manage to beat back Hamas and Hizbollah or Bashar al-Assad or the Saudi Abdallah. But we do ourselves no good by replicating their language of armed war, by resorting to a Churchillian call for warlike resolution and resistance, when the battle of and for ideas has yet to be lost. Especially when the basis upon which we rest the war - that Muslim countries are run by violent regimes the world over and that no dissent is permitted or dissenter left alive - is not entirely accurate.

- icarusr

July 12, 2010 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's what it boils down to for me: there are those who are trying to draw attention to the lethal aspect of Islamist ideology because they perceive enormous danger. And there are those who would pooh-pooh that assessment as an over-reaction at best, or a form of Islamophobia and racism at worst. Paul Berman is clearly a member of the first camp, as is Marty. Folks like Ian Buruma, Timothy Garton Ash and Karen Armstrong are spokespersons for the second group. They urge us not jump to alarming, half-baked conclusions, but to relax and trust their more nuanced, expert interpretations of events. It's almost comical to read Armstrong when she explains that Jihad refers to "a personal, spiritual struggle" and that we misread it when we think it has anything to do with suicide bombings. Perhaps someone should explain to those freshly murdered on the soccer fields of Kampala that their assassins were guilty of a textual misreading not supported by informed academic opinion. While it is certainly true that Islam is not a monolithic institution and that there are many nice Muslim people in the world, it is also true that the most rigid and virulent strains of Islam have been revivified. Yes, there was a marvelous era of fusion between Islam and neo-Platonic philosophy that inspired Sufism, but it is now wholly rejected and despised by the Salafists who dream of a return to ideological purity. In Sudan, one might point to Mahmoud Mohammad Taha who also promulgated a gentler, more enlightened form of Islam until he was executed by his ideological opponents in 1985. One could go on, but hopefully the point is clear: Islam may be infinitely varied and complex, and recognizing that fact may make one a better person. But it is no substitute for figuring out how to respond to growing threat of Islamofascism.

- willjames77

July 12, 2010 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That last sentence of willjames is spot on. What ought to preoccupy us us what is to be done. Most of the rest is a waste of time except to the extent it illuminates this question.

- roidubouloi

July 12, 2010 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, yes, the banking reference. I don't like having my words twisted, and I'm sure you don't either. But just to be clear, I said that there are a disproportionate number of Jews in the banking and finance sector. But of course one must always remember to say that Jews make up a disproportionate number scientists, academics, legal scholars, entertainers, mathematicians. God forbid anyone take a short-cut to keep it simple. And I don't think anyone lately has done a demographic study of high finance, but I'd lay my life down that Jews are a disproportionate demograph of financiers etc. I lived in New York. I read the paper. Sorry if you hate empiricism. Secondly, you're right about "protected" and "privileged" if you stick the letter of their meaning and not the spirit. And perhaps when Icarus is talking about Jews, he should be more careful in his word choice because yes, anti-Semitism can be creepily subtle. But I've been reading Icarus for years, and have never sensed AS from him. In fact, I think he often identifies with Jews as he himself faced serious persecution--in fact, far more serious than any of us can claim. So he knows what the real thing looks like. He's saying, as someone who himself was persecuted, that things can change very quickly and, because you want people to take serious the real instances of anti-Semitism, you really shouldn't go the constant Abe Foxman route. Because the cries of anti-Semitism start to be white noise after too many utterences--especially when it comes to Israel's security. It is not anti-Semitic to point out that settlements in the West Bank are wrong, morally and practically.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 12, 2010 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“…In this sense the religion of the Wahabism or the Muslim Brotherhood is as authentic as any other and the acts of violence committed in its name are also an authentic expression of that religion just as the acts of violence by Christians against non Christians was also an authentic part of that religion. (Remember that in Christianity the contradiction between love and violence was much greater than in Islam whose doctrine is submission to the will of Allah.) Hence the differentiation between Islam and Islamists is a fiction. Muslims are what they do, not what they believe, the same as members of any other faith. In this sense both Berman and Peretz are correct in the same they describe Islam….” What’s the line of reasoning here? Wahabism or the Muslim Brotherhood are an “authentic” part of Islam as are the acts of violence committed by such like, hence—it is asserted as night follows day—that the distinction between Islam and Islamists is but a fiction. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. If apple pies cause hives and apple pies are authentically pies, we are entitled to say that apple pies cause hives, but all other pies do not cause hives and we are entitled to distinguish between all pies and a sub set of pies, namely apple pies. The above argument conflates pieness of apple pies with the uniqueness of that type of pie compared with all other pies. That distinction would be important in the way one chooses to approach apple pies and all other pies. More practically, Berman *never* speaks of all Muslims when talking about Islamists. He only speaks about Islamists when he menas Islamists and bolsters his arguments by recourse to what liberal Islamic scholars and intellectuals have to say. Peretz points at, and more than points at, lumping them all together. Plus see the post of Ironyroad on this thread at 07/10/2010 - 9:28pm EDT

- basman

July 12, 2010 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And by the way, Dyer, if you think SOME sense of anxiety is completely ludicrous, and should be instantly dismissed, then you're nuts. And a jerk--how dare you dismiss someone else's feelings. As if those fears have no context. But I forgot, you are a robot.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 12, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

williamjames: "One could go on, but hopefully the point is clear: Islam may be infinitely varied and complex, and recognizing that fact may make one a better person. But it is no substitute for figuring out how to respond to growing threat of Islamofascism." Excellent point.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON “Ah, yes, the banking reference. I don't like having my words twisted, and I'm sure you don't either.” It’s hard to twist words which have so little sense in them. “And by the way, Dyer, if you think SOME sense of anxiety is completely ludicrous, and should be instantly dismissed, then you're nuts. And a jerk--how dare you dismiss someone else's feelings. As if those fears have no context. But I forgot, you are a robot.” Look, Molly, you keep repeating yourself and your comments are not interesting. There is little thought behind them and less learning. You are an angry narcissist and this is my last reply to you.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman “What’s the line of reasoning here?” It’s simple Itzik: there is no one strand of Islam that is more authentic than any other. Sufism may be more humane than al Qaeda but it still only one version of Islam. The same is true with all religions. While the Catholic Church in Spain was stoking the fires of the inquisition you had humanistic Churchmen elsewhere like Erasmus who embraced a totally different form of Christianity and followers of Erasmus were being burned in Spain just as Sufis are being blown up in the Muslim world. Now I never said that because ”Wahabism or the Muslim Brotherhood are an “authentic” part of Islam as are the acts of violence committed by such like, hence—it is asserted as night follows day” There is no causal relation here. Wahabists and Sufists offer authentic interpretations of the Koran just as Hassidim and Mitnagdim are authentic expressions of Judaism. “—that the distinction between Islam and Islamists is but a fiction.” Yes, just as distinguishing the dancer from the dance is a fiction. “More practically, Berman *never* speaks of all Muslims when talking about Islamists.” Of course not, but how does prove your point? No one said that all Muslims are Islamists, though the converse is true: all Islamists are Muslims. Berman, btw, has trouble keeping up this fiction that modern Islamists are not authentic Muslims, for example, when he writes about in the “Shade of the Quran” by Sayyid Qutb and some other places. But I agree with Berman that Wahabists and the Muslim brotherhood represent a modern strain of Islam. However, it is no less authentic than less modern versions of that religion.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman “What’s the line of reasoning here?” It’s simple Itzik: there is no one strand of Islam that is more authentic than any other. Sufism may be more humane than al Qaeda but it still only one version of Islam. The same is true with all religions. While the Catholic Church in Spain was stoking the fires of the inquisition you had humanistic Churchmen elsewhere like Erasmus who embraced a totally different form of Christianity and followers of Erasmus were being burned in Spain just as Sufis are being blown up in the Muslim world. Now I never said that because ”Wahabism or the Muslim Brotherhood are an “authentic” part of Islam as are the acts of violence committed by such like, hence—it is asserted as night follows day” There is no causal relation here. Wahabists and Sufists offer authentic interpretations of the Koran just as Hassidim and Mitnagdim are authentic expressions of Judaism. “—that the distinction between Islam and Islamists is but a fiction.” Yes, just as distinguishing the dancer from the dance is a fiction. “More practically, Berman *never* speaks of all Muslims when talking about Islamists.” Of course not, but how does prove your point? No one said that all Muslims are Islamists, though the converse is true: all Islamists are Muslims. Berman, btw, has trouble keeping up this fiction that modern Islamists are not authentic Muslims, for example, when he writes about in the “Shade of the Quran” by Sayyid Qutb and some other places. But I agree with Berman that Wahabists and the Muslim brotherhood represent a modern strain of Islam. However, it is no less authentic than less modern versions of that religion.

- jdyer

July 12, 2010 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Willjames: "Here's what it boils down to for me: there are those who are trying to draw attention to the lethal aspect of Islamist ideology because they perceive enormous danger. And there are those who would pooh-pooh that assessment as an over-reaction at best, or a form of Islamophobia and racism at worst." Reminds me of that old saw about there being two types of people ... There is a third group, who says that conflating Islamists, Islam, Muslims, fanatics, suicide bombers, devout hijab-wearers, "spiritual jihadists", Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indonesians, etc. ... into a messy and bloody goo of "Or, For That Matter, About Islam" is intellectually incoherent, morally indefensible and strategically unsound. It is possible, you know, to be against both Islamist suicide bombing (and its enablers) and anti-Muslim propaganda (and *its* enablers). I do agree with your last sentence though - would that Marty would pay attention and, perhaps, write a "What is to be done?" column that does not include invective against Obama, calumnies against liberals, vitriol against Islam (as a complex faith) and raw prejudice against Muslims/Arabs, but that offers lasting and workable solutions based on the realities on the ground.

- icarusr

July 12, 2010 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: the sole benefit of these exchanges is that they put a mirror to my own prejudices and biases, and thus exposed, they can be allowed to melt away, or at least be softened. Seeing what goes on in Iran the name of Islam, it's hard to have any sympathy left for people who claim that Islam is a religion of peace &c. And of course, when I left Iran, I was no less filled with hatred of all things Islamic ... When I read these threads, it forces me to reflect. Then I recall the post-revolutionary period, when it was the communists and leftists who were far more violent and radical - far more willing to engage in mass murder - than some of the Islamic leaders (the regime learned all of its trade in Stalinism from the secular intellectual far lefties). The first voices against the emerging dictatorship in Iran belonged, in fact, to the leading clergy, based strictly on the peaceful precepts of Islam, such as they are, and on real concern for the hijacking of their religion. And, certainly, no oppo leader in or outside Iran in the last thirty years has had the moral courage of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, who died last year. One does not need to be a Muslim to admire that, or to think that if there is to be true reform and true peace within and with Islam and Muslims, it is within the power of people like him, and not through incessant name-calling by the likes of Marty.

- icarusr

July 12, 2010 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr, It's true that I'm simplifying but it's not always irrelevant or useless to do so. U.S. elections are won based on red states and blue states even though the demographics are enormously complex. I agree that Montazeri was a great man and that there is much to admire in the wisdom traditions of Islam; I have certainly spent more years reading Henri Corbin's work on Iranian theosophy than the average bear. But it seems to me more relevant at this moment to denounce Ahmadinejad's thuggery and to keep Iran from going nuclear than to praise the diversity of Islam and avoid stereotyping. We have argued about this before. I would love to see the third group that you mention become a dominant force. But at the moment, I see mainly an ongoing battle between those who are trying to sound the alarm, and those who believe that's it's much ado about nothing. I myself am more disturbed by the sleepwalking and obfuscation of the latter group than the prejudices and excesses of the former. Anyway, it's nice to see that you were able to find some partial value in something I said. And Roi even had a kind word today. So, I'll consider this a red-letter day and cash in my chips while I'm ahead.

- willjames77

July 12, 2010 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Well, Amis, in his essays is a lot closer to Peretz than you know. He too has been accused of being an anti-Muslim bigot." Yes, Amis has come under vicious attacks of this kind. "Eagleton used his new introduction to launch an ad hominem attack on his new colleague (he must have written it around the time the appointment was announced). In published articles, Eagleton asserts Amis has put his esteemed name to views more appropriate from a "British National Party thug". Specifically that a firm line must be taken with domiciled Muslims until they themselves put their Islamic house in order. Eagleton does not directly brand Martin with the "R" word. He ricochets it home with a ferocious diatribe against the dead Kingsley Amis (you can't libel the dead). The author of Lucky Jim was, the author of Ideology asserts, "a racist, anti-Semitic boor, a drink-sodden, self-hating reviler of women, gays and liberals." And, Eagleton adds: "Amis fils has clearly learnt more from him than how to turn a shapely phrase." What, precisely, has Martin Amis learnt? Racism? anti-Semitism? Gynophobia? Homophobia? The words hover, like blowflies over a cowpat." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2007/oct/04/eagletonvamisanacademicst

- noga1

July 12, 2010 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...One could go on, but hopefully the point is clear: Islam may be infinitely varied and complex, and recognizing that fact may make one a better person. But it is no substitute for figuring out how to respond to growing threat of Islamofascism... willjames77, respectfully, as to your vaunted last sentence: who in America, amongst those who matter, political leaders and their advisors, which is to say, those who make policy —as against literary and academic intellectuals and various chatterers, amongst whom I include myself, of all manner of stripe, who are not so intellectual –substitutes figuring out how to deal with the growing threat of Islamofascism with explicating the nuances of Islamic belief? For the intellectuals and the just plain chatterers, it's all fun and interesting, and maybe makes for some of us being better people, but it's all, essentially, a lot of talk, not that there's anything wrong with that. Figuring out how to deal with that growing threat is a subject of deep contention but that’s a different point. No?

- basman

July 12, 2010 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, Icarusr. That was enlightening.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 12, 2010 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, fair question. Yes, on some level it's all talk. But, nevertheless, those of us who talk, write posts, blog, sign petitions, et al, do in some small way influence public opinion, and, thus, ultimately, elections and public policy. So, I don't see the discussion of these issues to be just a form of mental gymnastics that's disassociated from the real world arena. As to your question itself, let's take an example that's right at hand: Noga's post immediately above yours. If you follow her link and read the article and then the posts following, you'll see that the vast majority of the posters consider Amis to be a despicable fellow, an alarmist, a racist who believes in collective punishment. He had the unmitigated gall to suggest that the Muslim community in England needs to be monitored more stringently until it "puts its house in order". He has rocked the boat by pointing out that Muslim communities in England have successfully established what Magdi Allam called "the factories of death": an infrastructure of social services, community outreach programs, teaching venues, and religious institutions whose alumni go out to blow themselves up in crowded, public places. He had the temerity to suggest that the British Muslim community, as a whole, bears responsibility for allowing this to happen in its midst and needs to clean up its act. Responding to the threat of Islamofascism is, to me, the second order of business. The first is to pay attention to those "disturbing" writers who are determined to bring its various facets to our awareness. (Here I think that Marty does a fine job of bringing some of the best of them into our field of awareness.) As long as we keep shooting the messengers by denouncing them as bigots, racists, Islamophobes, you name it--the second order conversation about what to do about Islamofascism has no space to unfold.

- willjames77

July 13, 2010 at 6:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well stated, jackson: "I would suggest that as in Christianity and Judaism there is no authentic Islam and moreover that one ought to judge a religion not in terms of its “pure doctrine” but in terms of the behavior of its followers. "

- K2K

July 13, 2010 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Islamic intimidation, or is it intimidation in Islam? "Facebook CEO could face Pakistan death penalty over Mohammed group" "Those who think the flak over the Facebook group "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is over because 1) the day is past (May 20) and 2) Facebook has blocked the group in Islamic countries: think again. Reportedly, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is being investigated by Pakistani police over the now-blocked group. As reported by The Register, BBC Urdu reports that Pakistan's Deputy Attorney General has launched a criminal investigation into the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" group. As noted in the post, Section 295-C of the penal code makes blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad punishable by life in prison, death, and a fine. Here's what Section 295-C says: "Use of derogatory remark etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet, whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine." Lawyer Muhammad Azhar Siddique filed an application for a First Information Report (FIR), essentially petitioning the court about the blasphemy. No charges have been filed, as yet. Those listed in the complaint include not just Zuckerberg, but co-founders Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. Also listed is "Andy," who started the Facebook group "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." In fact, although its unclear that this will truly go further, it was reported that petitioner Muhammad Azhar Sidiqque is waiting for the Pakistani police to contact Interpol about making arrangements for the arrest of Zuckerberg, Moskovitz, Hughes, and "Andy." Moreover, the Deputy Attorney General told the Pakistani High Court that Pakistan’s United Nations ambassador has been asked to escalate the issue in the U.N. General Assembly." http://www. examiner.com/x-39728-Tech-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Facebook-CEO-could-face-death-penalty-over-Mohammed-group

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Contact Interpol ? ?

- noga1

July 13, 2010 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, re: Jackson's comment, I second the emotion. A similar notion was once phrased as "By their fruits shall ye know them" which always seemed to make good sense to me. Makes me also think of C.S. Lewis' warning not to be fooled by those who claim that Aslan and Tash are merely different names for the same being.

- willjames77

July 13, 2010 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good answer, willjames77, to my question. Thanks for taking the trouble.

- basman

July 13, 2010 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're welcome, basman. Here's a poem by William Stafford that you might enjoy: A Ritual to Read to Each Other If you don't know the kind of person I am and I don't know the kind of person you are a pattern that others made may prevail in the world and following the wrong god home we may miss our star. For there is many a small betrayal in the mind, a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood storming out to play through the broken dyke. And as elephants parade holding each elephant's tail, but if one wanders the circus won't find the park, I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty to know what occurs but not recognize the fact. And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy, a remote important region in all who talk: though we could fool each other, we should consider-- lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark. For it is important that awake people be awake, or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep; the signals we give--yes or no, or maybe-- should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.

- willjames77

July 13, 2010 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interpol is the body that transmits internationally effective arrest warrants issued by member countries.

- ironyroad

July 13, 2010 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know what Interpol is, ironyroad. In my twenties I was a great fan of Alistair MAcLean. I was expressing my surprise that they would imagine Interpol would assist them in apprehending persons guilty of blasphemy against the prophet. Is this what's lurking around the corner?

- noga1

July 13, 2010 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Berman: "You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s." While Berman's observation is denied by those who seek to obscure Islamic radicalism, it is also denied by the Islamophobes. In the latter case, they seek to point to the actions of today's Islamic radicals, bypass European fascism of the 1930s and '40s and tie radicalism directly to Islamic theology of the 7th century. They thus argue that the only solution is to eradicate Islam in its entirety, rather than just the branch that draws on a mid-20th century strain of European political thought. I have actually heard someone argue that Bin Ladenism represents true Islam and that the moderates argue solely along lines of practicality because "they know" that the theology does not back them up. Has anyone tried to use Berman to undermine such Islamophobia?

- sighthnd

July 13, 2010 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"While Berman's observation is denied by those who seek to obscure Islamic radicalism, it is also denied by the Islamophobes. In the latter case, they seek to point to the actions of today's Islamic radicals, bypass European fascism of the 1930s and '40s and tie radicalism directly to Islamic theology of the 7th century. They thus argue that the only solution is to eradicate Islam in its entirety, rather than just the branch that draws on a mid-20th century strain of European political thought." Well, both are true. Modern Islamicism had a strong affinity to European Fascism and of course to the doctrines of early Islam. I don't know who your friends are but no one I know denies the above, sighthnd.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Responding to the threat of Islamofascism is, to me, the second order of business. The first is to pay attention to those "disturbing" writers who are determined to bring its various facets to our awareness. (Here I think that Marty does a fine job of bringing some of the best of them into our field of awareness.) As long as we keep shooting the messengers by denouncing them as bigots, racists, Islamophobes, you name it--the second order conversation about what to do about Islamofascism has no space to unfold." I disagree. It is possible for people to recognize that there is a bona fide threat without adopting Martin Peretz's worldview, a view that I find utterly abhorrent. (He should adopt my views as a condition of progress against the threats, if indeed the threats really matter to him.) Most of the people who think of it as their unique responsibility to call attention to the threat are hysterics who offer very little or nothing that is of use. If we cannot address the threats while ignoring the hysterics, we are indeed in great trouble. To my mind, they are in the way because they constantly call us to engage in some vast religious/ideological struggle when that has not a chance of succeeding.

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It should be no surprise to anyone that I disagree with roi. These kinds of conversations are precisely what are needed in order to dash away wooly headed conventional wisdoms. In fact it is these very conventional wisdoms with which the violent adversarials contend and purpose to set right. All in all I see the benefit of a more informed conversant to engage the particulars as well as the general. Contentions are not well served by smothering what should be an open airing of differences and disagreements. To the contrary, an honest and open appraisal seeks an honest resolution. If it is Islamaphobic to openly engage those provisions of Islam and the Koran with which I have issue then consider me guilty. However my guilt would only extend so far as respectful disagreement provided that such consideration is returned. That kind of respect seems to be in fairly short order these days. One should then have the right to wonder why that is so. Openly.

- jacko

July 13, 2010 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I know what Interpol is, ironyroad. In my twenties I was a great fan of Alistair MAcLean. I was expressing my surprise that they would imagine Interpol would assist them in apprehending persons guilty of blasphemy against the prophet. Is this what's lurking around the corner?" OK, I wasn't sure. But you raise a very interesting question: does every member country have to right to issue an arrest warrent that will be internationally recognized through Interpol, even if the offense for which the individual has been indicted only exists in that one country, or one group of countries?

- ironyroad

July 13, 2010 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It should be no surprise to anyone that I disagree with roi." Meaning it is not possible to recognize that there is a bona fide threat and respond effectively without first accepting the worldview of Martin Peretz and his fellow hysterics? Or meaning that the only effective response is a vast religious/ideological struggle? Or meaning that we must endure Peretz et alia and achieve consensus on the meaning of Islam and Islamism before we can do anything effective to counter the threat?

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Was it necessary for Americans to agree on the historical/ideological underpinnings of Communism and the precise scope and nature of its motivation in order to devise effective tactics to contain it? Did we need to hash out with the Europeans exactly what Communism meant to do this? Not that I recall.

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko: "If it is Islamaphobic to openly engage those provisions of Islam and the Koran with which I have issue then consider me guilty." It is no more Islamophobic to openly criticise aspects of Koran that are archaic or barbaric, than it is anti-Semitic to criticise Leviticus for its permission for the selling of slave girls and enjoinment of killing of homosexuals. In the same vein, it is not Islamophilic or being naïve or giving in to the dangerous epidemic of tolerance in our liberal universities to note that the Koran is not the sum total of its violent parts; that like any other religious text, it is full of contraditions; that for its dozen or so violent passages, it has Suras of surpassing poetic beauty and sublime moral rectitude - all of which are, in addition, open to modern interpretation and application. The problem is not with engaging "openly" - as if Islam's violent streaks were a secret! - the dark corners of Faith, any faith. The problem is taking those parts, expanding them to define the faith, and the applying it with relish to the entire population of practitioners without any sense or notion of the particularities involved. This is of course totally aside from the question of the "context" in which engagement is taking place. You and I can harp on as much as we want about the violence of Islamic traditions, history, law and politics. What's more, we are quite likely to agree on a lot of stuff. No harm in that. Marty's posts are toxic not because they engage the Koran but because of their lack of discernment: Islamist and Islam are one and the same; Muslims and Muslim societies are violence incarnate; failure by Obama to talk about Islamist violence means that he is sympathetic to terrorists (I am exaggerating, but that is the implication at times); liberals who are repelled by wholesale attacks on entire populations and cultures are somehow subject to an epidemic of tolerance for people who are braying for their blood ... etc. Finally, I think there is much being said on the airwaves that demonstrates no respect whatever for Islam, Muslims, minorities, Democrats, etc. Muslim fundamentalists have a higher share of people who do not listen to argument or engage in dialogue, but I can assure you that respectful dialogue there can be. I am in regular email conversation with the son of the intellectual architect of the Islamic government. We have exactly nothing in common politically or culturally; to him, I am an apostate with dangerously Westoxified views on the world, while I find his faith baffling and his continued support for the regime repugnant. And yet, we communicate respectfully on an intellectual plane. Perhaps it is because I don't accuse him, in every email, of being a blood-thirsty goon ... just sayin'.

- icarusr

July 13, 2010 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come on, roi. Certainly you can devote some of your multi-focal capacities to allow a usefulness to the individuals contribution toward our collective conversations of the day. I know that you think, and to an extent I admire your efforts, that a solution is but a written word away. I contend the spirit of the word is always in contention. Thus my doubts about your insistence. We really should talk about it. Generally speaking an enforceable solution demands a consensus of at least some significant portion of the collective. Here in the West anyway.

- jacko

July 13, 2010 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll see if I can respond a bit later toward the eve. I have a day that is still demanding.

- jacko

July 13, 2010 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Was it necessary for Americans to agree on the historical/ideological underpinnings of Communism and the precise scope and nature of its motivation in order to devise effective tactics to contain it? Did we need to hash out with the Europeans exactly what Communism meant to do this? " But there was never any attempt to erase the term "communism" from the language of the day. The enemy was this ideology and most people perfectly understood it and were able to distinguish between communists and the nations among which they prevailed. So just as people could see a Russian without automatically seeing a communist so can people today recognize a Muslim without automatically assuming he is an Islamist extremist. By concealing the difference under silence the new PC directive makes sure the difference will disappear.

- noga1

July 13, 2010 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 writes: -- So just as people could see a Russian without automatically seeing a communist so can people today recognize a Muslim without automatically assuming he is an Islamist extremist. It is pretty obvious that Martin Peretz and many of his acolytes are unable to differentiate a Muslim from an Islamist extremist. Islamophobia is easily the most pervasive and pernicious form of bigotry in the West today.

- ndmackenzie

July 13, 2010 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: “Meaning it is not possible to recognize that there is a bona fide threat and respond effectively without first accepting the worldview of Martin Peretz and his fellow hysterics?” What exactly is the world view of Marty Peretz? What is the single world view of his fellow hysterics? How do you define a hysteric? Is it someone you disagree with?

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Was it necessary for Americans to agree on the historical/ideological underpinnings of Communism and the precise scope and nature of its motivation in order to devise effective tactics to contain it? Did we need to hash out with the Europeans exactly what Communism meant to do this? Not that I recall.” What is it that we are trying to contain? Don’t we need to agree on what Islamism is before we figure out an effective strategy for containing it? The hysteria, btw, (which is a form of repression) is present in the people who are trying to shut down debate and not in those who, like Paul Berman, are trying to pursue debate. During the cold war we did try to contain Soviet and Chinese expansionism. Are we trying to contain Wahhabi expansionism? And yes during the cold war there were innumerable and interminable debates about the nature of the enemy. We did both debate as well as adopt a strategy of containment.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Was it necessary for Americans to agree on the historical/ideological underpinnings of Communism and the precise scope and nature of its motivation in order to devise effective tactics to contain it? Did we need to hash out with the Europeans exactly what Communism meant to do this? Not that I recall.” What is it that we are trying to contain? Don’t we need to agree on what Islamism is before we figure out an effective strategy for containing it? The hysteria, btw, (which is a form of repression) is present in the people who are trying to shut down debate and not in those who, like Paul Berman, are trying to pursue debate. During the cold war we did try to contain Soviet and Chinese expansionism. Are we trying to contain Wahhabi expansionism? And yes during the cold war there were innumerable and interminable debates about the nature of the enemy. We did both debate as well as adopt a strategy of containment.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@jdyer: Of course you are unaware of the second example. It is all based on private conversations. You'll have to trust me on that. How representative that is of anti-Islamist thought, I have no idea. @icarusr: "It is no more Islamophobic to openly criticise aspects of Koran that are archaic or barbaric, than it is anti-Semitic to criticise Leviticus for its permission for the selling of slave girls and enjoinment of killing of homosexuals." There's a difference between the examples you cite and saying that the Koran only permits a hudna with infidels, not a permanent peace, and thus you cannot trust Muslims in any negotiations. That is like pointing to the borders of Israel defined in Numbers and saying that Jewish law requires acquisition of everything from the Nile to the Euphrates and therefore the Jews must be held in check. Finally, just because the Islamic apologists shout "Islamophobia" every time someone says anything critical of any manifestation of Islam today does not mean that there is no such phenomenon of Islamophobia.

- sighthnd

July 13, 2010 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmuckenzie agrees with Roid: “It is pretty obvious that Martin Peretz and many of his acolytes are unable to differentiate a Muslim from an Islamist extremist. Islamophobia is easily the most pervasive and pernicious form of bigotry in the West today.” Spoken like a true apologist for Islamism and antisemite. The most pernicious form of bigotry today is that of antisemitism which is practiced in most Muslim countries. This takes the form of selling antisemitic literature TV shows which present Jews as baby killers and blood suckers, Newspaper articles, regular sermons denouncing Jews as evil, Holocaust denials, etc. There is nothing comparable to that in non Muslims countries. Muckenzie as usual

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sighthnd “@jdyer: Of course you are unaware of the second example. It is all based on private conversations. You'll have to trust me on that. How representative that is of anti-Islamist thought, I have no idea. @icarusr: "It is no more Islamophobic to openly criticise aspects of Koran that are archaic or barbaric, than it is anti-Semitic to criticise Leviticus for its permission for the selling of slave girls and enjoinment of killing of homosexuals."” Icarus is correct here, except that these laws haven’t been enforced in the Jewish community for a couple thousand years and many Rabbis would agree that they are barbaric. In any case very few Rabbis ( know of none) would call for the death of anyone who criticizes the Torah while the opposite is the case in Islamic societies as the case of the founder of facebook shows.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer writes: -- In any case very few Rabbis ( know of none) would call for the death of anyone who criticizes the Torah ... Almost to a man the Rabbinate class stands mute in the face of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. There are almost no Rabbis in America willing to condemn that oppression and the wanton killings visited by Israel upon the Palestinian people. They have abandoned religion for the idol of nationalism.

- ndmackenzie

July 13, 2010 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Muckenzie is wrong about the Rabbis having a single position on the West Bank, but then he is wrong whenever he writes about Jews.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pointing out that the observations of Martin Peretz, for example, are fatuous, pointless, and often racist is not the same thing as trying to shut down debate. Debate includes the opportunity to say just that. After all, this is a man who virtually calls Obama an anti-Semite because, in the opinion of Peretz, he doesn't say the word "Jew" often enough. Some ideas are pointless, stupid, and/or racist and it behooves us to say so. The reality is that the policing of speech on this subject comes largely from the right, not the left. For example: The claim that someone, somewhere is trying to ban the words Islam, Islamist, Moslem from the language is a canard. This is just the sort of absurd, hysterical accusation that the right-wing fanatics who think that harangues are an effective strategy level against those who will not share their hysteria. If you don't get with the haranguing program, you are hyper-politically correct and are "banning" Islam from the language. I have no doubt that anyone in the west can say pretty much anything they want about "Islamists" without being held to account. The effort to smear all Moslems as Islamists is discreditable and, worse, frustrates our ability to deal with the threat of Islamism. Likewise, the effort to prove that Islamism is somehow a necessary expression of Islam is pointless and offensive. There have been many crimes committed by Christians, often in the name of Christianity, and many Christians who repudiated these. One cannot prove the inevitability of either from Christian texts and, as with all faiths, the religious literature typically contains enough loathsome phrases and exhortations to behavior we moderns regard with horror to prove just about anything. Is Nazism or Communism the flower of Christianity because each arose in a Christian nation and there are inevitably ideas that can be traced to Christian culture? It suffices to pay attention to the bad behavior and to those who commit it and advocate it. Whatever their faith claims, they are a political movement. Figuring out what to do about them is a full-time job. The pseudo-scientific exegesis about the roots of it in, or its necessary connection to Islam, is mostly nonsense and a useless distraction from the URGENT task at hand.

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretzian hysteria: "You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s." "You are not supposed to point out that Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide." [Really? According to whom are you "not supposed to say these things?" The legions of PC liberals who rise to the defense of al Qaeda at the drop of a hat?] "And you are not supposed to mention that, by inducing a variety of journalists and intellectuals to maintain a discreet and respectful silence on these awkward matters, the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis." Here we see the propagandist at work. First, two canards, two claims about Islamism (not Islam) that are both unlikely to provoke much if any push-back followed by the false claim that somehow there is a conspiracy to hide these truths. This is right on a par with the war against Christmas, a phony war ginned up to enhance the sense of victimization of those with certain political beliefs. To no surprise of mine, this is not distinct from the phony victimization claims routinely deployed by the Islamists themselves and, yes, by the Fascists in their day. The third claim is the punchline. Having supposedly accepted that these important truths are being suppressed by conspiracy, we are then told who the conspirators are: these "discreet and respectful" journalists and intellectuals. I am sure that by this reference Peretz does not mean Fox News and the Hoover Institute. This, Just like the phony victimization claim, is another fascist-inspired trope, the perfidy of the liberal press and intellectuals. If he were a Moslem, Peretz would be an Islamist. He deserves the same disdain we have for them.

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just too many moving parts to this whole conversation for me to reply as I would like. At least for now. Roi. I'm fairly sure you make room for Piss Christ. Are you really 'all in' for goose and gander? Or is there something else there? Until manana.

- jacko

July 13, 2010 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, Roid, you comments are so general, as to be meaningless. I was going to respond point for point but that would be as pointless as your original post. You talk about Peretz’ “world view” and you say that people here who agree with Marty about certain issues share his world view. This is the same as someone saying that Roid and Muckenzie share a world view because they agree that the west bank settlements are illegal under international law. You also have shown that you have read Paul Berman’s books or though enough about the subject to have something factual and coherent to say about it. One more point, you say: “I have no doubt that anyone in the west can say pretty much anything they want about "Islamists" without being held to account.” This is patently untrue and you either know that it is untrue or else you are too ignorant of the subject to take anything you say about it seriously. Van Gogh was murdered because of what he said about Islamism. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death. Dozens and dozens of people had to go into hiding because their life had been threatened after they spoke against Islamic thuggery, from Hirsi Ali, to cartoonists in Europe, to philosophy teachers in France and the list goes on. If you are what passes for an Obama loyalist, god help his Presidency. Come to think of it you and Muckenzie have more of a world view in common than many people here have with Marty. What you wrote is just utter nonsense. You can’t define, btw, Marty’s world view any more than you can define hysteria. And yes, you are trying to shut down debate about Islamism. You remind me of the Soviet apologists during the cold war who tried to shut down debate about the Soviet Union.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacko "Just too many moving parts to this whole conversation for me to reply as I would like. At least for now." There are lots of parts that don't fit in Roid's posts, but they don't move.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The creators of ‘South Park’, threatened with death by Islamists" by Jonathan Keene "The South Park creators were threatened by death by a group of islamists because a chapter of the series bear Muhammad disguised. An Islamist website has threatened to kill the creators of ‘South Park’, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, as a result of Chapter 200 of the series, in which disguised bear Muhammad. The statement said that “We must warn that Matt and Trey are doing something stupid and probably will end up like Theo Van Gogh.” Theo Van Gogh was a Dutchman filmmaker who was murdered at the hands of a young Islamist for making a short film on violence against women in Muslim countries. “This is not a threat but a warning of what can happen probably,” it added." http://www.exploreeverything.com/2010/04/23/the-creators-of-south-park-threatened-with-death-by-islamists/

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Submission in advance" "20 years after the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie, Islamism has the West more firmly in its grip than ever before." By Thierry Chervel http://www.signandsight.com/features/1827.html

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"RUSHDIE-RELATED VIOLENCE" "Tehran has always upheld the Islamic correctness and permanent validity of Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa, even when it has said that it has no intention to send its own hit men to carry out the death sentence. Sayed Husayn Musavian, an Iranian envoy who downplayed the whole controversy in his talks with Western leaders in the hopes of re-normalizing Euro-Iranian relations, said nonetheless: "The fatwa was merely a statement of something that has been part of Islamic law for 1,400 years."1 The Iranian regime refused to revoke Khomeini's fatwa and gave even more credibility to the threat by both executing dissidents within the country and assassinating dozens of Iranians living in exile, such as the musician Fereydun Farokhzad in Bonn2 and the columnist Mustafa Jehan in the Christian sector of Beirut.3 One count, by the exiled former prime minister, Abol Hassan Bani Sadr, has the regime killing thirty-three exiled opponents between 1980 and 1996.4 The death most directly related to Rushdie was the lethal attack on the campus of Tsukuba University in 1991 against Hitoshi Igarashi, a Japanese professor of literature well-connected in pre-revolutionary Iran as well as translator of The Satanic Verses.5 To the indignation of the Japanese public, Japanese Muslims applauded the murder and declared that "even if the murder was not committed by a Muslim, God made sure that Igarashi got what he deserved."6 Knife attacks on two other Rushdie translators, Ettore Capriolo for the Italian edition and William Nygaard for the Norwegian one, seriously wounded them. Nygaard declared at the 1994 Book Fair in Frankfurt that the only correct reply to the terrorists was to stand firm for freedom, and that his way to do this was to translate and publish yet another blasphemer's book, Taslima Nasrin's Shame.7 One prominent Muslim who suffered for The Satanic Verses, notably for protesting against the ban, was Mushir-ul-Hasan, pro-vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, the Muslim university of Delhi. He told an interviewer: "I think the ban should be lifted. I think every person has a right to be heard and to be read."8 In his view, the ban "qualifies as an indefensible move," though he took care to deny any sympathy for the book's contents. Overnight, he became the object of a vicious campaign by most students and some of the professors of Jamia Millia. Though he buckled, apologizing and saying he never meant to demand the lifting of the ban, he had to stay away from his own university. The day he showed up again, he was severely beaten up and had to be hospitalized. The result of this terror is clear: critics of Islam live in fear or feel constrained to apply self-censorship. A number of books on Islam, even serious and important works, are now published under pseudonym. An apostate Muslim published his well-argued secular-humanist critique of Islam, Why I Am Not a Muslim, under a false name.9 So did the French nationalist author of Islamism and the United States: An Alliance against Europe, which sees a conspiracy in America's pressure on the European Union to admit Turkey and its all-out American support for the Bosnian Muslims.10" http://www.meforum.org/395/the-rushdie-rules

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TURKEY "In Turkey, Islamist militants killed journalist Çetin Emec (1990), Turan Dursun (1990), exiled Iranian dissident Ali Akbar Gorbani (alias Mansour Amini, 1992), and leading Leftist journalist Uğur Mumcu (1993). These murders were probably committed by the Islamic Action Group; in 1993, the government arrested nineteen members of the group.11 Toktamis Ateş, a left-secular columnist for the daily Cumhuriyet, escaped death when the police discovered a time-bomb fixed underneath the table in an Istanbul bookstore where he was to sign autographs.12" Read the rest here: http://www.meforum.org/395/the-rushdie-rules The article covers murders in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are many more examples of Islamists intimimdating any critic of Islam, but I'll stop here for now. Roid, btw, hasn't shown that he is able to digest factual evidence when they contradict his narrow world view.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The West does not issue fatwas against individuals it just mandates sanctions that in the case of Iraq lead to the deaths of thousands of people not just one person.

- ndmackenzie

July 13, 2010 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How so? I ask because it seems to me that the deaths in Iraq (if we're talking about UN sanctions) can be laid, each and every one, at the door of Saddam Hussein who decided single-handedly where the available national resources were going to be spent. The decision was in that case, on his Ba'ath Party-controlled military and security apparatus rather than on the health or education of the Iraqi people.

- ironyroad

July 13, 2010 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no question about the murderous intent of Islamists. And some are no doubt intimidated by them. Islamists are not, however, the only people in the world who pursue dissidents with violence, it is just that the others don't threaten us. But it is a long stretch to claim as Peretz does that we here are prevented from saying anything we want about Islam, including that Islamists have their roots in western Fascism, etc., etc. There is no possibility of me shutting down any debate, jackson. Nothing could possibly shut you up and I have no interest in doing so. But Peretz's claims of victimization are nonsense and they are the same political tactic employed by Islamists and Fascists for identical purposes. His point was not about Islamist threats; it was about political correctness. The problem remains Islamist violence and threats of violence and how to neutralize them. That problem won't be solved by parsing the Koran any more than it was essential to digest Mein Kampf to stop Hitler. It is simply a falsehood that the Peretz's of the world are unique in their appreciation of the Islamist threat. What is unique about them is that their notion of what to do about it -- harangue the enemy -- is so juvenile and futile, no, not futile, ridiculous. And they are foolish in seeing something unique about Islamist violence. Once we correctly identify Islamism as a species of Fascism, we know what we need to about the murderous intent of the enemy. The question is then one of tactics -- political, military, police, etc. ________ Yes. jacko, I have room for Piss Christ although I consider it in poor taste.

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 11:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where, jackson, did I say that agreeing with Peretz on something or other is tantamount to sharing his worldview? And since you are so taken with Islamist threats against critics of Islam, can you point to some threat, somewhere, made against someone observing that "Islamism is a modern political tendency" or that "Islamists are inspired by Nazism?" Peretz just made the whole thing up. Typical.

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 11:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one's past that involved some sort of severe conflict; the fear can be centered on a body part or most commonly on an imagined problem with that body part. Disease is a common complaint; see also Body dysmorphic disorder and Hypochondriasis. People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear." Wikipedia I wonder what body part Peretz is worried about?

- roidubouloi

July 13, 2010 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Where, jackson, did I say that agreeing with Peretz on something or other is tantamount to sharing his worldview?" Where in every post, any time you talk about Peretz and those who agree with him. "And since you are so taken with Islamist threats against critics of Islam, can you point to some threat, somewhere, made against someone observing that "Islamism is a modern political tendency" or that "Islamists are inspired by Nazism?"" Why should they. They are proud of the connection. It's when someone even mentions the name Muhammad that the daggers come out. Your second post, Roid, contradicts your first post.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is no question about the murderous intent of Islamists." There was a question in your posts when you attacked Peretz. "And some are no doubt intimidated by them." Some includes whole governments in Europe. In Sweden for example where the government told the Jewish community that they couldn't protect them. “Islamists are not, however, the only people in the world who pursue dissidents with violence, it is just that the others don't threaten us." No, just as the Nazis where not the only ones who threatened people in the 1930’s but they were the best organized to carry out those threats. And other countries like Russia and China, et al do threaten dissidents but their aim isn’t to go after non nationals. This isn’t the case with Islamic countries or Islamists in general.

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “"Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one's past that involved some sort of severe conflict; the fear can be centered on a body part or most commonly on an imagined problem with that body part. Disease is a common complaint; see also Body dysmorphic disorder and Hypochondriasis. People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear." Wikipedia” Congrats, you know how to copy and paste from wikipedia. “I wonder what body part Peretz is worried about?” Probably his fingers, from typing so much! The above is only one form hysteria takes. Another one is to refuse to accept evidence about actual events that are or are perceived as being threatening. This is the case with many who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming threat that Islamism poses to our freedoms. This refusal takes the form of not attacking those who insist on our facing up to that threat. This is part of the fight or flight response to danger we share with the animals. This fear too is often converted into psychosomatic symptoms. Got any gastro-intestinal complaints, Roid?

- jdyer

July 13, 2010 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I take it then that you agree that Peretz simply fabricated his examples. The question is not whether I know how to cut and paste, jackson, but whether you understand the simple, colloquial meaning of commonly used words. It seems not. I hope you will consult dictionaries, wikipedia, and any other helpful sources before writing things that express your ignorance. Peretz insisting on "facing up to threats?" What nonsense. With what? Name-calling? Fabricated examples of the censorship suffered by the hysterical right? The sheer pomposity of the hysterics, imagining that only they understand the threat, is staggering. The only thing more astonishing is the breathtaking stupidity of what they think ought to be done. And then they pat themselves on the back for their moral fortitude. What a pack of assholes. That's it. Fighting terrorism with assholes. Got any sources for "all those people who don't regard Islamism as a threat?"

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very moving, malahat. And now that you know your enemy from reading the Koran (was that what Sun Tzu meant, or was he perhaps talking about the enemies intentions, means, and tactics?), what does it tell you about the proper geo-political response to Islamism? Or are you still deep in your reading?

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi: every post by you is an exercise in projection. I think I know what hysteria means both in common speech and in medical parlance. "Peretz insisting on "facing up to threats?" What nonsense. With what? Name-calling? Fabricated examples of the censorship suffered by the hysterical right?" You are "hysterically wrong," Roid. And why are you complaining about "name calling?" This is what you do best, Roid. In fact it's the only way you can win an argument. No, I don't agree that Peretz "fabricated" his examples. Try reading Berman, Herf, and above all "Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11" by M. Küntzel Oh I forgot you don't read.

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 1:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr: If you are still around.... I enjoyed the spirit of your post to me 7/13 3:03 pm. I think you bring a necessary perspective to the table. One which certainly deserves some thoughtful consideration. Your life experiences inform your convictions and you speak them well. Yet even as you vouchsafe that which is precious and true, so too does Peretz. Many or perhaps most times expediency resembles, at best, a half lie for all of the unspoken goblins which live in those tween spaces. For the imperfect albeit well meaning me, I will allow a larger degree of sympathy to that which damns the totalitarian impulse (which presents many disguises ) that chooses to leverage the Jew as its sin beast. Is there a danger of blind overcompensation? Yes. I must trust vigilant self inventory to counter such failings. In that regard I believe I have thrown in with people of similar conviction. Jack

- jacko

July 14, 2010 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, you can't even read as short a piece as that of Peretz and understand it correctly. I don't take issue with the claim that Islamism has roots in Fascism and Nazism. I don't even think that is controversial. That wasn't Peretz's point. His claim is that there is something or someone, some sort of PC censorship, that prevents this from being said and openly discussed. His post was not about Islamism, but about this imagined cone of silence that prevents all but Peretz, Berman, and an intrepid little band of brave moral warriors (with shared political inclinations of course) from understanding that there is a serious threat. That is complete nonsense. A pure fabrication. Peretz's target is not Islamism, it is intellectuals, journalists, and others who are not of his wacko neo-con persuasion. Those of us who are conspiring to hide this truth -- that Islamism is a mortal threat -- from an unsuspecting public. I appreciate that there is a bit of nuance here, jackson, but it is not enough when reading to flip the pages or to scan the page and merely see the words. You have to make some effort to get the point. ______________ Yes, of course, malahat. And now that you understand the enemy by reading the Koran, what do you recommend? I suppose that the people who successfully destroyed the World Trade Center did it by reading the Constitution and Uncle Tom's Cabin, no?

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Jackson, you can't even read as short a piece as that of Peretz and understand it correctly.” I know what he said. Had you read the reviews to Berman’s book (did you read is books?) you would know that he is right. The reviews in places like The New Yorker distorted what he said and did exactly what you claim wasn’t being done. They distorted Berman’s writings to the point of saying the opposite of what he said. One reviewer actually claimed that Islamism’s relation to Nazism was a minor issue of no importance. These reviewers did work within a a PC kind of censorship just as Peretz claimed. Of course it’s much worse in Europe where those who write about this connection which you claim is common knowledge are vilified as Islamophobes, or racists. “That is complete nonsense. A pure fabrication.” Your denials are a fabrication or else are based on ignorance and a product of Peretz loathing. You chose the wrong issue to diagree with Peretz. He is on solid gounds, here.

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"the proper geo-political response to Islamism?" is addressed by Reuel Marc Gerecht's new post in TNR's Entanglements, "Islam: Unmentionable in D.C." A boots on the ground assessment on the difference Obama's 'Islam word policy' makes 2010 versus 2000.

- K2K

July 14, 2010 at 8:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: “Yes, of course, malahat. And now that you understand the enemy by reading the Koran, what do you recommend? I suppose that the people who successfully destroyed the World Trade Center did it by reading the Constitution and Uncle Tom's Cabin, no?” This isn’t just facetious, it’s anti-intellectual. During the cold war there tens of thousands of articles and books written in hundreds of publications, it was the liveliness of the debates that helped bring down communism. It gave hope and support to the intellectual dissidents in the communist countries as many of them said. Ultimately it was former communist intellectuals from New York to Paris that helped delegitimize that totalitarian system. There always intellectuals and officials who criticized that effort claiming that it would amount to nothing and only a solid, meaning warlike strategy would bring about the demise of the communist world view. These people were usually on the right. Today the roles have been inverted and it’s people on the left who object to this kind intellectual debate. They form an anti-intellectual front. They are the useful idiots of the Islamist movement. We need to openly support those brave anti-Islamists in the the Muslim world instead of endorsing Islamists in the West as intellectuals like Ian Buruma have done when they vilified Hirsi Ali and endorsed Tariq Ramadan. Debate matters, knowing your enemy matter, but above all becoming self reflective and critical about your own position matters most of all.

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for bringing Reuel Marc Gerecht's article to my attention. http://www. tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/76249/islam-unmentionable-in-dc Just downloaded it and will read it later.

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 9:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ABC's Jake Tapper reports that it's really all about racism [how is this going to explain suicide bombers in Pakistan?]: "...In an interview earlier today with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to air in a few hours, President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups’ willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist. Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.” … Explaining the president’s comment, an administration official said Mr. Obama “references the fact that both U.S. intelligence and past al Qaeda actions make clear that al Qaeda — and the groups like al Shabaab that they inspire — do not value African life. The actions of al Qaeda and the groups that it has inspired show a willingness to sacrifice innocent African life to reach their targets.” … “In short,” the official said, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.” ..."

- K2K

July 14, 2010 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I haven't heard the actual interview but from the quotes here it seems like a pretty smart angle for Obama to take, as it emphasizes the fact that AQ and its satraps aren't just the enemy of us, so to speak.

- ironyroad

July 14, 2010 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Today the roles have been inverted and it’s people on the left who object to this kind intellectual debate. They form an anti-intellectual front. They are the useful idiots of the Islamist movement." Oh that's rich. Peretz's splenetic calling out of Moslems everywhere is now "intellectual debate." It stands to reason, jackson, that you above all would think that "intellectual debate" consists of the right of ideologues to say any stupid thing or make-up any sort of lie without anyone having the right to point out that what was said was stupid or a lie. Then the right-wing speech police insist that to point out that something is stupid, a lie, or both is "stifling debate." You employ exactly the Mearsheimer and Walt tactic, and you are proud of it. As they do, you insist that you are merely standing for freedom of speech when you try to repress criticism. The only freedom of speech you stand for is your own and that of people who agree with you. "Robust debate" consists of hearing exactly the sounds you want to hear the way you want to hear them and nothing else. Jefferson would be astonished to learn that free speech in the 21st century is supposed to mean the suspension of critical thought and of the right to criticize, even in harsh terms, thought with which we disagree. But then, Jefferson never had the pleasure of meeting jackson dyer. _________________ If he were not an intellectually dishonest creep, Peretz might have written a very nice piece calling to our attention the point of view that Islamism, although it exploits Islam and is a fascism of the Moslem world, has direct roots in European fascism and is in fact a modern, not an ancient, phenomenon. Jackson says this is not only the case but that, far from denying it or threatening those who point it out, Islamists are proud of it. Of course, by pointing out that Islamism is a fascist movement with significant western roots and does not have a long history in the Moslem world, Peretz would be debunking his own claims about the mass culpability of Moslems for the crimes if Islamists. (Do I have to take responsibility for the war crimes of George Bush and his brand of American Evangelical fascism? Baptofascisim perhaps?) Plus, he might have been shedding a bit of light on the nature of the particular, modern enemy, the Islamists, as opposed to scratching in the dirt for some adumbration of fascism in the Koran. Nah. Peretz isn't really concerned about the Islamist threat. He is much more worried about inventing lies with which to skewer his political enemies at home. Hence, he chose to use the story about the connections between Islamism and Fascism to invent a mythical cone of silence, enforced by liberal journalists and intellectuals, of which he, Peretz, is the victim. Yet, he struggles on courageously, daring to tell the truth about Islam. What a classy guy. And we can be sure that, no matter how fatuous and corrupt Peretz, jackson dyer will be there to applaud -- in the name of free speech, of course. _______________ I adore Sun Tzu, malahat. I just want to know what useful things you have learned about how to fight the Islamist enemy by reading the Koran. And jackson will share with us the "pro-intellectual" take on what useful things our enemies have learned about us by reading the Constitution, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and, of course, the Austen canon. Along the way, we can consider just what Sun Tzu might have had in mind when he wrote about knowing the enemy. Did he mean know what our enemy had for breakfast yesterday? Is it anything and everything that we need to know about the enemy or is a certain discernment required about what is germane to the enemy's conduct of war?

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You chose the wrong issue to diagree with Peretz. He is on solid gounds, here." Please, call to our attention any instance of an attempt to repress the idea that Islamism has roots in Fascism and is itself a modern political movement. Any little thing will do. The ground need not be solid, just tiny patch will do. What Peretz really means to say is that anyone who does not see the world as he does, based on the truth revealed to him by Yahweh, the Jewish God, must be the victim of intellectual repression at the hands of Moslems. Else how could they possibly think what they think? Everywhere people are in mental chains. Only the great moral warrior, Martin Peretz, is free. But, like all prophets, he is vilified and repressed for speaking that truth that dare not say its name, to wit: Islamists are trying to kill us, and, like all totalitarians, want to subjugate and dominate the world in its entirety subsuming everything under their own totalitarian system of thought. Quelle surprise! Thank god for Peretz who has the courage to open our eyes to the crushingly obvious. Now what? Please turn to your Koran, verses . . . while we read together.

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko: thanks. I started composing a reply and then realised that it requires a bit more time than I have now. If you are around, I will have something for you later.

- icarusr

July 14, 2010 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Islamists are totalitarians, and totalitarians who have not been tempered by long governance and the need to provide for a population. They are still in their rising, aggressive, triumphalist phase where they are prepared to believe that their ideology will provide. Do you think that because they are Moslem totalitarians they are so different from their totalitarian predecessors? They have no interest in accommodation and believe they will prevail if they persist. Isn't that what communists believed at the end of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century? Isn't that what the Fascisti believed, and the Nazis? Is there really anything surprising or unusual about the Islamists that emerges from the knowledge that they are Moslems? They want to subjugate as and have no compunction about doing whatever they can to that end. Does it really much matter what particular glorious future they imagine once they have succeeded? Of does it suffice to know that this is their goal and they can only be defeated or contained, not placated?

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Do you think that because they are Moslem totalitarians they are so different from their totalitarian predecessors?” Some good questions, but do you think that they are the same because they are Muslim? Do you think all totalitarian movements are the same? Do you think there is a standard script for totalitarianism? Were the Fascists in Italy the same as the Falangists in Spain? Are they the same as the Leninists In the early Soviet State? Are the Stalinists the same as the Nazis under Hitler? Then there are the third world totalitarians form Castroistas in Cuba to the Falangists in Lebanon, to the Bath parties in Syria and Iraq, to the Japanese variety during WW2. (These is an incomplete list of fascists and quasi fascists States) Islamism itself comes in diffeent flavors: The Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) is not the same as the Iranian Hezbollah. Yet they are both Islamic movements with a dual provenance in the Koran and in European totalitarianism. Al Qaeda issues from the Muslim Brotherhood and there are many links there. Hence it’s not true Islamists didn’t have control of a State. They have control of Iran and whether they will end up behaving like the Soviet State and fall apart or like the Nazi State and die fighting ready to commit suicide no one knows yet. Maybe the people will turn against the Mullahs as the Italian people truned against the Fascists or they could fizzle out like Franco’s Spain, but that is a long shot. (Franco himself prepared the way toward Monarchial democracy. No one expects that to happen in Iran. Coming back to your question, then: what makes you think that there is only a single Totalitarian model?

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Were the Fascists in Italy the same as the Falangists in Spain? Are they the same as the Leninists In the early Soviet State? Are the Stalinists the same as the Nazis under Hitler?" No, but how relevant were their ideological differences to the strategy and tactics necessary to defeat or contain them? In other words, how relevant to the problem that should have our attention? Were not the particularities of the structure of the elites in Spain, Italy, Russia and their demonstrated behavior far more important than generalized musing about their ideological goals and differences? Isn't it more relevant to consider with particularity what the Islamists are doing, illuminated by what they are saying, than to read the Koran to "understand" what cultural and religious memes they adapt to their purposes? Quite simply, you cannot find the explanation for totalitarian ambition in ideology any more than you can find it in religious texts. The same religious/ideological texts will at different times and places support very different societies. You have your Quakers and your Crusaders. Both read the same Bible. The study of the cultural history of ideological movements is interesting but not very important for addressing the question what strategy and tactics to adopt in defense. Does reading the Koran tell you whether it is better to bomb Iran or not? The major poles of Islamism are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. Why, for example, are we not telling the Saudis that they either stop financing Islamists and madrassas or find their weapons and military support somewhere else? We wonder about how we can influence a dedicated enemy in Iran but we cannot even stop our erstwhile good buddies from being the primary source of financing for terror. What can we do to stabilize Pakistan and get it to withdraw its support for the Taliban? Why are we not thinking creatively about how to pull Russia firmly into the west to gain a strong ally on our eastern flank? We blew a few opportunities in that direction, but I think it is where the Russian people want their future to lie. What are we doing about it? What can we do about it? Why do we neglect South America instead of building a strong economic zone in the Americas? Why do we not impose carbon taxes and wean ourselves off of foreign oil, one of the most important things we could do to curtail Moslem power? Why do we allow the Chinese to gain financial power at our expense? What can we do to assist European integration? What technological means are there of preventing attacks that we are not employing? And on and on. None of the answers are in the Koran.

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your talking comprehensively out of your ass, roi. What you find in the Koran is that it is a God thing. It makes it substantially different than your typical State/Ethnic centered dictatorial totalitarianism. If I'm one of Allah's generals one of the first things I do is flatter you and all of your indignant righteousness complete with your attitudes of contempt for all of those that couldn't see clearly the solution of your fashioning that passed the world by. The primary immediate goal is the elimination of Israel. Now what I task you and all of your unrecognized brilliance with are the various settlement provisos with an eye toward unrelenting claim of recompense in the World Court which you so passionately desire to bring to a credible reality as a means of your coronation. All said your usefulness will be very beneficial to us... and you both financially and umm... philisophically. Your perceived psychic benefits play well with my plans. At least where I sit today. That could change at which point I'll throw you away. For right now let's keep up the terror ops.... acquire as much under the thumb as we can and stay the course with what we're doing. They're bound to tire sooner or later.... besides Allah has His own time table. It's a universal don't you know.

- jacko

July 14, 2010 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko: "For right now let's keep up the terror ops.... acquire as much under the thumb as we can and stay the course with what we're doing. They're bound to tire sooner or later.... besides Allah has His own time table. It's a universal don't you know." ________________ "The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he "despises" it and accusing it of "wanting to create a society that I detest". His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today's febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a "hate crime". In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues "because I have to be careful to protect my privacy". But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter's attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter's strong opinions. "A dear friend had been called a racist," he said. "As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist. "This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on — we know it well." [-] McEwan's interviewer pointed out that there exist equally hard-line schools of thought within Christianity, for example in the United States. "I find them equally absurd," McEwan replied. "I don't like these medieval visions of the world according to which God is coming to save the faithful and to damn the others. But those American Christians don't want to kill anyone in my city, that's the difference." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-despise-islamism-ian-mcewan-faces-backlash-over-press-interview-852030.html Maybe roi will treat McEwan's claims that you can't criticize Islam and its relation to Islamism with the same contempt he extends to Marty Peretz. I hope he will realize that Marty is saying what others, more famous, more eloquent and less Jewish, are also saying.

- noga1

July 14, 2010 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Isn't it more relevant to consider with particularity what the Islamists are doing, illuminated by what they are saying, than to read the Koran to "understand" what cultural and religious memes they adapt to their purposes?" Not more relevant, they are both relevant. Unless you know the ideological basis of their actions you will not be able to deal with them effectively. It's not an either/or. You sound like someone who has a phobia of educating oneself about the enemy.

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/07/germany-authorities-concerned-about-neo.html "Following an anti-Semitic attack in Hanover, German authorities have identified a new source of anti-Semitic hatred in Germany: young migrants from Muslim families. The ideological alliance has officials concerned." "Right-wing extremists and Islamists, says Heinz Fromm, the president of the German domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), are united by "a common bogeyman: Israel and the Jews as a whole." While German right-wing extremists cultivate a "more or less obvious racist anti-Semitism," says Fromm, the Islamists are "oriented toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and support "anti-Zionist ideological positions, which can also have anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic overtones." Both extremist movements, says Fromm, "ascribe extraordinary political power to Israel and the Jews, and their goal is to fight this power." 'A Tree, a Noose, a Jew's Neck' Although the BfV has not separately identified anti-Semitic crimes associated with Islamist groups until now, investigators are paying close attention to the development of anti-Jewish tendencies within the milieu."

- noga1

July 14, 2010 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Not more relevant, they are both relevant. Unless you know the ideological basis of their actions you will not be able to deal with them effectively. It's not an either/or. You sound like someone who has a phobia of educating oneself about the enemy." No, I have a phobia of wasting precious time and attention on nonsense. You will not find "why they are doing it" it the Koran. Psychoanalysis, maybe, but even that is quite irrelevant to the question of what is to be done. Did we need to know why the Nazis were Nazis in order to fight a war for their total surrender? No, we didn't. And despite thousands of books, we don't know to this day. Besides which, none of this examination has the bona fide intention of understanding why they do what they do. It is really only for the purpose of smearing Islam in general and the oh-so-important-always-the-first-thing-to-be-achieved which is to burnish the already insufferable pomposity and self-righteousness of those with neo-con sensibilities by making them feel morally superior to someone. If we have to wait for the clowns to parse the Koran to figure out what to do, we'll all be dead and the Islamists will have conquered us. ___________________ Jacko, I have never read you more articulate and persuasive. "a God thing." Wow! what an insight. And your hilarious impersonation of a terrorist leader. You have a gift. ___________________ Ian McEwan doesn't appear to be much intimidated. Perhaps he hasn't read Peretz's instructions in this regard. Although the news article speculates that he could be accused of a hate crime for his words, that seems rather unlikely. The columnist is merely making his own political point.

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ian McEwan is saying exactly what Marty is saying. No less and maybe more. YOU inflated and twisted Marty's complaint which can be summed up in this quote: "In the West, in fact, indulgence of the hatred of Jews among liberals and liberal Jews or Jewish liberals is so rampant that it has taken on a new disguise: the hatred of Zionism and disgust with the State of Israel, perhaps one of the three or four most liberal states in the world." I linked to Eve Garrard's story somewhere earlier: ‘Bloody Jews,’ he said. ‘Bloody Jews, bugger the Jews, I’ve no sympathy for them.’ I gazed at him, aghast. Where had this suddenly come from? The encounter I’m here describing took place very recently, in the course of a large academic dinner at a University in another city, not my own one. It was a pleasant occasion, and the people at my table were innocuously and comfortably talking about sociological issues connected with the economic crisis, all completely harmless and (relatively) uncontentious. And then I heard the academic on my right hand side say to the person opposite him, ‘Bloody Jews.’ When he saw my appalled stare, he said impatiently, ‘Oh well, I’m sorry, but really…!’ http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/antisemitic-professor-in-the-uk/#comment-10798

- noga1

July 14, 2010 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" No, I have a phobia of wasting precious time and attention on nonsense. " And yet he spends day an night here wasting time. Try saying something honest for a change, Roid!

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 6:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, roi. "It's a God thing" really does pack a whole bunch of punch. That you would dismiss such a critical issue as irrelevant really says more about you than anything. Fact is the God accounts for much of the difficulty in approaching this subject with any honesty. The only way you get into my War Room is to deliver coffee.

- jacko

July 14, 2010 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fact is "The God Thing" accounts for much of the difficulty in approaching this subject with any honesty.

- jacko

July 14, 2010 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you noga for bringing our attention back to the reality that Peretz isn't really concerned with Islamists and how to fight them but with liberals and how to fight them. As I said before: "Nah. Peretz isn't really concerned about the Islamist threat. He is much more worried about inventing lies with which to skewer his political enemies at home. Hence, he chose to use the story about the connections between Islamism and Fascism to invent a mythical cone of silence, enforced by liberal journalists and intellectuals, of which he, Peretz, is the victim." The key phrase is "inventing lies." The best of Martin Peretz.

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only you neo-cons have trouble approaching the subject with any honesty. For normal people, not possessed by neo-con baloney mysticism and fantasism, the question really is, what is to be done? Sensible people do not imagine themselves looking deep into the soul of Islam and finding there any useful answers. Fantasists do. It's a God thing, after all.

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well let's see... what could possibly be useful about being able to intelligently navigate terrain which is near and dear to those whom you contend with? Perhaps one might find a place beyond contentions. I've had some disagreements with you before but this is simply ridiculous. Fantasists indeed.

- jacko

July 14, 2010 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid is repeating the same non factual nonsense. He is proof that you don't have to be a neocon to be full "of baloney mysticism and fantasism."

- jdyer

July 14, 2010 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fantasists indeed. People whose best answer about how to deal with a lethal and determined enemy is to call them names and engage in daily ritual denunciation of them and their religion are fantasists (that's being extremely kind). Fact is that all this blather about understanding the enemy is entirely due to the complete absence of any useful ideas -- which of course is then supposed to be the fault of liberals. Why, if the liberals weren't preventing the neo-con wackos from engaging in a free debate about Islam, surely the neo-con wackos would have solved the problem by now, right? Just look deep into their souls, jacko, and then tell us what is to be done. The rest are busy reading the Koran for answers, so this can be your contribution.

- roidubouloi

July 14, 2010 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is roi speaking for liberals? Is roi a liberal? In what way is he a liberal when he resists educating himself about Islamists and their ideology? When he insists that studying the ideology is not in any way essential or even helpful in figuring out how to deal with it?

- noga1

July 14, 2010 at 11:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And to what use did the OSS put that analysis? Any? It was commissioned in 1943. How did we manage to conduct the war for two years without it and what did it change? Nothing. The profile didn't even contain any recommendations. Of course, in the midst of an existential battle it makes sense that we would spend some resources on anything that might help, but it surely wasn't considered a priority if it didn't come up until 1943. The Manhattan project had already been underway for quite a while with massive resources by comparison to this study. What does that tell you? And how hard is it to answer these three questions with respect to Islamism? I bet you could do it right now.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Fantasists indeed. People whose best answer about how to deal with a lethal and determined enemy is to call them names...." Give me a break. I have never read posts by anyone who is so blind to what he does and says. You are the very model of a hypocrite, Roid. All you do is call people names: neocon in your mouth is an insult, then you call Peretz and other hysterics, that too is an insult, insult, insult, insult. You are the king (Roi) of insults. You are anti-intellectual a know nothing. You are a joke, good for a little comic relief and that is all.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And how hard is it to answer these three questions with respect to Islamism? I bet you could do it right now." Let's see you do it. I need more comic relief.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Why is roi speaking for liberals? Is roi a liberal? In what way is he a liberal when he resists educating himself about Islamists and their ideology? When he insists that studying the ideology is not in any way essential or even helpful in figuring out how to deal with it?" Noga is right, Roid is no liberal. He is a, shoot first, ask questions later, kind of guy.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

am beginning to wonder about a Borders bookstore 'cone of silence'. I went to two bookstores today. Independent bookseller Womrath in Bronxville, that delightful uber-affluent suburban village that used to retrict home sales, has maybe 100 linear feet for history. Michael Oren's most recent book was there, now in paperback. The display for new non-fiction had Paul Berman's "Flight..." in a full-face display. Looks like it is selling well. The Borders in Scarsdale, where the uber-affluent Jews settled because Bronxville was closed to them, was a very different story. Three shelves just for Holocaust books, just below the shelf for "Jewish history". The two shelves devoted to Middle East history were devoted to Palestinian history. Oren is not available, but can be ordered - no room for Michael Oren's "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present" even in the vast section devoted to American history. The computer said Paul Berman was in the store, but the computer dared not reveal where. There was a gap on the Politics& Government shelf where Berman would be shelved. The end aisle display was devoted to reprints of David McCullough's 1977 "Path between the Seas: Creation of the Panama Canal" instead.

- K2K

July 15, 2010 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should clarify that Jews have been allowed to buy homes in Bronxville since the 1970's. The restrictive covenants from the 1920's only determined initial patterns of settlement in the railroad suburbs north of Manhattan.

- K2K

July 15, 2010 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh my poor little jackson, so many confusions in so little space. First, when I am referring to "name-calling" I am not referring to the conversations in TNR, I am talking about the incredibly juvenile penchant of neo-cons, such as Peretz, of supposing that it is "policy" to denounce enemies and call them names. Hey, if it stands a chance of achieving something, I'm all for it. But that is almost never the case. The problem with simply insulting our enemies is not that I think it isn't nice, but that it serves no purpose other than to incite them. If our only problem in the world were a name-calling contest, that might be just fine. But our national security problems are not merely a debate on TNR. You are so over-wrought, you cannot even take note that I am not referring to name-calling here. Hadn't even occurred to me, although you continue to make a considerable effort in that regard. Second, neo-con is an insult because these people are extremely dangerous, fanatical idiots. They are our Islamists, different only because the do not face the same constraints and opportunities. Their Manichean views and itchy trigger fingers are barely distinguishable from the wackos who are our sworn enemies. Peretz thinks liberals are a danger to our society? I think Peretz & Co. are a danger to our society, and I have a hell of an easier time pointing to actual disasters created by these wack-jobs than they have identifying any real-world problem created by liberals. Peretz shouldn't be insulted, he should be excoriated. With that, I don't manage to be nearly as insulting as he is toward his political nemeses, and there are many of those. Third, have I claimed to be a liberal or to speak for liberals? Not that I recall. Just because I object to Peretz smearing liberals with lies doesn't mean that I am one. As to Islamists, they believe that Islam is meant to rule the world and every corner of it because it is the perfect faith. The problem is that it doesn't. The enemy are infidels and the moral corruption they represent. The answer is to intimidate them and undermine their societies with terror and violence and Moslem immigration until they collapse so that they can be subjugated to a resurgent Islam. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 12:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ooooh. An anti-intellectual know-nothing. That really hurts, jackson. But rest assured, I hope to grow up to be like you some day, an intellect and an intellectual everyone can admire.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 12:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any time all the busy students of Islamist ideology want to weigh in with their concrete suggestions based on their intensive study, I'm all ears. Let's just see what all the busy intellects have been accomplishing while I have been spinning my wheels, shall we? Or is the time not yet ripe to reveal the mysteries?

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[I]nsulting our enemies ... serves no purpose other than to incite them." Maybe that explains why certain congressmen hauled the Warner brothers before their committee, complaining that "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" was hurting our good relations with Germany.

- NR114746

July 15, 2010 at 1:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: "so many confusions in so little space" yes, we are all so confused, unable to understand a word you write, as you continually remind so many of us, again and again and again and again. we wonder why you waste your time in TNR instead of seeking a community capable of comprehension of coherence. Why bother arguing with us confusing, obviously mentally deficient, sub-humans? Really, why waste your time in TNR? Not that you should waste any more time with an answer, because, after all, none of us are capable of understanding you.

- K2K

July 15, 2010 at 2:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Third, have I claimed to be a liberal or to speak for liberals? Not that I recall." I don't know. roi. It seemed to me that you were trying indeed speaking for liberals in at least this comment: "Why, if the liberals weren't preventing the neo-con wackos from engaging in a free debate about Islam, surely the neo-con wackos would have solved the problem by now, right?" Aren't you pretending that you are jeering a liberal-bashing position? Aren't you rushing to redeem the honour of maligned liberals? Maybe I misunderstood you all along. I'm glad you refute my understanding. I have the utmost respect for the liberal worldview and one of my problems with you was that you purported to represent such a view. I'm curious, though. If you don't consider yourself a liberal, where do you see yourself on the left to right continuum?

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am jeering at the neo-con pretense that their inability to say anything useful about how to respond to Islamism is somehow due to liberals stifling debate. This is utter crap. It is the classic "stabbed in the back" canard beloved of the fanatic right-wing. And I need not remind you of its historical provenance, I am sure. I have many profound disagreements with the policy views of self-described "liberals." However, I usually share their objectives and believe that they are on the whole honestly motivated to achieve their stated objectives. I share nothing with the right other than occasional agreement with some of its critiques of the left. I think the right is populated entirely by the insane and the corrupt, liars one and all who do nothing but try to advance their own wealth and power at the expense of everyone else in the world, here and abroad. I do not believe there exists in America today any legitimate or sincerely held set of beliefs that could be described as "of the right." The are just predators.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: “Second, neo-con is an insult because these people are extremely dangerous, fanatical idiots.” I know that Patrick Buchanan would agree with you, but that doesn’t mean that either of you is right. Your notion about the neo-cons being evil (you compared them to the Islamists) is what is dangerous. If they are that evil they should be forbidden to speak. They should be put on some terrorist watch list and perhaps placed in detention camps. This is what I meant when I said that you are ‘a joke, good for a little comic relief and that is all.’ You sound like a frustrated old man.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should add that I do have broad areas of agreement with liberals, but my policy views are often either much more radical or, just as likely, much more conservative along a classical sort of spectrum. I prefer what works or, at the minimum, that for which a plausible case can be made that it will work. A lot of liberal ideas fail this test. Right-wing ideas fail the even more minimal standard of sanity.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one should be prevented from speaking, Jackson. That is fascism. But we should be unstinting in our willingess to declare publicly the menace the neocons represent, just as with Islamism or Nazism. I try to do my part. It is a moral and civic obligation.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The tools of violence used by neocons, Jackson, are those of the state, rather than extra-legal means. To the extent that they act, they do so by co-opting the state. Thus, there is no basis for detention within our legal regime. It would require a revolution and I am not near the point where I think things are so bad or the options so limited that revolution is called for. But if neocons had their way, we would get there sooner rather than later. It requires only the right conditions for the inner fascist of a neocon to emerge. Their rhetoric flirts with fascism all the time.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think roi is haunted by struggles of a past era. WcWhorter has just written about Jesse Jackson something that could be extended to many other old liberals (or whatever one may chhose to call them). It's about how activists whose entire being is wrapped up in a struggle against some malevolent power cannot stop being activists even after realities have changed and call for a very different conception of the world: "Jackson, ultimately, was just born too late. By the late sixties, there were no more signs to get taken off of the doors, and no more “Don’t buy where you can’t work” marches to hold as Powell did. The work that remained, and remains, was slow and undramatic. By 1970, to take your place as the new Leader of Black America was to give oneself a kind of figurehead position. You didn’t really have anything to do—at least, nothing constructive. ... Jackson is one of those people who came of age when America turned upside down and, while appreciating the new reality, has never found it quite as exciting and gratifying as the old fight."

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 10:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You actually "meant" something, Jackson, as in "meaning?" It is so hard to tell.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, That we managed to prosecute the war on a massive scale without a remote psychoanalysis of Hitler that was put to no discernible use when it was prepared at a trivial cost should tell you that, in the scheme of things, it was trivial, nought but a curiosity.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, That we managed to prosecute the war on a massive scale without a remote psychoanalysis of Hitler that was put to no discernible use when it was prepared at a trivial cost should tell you that, in the scheme of things, it was trivial, nought but a curiosity.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Deep, noga, very deep. But as clear an example of your habit of projection as we have had yet. No need to ask what historical struggle you imagine yourself participating in heroically, is there?

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No need to ask what historical struggle you imagine yourself participating in heroically, is there?" Would you care to enlighten me? I'm all curiosity. Since I'm not the one who keeps telling how mightily they fought the evil republicans in some town elections, or pretending that they are fighting evil in the shape of "neo-cons", the easiest target around to lay into, or to wage character assassinations against those who disagree with your views about Israel or Obama, or Islam, or whatever. The fact is that you never engage in any conversation on these boards that has some fun in it, that explores culture, music, movies or literature, the way most of us posters enjoy from time to time. That alone indicates that your frame of mind is that of determined struggle, not for idle conversation. It's an activist's frame of mind, that warps every event into either/or. You are a Savonarolla, with just as much charm, wit and grace.

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"roi, "...But we should be unstinting in our willingess to declare publicly the menace the neocons represent, just as with Islamism or Nazism..." Er, really? Irving Kristol was just as menacing as Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden?" These are amusing hysterical analogies coming as they do from an Obama afficionado who is I'm sure livid with rage about the analogies made by Tea-Party demonstrators between Obama and Hitler and Lenin. It proves my point about roi's rabid activist frame of mind which shares the coarse sensibility and necessary ignorance of these people. "Capitulation to dogma over the spirit of open inquiry leads to the very catastrophes of totalitarianism that the unconscious proponents of dogmatism most fear--thus we have the book-burners of both left and right joined in common cause." (Anonymous)

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: You and I should tryst with admiration in answer to icarusr and roi's love affair on Entanglements. I believe you have hit that nail more thn squarely upon the head.

- jacko

July 15, 2010 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “No one should be prevented from speaking, Jackson. That is fascism. But we should be unstinting in our willingess (SIC) to declare publicly the menace the neocons represent, just as with Islamism or Nazism.” I declare publicly that ROID is a menace to public debate, just as the Islamists, the Nazis, and Patrick Buchanan, whom he resembles. Roid needs to set up his own blog where he can rant and rave till he loses his voice. His mind he lost a while ago.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Insane people like Roid are a lot of fun.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...and Patrick Buchanan, whom he resembles. " I beg to differ, jackson. Pat Buchanan, unlike roi, has a great deal of personal charm and he can actually laugh from time to time, even at himself. roi is such a sourpuss. If only his constant flow of invective and pseudo-analytical knowledge were once or twice relieved by a flash of genuine humour or amiability! Jacko: I once referred to icarusr as roi's mini-me. The love affair between them is one of the dreariest spectacles to behold on these boards. Contempt, disdain, never ending verbiage of sarcastic commentary and self-perceived superiority, they share a sameness that disgusts. It is the friendship between two genuinely similar and unoriginal minds. Icarusr's talent for scatological imagery (and French expletives) gives him a slight edge over roi in the disgust factor but roi makes up for the difference in sheer volubility and verbosity. They are a match made in heaven. I thank you for the offer to tryst but I am, alas, of that species, the ultimate loner. I howl at the moon all on my own, for better or for worse :)

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “"...and Patrick Buchanan, whom he resembles. " I beg to differ, jackson. Pat Buchanan, unlike roi, has a great deal of personal charm and he can actually laugh from time to time, even at himself. roi is such a sourpuss. If only his constant flow of invective and pseudo-analytical knowledge were once or twice relieved by a flash of genuine humour or amiability!” True about the differences in personality traits, however, I was referring to the fact that each of them seems to be in need of some persons, or group of people upon whom they can project all their own inadequacies. To Buchanan it’s the so called “amen corner” of American Jews, while to Roid it’s the so called neocons. For Roid his hatred of neocons (an amorphous group of people if there ever was one) seems to be personal and I would guess that one of these people must have bested him in debate (not very difficult to do); Roid has been after their scalps ever since.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The issue that Malahat raised about knowing he enemy seems germane, even crucial. Flipping it around, I think it is quite obvious how well and how carefully the Islamists have studied the institutions of the democratic West and how best to undermine them. For example: they have taken the key symbols and achievements of the progressive left and have appropriated them in the service of totalitarian ideals. So we see get straight-faced parodies of: - The Free Speech Movement (e.g. shouting down Michael Oren when he tries to speak at U.C. Irvine becomes the sequel to Mario Savio at U.C. Berkeley) - The Resistance (terrorists attacking Israeli civilians carry on the struggle of the French and Italian freedom fighters who opposed the Nazis) - Divestment from Israel (the struggle against Apartheid continues even though Israel is an exemplary multi-racial and multi-ethnic society) - Item: The V for Victory symbol of the anti-war protestors is flashed by grinning guerillas - Item: The Freedom Flotilla brings food and medicine to the oppressed, its flower children armed with guns and knives and steel bars In the world of academia the same game is played, albeit on more abstract terrain. The intelligentsia is encouraged to cut its own tendons in repentance for insensitivity to "otherness", or even more fashionably, "alterity". Any critic of the violence and intolerance of Islamofacism is immediately lambasted as a racist, imperialist stooge even when, especially when, his urgent mission is defense of freedom and pluralism. The media and the NGOs have been carefully identified as leverage points with maximal payback. Until she was fired last week for an indiscreet Tweet, did anyone know that CNN's Senior Middle East correspondent, Octavia Nasr, was an ardent admirer of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah? His involvement in planning a variety of massacres from the Munich Olympics to the killing of Yeshiva students in Jerusalem was clearly inspirational to her. Then there's Human Rights Watch turned inside out, and so on and so forth. Someone did their homework and figured out exactly how to create massive confusion among the progressive masses. I think we are just beginning to understand the degree to which we have been snowed, and we're beginning to realize how difficult it is simply to see straight and say what's happening. Can anyone seriously argue (pace roi) that we don't need to understand the psychology, ideology and escatology and of the Islamofascists to contrast them effectively?

- willjames77

July 15, 2010 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know about psychoanalytic readings of Hitler, but I do know that the OSS Research and Analysis division, under the leadership of the social scientist Franz Neumann, conducted a thoroughgoing exploration of how the NSDAP functioned as both a political movement and, more importantly, as a one-party government in the Reich. A summary edition of Neumann's work was published under the title Behemoth. It seems that the reason for integrating Neumann's research into the war effort was that the OSS realized that, apart from anecdotes and fragmentary intelligence, we really had no idea how the Nazi Party operated on a day-to-day basis. This analysis was also seen as crucial for the early days after an allied victory, when the occupation authorities would have to both clean out the Nazi element and also see to it that basic public administration was recreated with some speed.

- ironyroad

July 15, 2010 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames77: you get not one but two cookies for treat. I particularly liked your tendon allusion. Noga: Please accept my disappointment with the generosity tendered. Still it's a bit of a blow to the unrequited ego.... Sigh....

- jacko

July 15, 2010 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Great posts, willjames & irony" I'll second and third that, malahat. ( rings a little poetic rhythm )

- jacko

July 15, 2010 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any critic of Israeli territorial ambitions is immediately labeled as an anti-Semite and any critic of the savageries of the neo-cons sending thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths based on a pack of lies about WMDs in Iraq is labelled as lacking a sense of humor. Add to the neocon depredations the trashing of the American and world economies, the destruction of meaningful Federal oversight over anything, theft of a presidential election, Federal finances a shambles. Come to think of it all this death and loss is the proper occasion for levity. What do you do for fun, noga? Dance on graves by moonlight? You people are macabre and just don't realize it. I assume that any minute now someone is going to rush in and share with us the insights for the successful thwarting of Islamist violence and terror gained by studying the Koran, the history of Islam, and such. Because it is VERY important. And because it is so important, conservative thinkers have been hard at work for nine years studying the psychology, ideology, and eschatology of the Islamofascists. Willjames will share with us just a few of the important discoveries and how they ought to shape the fight. (No, not the fight against "liberals" that so animates the neo-cons, the fight against the Islamofascists. Remember them?) Over to you, willjames.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

| ironyroad "A summary edition of Neumann's work was published under the title Behemoth." I know the book well. "It seems that the reason for integrating Neumann's research into the war effort was that the OSS realized that, apart from anecdotes and fragmentary intelligence, we really had no idea how the Nazi Party operated on a day-to-day basis. This analysis was also seen as crucial for the early days after an allied victory, when the occupation authorities would have to both clean out the Nazi element and also see to it that basic public administration was recreated with some speed." We need this kind of analyses, now in relation to Islamist movement as well as the workings of Iran's Hezbollah and its offshoot in Lebanon.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to admit to a certain glee at watching the jackal pack reforming and beginning again it's snarling and howling, egging each other on. Quite clearly you are all becoming intensely frustrated, again, at your incapacities. You witlessly repeat the applause lines that you hear repeated endlessly, mindlessly in your little circle of rabid haters. When someone dares you to make concrete sense out of it, you discover, to your embarrassment and frustration, that you can't. You don't really know how A might entail B in the world, you are left droning your platitudes, and then the snapping of jaws and the spittle begin.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For all his insane rantings and ravings Roid has still not been able to tell us what is to be done in relation to Islamic terrorist organzations and States such as Iran and perhaps Turkey. All he does is level wild and insipid charges which have diminished his credibility to the same level as that of Dick Chaney. He does have a sense of humor in spite of himself.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 2:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "I have to admit to a certain glee at watching the jackal pack reforming and beginning again..." The glee is all mine watching Roid's Alzheimer's getting worse by the post. He doesn't seem to remember what he posted two minutes ago.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fortunately, we have Middle East experts like Gerecht to tell us what to do. And he has a post here now in which he shares the benefit of his wisdom . . . That it is easier to talk about Islam in Peshawar than in Washington! So, we see that we are in good hands. Iran? How about just what Obama is doing, trying to build an international consensus that includes all the permanent members of the UNSC. Turkey? How about nothing as anything we do right now will only make matters worse. But what about doing everything we can think of to bring Russia firmly into the west so that the likely loss of Turkey to Islamism is not nearly as costly? How about ending our trade deficits so that we have the financial wherewithal to contest Chinese influence? How about conditioning continued support for Saudi Arabia on their ending financial support for terrorism? Now, jackson, since you are not burdened by mental deficits, share with us your insights into what is to be done, gained with your freedom to say out loud that Islamism is a type of fascism. Oris that declaration itself the sum of your wisdom, as it is for Peretz and Gerecht?

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He doesn't seem to remember what he posted two minutes ago." Wrathful roi raging like maenads snarling howling Dionysius giggles

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More vapid by the minute, noga. But very humorous. You do have a terrific sense of humor, always in evidence. As for feats of memory, Jackson might recall, but I doubt it, that way up there it was I who suggested that, rather than studying the Koran for insight into Islamism, it would be more profitable to study the actual organizations and states participating in Islamist terror. Granted, that would not serve the agenda of anti-Moslem racists in search of phrases with which to indict the faith. Assuming that is that there is actually any interest in defeating Islamism, as opposed to smearing Moslems.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat -- thanks for the very interesting piece on Neumann and Nuremberg. I knew nothing about that.

- ironyroad

July 15, 2010 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, thank you for that kind invitation to share the floor with you. While we are gathered here together at the river, I want to acknowledge that you do have your lucid moments, for example, your post yesterday at 07/14/2010 - 4:07pm EDT which posed several interesting rhetorical questions that were thought-provoking and well worth considering. There was also a tone of moderation and self-restraint in some of the other posts. It makes one wish that you had a better sense of when it is that you're starting to get tired and irritable and that you could occasionally pull the plug before you start arguing bitterly and wildly in defense of indefensible positions.

- willjames77

July 15, 2010 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are too kind, willjames. But, I am only responding, as surely one must, to the general tone of moderation and self-restraint so evident here on the Spine. Please, though, a little bit of specificity about those indefensible positions would be ever so helpful. I would hate to think that a moderate soul such as yourself is merely reciting the existence of some such as the occasion for a couple of mild insults. That would be unbecoming. If I know what the indefensible positions are, perhaps I can summon the wherewithal to defend them to your satisfaction. Does you spirit of generosity mean that you are ready to share some examples of how the study of Islamist eschatology may aid the battle? ________________ Intractable problems indeed, malahat. But, of course, they are rendered intractable by the refusal of those liberals to let neo-cons like Peretz and Gerecht talk about Islam and Islamism freely, without inhibition. To bad we cannot add to that Monty Python skit: How to Defeat Islamism. Say Islamist often. Say Islamofascism often. Tell all your friends and neighbors that Islamism is a form of fascism and that Islamist terrorists are the ones committing Islamist terror. Go to other neighborhoods and greet people in supermarkets. Tell them about this too. Read the Koran and find all the nasty bits. The problem will be solved

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But to return to your question and argument, roi. I would love to share in detail all of the important discoveries made while I was "hard at work for nine years studying the psychology, ideology, and eschatology of the Islamofascists." But I have to put the kids to bed soon, so I'll just limit myself to a couple of salient points about Iranian eschatology. The esoteric teachings about the return of the Twelfth Imam, the "hidden" one, were formerly understood by the wiser students of Iranian theosophy as referring to an inward, spiritual, metaphorical return. It would correspond very roughly to the way a Christian might be "saved" based on an intimate, personal experience of redemption--without requiring the end of the world as we know it. The great shift that Khomeini introduced was a kind of literalization of the tradition. Instead of quietly praying, self-flagellating and sharing the sufferings of Ali while waiting for the end of days, Khomeini mobilized the masses by proclaiming that they could hasten the Imam's return. The Iranian revolution and much that has since transpired, Basiji goons with lead truncheons included, are footnotes to Khomeini's bold move in transforming a quietist tradition into an activist movement. We tend to take an easy short-cut in suggesting that people who engage in acts of self-destruction and want to hasten the end of the world are merely "brainwashed". It might be more useful to say that they are living out a different myth than we are in the West. Studying organizational dynamics may be interesting but it ignores the fact that each form of totalitarianism has its own unique dream which inspires its masses and gives it life. And that, roi, concludes this evening's abbreviated session of Adventures in Escatology. (Jacko, can I get a third cookie?...)

- willjames77

July 15, 2010 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes, a cookie. Take two. However, all totalitarian movements, being quasi-religious, have some form of eschatology. The question I asked earlier is whether it matters very much in terms of figuring out how to fight effectively just which sort of earthly (or unearthly) paradise (the 1000-year Reich, the Workers' Paradise, the Second Coming of Someone) a particular movement envisions upon achievement of its final and, in the minds of the faithful, inevitable, victory. I don't see how or why it should. The masses must be motivated. Just which fairy tale the totalitarian leadership uses to motivate them is interesting but a bit besides the point of strategy and tactics necessary for successful defense. Moreover, I seriously doubt whether all the parsing of the Koran even has as its genuine purpose discovering better means of dealing with the menace. Peretz evidences this clearly as his target is "liberals," who are supposedly suppressing discussion of Islamism, rather than Islamists who are the threat. Likewise when the exegesis is used to tar Moslems in general rather than illuminate means of dealing with Islamists and their violence. The whole thing strikes me as both largely beside the point and in very bad faith. It is but a tool for smearing political opponents, foreign and domestic, a form of loyalty oath in which, under the guise of fighting terror (and therefore legitimized by the association), the demand is made that political opponents subscribe to a particular rightist vision of Islam in order to demonstrate their devotion to our common defense. In other words, it is tendentious bullshit, dishonest in the manner typical of the ever vicious rightwing. It plays the same role in political discourse as the incessant demands for denunciation of this anti-Semite, that anti-Semite, or that other one.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Now, jackson, since you are not burdened by mental deficits, share with us your insights into what is to be done,..." Roid is out of control, poor guy. "What is to be done" is a Leninist mantra, as well as a neo-con one which is of dubious utility. I prefer learning as much as possible about a situation, thoughtful deliberation, dialogue. Only then can we begin to figure out what action to take. The problem with the invasion of Iraq was that it was conceived in hot anger and executed in haste. From what I read few policy advisors understood the Iraqi culture and had a minimal knowledge of its history. What we need to do is read more writers such as Herf and Berman, openly support democratic dissidents in Iran and other Islamic States, and carry on a lively debate about how best to topple the regimes in places like Iran. We also need to actively oppose Iran, Turkey and any other Islamic State in any and all international organizations. We shouldn’t allow them to sit on councils of human rights (it is insane let a country accused of genocide such as the Sudan take part in conferences at the UN). We also need to be tougher with Saudi Arabia and be openly critical of their exporting of an ideology of hatred through the religious schools they support all over the world. There is no one thing to be done; there are many things that we can do to delegitimize Islamism on all fronts. Finally, if they attack us we need to respond in kind and stop thinking we are to blame for the hatred they feel for us.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, when you are ready to run for office, you've got my vote. Couldn't agree more. It is dismaying to look at the forceful, clear, directed intelligence reflected in the post-war Neuman project and compare it with the dim-witted approach of W and his team in post-war Iraq. One can only hope that the bad guys are experiencing a similar dumbing-down, so that things will stay somewhat even...

- willjames77

July 15, 2010 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks William James. That means I'll probably get two votes, yours and mine; come to think of it, I am not sure I would vote for myself. Being an elected official these days, especially in Mass, is worse than taking cod liver oil.

- jdyer

July 15, 2010 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I prefer learning as much as possible about a situation, thoughtful deliberation, dialogue." The single most hilarious thing written at TNR in the 12 years I have been a subscriber. "Finally, if they attack us we need to respond in kind and stop thinking we are to blame for the hatred they feel for us." The second most hilarious thing written at TNR in that time. It is bad enough that you suffer from these terribly misplaced feelings of guilt, jackson, but why must you project your neuroses onto everyone else who feels nothing of the kind? Surely this must be the psycho-analytic explanation for the deranged, hysterical quality of your writing here at TNR. I will say this on your behalf. Despite your severe cognitive limitations, at least you have the wit to recognize that you are unworthy even of your own vote. On that basis, no one could ever say of him, "Poor fellow, he is ever bit as unhinged as his yelping, whining, and bathetic self-pity would make one believe." No, despite giving every appearance of being an obsessive thug beset by feelings of profound inferiority (with ample justification to be sure), this is evidence that you are not completely irrational. I salute your honesty.

- roidubouloi

July 15, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the lonely and pathetic neurotic roidubouloi is still out of control.... got attack, got to insult, i am the great roid, got put everyone else down.... put 'em doesn, put 'em down this how i get to sleep soundly by putting all you bores down. got to attack, got to insulst, got to put you down. got attack, got to insult, i am the great roid, got put everyone else down.... put 'em doesn, put 'em down this how i get to sleep soundly by putting all you bores down. got to attack, got to insulst, got to put you down. got attack, got to insult, i am the great roid, got put everyone else down.... put 'em doesn, put 'em down this how i get to sleep soundly by putting all you bores down. got to attack, got to insulst, got to put you down. down boy, down boy; got to put you down....

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 12:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames77, thanks for your insights. and also jackson: "Being an elected official these days, especially in Mass, is worse than taking cod liver oil." surely you can find a worse alternative than cod liver oil :) in New York, I think people would prefer being tasered into cardiac arrest over elected office. good sing-along! set to the music of the North Korean national anthem?

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 8:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: Yesterday I nearly told you that comparing the Neocons and fascists was undercutting your argument. However, this is maybe not so outlandish an comparison. After all, it's the neocons who gave us and defended tor--oh, wait, I mean--enhanced interrogation, detention without reason, and oh, yes, the ability for W to electrocute the balls of a detainee's child. Of course, this was exclusively for Muslims. Light brown people. Because I never heard of Max Boot or Charles Crapheimer suggesting this should also apply to terrorists of the white militia stripe.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 16, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't you know that there are no "white terrorists," molly, only justifiably angry Americans who want to take their country back and use gunsights as visual metaphors?

- ironyroad

July 16, 2010 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: Exactly. You just put it better than I did.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 16, 2010 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is not outlandish at all, mollysimon. Of course, the neo-cons, con-cons, and fellow travelers will insist that comparing them to fascists is some sort of derangement syndrome, but it isn't. In light of what they have done and continue to consider admirable, imagine for a moment just what these people would do if they were not, as yet, restrained by a liberal democratic society. _________________ jackson would like to learn the North Korean national anthem because he is a fan of putting people he doesn't like or disagrees with in detention camps, but, so far, he can only remember two songs, the Horst-Wessel-Lied and Hatikva. The problem is, he gets them confused. _________________ I realize, jackson, that I fell of the wagon by actually insulting you (not hard to do) rather than just absorbing your irritable-four-your-old efforts on the grounds that one should never fight with a four-year-old. But you are such low-hanging fruit it was impossible to resist. There is no other combination of mindless thug and all-around buffoon who even comes close to you. You are nonpareil. I mean, who but you is so oblivious as to put up post after post of insults while complaining about insults when no one is even bothering to insult you? Do you get up in the morning and spew insults at yourself in the mirror just to get in the mood? Or maybe you are suffering from multiple-personality disorder with "insult jackson" constantly trying to bully "victim jackson." That has to be it! There is no other explanation I can think of for a derangement such as yours.

- roidubouloi

July 16, 2010 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just in time for this discussion I happened to stumble upon this by Marko Hoare who has been "accused of being a neoconservative, Trotskyite and Croat nationalist and a supporter of Islamism and Western imperialism". I'm linking to post expecting that some readers here may find it much on point: http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/it-is-no-longer-left-vs-right-but-pro-western-vs-anti-western/ "The distinction between the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ in global politics is today increasingly redundant. The dialectic has given rise to, and been superceded by, a new dialectic: pro-Western vs anti-Western. The issues that traditionally divided the Left from the Right – redistribution of wealth, public vs private ownership, a planned economy vs the free market – have not ceased to be relevant, but they are not those that define the battle lines in global politics today. In domestic politics, the extent to which they continue to dominate political discourse varies between countries, but the trend is increasingly toward the middle ground, as represented by Western Europe: both capitalism and the welfare state are here to stay. We may disagree over just how much to tax the rich or whether certain utilities should be publicly or privately owned, but nobody is going to go to war over these issues. Nor are our divisions over them projected outwards onto the world stage. The Left-Right conflict has been essentially resolved through the establishment of a centrist model of welfare capitalism, one that takes a slightly different form in each country (the US model being somewhat to the right of the West European model). Those who continue to talk about abolishing either capitalism or the welfare state are the political equivalent of flat-earthers. The triumph of the centrist political model has led to one section of the Left and one section of the Right breaking away from their respective comrades and joining up in opposition to this model: this ultimately takes the form of a Red-Brown coalition. Conversely, a second section of the Left and a second section of the Right have likewise broken away from the first sections and come together in support of extending this model globally. This, then, is the principal ideological division in global politics today: pro-Western vs anti-Western; globalist vs anti-globalist; the democratic centre vs the Red-Brown coalition. This cannot necessarily be used to determine where any given individual or group may stand on a particular issue. Blairites and neoconservatives might find themselves aligned with Muslim fundamentalists against Christian fundamentalists in support of intervention in Kosova, and with Christian fundamentalists against Muslim fundamentalists in support of intervention in Iraq. George W. Bush might be close in many ways to the Christian fundamentalist right in the US, but he has nevertheless been ready to describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace’, attempt the democratisation of two Muslim countries and recognise predominantly Muslim Kosova’s secession from predominantly Christian Serbia. A significant segment of hard-liberal opinion supported intervention in Kosova and Afghanistan but opposed it in Iraq. Pro-Western and anti-Western are not the same as ‘pro-war’ and ‘anti-war’. Nor can this division be projected back onto the Cold War division between the Western and Soviet blocs; the issues today are not the same as they were then; former Cold Warriors and Marxists can be found in both of today’s camps. The essence of the division is that the pro-Westerners support the extension of the liberal-democratic order across the globe, through the politics of human rights, promotion of democracy, universal values and interventionism (not necessarily always military). The anti-Westerners oppose the liberal-democratic model, at least as a universal model; they admire or support movements or regimes that stand in opposition to the Western alliance or to Western values – all of which uphold religious fundamentalism or nativist nationalism, sometimes combined with a ‘socialist’ veneer, as an alternative to liberal democracy. Anti-Westerners may support military intervention for reasons of ‘national interest’ or religious sectarianism – whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other - but never for the sake of liberty or ‘Western values’; never for the sake of halting genocide or overthrowing tyranny. They may masquerade as ‘anti-imperialists’, but what they oppose is ultimately not the domination of smaller nations by more powerful ones. Hence they refuse to show solidarity with the people of Tibet, Darfur, Bosnia, etc. By which I don’t simply mean they do nothing – few of us can boast that we’ve actively ‘shown solidarity’ with all the just causes in the world – but that they oppose the idea of such solidarity in principle. Rather, the anti-Westerners’ ‘anti-imperialism’ means opposing the very ideas of ethical international intervention and of the global triumph of liberal-democratic values. Similarly, their support for ‘national sovereignty’ means supporting the sovereign right of dictators to reject pressure to respect human rights, not the sovereignty of democratically elected parliaments in Baghdad or Pristina. And their support for ‘international law’ never means abiding by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or respecting the jurisdiction of war-crimes tribunals established by the UN Security Council, but essentially boils down to supporting the right of Moscow or Beijing to veto acts of intervention that might halt genocide or overthrow tyranny."

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see that the congenital liar Rois is still vitipurating. He is the Mel Gibson of these threads.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Predictable nonsense from the brain challenged sinkable Molly.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You must be pleased with yourself, roi. You are quite an inspirational figure. No, a veritable muse.

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No, a veritable muse." yes, the muse of the vituperators.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You got it backwards Irony, there are no terrorists, just State terror of which only the US and Israel are guilty.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Irony even white angry guys know that since they too read Noam Chomsky.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gnome Chomsky http://brockley.blogspot.com/search?q=gnome

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our own gnome Roidtsky is still avoiding answering his own question: "what is to be done?"

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

from: "The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky" by Arundhati Roy: " He's like the wood-borer who lives inside the third rack of my bookshelf. Day and night, I hear his jaws crunching through the wood, grinding it to a fine dust. It's as though he disagrees with the literature and wants to destroy the very structure on which it rests. I call him Chompsky."

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very pleased, noga. I have learned that it can be very effective to let the goons dig in for a while. That way there is less opportunity for them to obscure just who is doing what to whom. ___________________ "The essence of the division is that the pro-Westerners support the extension of the liberal-democratic order across the globe, through the politics of human rights, promotion of democracy, universal values and interventionism (not necessarily always military)." What a relief to know there is some possibility, however slender, of promoting human rights, democracy, and universal values other than by military intervention. Makes you want to run out and join that centrist coalition in which George W. Bush could "attempt to democratisation of two Muslim countries." And here I had been led to believe he was defending the United States. Who knew? Is the Yesha Council in the world centrist coalition or somewhere else on this new spectrum?

- roidubouloi

July 16, 2010 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Roy’s status as a famous woman of the far left has obscured the fact that she is an outright reactionary." Isaac Chotiner, in today's TNR Must be part of the new world alignment that has me in the same coalition as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (or, if I don't make the cut that lets me play in the neo-con sandbox, a part of the coalition that supports war crimes, those being the only two alternatives in noga's brave new world). By the way, the most important thing to know about war crimes is that they are always committed by other people. "War of aggression" waged by Bush is the promotion of universal human rights. War of aggression waged by someone else is a crime. This illustrates the importance of what I said to you, noga, about trying to maintain the distinction between the permissible and the impermissible, a distinction the right is doing its best to obliterate. The latest tack is "if you ain't with us (the neo-cons etc.), you are opposed to human rights, democracy, and universal values." Is this a good time to mention that the neo-con idea of democracy is the best government that their money can buy for them? In all honesty, noga, do you even read these things you link to or copy and think about what they mean, or do you just find some little thing or phrase that appeals to you and consider that sufficient? I think I could read and re-read Marko Hoare all day and not stop laughing.

- roidubouloi

July 16, 2010 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: thanks for the essay by Marko Hoare. He seems to be missing the Third Way, being pioneered by China. Lightning struck here (am back in the Hills) just as you posted Chompsky. The image of the intolerant intellectual wood-borer "disagree[ing] with the literature and want[ing] to destroy the very structure on which it rests" is quite wonderful.

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: " I think I could read and re-read Marko Hoare all day and not stop laughing." If only the rest of the world should be so lucky...

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stll no answer from Roid to his question: "what is to be done?" He has no clue, and a usual when his hollow core is exposed he goes ballistic and broadcast's his insanity all over the land. Roid is neo-sane.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: you nailed it at 4:13 "He is the Mel Gibson of these threads" David Brooks on Mel Gibson in today's NYT: "...The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others. He is the keeper of a sacred flame, which is the flame he holds to celebrate himself. … His self-love is his most precious possession. It is the holy center of all that is sacred and right. He is hypersensitive about anybody who might splatter or disregard his greatness. If someone treats him slightingly, he perceives that as a deliberate and heinous attack. If someone threatens his reputation, he regards this as an act of blasphemy. He feels justified in punishing the attacker for this moral outrage. ..." Actually, I think that is a bit over-the-top on Mel Gibson. I recall Sean Connery slapped a few women in his real life, and no one blinked. [disclosure: physical abuse of women is NEVER allowed, except in self-defense, just not sure Mel Gibson suffers from narcissistic personality disorder any more than any other big movie star/producer/director. Tom Cruise comes to mind]

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do we have a betting pool yet on how long it will take TNR to blog about Noah Pollak's new job at ECI?

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In all honesty, noga, do you even read these things you link to or copy and think about what they mean, or do you just find some little thing or phrase that appeals to you and consider that sufficient? I think I could read and re-read Marko Hoare all day and not stop laughing." I don't always agree with Hoare but I do agree in this case that the division of Right and Left are pretty useless. I also agree, and I said it many years ago, that the neo-cons from the Republican ("Right") side and the muscular liberals from the democratic ("Left") side were too close to each other in ideas and sentiment and eventually would become closer to one another. They are the centrists today, differentiated only by disagreement about how to achieve certain goals but not about the goals themselves, their desirability and feasibility. The New Republic is an example of such a locus. "Dissent" with its more recent merge with "Democratiya" is another. They are both characterized by taking principled stances against the crazies of both sides while trying to explore the possible and the ethical. It is no wonder that the most rabid attackers of these two outlets are the die-hard proponents of the Indecent left and the Fanatic right. And one sign that they are attacking from the extremes is that they often share certain loathings and express them in particularly vulgar and incontinent manners. They are both obsessed with Jews and Israel, but from wildly differing aspects. I find there is a certain harmony between substance and form when it comes to the centrists. You can disagree with their positions but you know that if push comes to shove, you can live with their solutions, should they come to fruition. Not so with the rabidos. They have no limits and no inclination for compromise. And like any rabid dog, they bark the loudest and wish to inflict the greater harm on those they perceive to be their enemies. And sometimes the message is in the form chosen to deliver a certain view and not necessarily the substance. If someone holds you by the scruff of your neck, shakes you violently, punches you in the nose while all the time shouting that he loves you, my advice is don't believe his words but look at the delivery method of that love statement. I'm pretty sure roi doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about. roi has one tool, a hammer, and knows how to use only that hammer. Thus every detail that sticks out and offends his sense of perfect symmetry gets hammered down. End of story. So he believes. The fact that this method of persuasion has not yielded much agreement to what he says infuriates him. How dare the nail defy the hammer?

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fascinating thing about all of you, noga, K2K, and jackson, when you lapse into your faux psycho-analytic mode is that the projection, in each case, is so blindingly obvious, except to you all of course. If I don't find anything to agree with in your posts, or think them pointless or useless, to you this is evidence of my narcissistic personality. But it is you who are so concerned that the things you write here be respected by me. It is you who cannot abide having your words treated without the respect you imagine is due to them, to the point where you are obsessed with my opinion. The sheer verbiage you have expended trying to explain something or other that you imagine about me, rather than discussing the ostensible subject, would fill many pages. I, on the other hand, don't actually give a hoot what you think about my posts. If you manage to say something germane and interesting, that's great. If you make poor or meaningless arguments, I enjoy sticking pins in them. When you cannot muster an argument, as happens frequently, you become abusive out of your frustration. And, as we have seen recently, it matters not whether I insult you; you are going to hurl insults regardless. That pretty much sums it up. On the substance, noga, I find this an astonishing statement: "neo-cons from the Republican ("Right") side and the muscular liberals from the democratic ("Left") side were too close to each other in ideas and sentiment and eventually would become closer to one another. They are the centrists today, differentiated only by disagreement about how to achieve certain goals but not about the goals themselves, their desirability and feasibility." I don't think anything could be further from the truth, first that the neo-cons, or even more than some three members of the Republican party, can reasonably be considered "centrist." The center-right has vanished in America, consumed by the radical right, which is why we are so stymied. It used to be that the center-left and center-right could get on the same page often enough to make things work tolerably well. Now, in the absence of any center-right, the only center is on the left and it is not strong enough to prevail. The other incredible notion is that neo-cons and progressives agree on goals, just not how to get there, but that the solutions of either are acceptable. As you say, "if push comes to shove, you can live with their solutions, should they come to fruition." If you state the goals broadly enough, peace, prosperity, etc., sure. But at that level, the congruence is meaningless. At a more concrete level, what on earth are you talking about? Are you completely unaware of the many disasters brought upon us by the right over the eight years of the Bush administration? In my opinion, the fact that you can live with this puts you pretty far out of anything that can rationally be considered the center. What is so laughable about Hoare's piece is precisely that from his point of view (from where, the moon?), the differences between left and right seem trivial. They aren't. _______________ I don't purport to have all the answers about what is to be done, jackson, although I responded to you more than once with a number of different proposals. I do know that what is to be done is the question that must be addressed, if that is we are dealing with policy rather than aesthetics or something else. I also think that criticizing what is being done without having anything at all to say about what should be done instead (done as in action, not as in "castigate enemies") is dishonest criticism. Needless to say, that is the special vocation of Martin Peretz, dishonest criticism.

- roidubouloi

July 16, 2010 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, so you're saying that the neocons are centrist, and that torture should be considered a centrist policy? Oh, and shabbat shalom.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 16, 2010 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think I mentioned this somewhere else recently, but it's an enjoyable read perusing Michael Bérubé's takedown of Chomsky in his 2009 book The Left at War. It's a takedown from the left, too, which makes it a refreshing change. Attacks on Chomsky can morph into a broadside against others who don't share his ideology but make easy targets in a kind of "they're all the same anyhow" mode. Hurrah for literary scholars, this time anyhow.

- ironyroad

July 16, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

actually roid, I just want you to find a new hobby. you are a destructive presence. you destroy curiosity and civility. you are without empathy.

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: why can't I enjoy making fun of Chomsky without having to read Michael Bérubé? Anyway, I read a summary of Bérubé's take on Chomsky on Bob from Brockley, a cyber friend from across the pond, here: http://brockley.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-would-you-like-it-if-i-called-you.html Bob is something of a patient socialist, British-style. We often disagree but we remain on friendly terms.

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "jackson: you nailed it at 4:13 "He is the Mel Gibson of these threads" David Brooks on Mel Gibson in today's NYT: "...The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others." I disagree with Brooks, K2k, Gibson is on narcissist, he is psychotic. His rants against Jews his hatred of homosexuals and Blacks, his refusal to say that his holocaust denying father was wrong all point to an inability to accept reality. This makes him psychotic.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am still waiting for Roid to tell us how he would deal with Islamist terrorists? It's obvious that he hasn't a clue and all his posts are just so much moonshine aimed at derailing debate on these issues.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 9:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, of course you can continue having fun in your own way. My Bérubé suggestion was more in the way of an optional extra, like making a special day trip to see some ruins instead of staying in the hotel and sipping a cocktail on the patio.

- ironyroad

July 16, 2010 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most stimulating read of this week. Walter Russell Mead "Nuking Westphalia: Obama’s Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran" July 16th, 2010 And, the word Islam, or any reference to any religion, is notably absent from Mead's essay. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/16/nuking-westphalia-obamas-deep-convictions-point-to-war-with-iran/

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "Most stimulating read of this week. Walter Russell Mead "Nuking Westphalia: Obama’s Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran"" If true Roid will be the first to endorse this Obama policy. The guy is a fraud.

- jdyer

July 16, 2010 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, K2K, but you are out of luck. Fortunately, you are neither the thought police nor the speech police, much as you try to be. Beyond that, you delude yourself if you think the persona you present here could be characterized as civil. I realize that, for you, sticking to the point and following arguments through to their conclusion is destructive (as opposed to just throwing lots of things in the air and celebrating the chaos), but that's your problem, not mine. ___________________ The answer to your question, jackson, is multi-faceted but depends principally on denying terrorists the means in terms of space, resources, and access, confining them as tightly as possible to as small a space as possible. A lot of this is technical, but in almost every case it requires the cooperation of other powers. For this reason alone, it is worth trying to enlist their cooperation to the greatest extent possible. If they will not cooperate, then they have to be denied resources so that the terrorists they shelter or support, whether as a matter of policy or as a matter of neglect, are likewise limited. Occupying their territory is one way to deny them space and resources, but, even leaving aside the costs in human and financial terms, this is hugely inefficient. If they can just move elsewhere, they will, as to Pakistan from Afghanistan, and as soon as we leave they will return, to a possibly more shattered, less resistant space which is what is keeping us from withdrawing from Afghanistan. Obviously, if we cannot gain and hold territory by invasion, then it is pointless. Plus, the amount of territory in the world that we can invade and occupy is limited. What the neo-con world cannot face is that the very nature of the terrorist threat requires unprecedented cooperation with and from other powers, which is anathema to them. They believe in unilateral security. But they are unable to recognize that technology has rendered this position completely obsolete even if it ever had some justification. Above all, we need the cooperation of the major powers who are alternative channels of resources. Otherwise, any efforts on our part to deny resources will be futile. Just as it is futile to move terrorists from Afghanistan to Pakistan (maybe worse than futile as Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons make terrorism a superlative threat there), it is futile to deny something to an uncooperative state if they can easily obtain it from Russia, China, or the EU. To give a concrete example, the surest way to bend Iran would be to prevent it from exporting oil. There are physical and financial ways in which this could be done. But it cannot work unless the world as a whole is willing to endure the disruption of the oil market and its equilibrating at a higher price. This requires cooperation from Europe and from China as other major importers. If it were not to damage our own economies as much or more than Iran's, it would also require coordinated levels of oil taxes so that the excess price does not end up producing much larger trade deficits for importing countries. All of this is quite out of reach politically at the moment because (1) we are not yet at a point where we can obtain nearly the cooperation we need from other powers and (2) our own population has been conditioned by years of Republican rhetoric to resist any tax, no matter its purpose, even if it is rebated. This means that we are unable to do what is necessary, but Obama is at least on the right track in trying to rebuild and strengthen the relationships we need abroad. Similarly, because Saudi Arabia is the major source, direct and indirect, of funding for terrorism, we need to get it to stop, with whatever it takes. But we need to have the political will to do it. We can deny it military resources that it must obtain form outside, but, again, we need cooperation from other powers to make it stick. The most difficult problem is Pakistan. We cannot afford to let it become isolated because we cannot risk loose nukes. There we need to assist in every way possible with nuclear security if we are not already doing it, continue our policy of ourselves targeting terrorists that the Pakistanis can't or won't, figure out some lever to get them to stop supporting the Taliban, and devote our efforts to securing the Afghan-Pak border so that terrorists on both sides cannot find sanctuary. Who is arming the Taliban if not Pakistani sources within and without the government? We cannot prevail in Afghanistan because there is an open tap in Pakistan, just as we could not prevail in South Vietnam with an open tap to the north. But we have to tread extremely carefully in Pakistan. In the end, terrorists still have to exist on the planet within the borders of someplace. We need the tightest possible coordination of intelligence and technical means with cooperating powers and the tools and cooperation to deny resources to non-cooperating powers. There are no other practical possibilities that I can see, but we have, until Obama, been in large measure peddling backwards due to the neo-con obsession with unilateralism -- exactly the route to no security in the modern world. Incredibly, the neo-cons and Peretz's of the world resist any effort to move forward. The idea that we can somehow win a propaganda war with Islamists within the Islamic world seems to me to be fanciful. We didn't defeat the communists by persuading them or their populations We denied them space for expansion then out-competed them until their own populations drew the necessary conclusions. I don't see that the fight against terrorism is going to be more amenable to a propaganda war of ideas. We do best when we live our ideas and make our societies successful while denying them the means to damage us for as long as it takes for the societies that nurture them to have had enough.

- roidubouloi

July 16, 2010 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: Are you comparing Bérubé to a ruin? And what's wrong with sipping a cocktail on the patio, for the world-weary and much put-upon traveler?

- noga1

July 16, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Mead piece is interesting, particularly as an explanation of Obama's worldview. It strikes my ear correctly anyway. But I question whether we really have the technical means short of all-out war, meaning invasion, to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If we were confident that we did, I am sure we would, but I doubt it. This article highlights the importance of international cooperation. A system of mutual international obligation and support, which is what we need and what I was just arguing for above, is not only undermined by treaty-breakers like Iran, but also undermined by treaty-breakers like the US. We really cannot have it both ways -- one law for us, another for you -- unless we have the power to be the world hegemon, but we don't. Together with the other major powers, we do. This puts in a strange light Mead's complaints about the Security Council, echoing the confusion that besets neo-cons. The Security Council is not an independent actor. It is a tool of the major powers and its existence does not render them obsolete. The problem always comes back to the same place. We need the strongest possible cooperation amongst the major powers, or as many of them as we can get if not all will cooperate. It is the only way in a world where non-state actors are capable of threatening us. The risk to us is not nuclear missiles, it is nuclear smuggling.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And, the word Islam, or any reference to any religion, is notably absent from Mead's essay." Gee, could it be that the solution, if one exists, to the problem of Iran has nothing to do with Islam, understanding Islam, or what can be found in the Koran?

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi Arguing against a phantom enemy like the neocons isn’t the same as offering your own argument. Ok so you offered a quasi answer: “The answer to your question, jackson, is multi-faceted but depends principally on denying terrorists the means in terms of space, resources, and access, confining them as tightly as possible to as small a space as possible. A lot of this is technical, but in almost every case it requires the cooperation of other powers. For this reason alone, it is worth trying to enlist their cooperation to the greatest extent possible. If they will not cooperate, then they have to be denied resources so that the terrorists they shelter or support, whether as a matter of policy or as a matter of neglect, are likewise limited.” Your response is too narrow and it’s closer to the neocon view than you think. This is what we are doing right now. First we need to stop pretending that the Saudis and Pakistanis are our allies. “The idea that we can somehow win a propaganda war with Islamists within the Islamic world seems to me to be fanciful.” Not fanciful at all. “We didn't defeat the communists by persuading them or their populations.” The Soviet leadership and the intellectual classes believed that they were going to win the ideological conflict (this is how they saw it) with the capitalist world. Once the Western intellectuals especially in Paris whom they respected turned against them the intellectual world in the Soviet States became frozen. From then on their fight was merely a fight for power for the sake of power. “We denied them space for expansion then out-competed them until their own populations drew the necessary conclusions.” You are offering a Reagan view of the cold war. “I don't see that the fight against terrorism is going to be more amenable to a propaganda war of ideas. We do best when we live our ideas and make our societies successful while denying them the means to damage us for as long as it takes for the societies that nurture them to have had enough.” This is a necessary though hardly sufficient step. What you are missing is that the Islamist terrorist enemy is above all an ideological enemy. Hence the strategy has to include a direct assault on their ideology. The government alone can’t do this. As I said above we need to mimic the strategy of our fight against the Soviets. This means, among other things, as I outlined above, engaging in an intellectual and supportive dialogue with democratic intellectuals in the Muslim world.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, it wasn't Bérubé that I was comparing to ancient ruins (I was a bit oblique, I guess, but still . . .). And no of course not -- again I thought my tone pointed toward the value of sipping a quiet drink on the patio as the afternoon winds down toward evening.

- ironyroad

July 17, 2010 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are offering a Reagan view of the cold war." Hardly. This is the Kennan-Truman view and their policy. Reagan arrived at the very end of the party and his contribution was trivial. Nor did the Soviet Union didn't become sclerotic because it lost Paris intellectuals, but because a centrally planned economy was technically impossible unless, as was the case in the US during WWII, the consumer is the government itself. It was Leontief, the Russian refugee and future Nobel laureate, who showed how to do it, but only because the government itself knew what output in war materiel it needed. There is nothing particularly wrong with propaganda as a tool in aid, but we have no credibility in the Moslem world and "democratic intellectuals" there have no space within which to speak any more than Soviet intellectuals did until Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn came along. We cannot plan policy based on the assumption that anyone like them will appear in the Moslem world. It might happen, but it would be a fortuity. "Your response is too narrow and it’s closer to the neocon view than you think." My response has zero to do with neo-con unilateralism. It is its polar opposite.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The last thing I expected to find this morning when I scanned to the end of this thread was an interesting, engaging argument between Jackson and roi, with hardly an insult to be found in the exchange. Made me believe that all things are possible. It also supports the contention of Marco Hoare in the piece that Noga linked to the other day, namely, that disagreements between muscular liberalism and neo-conservatism are, relatively speaking, arguments within the family. And, that instead of beating each other's brains out, we need need to find common ground in the struggle against the Red-Green brigades who are doing their best to bring down the roof on all our heads. Now if only roi would be willing to trade the role of tar baby for that of a sage elder, we could have so much more light and less heat, and lots less goo to wade through. (Roi, that's a recommendation, not an insult.) Marco Hoare, btw, seems to be quite a sharp cookie. One of his other posts worth reading addresses the theme of genocidal hatred masquerading as anti-imperialism, and just below it on the same page he skillfully unmasks Turkey's Erdogan a year before the Flotilla episode: http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/category/israel/

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the link, William James.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 9:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Hardly. This is the Kennan-Truman view and their policy. Reagan arrived at the very end of the party and his contribution was trivial. Nor did the Soviet Union didn't become sclerotic because it lost Paris intellectuals, but because a centrally planned economy was technically impossible unless, as was the case in the US during WWII, the consumer is the government itself. It was Leontief, the Russian refugee and future Nobel laureate, who showed how to do it, but only because the government itself knew what output in war materiel it needed." I suggest you read some more on the history of the cold war. There is no one cause that led to demise of the Soviet State and the Kennan-Truman doctrine made a contribution to that end. However, it wasnt till the revolt in Hungary which was the beginning of the intellectual disenchantment with the Communist part in the West (and which the US betrayed) was of also of great importance. However, this are all mere details. Our disagreement centers on the role ideology played in the struggle. To you it was insignficant while to me it was crucial. The loss of Western intellectual support in the West demoted demoted the Communist struggle from one of ideas to a struggle for power for its own sake, as I said above.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Willjames: I'm glad you approve of Marko Hoare. Here is his profile as featured by Norm Geras on his Normblog: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/08/the-normblog-profile-258-marko-attila-hoare.html I just noticed that he cites the movie "Divided we fall' as one of his favourites. It's funny because it is a favourite of mine as well, yet it is very little known (maybe because it is Czech production). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234288/plotsummary

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Discovering Islam... http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/07/gallows-humor.php

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The normblog is quite a nice resource, Ms. Boop. I was unaware of it, but I'll definitely be using it in the future. Reading Marko Hare's responses to simple questions about tastes and preferences gives such a clear sense of his wildly eclectic approach to the world. Anyone who enjoys Twelve Angry Men as well as Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill! clearly has a mind that is not easily snared by dogma and conventional categories. "Divided We Fall" is, alas, unavailable through iTunes. Do you know of an alternate movie rental site that caters to E.U. residents that might be likely to have it? (NetFlix and all the others immediately detect that my computer is outside the continental U.S. and tell me to go away.)

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".. (I was a bit oblique, I guess, but still . ." Was this an attempt at Byzantine irony? I missed it completely. Bérubé, isn't that a French name meaning "the dweller on the marshy land, from residence nearby"? I'm curious how you spell his name with the accents. Do you google like I do the proper spelling and then cut and paste or do you actually write it out all on your own? And why has the dweller on the marsh captured your admiration so?

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Per Lincoln, a house divided against itself cannot stand." This always reminds me of George Costanza.

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

just when I thought all we had to worry about is Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah in Mexico, how does Hizb ut Tahrir in America fit into Obama's dialog with Islam? (personal fact-checking limited to wiki - banned in Turkey, Russia, Egypt - and HizbutTahrir.org official webpage ): "Hizb ut Tahrir in America" by Shiraz Maher July 15, 2010 at 4:30 am "Hizb ut Tahrir (HuT), a transnational revolutionary movement which has flourished in the West and which is seeking to create an Islamist super-state. Founded in Jerusalem in 1953 the group aims to unite all Muslims under one ruler, the Caliph, and impose a rigid version of Shariah law throughout the world, is turning its attention to the United States where it hopes to win support from American Muslims. The group has been planning to hold a conference in Chicago on July 11 at the Marriot Oak Brook Hotel. It will focus on the "emerging world order: how the Khilafah [Caliphate] will shape the world" and is part of a "global campaign for Khilafah." Attendees are told to "join the revival." HuT is banned across the Middle East, in parts of Central and South East Asia, and in Germany as well -- in part because of its revolutionary nature, which seeks to seize power by inciting the armies of Muslim countries to rebel. But many Western governments are also concerned by the extreme ideology HuT promotes. In the United Kingdom, throughout the 1990s, groups like HuT were allowed to grow unchecked, causing untold damage that will take years to reverse. Following the 7/7 terrorist attacks in 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to ban the group, but later backtracked after failing to find a sufficient legal basis for doing so. This illustrates, vividly, the problem at hand: The challenge posed by groups like HuT is not their message (which is easily overcome), but their methods. By steering clear of actual involvement in terrorism, HuT is able to present itself as an intellectual revivalist movement, testing the limits of liberal societies such as Britain and America, which tolerate – and indeed cherish – dissent of all kinds. Yet they are clearly more than a talking shop. HuT creates the moral justification for terrorism by serving as a "political wing" for the global jihad movement, thereby supporting it with intellectual arguments if nothing else. Although the group has never been directly implicated in acts of terrorism, its fingerprints have frequently turned up on the periphery of actual plots, leading commentators such as Zeyno Baran to regard it as a "conveyor belt" for terrorism. Two of al-Qaeda's most senior members, for example, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are alleged to have been one-time associates of the group. In Britain, HuT has been blamed for radicalizing Britain's first suicide bomber, Omar Sharif, who killed three diners in a Tel Aviv restaurant. Similarly, one of the attackers in the abortive terrorist attack on Glasgow airport in 2007, Kafeel Ahmed, was a flatmate of a HuT member in Cambridge. The fact that the group has inspired terrorism should come as no surprise. Article 56 of HuT's draft constitution for its proposed Islamic state states: "Every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad." The group's most extreme rhetoric is reserved for Jews. A leaflet issued by the group in 2001 stated: "In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. Even they themselves rarely like each other." Another leaflet stated: "The Jews are a people of slander. They are a treacherous people who violate oaths and covenants….Allah forbids you to befriend them." More recently, following the storming by Israelis of the of the Turkish boat, the Mavi Marmara, the HuT chapter in Bangladesh issued a press release declaring: "O Muslim Armies! Teach the Jews a lesson after which they will need no further lessons. March forth to fight them, eradicate their entity and purify the earth of their filth." American members are expressing similar sentiments. Maajid Eshaaq, a Chicago resident, is heavily promoting HuT's upcoming conference on social networking sites such as Facebook, on which he has created a group called: "Only a Muslim Army Can Solve Israeli Menace." Its description states: Salauddin Ayyubi set an example for us when he liberated Palestine from the crusaders. We believe this menace can only be solved by a sincere Muslim army...We call the Muslim rulers, dictators and kings to fear Allah and stop helping the kuffar [infidel]] and stop lying to the Muslims and stop shedding fake tears. Bring back the Islamic Khilafah and the Islamic system and its armies to take care of this disease called Israel. HuT's broader political agenda is deeply reactionary and hostile, promoting ideas of confrontation and separation among Muslims in the West. Muslims in America, for example, will be told that participating in the democratic process is forbidden, that secularism and democracy are incompatible with Islam, and that American Muslims should isolate themselves from civil society. One of its publications states "The basis of the democratic system is that people possess the right of sovereignty, choice and implementation. ... it is a Kufr [infidel's] system because it is laid down by man and it is not from the Shari'ah Laws". Working out how to draw a line against that kind of activity while preserving civil liberties remains a problem that many politicians in Britain have been unable to resolve. Now, it would seem, US policy makers will likely be facing the same swamp. " copied entirely from: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1413/hizb-ut-tahrir-in-america

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, the HuT folks seem very much in the same mold as the worst of their cohorts. It's clear that they need to be suppressed, but how to do it without becoming a police state remains an enigma. You certainly know how to ruin a lovely Saturday afternoon!

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames77: "You certainly know how to ruin a lovely Saturday afternoon!" so sorry. just reading about Syria getting permission from Turkey's PM Erdogan to use the Heron drones supplied by Israel to Turkey as NATO country so that Syria can massacre Syrian KURDS is what can really ruin a lovely Saturday afternoon. (much worse than reading the Iraqi National Army is in firefights with Iraqi Kurdistan's Peshmerga, stopped only by U.S. troops patrolling with both sides) "...Following intense exchanges between Jerusalem and Washington, the NATO command was urged to put Ankara on the carpet - with no response as yet. The drones are being used to track Kurds in flight across Syria's borders, mainly into Lebanon, where Hizballah is helping Syria hunt the refugees down. The accessibility to Damascus of the unmanned aerial vehicles is in direct breach of the Israel-Turkish sales contracts which barred their use - and the use of other Israeli high-tech items sold to Turkey during years of close military collaboration - in the service of hostile states or entities. ..." http://www.debka.com/article/8916/ maybe noga had the right idea, think about Seinfeld's George Costanza :)

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hoare's answer to a question: "Who are your political heroes? Those with whom I most identify are Tony Blair, Latinka Perovic and Stjepan Mesic. Those whose historical contribution to human emancipation I most appreciate are Josip Broz Tito and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk." Does this require any comment?

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Exactly. Per the Talmud, the Second Temple was destroyed because of Sinat Chinam, mindless hatred. Per Lincoln, a house divided against itself cannot stand." Tell that to the Republicans who will do anything, tell any lie, damage the country, anything, just to try and damage a Democratic president.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On an Mac, you can add the accents using the option key. Very simple é ü î à.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George Costanza: It became very clear to me sitting out there today that every decision I've made in my entire life has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat - it's all been wrong. Michelle Obama: For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback. If only she could have reached out and touched George, perhaps even he could have been saved from despair of interminable inner conflict! (I think I'm getting punchy; must be time for a walk...)

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And while you're at it, tell it to Martin Peretz whose criticism of Obama consists almost entirely of declaring how awful Obama is without every being able to suggest any alternative course of action. This almost self-evidently has no purpose other than political destruction. All the "rules" about a certain amount of deference to leadership and standing together are applied by the right only to bully the left when the right is in power. When the left is in power, the gloves are off and there are no holds barred. This was just as true during the administration of FDR when we were in a life and death struggle.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, on my MacBook when I press the option key and an "o", all I get is ø. When I do it with the a, I get an å. Since I don't participate in Scandinavian web dialogues, I find it quite useless. However, the occasional accent grave or accent aigue or umlaut would be quite useful. Would you be kind enough to share your expertise?

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I suggest you read some more on the history of the cold war." The short history of the Cold War is that the west prevented communism from expanding and motivating its people with the prospect of ideological world conquest. So contained, the internal contradictions of communism, its inability to organize production of anything (including defenses) effectively, eventually overwhelmed it. That is what Kennan foresaw. That is what motivated the policy. With some deviations, the policy remained in effect until the Berlin Wall fell. And that was that. The "ideological struggle" was a sideshow because hardly anyone of consequence got persuaded of anything they didn't already believe. And the ideological struggle would surely have been less than a sideshow had Kennan and Truman not hit on the correct policy and had the west not pursued it consistently for the nearly half century it took to achieve its goals. The war of ideas may entertain, but it is not a substitute for correctly fighting a war of war, hot or cold. In the latest iteration, the neo-cons, or Peretzians, same thing in my mind, think the war of ideas is of surpassing importance and show very little interest in action other than as a form of display of ideas. Hence, Iraq is a success, in their minds, because we displayed our ideas with what they think is conviction. They will not think any differently about it if it could be shown to have had no useful impact whatsoever on terrorism or if, after we withdraw, Iraq promptly becomes an ally of Iran and Syria aligned against us. Nor to they think the military, economic, diplomatic, or human resources exhausted in the conflict need to be counted as a loss and weighed against any gains. They are not ideas after all, only material resources that are of little importance.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames, The umlaut is option-u, then you type whatever vowel you want. The circumflex is option-i. The accent grave is the option key and the key to the left of the 1 (the accent is actually shown there), and the accent aigue is option-e. Also, you can get a tilde with option n, ñ, and there a few other such things around. It is worth holding the option key and hitting every key on the board just to see what is there. Lots of good stuff. Give it a whirl.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thâñks, roi. How anyone is supposed to figure this out on their own, God only knows. It took me a year to discover that fn+Delete deletes to the right since the Delete key on its own acts like the backspace key on the PC and deletes to the left. (I had to go into a Best Buy and pretend to be someone interested in buying a new Mac who had concerns about keyboard functionality...) Back on the house divided front, I need no convincing that the Republicans have played dirty pool and have stooped to despicable depths to win elections and to obstruct positive change when Democrats are in power. You're preaching to the choir here. But I try to separate the demagogues and total scumbags from people of good will who have a conservative perspective. And, although I have been and remain a progressive on almost all domestic issues, I find that conservative voices often have more to offer in terms of understanding the international arena, particularly the difficult situation in which Israel finds itself. Here's a dialogue between Alan Dershowitz and Dennis Prager that seems to me to be an open-minded exploration towards finding common ground: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBKBA-oZ5vA

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, it was a joke, but not very well thought out. I had imagined Chomsky as a ruined temple of some kind visited by tourists who watch the priests going through the old rituals. Forget it. Stick with the cocktail hour. I like Bérubé's book because of its focus and crisp argument, as well as an active sense of humor/sense of the ridiculous. It's an enjoyable read. I've only read odd blog-type things by him up to this, so I can't say anything about his literary-critical writing. I don't know if you're a Mac or PC person, but as a PC'er I mostly use the ASCII codes to generate special characters such as é, Ü, ç, and so on. Control plus alt plus the relevant three-digit number, e.g. 130 for é. The habit comes from my time in Germany when I had an American keyboard but had to write often in German.

- ironyroad

July 17, 2010 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “In the latest iteration, the neo-cons, or Peretzians, same thing in my mind, think the war of ideas is of surpassing importance and show very little interest in action other than as a form of display of ideas.” If there is some idea out there that Roid hates, it’s got to be a neo-con idea. He writes like someone obsessed. Anyway, it’s not true that “neo cons” believe that ideas are of surpassing importance…” And it’s certainly not true that they think that they; nor is it true that Peretz is a necon. “show very little interest in action other than as a form of display of ideas.” Their endorsement of the Iraq war in all of its aspects shows how wrong Roid is. He also said: “The war of ideas may entertain, but it is not a substitute for correctly fighting a war of war, hot or cold. I never said that dealing with ideological issues is a substitute for fighting (never mind “correctly”) a war. (what does a war of war mean? You are getting tired again, Roid and it shows.) The rest of the paragraph is full of tired inventions and invective. Me: "I suggest you read some more on the history of the cold war." Roid: “The short history of the Cold War is that the west prevented communism from expanding and motivating its people with the prospect of ideological world conquest. So contained, the internal contradictions of communism, its inability to organize production of anything (including defenses) effectively, eventually overwhelmed it. That is what Kennan foresaw. That is what motivated the policy. With some deviations, the policy remained in effect until the Berlin Wall fell. And that was that. “ This must be the cold war history for dummies that Roid read. The Truman doctrine may have been useful in the late forties but by the mid 1950’s it became irrelevant. After the Hungarian uprising when the US stood by and allowed thousands of workers and intellectuals to be slaughtered after calling n them to rebel on Radio Free Europe it became clear that the US had no interest in actively helping to liberate Eastern Europe, say what one will of him it was Reagan who reversed that policy when he not only championed containment but looked for ways of countering Communist expansion. His decision to fund new weapons systems helped bankrupt the Soviet Union. In any case, you have a simple minded understanding of the cold war. Especially true when you say: “The "ideological struggle" was a sideshow because hardly anyone of consequence got persuaded of anything they didn't already believe.” First how do you prove that someone like Sartre was “persuade of something he already believed in” when he embraced the Soviet State as a model of liberation. It is certain that his conversion to Stalinism contradicted his existential philosophy in spite of his trying to unite the two. He wasn’t the only intellectual of consequence to have embraced communism. And Sartre had a huge influence on third world communism, especially in Latin America.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If there is some idea out there that Roid hates, it’s got to be a neo-con idea." Yes, because they dominate policy discussion on the right and they are completely full of shit -- dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. If they weren't a problem, a threat to our safety, I wouldn't bother with them. Considering that the war in Iraq had no strategic purpose other than as a demonstration of what US power will do to you if you don't cooperate ("shock and awe" writ large), I would say its purpose was entirely display. Because they are such a pack of ninnies, the neo-cons didn't stop to think about how anything would play out once we defeated Saddam's army which we were sure to do. Indeed, one reason they picked Saddam for their demonstration was that his army was no threat, degraded from the version we had defeated in a few days 10 years earlier. Thus, they thought military victory assured but, being empty heads, had no thought as to what would or even might ensue from the defeat of Saddam's army. "I never said that dealing with ideological issues is a substitute for fighting (never mind “correctly”) a war. (what does a war of war mean? You are getting tired again, Roid and it shows.)" "Correctly" means strategically and tactically soundly. There is a difference between effective and ineffective strategy and tactics, you know, see, e.g., neo-cons above. The point of "war of war" in contrast to "war of ideas" is that there is a difference between all of the metaphorical wars we are always fighting and the real thing. The war with terrorists is real war. Hence, it requires effective strategy and tactics, for real, against actual enemies with actual arms. They will not be defeated by ideological struggle but by killing them (like with missiles fired from drone aircraft) and preventing them from getting access to the various resources they need to give battle. It is exactly in this sense that the imperative is to figure out "what is to be done," not what is to be said. You are apparently a fan of Reagan, jackson, whose contribution to winning the cold war was pretty much nil. The Soviet Union was not bankrupted by trying to match US arms production in the few short years of Reagan, but by its inability to adapt its production with changing circumstances due to the technical impossibility of centralized organization of a large economy (as opposed to decentralized organization with market prices). Although you imagine you know some history, you demonstrate that you don't know much of anything. The Truman Doctrine and "containment" were not the same thing. Containing the Soviet Union was Kennan's critical strategic contribution and it was the core of US strategy towards the Soviet Union from the Truman era through the end of the Cold War. The US did not liberate Eastern Europe. Reagan did nothing to that end other than give speeches. Here again we see the confusion between speech and action and the belief of the right that if you blow trumpets walls fall down. I would say that you have a simple-minded understanding of the Cold War, jackson, but that would be too generous. You have no understanding of the Cold War because you share in an imagined history invented by the right. You think Sartre was of consequence for the outcome of the Cold War? That is truly, objectively ridiculous. I cannot imagine what silly books you must be reading, jackson, if you actually think a thing like that. That is not history, it is pure fantasy. Your idea of the relationship between speech and events, jackson, reminds me of the guys who wear their lucky shirt on backwards to sit in front of the TV and watch a football game. If their team wins, they are certain it is because they were wearing that lucky shirt in just the right way.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, you think that Reagan's "Tear down that wall" and "evil empire" did not inspire at all? That Reagan's words were just fortuitously timed? Were those just the right's "lucky t-shirts turned backwords"? I agree with most of what you say--at least insofar as how much I'm able to understand it. But a friend's ex-husband, a professor of Russian history and political science, told me that the Russians loved Reagan, that he was a hero to them. Though perhaps it was just the Russian immigrants who immigrated to the states that he was hearing from . . . .

- MOLLYSIMON

July 17, 2010 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, Whether Reagan's speeches inspired or not, they were not the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. I liked the speeches, I am glad he gave them, but he was cheering for an eventuality that occurred without any causal relationship to those speeches. I am not opposed to rhetoric, trying to inspire, seeking advantage through communications. Not a bit. But one needs to keep perspective about causes and effects. They were in fact "lucky t-shirts turned backwards" in that they correlated in an emotionally compelling way with events but did not cause them. The distinction is important because we face violent enemy actors, not just enemy debaters. We need to struggle to find the means to frustrate their acts, whatever shirts we may be wearing while we do it.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “"If there is some idea out there that Roid hates, it’s got to be a neo-con idea." Yes, because they dominate policy discussion on the right and they are completely full of shit -- dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. If they weren't a problem, a threat to our safety, I wouldn't bother with them.” Do they? Their not as consequential as you think, and as they think. The ideas of the right are at the moment incoherent: the are composed of Christian fundamentalists as well as libertarians many of whom despise them. In economic policy there is no single voice that is dominant which is why the best they can do is say they will repeal whatever economic program the Democrats manage to pass. In terms of foreign policy there is an equal incoherence. Bush’ doctrine was never purely neo conservative but was driven by a mindless bravado. They neo con ideology if at all was used to justify the war in Iraq (which had its origin in Bush’ desire to avenge the plot against his father’s life). In any case, by the end of the first term the neocons ceased to matter except in the minds of those obsessed with them and who could not believe that they didn’t from a coherent movement anymore. “"Correctly" means strategically and tactically soundly. There is a difference between effective and ineffective strategy and tactics, you know, see, e.g., neo-cons above.” Thank you, that was helpful. Gee god spare from any more self righteous pedants such as you. This guy is like a broken record stuck on “neo-cons.” They serve the same purpose in your thinking process as does anti-Zionism in that of a Muckenzie. “The point of "war of war" in contrast to "war of ideas" is that there is a difference between all of the metaphorical wars we are always fighting and the real thing. The war with terrorists is real war.” And of course this begs the question of what a “terrorist” is. By not naming them (and their religious ideology) you avoid the embarrassment of not having to deal with their ideas. “You are apparently a fan of Reagan, jackson, whose contribution to winning the cold war was pretty much nil.” No, I am not a fan of Reagan but even those opposed to him have recognized that his spending on weapons systems did help bankrupt the Soviet Union. I keep saying that there is no single or simple explanation for the demise of an ideological Empire that lasted over half a century and you keep not understanding that. I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, but don’t put words in my mouth and don’t make claims about my liking or disliking of any political figure that I haven’t endorsed openly. In Eastern Europe we stood by in 56 during the Hungarian uprising and again in 67 when the Czechs decided to leave the Soviet orbit an institute a different kind of socialism. These revolts were ideas driven but a vulgar lawyer with a bureaucratic mind could never comprehend that. Your views are very close to the cynical Bolsheviks from Stalin to Brezhnev who were actually skeptical of anyone who took ideas even Marxist ideas seriously. “You think Sartre was of consequence for the outcome of the Cold War? That is truly, objectively ridiculous. I cannot imagine what silly books you must be reading, jackson, if you actually think a thing like that. That is not history, it is pure fantasy.” Again, I was using Sartre as an example. There thousands of intellectuals like Sartre all over the world who were seduced by Bolshevism. “Your idea of the relationship between speech and events, jackson,….” And what is my idea of the relation of speech and event? Do you think that events just happen and speech is superfluous? Finally, if you think that ideologies don’t’ matter why do you get so exercised by the irrelevant ideas of the so called “neo-cons?”

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, not Ctrl but just alt plus the ASCII number. My bad.

- ironyroad

July 17, 2010 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Whether Reagan's speeches inspired or not, they were not the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union…” Not his speeches, it was his policies that helped, were a factor, not the only factor, but a substantial factor in the collapse of that Empire. Roid reminds me of the legendary traveler to foreign lands whose languages he doesn’t know and whenever he encounters a native speaker who doesn’t understand English keeps repeating the same sentences in a louder tone of voice to make himself understood. The same is true of the bully who thinks that by repeating his views at greater length he will get his interlocutor to agree with him.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Finally, if you think that ideologies don’t’ matter why do you get so exercised by the irrelevant ideas of the so called 'neo-cons?'" Uhh, jackson, has it escaped your notice that the conservative ideologues that I am referring to are here in America and wield considerable political power through a combination of wealth, political office, and wealth that buys political office and favors? They own media, have an extensive radio network, a TV network, newspapers. They are contesting for power here in our own country, within our political system. If conservative ideology were being prated at us by, oh let's just say the Moslems in Yemen, I would give it as much attention as I give the ideas of the Moslems of Yemen -- that is, absolutely none. Nor did I read the speeches of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kruschev to learn about the world. So, you were only using Sartre as an example? Yes, a ridiculous example. Thousands of intellectuals were seduced. By what? The speeches of Stalin? Or do you think the job of the President of the United States is to write ideological tracts for distribution around the world? Ideas matter, but yelling your ideas at your enemies doesn't. If they are real enemies with real weapons, you need to do something about them, not make speeches about how awful they are. Certainly the 1956 and 1968 uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were motivated by ideas, but they were their ideas, not our ideas. Do you think that it was American political speeches that motivated them or their own discussion, however cramped, of the conditions under which they were living? "And of course this begs the question of what a “terrorist” is. By not naming them (and their religious ideology) you avoid the embarrassment of not having to deal with their ideas." Who here gives a fuck about their ideas? Do you think we need to debate them to prove to ourselves that they are maniacs who want to kill us? And if so, does it really matter why they want to kill us? And if we understood that to perfection -- why that is -- what earthly difference would it make in terms of the concrete, physical, in the real world steps necessary to frustrate their designs? Our speech here, with each other in this country, about what to do matters a great deal in formulating a policy and the will to carry it out. Prating at the Moslems, contesting with them their ideas, is almost entirely a waste of time. We have no more likelihood of persuading them of anything than they do of persuading us. These are just medieval disputations. We didn't talk the communists out of communism. We outlasted them and made ourselves many times more productive until they could no longer bear to be left behind.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What policies, jackson? By what concrete mechanism did Reagan's policies, other than aid to the Afghan mujahideen, do anything to bring down the Soviet Union? Do you seriously believe that whatever additional arms spending the Soviets undertook in response to Reagan, that that economic burden is what made the difference? That is comic. I don't need to repeat myself, jackson. You keep saying brand new stupid things, and I keep pointing out how stupid and ignorant they are, and then you say some other new ones, and I point out how stupid and ignorant they are. Then you get frustrated and start your typical name-calling. Get you to agree with me? Who cares? Why would any bother? You flatter yourself absurdly. My purpose is only to continue to point out the stupidity and ignorance of the things you say in your very lame efforts to take issue with what I say. Today you don't remind me so much of a bully, jackson, as of the village idiot.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php Here's a table of US military expenditures as a percent of GDP going back to the Forties. The decade of the 80s saw an average increase over 1979 of a bit less then 1% per year as a percentage of GDP. During the period, US GDP in 2009 dollars (a table I happen to have on hand) averaged $7.4 trillion. Accordingly, the additional US defense expenditures in the 80s amounted to about $70 billion per year in roughly current dollars. You gonna tell me that that's what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Nonsense.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roidubouloi “Uhh, jackson, has it escaped your notice that the conservative ideologues that I am referring to are here in America and wield considerable political power through a combination of wealth, political office, and wealth that buys political office and favors? They own media, have an extensive radio network, a TV network, newspapers. They are contesting for power here in our own country, within our political system. If conservative ideology were being prated at us by, oh let's just say the Moslems in Yemen, I would give it as much attention as I give the ideas of the Moslems of Yemen -- that is, absolutely none. Nor did I read the speeches of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kruschev to learn about the world.” What a mishmash of nonsense. So the conservatives are hateful to you because they own the media. And in what period of American history did they not “wield considerable political power through a combination of wealth, political office, and wealth that buys political office and favors?” Perhaps in the Gilded Age, or maybe during the Nixon era? Besides, how comes it that the Democrats control Congress and the White House if the conservatives are so powerful? Finally, you last sentence in the bizarre paragraph above seems misplaced. Go take a nap. You may sound more coherent when you wake up. At least you’d be alert enough to cover up your ignorance with a little more finesse. “So, you were only using Sartre as an example? Yes, a ridiculous example. Thousands of intellectuals were seduced. By what? The speeches of Stalin? Or do you think the job of the President of the United States is to write ideological tracts for distribution around the world?” If you want to know read their books, I am certainly not going to waste my time trying to educate you. “Ideas matter, but yelling your ideas at your enemies doesn't.” Yea, as if I or anyone here said that we should yell enlightenment ideas at the Jihadists. You have quite an imagination. Me: “And of course this begs the question of what a “terrorist” is. By not naming them (and their religious ideology) you avoid the embarrassment of not having to deal with their ideas." Roid: “Who here gives a fuck about their ideas?” Not you, I am sure. But if their ideas tell them to blow themselves up in the presence of infidels and kill as many non believers in the process, then I care about their ideas and I care about the countries and organizations that promulgate these ideas. I also care enough to want to argue against them in their own countries. Your idea that these ideas don't matter because they are being promulgated in their countries doesn't make sense in the age of the internet and mass communication. But I'll leave you to your fantasies.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Accordingly, the additional US defense expenditures in the 80s amounted to about $70 billion per year in roughly current dollars. You gonna tell me that that's what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Nonsense.” Here are some other figures dealing with Reagan’s defense build up: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040609-reagan-military.htm The article which is critical of Reagan’s defense budget also says that: “The Reagan administration's drive to have the best of everything drove up prices for weapons systems. Some of the programs got so expensive they disappeared or shrank -- the A-12 bomber was canceled because of excessive cost, as were the Comanche helicopter and Crusader artillery gun. The B-2 and the F-22 fighter were drastically cut back. Missile defense, which as "Star Wars" was the emotional centerpiece of the Reagan buildup, has survived but as a much smaller, ground-based system rather than the grand, space-based umbrella that Reagan envisioned. And it still doesn't work. So while some credit the great buildup with driving the Soviet Union to bankruptcy and collapse, its ramifications for today's defense industry have been mixed.” The issue isn’t the number of dollars spent on defense, the issue is the effect that spending had on the Soviet Union.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Today you don't remind me so much of a bully, jackson, as of the village idiot.” When Roid can’t win an argument he resorts to insults. Here is a guy, a lawyer he says, who has been spending the better part of the day arguing with “the village idiot.” What does that say about him, pray tell?

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat " Perhaps it did make a difference. In the Cold War's arms race, one of the US' greatest strategic military strengths was its wealth. Conversely, one of the USSR's greatest strategic weakness was its comparative poverty in trying to keep up. You might find this interesting.' Thanks, malahat, that was my understanding, also.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

reading list from spring 2009 syllabus for Yale’s grand strategy program, for the last two weeks devoted to THE COLD WAR and THE END OF THE COLD WAR. [it would appear that weeks 10 AUTHORITARIAN GEOPOLITICS & 11 IMPERIAL GEOPOLITICS apply more to today's global war of ideologies than the Cold War, but, each to own]: WEEK XIII : THE COLD WAR In this session we will focus on the two most influential American grand strategists of the Cold War era from the late 1940s to the mid-1970s: George F. Kennan (1904-2005) and Henry A. Kissinger (1923- ). We will examine their respective designs for waging the Cold War, as well as their ideas on how it might end. We will also consider the difficulties both statesmen had, as policy-makers, in implementing their ideas. Core reading: Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991 (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), pp.225-401. John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War, revised and expanded edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 1-341. John Lewis Gaddis, ‘Rescuing Choice From Circumstance: The Statecraft of Henry Kissinger’, in Gordon A. Craig and Francis L. Loewenheim, The Diplomats, 1939-1979 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), chapter 19, pp. 564-592. WEEK XIV : THE END OF THE COLD WAR We will spend this session discussing the how the Cold War ended, which is a contentious and politicized issue in and of itself. First interpretations attributed it to the vision, flexibility and courage of Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- ). Later assessments argue that the United States in the 1980s ‘stumbled onto a successful strategy under Ronald Reagan’ (1911- 2004), comprised of support for anti-communist guerillas, missile deployments in Western Europe, arms reduction negotiations, and the strategic defense initiative. We will consider whether, why and how a congeries of ideas and events evolved into a grand strategy of historical significance. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991 (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), pp.403-586. John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War, revised and expanded edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 342-91 John Lewis Gaddis, “Grand Strategies in the Cold War,” forthcoming in Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, eds., The Cambridge History of the Cold War. George Shultz, ‘Realism, Strength and Diplomacy’, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 1982. Ronald Reagan, Address to both Houses of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster, London, 8 June 1982, excerpted in William Safire, ed., Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992), pp. 862-867. ‘The Reagan Doctrine’, in his 1985 State of the Union Address. Excerpt. George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1993). Excerpts. Mikhail Gorbachev, Addresses to the United Nations General Assembly, 1987-1988. Mikhail Gorbachev, Remarks at session of the Congress of People’s Deputies, 3 September 1991, reprinted in William Safire, ed., Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992), pp. 899-900. copied from: http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/grand-strategy-for-yalies/

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, i tend to agree with malahat and jackson on the relative poverty of the USSR as a critical factor, but, as usual, it was more complex. I seem to recall bad US intelligence inflating the military assets of the Soviet Union... One thing I am fairly sure of is that Osama Bin Laden had read Paul Kennedy's 1987 "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" before bin Laden's video speech on November 1, 2004 where he he said his strategy was to force the United States to spend itself into bankruptcy. In his translated words: "...All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. All Praise is due to Allah. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah. ..." http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too little too late no doubt: but there is a false choice being proffered here by those who urge it between ideological understandings of the enemy and understanding its organizational structures and economic make up. Why need the latter exclude the former, regardless of how policy makers weigh what they need to know? Plus, as WillJames7, pointed out and reminded me some time ago on this thread there is no gainsaying the impacts of popular opinion on national policy as ideas trickle down to the formation of popular understandings and opinion. That is after all a significant part of what soft power is all about, as is winning hearts and minds.

- basman

July 17, 2010 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...other than aid to the Afghan mujahideen, do anything to bring down the Soviet Union? " "CIA Award Presenter: The defeat and break up of the Soviet empire, culminating in the crumbing of the Berlin wall, is one of the great events of world history. There were many heros in this battle, but to Charlie Wilson must go this special recognition. Just thirteen years ago the Soviet army appeared to be invincible. But Charlie, undeterred, engineered a lethal body blow that weakened the communist empire. Without Charlie, history would be hugely, and sadly different. And so for the first time a civilian is being given our highest recognition; that of honored colleague. Ladies and gentlemen of the clandestine services, congressman Charles Wilson. " http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/quotes

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just on a lighter note Malahat--by the way I hope my family hasn't been too much of an impositon on you for the last few days and won't be for the next 10 or so--you must listen to this. I just recame across it in reorganizing my CDs. If it doesn't take you back and pull on your heart strings nothing will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf5cB26RZkk&feature=related Gotta' love the doo wop!

- basman

July 17, 2010 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eric Hobsbawm, “The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991” And of course, Hobsbawm was defender of the Soviet Union and supported its invasion of Hungary in 1956. For anyone interested in how ideology can distort a society they should take a look at Great Britain with its roster of Soviet sympathizers or Trotskyite among its intellectual classes. No wonder the country has descended into anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We also have Charles Wilson to thank for endorsing the jihadist crusade against the Soviets which eventually was directed against the West.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"....but there is a false choice being proffered here by those who urge it between ideological understandings of the enemy and understanding its organizational structures and economic make up." I would dare to suggest that there is a relationship of dependency between the ideology and and understanding the organizational structures and economic make up of the enemy. The ideology does not just float somewhere in the stratosphere, unencumbered by any earthly consideration. An ideology needs organization and money in order to become a movement. It's important to know what works in segments of the Muslim world which provide the underpinnings of the activities carried out in the name of ideology. I cannot see how the two can be separable at all. Which is why I cannot begin to fathom roi's insistence that Islamist ideology and its various agencies simply do not count in the war against terrorism.

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Which is why I cannot begin to fathom roi's insistence that Islamist ideology and its various agencies simply do not count in the war against terrorism." Well said, noga, that is my point, exactly.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"charlie Wilson: These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." Perhaps there is a lesson in it for the current and future administrations and for all Americans, too.

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"yes, i tend to agree with malahat and jackson on the relative poverty of the USSR as a critical factor," Except that is malahat's point and mine while jackson thinks Reagan's policies were decisive (unless that is he thinks that Reagan's policies, rather than the lack of productivity of the Soviet system, was the cause of its poverty). Good effort trying to cover for jackson's ignorance, K2K, but not in accord with the facts. _______________ The point about contesting ideas with conservatives here, Oh Village Idiot, is that they have genuine political power here. Since we do not shoot our political opponents in America (or put them in detention camps as you suggested), the only way to contest their power is to contest their ideas. If they were in Russia or Yemen, it would not be necessary to contest their ideas. Similarly, we did not need to contest ideas with Stalin and we don't need to contest ideas with Islamists. We are not at risk for legions of American school children becoming jihadists. _________________ My original point, malahat, was that it is worth knowing about the organization, means, personnel, and intentions of the Islamists. That would include their ideology to the extent that it informs us about their intentions. However, it is difficult for me to see that there is much doubt on that score that will be removed by further study. Seems perfectly clear they want to destroy us, forcibly convert us, and dominate our society as well as their own. I don't see that parsing the Koran and engaging in our own religious exegesis of the impact of religious texts on Islamists, supposedly to determine whether Islamism is somehow the special creation of Islam rather than just one more totalitarian movement looking to dominate the world, is particularly useful, and it is generally put to bad use, smearing Islam as a religion, rather than to any positive use in devising strategy and tactics.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leaving roidubouloi out of it for a moment Noga emphasizes a much needed point on the interrelation between the two sides of the false divide, as Jack notes as well.

- basman

July 17, 2010 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Which is why I cannot begin to fathom roi's insistence that Islamist ideology and its various agencies simply do not count in the war against terrorism." Because we have no means to contest Islamist ideology within the Moslem world. "An ideology needs organization and money in order to become a movement." Yup, and denying the organization money and other means, disrupting its capabilities at every opportunity, knowing where and how it gathers resources so that they can be disrupted are all essential. Knowing that they want to kill us because the think there are virgins awaiting them, as opposed, for example, to wanting to kill us so that the Deutsche Volk can achieve its proper place in the firmament, is not really very important.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: " "charlie Wilson: These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." " "Perhaps there is a lesson in it for the current and future administrations and for all Americans, too." it appears that Aaron Sorkin has failed to teach anyone in elected office anything through "Charlie Wilson's War" or "The West Wing"September 22, 1999 to May 14, 2006. All one has to do is watch The West Wing (re-runs on Bravo 8-10am, M-F) and wonder how the mistakes of recent history are repeated on a daily basis in Obama's White House. Perhaps that is why Sorkin is now working on a John Edwards biopic - why bother with anything relevant?

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would add that one of key mistakes of recent history that is repeated on a daily basis in Obama's White House is the failure to realize that the United States IS spending itself into bankruptcy (including the new magic trick of 'no budget needed for next year'), just as Osama bin Laden promised on November 1, 2004: "...So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah. ..." http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html .

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, we disagree, malahat, but I also disagree that one studies Islamist ideology by studying the Koran and trying determine whether Islamism is or is not that necessary fruit of Islam. That doesn't even rise to the level of studying ideology. It is comparative religion and has no good or honest purpose that I can see. It is about like attributing all of the crimes committed by Christians in the name of Christianity to Christianity itself as a faith. The parts of Reagan's speech that you quote make great good sense. He was making the same point I am, that it was the internal problems of centralized economic management that were destroying the Soviet Union from within. Reagan himself recognized this at the beginning of the Reagan era. In that light, it seems odd to attribute the cause to Reagan himself. The Soviet Union came to an end for essentially patriotic reasons. As the economic gap between the US and the Soviet Union widened into a chasm, a new generation of leadership, post Brezhnev, could see that Russia would fade into insignificance if it continued down the communist path. By then, the results of Russia's communist experiment were so plain that very few believed in communism any more. Gorbachev put country ahead of clinging to a failed ideology. Reagan deserves the most credit for defying conservative ideology in the US and negotiating arms control agreements that I believe gave the Soviets confidence that they would not be punished for standing down in the long conflict. The Bushes then punished them for it in a variety of ways that have not served us well. We had a window of opportunity to draw Russia firmly into the west and we semi-blew it. I suspect Reagan, who had a much more generous nature, would have been more welcoming. Now we have to deal with a Russia that is not an enemy, but not a friend either and anxious to retrieve some of the stature it feels it has lost, at our expense if necessary and even if not necessary.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are not spending ourselves into oblivion, K2K. We have the output. We are borrowing ourselves into oblivion because of our refusal to raise taxes to pay for what we spend and our refusal to manage our external trade -- both failures directly attributable to conservative orthodoxy.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one backlash from Obama's stepped-up drone attacks in Af-Pak is increased anti-Americanism in both countries because 1) too many mistakes with tragic civilian casualties, 2) increased terror attacks inside both countries with the intention, in Pakistan, of de-stabilizing the government for cooperating with the Americans, and 3) probably considered a 'coward's way of war' by the Pashtuns who value (rightly or wrongly) personal courage in battle. All the vacuumed language from Washington will never offset the real impact of these drone attacks. As to Paul Berman? One never knows when a small book tips the consciousness of a generation. Some examples: Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and, yes, Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". noga: thanks for adding the normblog post in response to the part of my above comment about the British as posted at the now frozen cold Gerecht thread on "Islam:Unmentionable in D.C. " I did not bother to post a copy of my complete comment, but thought the above was relevant to the original discussion here, which seems to be setting a record for a TNR thread :)

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman "Leaving roidubouloi out of it for a moment Noga emphasizes a much needed point on the interrelation between the two sides of the false divide, as Jack notes as well." But Itzik, only Roid things that ideas are insignificant in the world of real-politique. Those on the other side don't think that containment startegies and the use of military force are insignificant. These are necessary but not sufficient in the international political world. As for the Soviet Union, I would argue that it was its rejection of ideas which led to political and economic atrophy. Ironically, they after Lenin (who didn't undesrtand Marx) no Soviet leader took him seriously.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iran is now threatening the United States, and to pursue Baluchi terrorists in Pakistan. ""Jundollah has been supported by America for its terrorist acts in the past ... America will have to await the fallout of such criminal and savage measures," said Jazayeri, deputy head of the dominant ideological wing of Iran's armed forces. Jundollah, a Sunni Muslim rebel group, said it set off the bombs at a prominent Shi'ite Muslim mosque in the city of Zahedan in retaliation for the Islamic Republic's execution in June of Jundollah leader Abdolmalek Rigi. Iran says Jundollah has links to Sunni Islamist al Qaeda and in the past has accused Pakistan, Britain and the United States of backing Jundollah to create instability in the southeast of predominantly Shi'ite Iran. ... U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday condemned the bombing and said those responsible must be brought to account. "The murder of innocent civilians in their place of worship is an intolerable offense, and those who carried it out must be held accountable," Obama said in a statement. ... A senior police official, Ahmadreza Radan, warned that Iran had a right to "pursue rebels inside Pakistan territory ... Iran has limited patience. Instability in Sistan-Baluchestan is rooted abroad (where) there is lack of will to confront rebels." ..." [quoted from Reuters news reporters Ramin Mostafavi and Hashem Kalantari in TEHRAN | Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:32am EDT, who, along with some Iranians, are clearly finding it difficult to avoid mentioning Islam.]

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 8:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hi, K2K: First of all, Charlie Wilson was not around to watch America get sucked into an eight year war, with no end in sight. And if we don't use drones, how else do we fight them without resulting casualties among American soldiers? And at what point do realize that we've killed too many casualties to make it worth our while--both to stay and employ drones. I don't know that we'll ever know, by the way, whether Charlie Wilson was right. I mean, we've sunk a lot of treasure there--and arguing that if only we'd executed this war with more feet on the ground eight years ago, we'd be fine. Iraq is still a mess. Also, that was an interesting list of books/ideas. But I fail to see how, say, Rachel Carson has changed our path to global warming. Basically, that makes her a Cassandra. Nothing has changed in the (forty?) years since her book was published.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 17, 2010 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blindness and ignorance speak: “But I fail to see how, say, Rachel Carson has changed our path to global warming.” She only responsible for the world wide environmental movement. “Basically, that makes her a Cassandra. Nothing has changed in the (forty?) years since her book was published.” Nothing has changed? True if you count the thousands of international environmental laws nothing. Nothing if you think the EPA is nothing. “The "brief book" on the subject that she had envisioned grew as she began to dig into the evidence that mankind had badly misused these toxic substances. Despite the fact that she was already suffering from the illness that would kill her, she pushed on for four years -- reading, asking questions, writing and re-writing. When her book, Silent Spring, was published in 1962, the uproar it caused and the influence it exerted was compared to that of an earlier classic, Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.” http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/carson.htm http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/origins4.htm But then, ideas are nothing.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basically, that makes her (Rachel Carson) Cassandra. Nothing has changed in the (forty?) years since her book was published.” This is like saying that because we don't live in a perfect democracy the "Declaration of Independence" is nothing.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, jackson bounces from the claim that we can and ought to fight some ideological war in the Moslem world, or the claim that parsing the Koran will allow us to fight terrorism, to the sarcastic hyperbole that "ideas are nothing." Ideas are ideas. When argued with those who are persuadable something may come of it. When argued in a democratic society where ideas are the tools of democratic contest, it is necessary. When argued with people who are already dedicated to trying to kill you, it is a stupid waste of time. But, the truth is that all of the Koran parsing to prove that all Moslems are inherently extremists or to discern the ideology of Islamists so that we may fight them better doesn't have the honest purpose of either "knowing the enemy" or persuading Moslems in general to disassociate themselves from terror. Rather, it has the dishonest purpose of associating all Moslems with terror and smearing Islam as a religion while cloaking oneself in robes of intellectual inquiry. Obama is quite right deliberately to avoid any sort of rhetorical association with the execrable obessions of Martin Peretz.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYS: former congressman Charlie Wilson died on February 10, 2010. In the movie, when Tom Hanks says "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame.", Hanks playing Charlie Wilson was referring to the Afghan civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal in 1988, and perhaps that the civil war led to the Taliban takeover in 1996. Afghanistan is known as the "graveyard of empires" for a reason. Only Tamerlane succeeded in the 1380's, requiring mountains of skulls. http://www.rachelcarson.org/ and most of the modern environmental movement would disagree that "Nothing has changed" since "Silent Spring" first appeared in The New Yorker in 1962, as would the American bald eagle. Nothing to do with climate change.

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack we agree.

- basman

July 17, 2010 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul Berman, as quoted by Martin Peretz in this blogpost: "In our present Age of the Zipped Lip, you are supposed to avoid making any of the following inconvenient observations about the history and doctrines of the Islamist movement: You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s. You are not supposed to point out that Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide. And you are not supposed to mention that, by inducing a variety of journalists and intellectuals to maintain a discreet and respectful silence on these awkward matters, the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis. Or so I have argued in my recent book, "The Flight of the Intellectuals." ..." [Obama-bots are going to need their vitamins to keep tying themselves in rhetorical knots for another 128 weeks]

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Of course, jackson bounces from the claim that we can and ought to fight some ideological war in the Moslem world, or the claim that parsing the Koran will allow us to fight terrorism, to the sarcastic hyperbole that "ideas are nothing."” Of course this is bullshit. Irony, like subtlety is lost on Roid. An ironic comment is not a "claim."

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, "Noga emphasizes a much needed point on the interrelation between the two sides of the false divide, as Jack notes as well." It's worth noting that we've re-enacted the argument between Hegel and Marx, where the former insisted that the zeitgeist was the prime mover while the latter insisted that material resources were the determining factor and that spiritual things were mere epiphenomena (as does roi). I think that most of us have, at this point in the game, come to recognize this radical opposition between materialism and idealism as a false divide. I had a history class at Brandeis years ago with a fellow named Norman Cantor who was a medievalist and wrote a popular textbook on the Middle Ages. Its central theme was the way that power shifted from one hand to another based on the ways that moral and material resources were utilized. One classic study was the clash between Pope Gregory VII and the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. The Emperor had an army; the Pope had only a framework of belief which he could manipulate. The Pope issued the equivalent of a Fatwa excommunicating the Emperor and threatening excommunication of anyone who supported him. Henry wound up spending three days kneeling at Canossa begging the Pope to forgive him and to give him a second chance. One might conclude that Henry made a costly mistake in considering material resources all-important while failing to recognize the power of ideology.

- willjames77

July 17, 2010 at 10:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's a great reminder about Henry IV at Canossa. However, Henry and Gregory were already part of a shared ideology/religious system. When the times had changed and the religious system that bound princes to Rome had frayed, Henry VIII of England was excommunicated, told the Pope to stick it, and then lopped of the heads of anyone who wouldn't acknowledge Henry as the spiritual head of the Church in England, to become the Church of England. The point being that a war of ideas across an ideological or religious divide has never really been fought and never that I can recall fought successfully. Rather, what occurs across such a divide is typically active warfare or guarded and grudging peace, see, e.g. the Thirty Years War. This time is no different. We can read the Koran until we are blue, we are not going to persuade Moslems of anything at all regarding their faith. We can perhaps persuade them that attacking us will be futile in the first instance and likely costly them overall. Our primary task is to render it futile.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the time of Henry VIII, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V could hold the Pope, Clement VII, captive in the Castel Sant'Angelo after sacking Rome. While held captive, the Pope pretty much did Charles' bidding.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes willjames77, great post. today's dilemma would probably elude Norman Cantor. The modern iteration of Political Islam has no commonalities with the great schisms of medieval Christianity, or the Reformation, as some believe. The allure of Political Islam has been the failure of post-colonial governance in most of the majority muslim nations. No amount of American military power or smart diplomacy or promise of democracy can replace public safety and some form of impartial justice for those who think "Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Harb" are the only options. I do wonder what Cantor thought about the travels of Ibn Battuta 1325-1354. The young Islamic scholar duly noted the benefits of public safety when travelling in "Dar al-Islam", and the grave perils of travel in "Dar al-Harb", but could not bring himself to acknowledge the effective governance in China and Byzantine Constantinople.

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ibn Battuta was even more confused by the immodest dress of the women who insisted on public bare-breastedness in the otherwise very Islamic Maldive Islands. Seemed more distressed by that than by being physically attacked by Hindu rebels outside the area of control held by the ruthlessly Islamic Sultan of Delhi.

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames77 “It's worth noting that we've re-enacted the argument between Hegel and Marx, where the former insisted that the zeitgeist was the prime mover while the latter insisted that material resources were the determining factor and that spiritual things were mere epiphenomena (as does roi). I think that most of us have, at this point in the game, come to recognize this radical opposition between materialism and idealism as a false divide.” Great catch, wj! Roid does sound like a vulgar materialist as I said above. “I had a history class at Brandeis years ago with a fellow named Norman Cantor who was a medievalist and wrote a popular textbook….” I read his “Inventing the Middle Ages.” I didn’t know he taught at Brandeis. Are you familiar with: “The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages,” by Norman Cohn? “One might conclude that Henry made a costly mistake in considering material resources all-important while failing to recognize the power of ideology.” Oh, I agree that the Popes had immense power at certain times in the middle Ages, but in Italy at least they did have armies that they led and sometimes they were bested by powerful Kings from Charlemagne to Napoleon. Still, both King and Pope worked within the same ideological system and in the end they both used and worked to further that ideology. Ideas and beliefs are powerful but they have their most pronounced effect on the material world indirectly. There is no immediate consequence or correspondence between idea and effect. Sometime and idea is introduced it is defeated and later on it resurfaces and changes everything in the socio-political world.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid is fixated on reading the Koran because he thinks he can refute that it’s important to understand Jihadist ideology in order to defeat it: “We can read the Koran until we are blue, we are not going to persuade Moslems of anything at all regarding their faith. We can perhaps persuade them that attacking us will be futile in the first instance and likely costly them overall. Our primary task is to render it futile.” No one here has ever suggested that reading the Koran (one should know what is in it, of course, just as one should know what is in Mein Kampf) in order to convince Muslims not to embrace some form of Islamism. (Roid often argues against straw men or fictitious entities like neo-cons.) What I said is that we need to support intellectuals in Muslim societies who believe in democratic values and support them actively. An ideological conflict has to be fought on many fronts.

- jdyer

July 17, 2010 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great catch by you too Jack. I missed, truth to tell, the bracketed identification by wj7 of the" other side of the argument with the Marxist notion of ideology as mere superstructure. It's a telling analogy and a subtle point excellently made by wj7 as other have generally noted. I don't think the other argument was quite that reductive, but the effect of the argument is suggestively similar to a purely materialist account of ideology.

- basman

July 18, 2010 at 12:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, basman, to a largely materialist account of warfare. The kind with guns and bombs. __________________ "What I said is that we need to support intellectuals in Muslim societies who believe in democratic values and support them actively. An ideological conflict has to be fought on many fronts." Send flowers. Meanwhile, let's hope that someone with some brains, rather than some wannabe intellectual, is thinking about how successfully to defend the US from attack and deny would-be terrorists the resources they need. We don't need, and are unlikely, to defeat jihadist ideology. We need to defeat jihadists.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 1:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Give it up roidubouloi. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and for other mysterious reasons, best known to yourself, I can't fathom and, finally, don't care about. Give it up. Your argument has been put away. C'est tout pour moi!

- basman

July 18, 2010 at 1:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Superb, basman, ça suffis de vous. I am always amazed at your self-importance, that you consistently imagine that whether you in particular care about something is of any consequence. If you cannot follow the argument, and there is no sign that you can, your advice in this regard is not worth much: "But, the truth is that all of the Koran parsing to prove that all Moslems are inherently extremists or to discern the ideology of Islamists so that we may fight them better doesn't have the honest purpose of either "knowing the enemy" or persuading Moslems in general to disassociate themselves from terror. Rather, it has the dishonest purpose of associating all Moslems with terror and smearing Islam as a religion while cloaking oneself in robes of intellectual inquiry." Au revoir.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 2:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, I haven't read "The Pursuit of the Millennium" but I will grab a copy since the theme deeply interests me. It sounds like it would be a useful backgrounder for appreciating the end-of-the-world longings which animate the current Iranian regime. A remarkable book on this subject is "The Sense of an Ending" by Frank Kermode, who argues quite brilliantly that, given our need to anchor ourselves somehow in the stream of endless time, we much prefer the notion that we are living in "the last days" to the reality of living somewhere in the middle. Ironically, the sense of an ending, of an Armageddon, comforts us with the fiction that we, right now, are living in the most important of times and that our battles are the decisive ones. The faithful in Iran are hastening to bring about the return of the Hidden Imam in their lifetimes; we, living in our own myths of scientific rationalism, agonize over reducing carbon footprints before the damage becomes irreversible and the world comes to an end. Yes, Cantor taught at Brandeis apparently until 1970 when he moved on to teach at various other universities. Wikipedia offers this summary of his career: "His books generally received mixed reviews in academic journals, but were often popular bestsellers, buoyed by Cantor's fluid, often colloquial, writing style and his lively critiques of persons and ideas, both past and present. Cantor was intellectually conservative and expressed deep skepticism about what he saw as methodological fads, particularly Marxism and postmodernism but also argued for greater inclusion of women and minorities in traditional historical narratives. In both his best-selling Inventing the Middle Ages and his autobiography, Inventing Norman Cantor, he reflected on his strained relationship over the years with other historians and with academia in general." I only know his "Civilization of the Middle Ages" which we used as our main course text, but the fact that he was held in contempt by his PC academic peers suggests that his other works are probably also well worth reading.

- willjames77

July 18, 2010 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And just a quick footnote to your other comment, Jackson, about the Popes and their armies. Apparently some of them, like Michelangelo's patron, Pope Julius, were formidable warriors and brilliant military strategists. Others, by comparison, were relatively docile and focused more on doctrinal issues. I suspect that, in general, most Americans think of Papal armies as a medieval affair. It's somewhat jolting to consider that, only 150 years ago, Garibaldi had to defeat the Pope's armies in battle to be able to include the papal territories in the new country of Italy.

- willjames77

July 18, 2010 at 7:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks willjames77 for the references to add to the post-post-modern battlefield of ideas. basman on the terroroid: "arguing for the sake of arguing and for other mysterious reasons, best known to yourself, I can't fathom and, finally, don't care about." my casual observation is that roid is a big yawn of a word terrorist, a Terroroid. The Terroroid deploys various propaganda techniques in his compulsive mission to disrupt The Spine, the alleged redoubt of neo-cons in his conspiracy-wracked brain. The Terroroid uses a pattern of posting consecutive attack comments in order to derail any dialog between other commenters. When the Terroroid escapes his restraints, and, if I am in a counter-terroroidism mood and unwilling to waste time to use other counter-terroroidism techniques, posting anything George Orwell wrote about any propaganda technique will compel the Terroroid to a flaccid counter-attack.

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 8:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

just posted online: "Should Israel Bomb Iran?: Better safe than sorry" BY Reuel Marc Gerecht "There is only one thing that terrifies Washington’s foreign policy establishment more than the prospect of an American airstrike against Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities: an Israeli airstrike. Left, right, and center, “sensible” people view the idea with alarm. Such an attack would, they say, do great damage to the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Tehran would counterattack, punishing “the Great Satan” (America) for the sins of “the Little Satan” (Israel). An Israeli strike could lead to the closing of the world’s oil passageway, the Strait of Hormuz; prompt Muslims throughout the world to rise up in outrage; and spark a Middle Eastern war that might drag in the United States. Barack Obama’s “New Beginning” with Muslims, such as it is, would be over the moment Israeli bunker-busting bombs hit. An Israeli “preventive” attack, we are further told, couldn’t possibly stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuke, and would actually make it more likely that the virulently anti-Zionist supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, would strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. It would also provoke Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to deploy its terrorist assets against Israel and the United States. Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolution’s one true Arab child, would unleash all the missiles it has imported from Tehran and Damascus since 2006, the last time the Party of God and the Jewish state collided. An Israeli preemptive strike unauthorized by Washington (and President Barack Obama is unlikely to authorize one) could also severely damage Israel’s standing with the American public, as well as America’s relations with Europe, since the “diplomacy first, diplomacy only” Europeans would go ballistic, demanding a more severe punishment of Israel than Washington could countenance. The Jewish state’s relations with the European Union—Israel’s major trading partner—could collapse. And, last but not least, an Israeli strike could fatally compromise the pro-democracy Green Movement in Iran, which is the only hope the West has for an end to the nuclear menace by means of regime change. This concern was expressed halfheartedly before the tumultuous Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, but it is now voiced with urgency by those who truly care about the Green Movement spawned by those elections and don’t want any American or Israeli action to harm it. These fears are mostly overblown. Some of the alarmist scenarios are the opposite of what would more likely unfold after an Israeli attack. ..." [Gerecht's remaining 7,000 words are a methodical analysis of each of these scenarios, starting with "Anti-Semitism run amok", can be read at: http://weeklystandard.com/articles/should-israel-bomb-iran July 26, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 42]

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I'd have to agree that the disruptions of conversational flow are the most pernicious aspect of roi's style of engagement, which you have described quite precisely. Once everyone starts whacking the tar baby, it gets to be quite a mess. Roi is quite adept at the ad hominem attacks, and once people's buttons get pushed, they start swinging back and the conversation gets muddied. On the plus side of the ledger, I think it's sometimes useful to have someone ably articulate a position that most of the rest of us find implausible and indefensible. It reminds me of a men's group that I participated in about twenty years ago. Four of us were interested in myth and depth psychology and the fifth guy was a passionate disciple of John Dewey (yes, one of perhaps three in all of the Western world). He saw the group as his opportunity to form the nucleus of an ideal community following Dewey's principles. He drove us crazy for a couple of years until he finally gave up on us and left. After an initial sigh of relief, we began arguing amongst ourselves and the group disbanded a few months later. A belated thanks for your post a couple days ago to the piece speculating about Obama's possible willingness to go to war with Iran. It was a helpful reminder that the man is not a pacifist, and that there are quite possibly some things that he would be willing to fight for. Obama's interest in Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, as evidenced in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, also gives some hint that, if push comes to shove, he may turn out to be more than the hapless appeaser that he sometimes appears to be.

- willjames77

July 18, 2010 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are a double-think master, K2K. Particularly impressive in that regard is your ability to read Orwell and completely fail to understand how aptly he describes you. Double-thinking while describing double-thinking. You are GOOD dude!

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames77: you might enjoy reading "Should Israel Bomb Iran?: Better safe than sorry" BY Reuel Marc Gerecht (link posted at 10:17 am) as followup to Walter Russell Mead's "Nuking Westphalia" reasoning. Mead's commenters are overwhelmingly skeptical about Obama's mettle as CinC and seem to see only the "hapless appeaser". I like to believe there will be one provocation too many, and it will not be Israel in the eye of the ensuing storm. Maybe Obama absorbed more from his childhood on Java than most understand. The Javanese are a remarkably patient people who prefer to (seemingly endlessly) talk through conflict, but, at a certain point of provocation, remarkably fierce and brutally resolute. yes, "it's sometimes useful to have someone ably articulate a position that most of the rest of us find implausible and indefensible.", with an emphasis on "ably articulate". William F Buckley was ably articulate :)

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gerecht's piece is worth reading for its dishonesty. Contrary to K2Ks characterization, Gerecht is unable so support any of the claims he makes in his lede. He devotes a large section to the depth of anti-Semitism in Iran, then another section to the increasing brittleness of the Iranian regime on a shrunken base of clerical and popular support and participation. He concludes this with the rather astonishing claim that, when such brittle dictatorships are militarily challenged from outside, they are much more likely to fall than to consolidate their power and that this will more likely than not be the case in Iran if the regime were "embarrassed" by an Israel airstrike. Needless to say, he gives not a single example to support this historical claim. Can anyone think of one? I can't. Gerecht does not claim that Israel can succeed in halting the Iranian program or even venture to say how much it might be damaged. Indeed, he confesses his doubt, that the program may be so well advanced and dispersed that it is too late. His thesis, however, is that even a "half-successful" Israeli raid has the prospect of so destabilizing the Iranian regime that it falls and that this is therefore Israel's best strategic option. Note well, he does not claim that a raid will halt the program, but that the Iranian government will fall as a result. He doesn't even bother trying to explain why we should expect that the government that emerges would be any better or safer for us and Israel than the government that is there now. He than goes on to claim, without any real support, that Iran will be too timid to do any of the things that are feared (after explaining in his section about anti-Semitism that Iran has not at all been too timid to do such things in the past when it was, by his lights, even less rabidly anti-Semitic than today). He concludes with a discussion of the reasons why Iran might lose control of nukes, if it got them, to factions within the ruling clique who would be willing to use them. Also needless to say, he doesn't bother to reconcile the thesis that Iran might be sufficiently out of control to use nuclear weapons (with the likely result of its annihilation), but would not be so out of control as to engage in any of the other military/terrorist actions that he pooh-poohs, even as, he claims, the regime is crumbling. Amazing to me that just because a guy has history with the CIA and is set up in a right-wing think tank, he can spout so much complete nonsense and not be laughed out of the room. But then, given the nonsense that the right spouts in public every day, I should have learned by now.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"On the plus side of the ledger, I think it's sometimes useful to have someone ably articulate a position that most of the rest of us find implausible and indefensible." Of course you do. The joy of group-think, of being surrounded by people who repeat the same platitudes endlessly and imagine themselves to be thinking. And just imagine that any idea should disrupt the smooth flow of your mutual stroking, petting, licking, and admiration!, let alone that you should have to struggle to respond without your collective quick resort to ad hominem. But then, just whom should we expect to find here at the Spine other than a bunch of Peretz acolytes, and what should one expect of them intellectually other "mini-Peretz?" Believe me, willjames, when the collection of you, K2K, noga, makover, basman, NR, and amidut ("most of us") starts to agree with me, I will have great cause to worry. If you were the slightest bit self-aware, you would acknowledge that it is much too challenging for you to deal with any argument (not ad hominem, but argument) that does not comport with your prior beliefs, whether that argument be right or wrong. What you crave here from each other is only the mutual applause that leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy and persuaded of your own intelligence and virtue.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, wj, Frank Kermode is one of the few literary critics who is both very knowledgeable of his subject matter and very wise. Un-surprisingly he never confuses criticism with politics. Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini as true champions of democracy were in many ways a model political revolutionaries. That the latter was excoriated by Karl Marx only shows what a sensible political thinker he was.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Itzik, K2K, roid is a ridiculous and angry troll. He posts here angry diatribes 24/7 because he has no one else to talk to. He must be on his fourth marriage at least, assuming any one actually married a self important non entity like he is. No need to feed the troll. Let him talk to himself or to Molly which is the same thing.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here is jackson, or the two of them, "insult jackson" and "victim jackson," all rolled into one and come out to play. Do you have any other personalities we should know about, jackson? "dom jackson?" "lingerie jackson?" "diapered jackson?" You know, jackson, back when TNR used to tell us how many posts everyone had, you were far ahead of me. How do you achieve this? 36/7? Don't you have anyone to talk to? As for anger, is there anyone who could possibly lay a glove on your sputtering, spittle-flecked rage? I don't think so. For sheer vein-popping, demented anger, no one comes close to you, jackson. You are the master.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't feed trolls!

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But you cannot help yourself, jackson. Your consuming anger and profound feelings of inferiority (well deserved in my opinion) overcome you.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, When it comes to matters of Israel, nobody can best you. But to attack Basman? Of all the personalities here, he is perhaps (along with Irony) the only one who never stoops to nastiness. He is what they used to call a real gentleman. And he is not self-important. Far from it. He is perfectly happy to mock himself. No matter how vile anyone else has been (and I'm thinking of the detestable NDMac), he has never gone on the attack. I think he's a little too forgiving of Israel, and and he might think (if he thinks of me at all) that I am guilty of morally equivalence. But self-important? Never. Apologies, Basman, if I've embarrassed you.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 18, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Cantor was intellectually conservative and expressed deep skepticism about what he saw as methodological fads, particularly Marxism and postmodernism . . . ." wj77: "I only know his "Civilization of the Middle Ages" which we used as our main course text, but the fact that he was held in contempt by his PC academic peers suggests that his other works are probably also well worth reading." Hm. I'd hestitate to make reading choices on the basis of negatives alone ("my enemy's enemy is my bedtime book!"). But something strikes me as odd here. While the kind of stereotypical PC/identity politics in academia was and probably is perfectly comfortable with postmodernism, or even Postmodernism, the same is not true of Marxism. There are different sides of this issue, and one would need more information to proceed, but as a general comment I'd say that Marxism has not been flavor of the week ever since the 1980s. The reason is because (a) despite its revolutionary claims it is observably a traditional Western master-narrative that imposes a top-down order on a diverse and resistant world, and (b) its traditional agent of choice, the organized industrial working class, has been dethroned from leftwing revolutionary thought on grounds of culture, gender and race (too Western, too male, too white).

- ironyroad

July 18, 2010 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I accept your correction, Molly. I should have put jackson in my list, not basman (although he is not entirely pure in the ad hominem department). My apologies, basman.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "But something strikes me as odd here. While the kind of stereotypical PC/identity politics in academia was and probably is perfectly comfortable with postmodernism, or even Postmodernism, the same is not true of Marxism." You should have said the same is not true of real Marxism. The Marxism represented in academia by people like Eagleton is another matter. In any case Cantor is conservative and he challenges mostly the French Annales School of historiography which non or even counter Marxist. One of the strengths of “Inventing the Middle Ages” is the detail explication he makes of early research into historical topics in that period. He has a fascinating description of the creation of the jury system under Henry the Second in the twelfth century. The same Henry who had Becket killed was actually the more progressive of the two rulers.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hear the susurration of trolls.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I should have put jackson in my list, not basman, although he is not entirely pure in the ad hominem department." Roidumerde No one beats roidumerde in the hypocrisy department. While I am always ready to tell abnoxious posters like Molly ("Basman is too easy on Israel") what I think of them, there is no one, here, who is more apt to mount personal attacks than roidumerde.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm happy to take your word for it, JD, as I don't know Cantor. Incidentally, Eagleton has recently gravitated to a kind of tribal Catholic populism that's eerily reminiscent of Zizak's invocation of a pre-Enlightenment transnational Christian polity. Both moves seem to involve the final abandoning of a 19th/20th century secular left perspective on politics and society.

- ironyroad

July 18, 2010 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, Great question. I don't know enough about Cantor's career to do more than speculate, but it may be that that he was harassed by his Marxists cohorts until the 1980s when the deconstructionists took over trying to make his life miserable--sort of like tag-team wrestling. Back in the 60s Marxist critical theory at Brandeis was still being taken very seriously. Herbert Marcuse came every year to deliver a sort of valedictory address to the student body and he generated the kind of excitement that is reserved for pop stars today. I was totally enthralled with his revolutionary vision and read everything he wrote. One of my Comp. Lit. profs at Brandeis was actually a Maoist and assigned us excerpts from the Little Red Book where Mao held forth about art, the people, and other pompous drivel. I can imagine Cantor not responding well to suggestions from his peers or department chair that he try to move his work in a more "progressive" direction, i.e., subordinate it in some way to a Marxist master-narrative. Being a faithful observer of Walter Benjamin's dictum that "Fashion is the hand-maiden of false consciousness", I haven't followed the changing fashions in academia very closely. But I suspect that as various fads in critical theory and historiography came and went, Cantor continued to write about what interested him and remained somewhat indifferent to the flavor-of-the-week. So it's true that I somewhat flippantly recommended his writings on the basis of negatives. But the fact that a writer refuses to "impose a top-down order on a diverse and resistant world" is already a big plus in my book. Hermeneutics that's based on master-narratives is always such tedious dreck because the answers are known before the inquiry begins. Marxist analysis finds tell-tale signs of false class consciousness, Freudian analysis finds the familiar Oedipal drama concealed beneath ingenious disguises, post-modern spin-offs "discover" insensitivity to otherness, the terrible power of objectification of the lustful male gaze , and so forth ad nauseam. I'm convinced that much of the hostility toward Israel in the academic world is created by these hack purveyors of master-narratives who are determined never to let complex and diverse facts impact the simple-minded narratives they cherish.

- willjames77

July 18, 2010 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I, too, found one of the essential pivots of Gerecht’s argument shaky, to say the least: that a hobbling attack on Iran’s program will likely weaken, or bring down the regime and, to add to that, embolden democratic forces in Iran. That cannot be I imagine, because I can’t know, part of the risk calculus by Israeli policy makers. The ability of Israel to hobble Iran’s program is ambivalently dealt with by Gerecht. His essay is premised on such capability though he does not venture any opinion on that: “Provided the Israeli air force is capable of executing it, and assuming no U.S. military action, an Israeli bombardment remains the only conceivable means of derailing or seriously delaying Iran’s nuclear program and—equally important—traumatizing Tehran.” Gerecht hedges on this point somewhat by lauding the efficacy of a half successful campaign what I find an odd bit of analysis: “Any halfway successful Israeli raid could transform the Western approach to the Islamic Republic. An Israeli strike could finally prompt the Western powers to think in concrete terms about what it would mean to allow the Revolutionary Guard Corps nukes.” I don’t know what Gerecht means by a half way successful campaign because he does not spell out the criteria measuring degrees of success. But it strikes me that what he’s really, at bottom, saying is that any raid at all—which will for a certainty do some damage to Iran’s program—*could* prove salutary by possibly causing the West to think hard and concretely about what it means for the R.G. to have nuclear weapons. So some problems I find here are: 1.The reference to half successful gives away his argument. That argument is ostensibly premised on the precondition of Israeli militarily capability, but “half successful” renders that qualifying assumption moot. 2. The hedging reference to “could finally prompt” is an awfully fragile and contingent benefit for Gerecht’s dramatic prescription, now, arguably, by his own words, no longer premised on necessary Israeli military capability. 3. Reinforcing that contingent “could” is the plain fact that he, we, have no way of knowing what a raid will prompt Western Powers to think. So contingency and speculation team up to undermine the argument for this benefit. It’s at least just as likely that Iran is pragmatic enough simply to take revenge on Israel for such a raid, and not touch the U.S. for fear of American reprisal, and the Western powers, furious with Israel’s unauthorized raid, will leave to reap its own created whirlwind. So again, I can’t imagine, this fanciful benefit being part of Israeli cost benefit reckoning. 4. Further the articulation of this benefit presumes that America has not thought “...hard and concretely about what it means for the R.G. to have nuclear weapons.” Who is to say so and who is to doubt that it has and is approaching the problem by its own best lights. After all as Gerecht himself says: “The great merit of the Bush and Obama administrations’ efforts to engage Iran in nuclear negotiations is that they have transformed the discussion about the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. The West bent over backwards to be nice to Tehran, to extend carrots rather than sticks. The slow ramping up of Western sanctions has also forced all concerned to be more explicit about the Iranian menace.” The talk about the benefits of a half successful raid suggests to me a certain tendentiousness in Gerecht. He really doesn’t care if what Israeli military capability can do: he wants an attack. Here is for me, and for him too, his “money quote”: “Without a raid, if the Iranians get the bomb, Europe’s appeasement reflex will kick in and the EU sanctions regime will collapse, leaving the Americans alone to contain the Islamic Republic. Most of the Gulf Arabs will probably kowtow to Persia, having more fear of Iran than confidence in the defensive assurances of the United States. And Sunni Arabs who don’t view an Iranian bomb as a plus for the Muslim world will, at daunting speed, become much more interested in “nuclear energy”; the Saudis, who likely helped Islamabad go nuclear, will just call in their chits with the Pakistani military.” Tellingly, he next goes on to ask the question, “So then, does the Israeli air force think it can do it?” but then drifts off into a non answer about what Jeffrey Goldberg observes about Netanyahu and his historian father, and gives his real indifference to that answer away with his too casual comment: “Israeli hawks may be wrong about what their air force can do, but they express sentiments—where there is a will, there is a way—that most Israelis probably still share.” I find this kind of shaky, speculative, deeply contingent, presuming and tendentious argument pervades Gerecht’s way too many words. There is, of course, a sober and terrible question to be answered by Israel at the core of his essay: whither strategic patience. But, in my opinion, Gerecht’s rehearsing of the case for an attack is flawed and the bits I have pointed out, as I see them, are of a piece with what’s wrong with what he wrote.

- basman

July 18, 2010 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roidumerde, jackson? Toddler bathroom humor? It seems that you really do have a "diaper jackson" amongst you multiple personalities. Then I must call you "poops-in-his-pants-jackson." As your mental decline continues poops-in-his-pants-jackson, we clearly have to get right down to the nursery school level or you are just not going to appreciate it when I insult you. Kindergarten would be a stretch for you at this point. "No one beats roidumerde in the hypocrisy department. While I am always ready to tell obnoxious posters like Molly ("Basman is too easy on Israel") what I think of them, there is no one, here, who is more apt to mount personal attacks than roidumerde." I'm gonna be saving it all for you, honey. Because, compared to you, everyone else deserves bouquets of roses. You are in a class all by yourself when it comes to being obnoxious, poops-in-his-pants-jackson. That combined with your stupidity makes you the perfect prey.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, "Susurration"--what a beautiful word.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 18, 2010 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "I'm happy to take your word for it, JD, as I don't know Cantor. Incidentally, Eagleton has recently gravitated to a kind of tribal Catholic populism that's eerily reminiscent of Zizak's invocation of a pre-Enlightenment transnational Christian polity. Both moves seem to involve the final abandoning of a 19th/20th century secular left perspective on politics and society." This is part of the problem with left intellectuals, especially in Europe. I doubt they will admit it, but they are being inflluenced by the presence of large masses of Muslims in their country.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames7: your post are unremittingly intelligent. Might I ask you , for no other reason than I am interested, what you do (to be answered in less than 7,000 words)?

- basman

July 18, 2010 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, thanks for your insights, always valuable. I saw Gerecht as trying to counter both the Leveretts' fan club, and the containment wave, as well as (perhaps wrongly) assuming his readers have been following the "attack on Iran" scenarios since Reza Khalili's "There will be War" in June 21 Forbes and David Moon's July 1 "The anatomy of an attack on Iran" at AsiaTimes, to cite two that detail targets, and IAF capabilities. There is always some benefit to keeping Iran guessing while they fret about minority insurgencies in the north and east, and try to keep track of naval assets from a host of countries, assets that may or may not be dealing solely with Somali piracy. And wonder what Syria is up to. The Kurds are penetrating the media, with Turkey determined to have Syria and Iran join in the hunt for PKK in Iraq. The media now notices the political paralysis in Iraq -did Biden actually think the Netherlands and the Dutch are two different countries on This Week, when he deflected the issue of five months since the Iraqi election by noting the Dutch took six months to form a government?

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames77: "the changing fashions in academia" The Marxists were still in play when I took Macro-economics 101 in 1972. Did not stop my cohort from embracing the capitalist ticket by the 1980's :) Historiography may yet recover from the post-modern spinoffs. Your recommendations welcome for a Cantor-esque understanding of the pre-Soviet empire (1600-1900), and someone better than Jason Goodwin on the Ottomans.

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But "which Marxists?" was I think the issue. wj mentions flaky Maoist professors at Brandeis, but when I think of Marxists in academia I also think of very solid people such as, once upon a time, Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson in the UK, and historians like David Roediger here. I'm inclined to see Gitlin as somewhat in that tradition too.

- ironyroad

July 18, 2010 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, thank you for the kind words. To satisfy your curiosity in 25 words or less, I own a company that focuses on cultural travel in Europe, mainly France & Italy. Before that I did some university teaching, had a project management training company, did software quality assurance testing, owned a bookstore/cafe, made planter boxes-- I'm already over my 25 words. My career path makes absolutely no sense to me either. Your careful review of Gerecht's article was invaluable. You write with the probity and sobriety of a judge who cuts right through the "spin" and is not easily swayed or distracted by hucksters and shysters. Were you a financial auditor, I would hate to have you going through our books.

- willjames77

July 18, 2010 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, Sorry I have no recommendations to share; I'm fairly ignorant on both topics. I spent most of my time for years reading fiction, and I'm only now boning up on what actually happened in the real world...

- willjames77

July 18, 2010 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's been a while since I Raymond Williams. My favorite is still the "Country and the City."

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting life, willjames. I assume that you are also well acquainted with William James, the psychologist. Or do you actually share his name. He is one of my favorite psychologists too, btw.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wj77: thanks. I do not think anyone has covered either topic well in one volume, which is possibly because of the discouragement of such scholarship by successor states in both Russia and Turkey. The great challenge is to find historians who write page-turning narratives AND objective use of primary sources. Will just have to wait for the August release in the U.S. of "Let Our Fame Be Great: Journeys Among the Defiant People of the Caucasus" by Oliver Bullough.

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Country and the City" is the best book by Williams. I read it a long time ago when I was around 20 in college but I still recall parts of it.

- ironyroad

July 18, 2010 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Same here, Irony.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I don't know E.P. Thompson, but I did read Williams' Culture and Society when I was somewhere around 20 years old as well. I remember it as a poignant account of the gradual destruction of a rural way of life amidst the pressures of industrialization, quite analogous in the realm of non-fiction to what John Berger has tried to portray in his short stories with respect to the demise of the French peasantry. I agree that folks like Raymond Williams were serious and solid people, and I don't mean to sneer at them. I believe that there was a sincere quest for social justice that inspired many of the best and brightest among the Marxists and Communists. And I think that their positive historical legacy has been to leave us all with a sharpened social conscience. The tragic aspect of the story was the eventual discovery of how short the distance was between the imagination of ideal communities and the horrors of Stalin's gulags and Pol Pot's killing fields. In every instance where an existing social order was overturned by revolutionary idealists, the New Society was invariably more repressive and deadly than what it replaced. People who were paying attention as post-revolutionary reality revealed itself--Arthur Koestler being a notable example--defected from the movement and urged others to open their eyes instead of regurgitating dogma. Those today who still haven't realized that their God has died are a handful of sad-sacks who meet somewhere in a rented basement every other Tuesday evening where they chain-smoke and discuss the necessity of temporary alliances with Islamofascists while still dreaming of the coming worker's revolution.

- willjames77

July 19, 2010 at 6:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, William James was my favorite philosopher/psychologist from the early 20th century; James Hillman is, far and away, my favorite philosopher/psychologist at the end of the 20th century. I remember noticing at some point that their names, oddly enough, were nearly anagrams. Since their shoes are much too large for me, I trimmed a bit in creating my posting avatar.

- willjames77

July 19, 2010 at 6:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[copied from] http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/76354/international-conference-in-kabul-very-important-ban-ki-moon-and-hillary-clinton 07/19/2010 - 11:21am EDT | roidubouloi I thought to make a comment like that, miceelf, and then figured, why bother? But I am glad you did. The point needs to be made again, and again, and again because the racist son-of-a-bitch Peretz and his ilk will never stop making theirs and decent people need constantly to repudiate them and their racism. Martin Peretz should not be permitted to tarnish the good name of the United States of America.

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Epitaph Alas, O noble thread, It appears that you are truly dead. For nine days you ran and ran and ran through the foibles of roi to the sagacity of basman. At times it seemed as if we could talk of things that mattered Without constant disruption by the Mad Hatter. But, enough of of these moments of lucidity and light: New posts call us onward to the next dogfight.

- willjames77

July 19, 2010 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clearly, a man for all seasons is willjames. Sorry I missed your two earlier comments. Your poem tugged at my very heartstrings. Salty tears kept flowing and flooding my keyboard forcing me to wipe it dry and clean and a good thing too it was about time. I have one quibble though. Roi, bless his anti-racist anti-fascist heart, reminds me Humpty-Dumpty, not the mad hatter: `It's very provoking,' Humpty Dumpty said after a long silence, looking away from Alice as he spoke, `to be called an egg -- very!' `I said you looked like an egg, Sir,' Alice gently explained. `And some eggs are very pretty, you know, she added, hoping to turn her remark into a sort of a compliment. `Some people,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking away from her as usual, `have no more sense than a baby!' " http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/books/2chpt6.html

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And willjames, if you can't get the movie from Netflix which serves only Americans you might try Zip, which is the same service in Canada. http://www.zip.ca/DVD/Browse.aspx/1/t/102940/Divided_We_Fall

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a pleasant surprise. Buck up now, and do your best to keep that keyboard dry. Now, as for mapping our local nemesis to the appropriate Alice-in-Wonderland character... In terms of bellicosity, fragility, and obliviousness when sustaining an untenable position, perilously perched Humpty Dumpty is an excellent match. However, there's also an element of madness, mayhem and confusion invoked through the aggressive assertion of nonsense, that brings to mind the Mad Hatter. Hmm... Somewhere back there in the thread was a question to you about where one might rent the Czech film you said you liked so much. iTunes doesn't have it, and they are currently my only source. Do you know if there is an outfit like NetFlix that caters to the E.U. market? The American online rental companies detect that my computer is out of the country and tell me to get lost... It would seem that we are having a post-epitaph conversation.

- willjames77

July 19, 2010 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see that you answered my movie question before I could get around to asking it again. Thanks!

- willjames77

July 19, 2010 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It would seem that we are having a post-epitaph conversation." In the real world this would be the equivalent of meeting by the grave of the dead thread to put some fresh flowers on it.

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 7:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Constrained by circumstance to meet asynchronously, leaving notes in the crannied wall outside the graveyard, avoiding the wrathful gaze of roi. In the real world, I am almost ready to sign up for a week long "Behind the Headlines" conference in Jerusalem this November that is sponsored by Honest Reporting. A Jewish couple from Toronto that came on our most recent Italy trip had attended the last session of the conference and raved about it. The focus is on Israel advocacy and one gets to meet folks like Dore Gold, Khaled Abu Toameh, Caroline Glick and others who are out there on the front lines. Assuming that you know about these affairs, do you have any feedback you could share before I dive in?

- willjames77

July 20, 2010 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, I don't. I'm sorry but I am, as I indicated, a lone wolf (or vixen). My Israel advocacy is a personal commitment and a modest cottage industry of one. While I read the various sources I prefer to stand slightly to the side so as not to absorb too many formal "talking points". The few conferences that I attended or participated in had to do with my more academic interests such as translation and the history and culture of conversos or Shylock:)

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The prospect of "talking points" does indeed make me cringe. I value insight and have little interest in memorizing arguments that can be replayed on demand. But it's been many years since I was in Israel, and for much of that time I was standing so far off to the side that Israel was barely a speck on the horizon. I'm hoping that the conference experience will provide some renewed connection with the current culture. If so, enduring the occasional canned spiels will be a small price to pay. Anyway, so much for reality. As for flowers, I was thinking about a certain sensibility that we seem to share, and my thoughts were drawn to the Victorian essayist, Walter Pater. Nobody reads him any more and I'll be surprised if you've ever heard of him. But he has a lovely little book called "The Renaissance" where he tries to articulate what he values about the critical sensibility. Here are a few snippets from an essay which explores this aspect of his work: "Pater's essays are partial and meandering. It is not easy to see where he is headed, and it is not always clear, even at the terminus, exactly where one has been. His method is one of indirection, and one has to give up the expectation of finding structured argumentation. His primary concern as a critic is the articulation of artistic sensibility, and he insists that the indispensible starting point for such work is the critic's own refined capacity for receiving impressions... "What is important, then, is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperment, the power of being deeply moved..." Pater expresses a distaste for thought which is no more than systematic reasoning, recognizing the need for subtler tools to grasp such slippery stuff as the "stir and sentiment" of an age... Pater's Renaissance is a time in which the divisive ideological polarizations which exhaust intelligence and sympathy in later ages have not yet hardened into permanent oppositions... It is a period which appreciates the particularity of things and does not devour them in the sweeping generalities of idealist philosophies... Pater pleads the case of the Many against the One, of the lived texture of experience against life-denying abstractions. As Wallace Stevens would write in a later age: 'There are many truths But they are not parts of a truth...' In the sum of the parts, there are only the parts... (On the Road Home)

- willjames77

July 20, 2010 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Vixen? Not wolverine? What's with the transgressive genus-shifting?

- ironyroad

July 21, 2010 at 1:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A wolverine is a kind of weasel, ironyroad. So your suggestion does not improve much the transgressive genus-shifting. But I suppose you meant a she-wolf. It works well in French (louve) but not in English.

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 7:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Willjames: I like this: "What is important, then, is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperment, the power of being deeply moved..." Would he be referring to the talent to respond? To be responsive? I'll look for the book you mentioned. As you guessed, I don't think I ever heard of the name before. I'm a great admirer of Martha Nussbaum who has written a very long book about the importance of emotions in the way we make judgments. She maintains that the emotions have an intellectual component, a memory and a moral inflection which tends us towards the kinds of judgments we make about events or people. At the same time I think I spent my life trying to train myself to create a certain distance from my emotions, as they are unreliable indicators for truth or happiness. Not very successfully, I'm afraid.

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First of all, irony should take note that vixen is much foxier than she-wolf. I'm glad to hear that you failed at the emotional distancing project which has always seemed to me to be somewhat of a dead-end, a hold-over from the days of the strong-willed, stiff-upper-lip Victorians. I think that Martha Nussbaum's efforts to have philosophy admit emotion as a relevant cognitive category are admirable, but definitely a tough sell. I can see the old men looking over her arguments suspiciously and wondering what dire consequences might ensue if the door were opened even a crack. William James made a compelling argument a hundred years ago in an essay titled "The Will to Believe" that most people begin with an emotional disposition toward one thing or another, then they summon rational argument to support their convictions, all the while pretending to hold those convictions because of the irrefutable nature of the arguments. The materialist atheist, James insisted, is no less emotionally attached to his certainties than the village priest to his. Apart from all this, the feeling/thinking split seems to me to be too simple which is why I like the notion of "sensibility". In addition to thinking and feeling, it also admits other guests to the party, such as intuition, perceptiveness, imagination, memory, sensitivity. In Pater's sense it's the whole gestalt of what you bring with you to your perceptual encounters with the world's phenomena, including the novels you've read, the movies you've seen, the places you've lived. When we're trying to digest current events, I think it's what clearly distinguishes those who can offer insight into the subtleties of what's happening from those who merely shout out their arguments.

- willjames77

July 21, 2010 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"William James made a compelling argument a hundred years ago in an essay titled "The Will to Believe" that most people begin with an emotional disposition toward one thing or another" I am too alone in the world, and yet not alone enough to make every hour holy. I am too small in the world, and yet not tiny enough just to stand before you like a thing, dark and shrewd. I want my will, and I want to be with my will as it moves towards deed; and in those quiet, somehow hesitating times, when something is approaching, I want to be with those who are wise or else alone. I want always to be a mirror that reflects your whole being, and never to be too blind or too old to hold your heavy, swaying image. I want to unfold. Nowhere do I want to remain folded, because where I am bent and folded, there I am lie. And I want my meaning true for you. I want to describe myself like a painting that I studied closely for a long, long time, like a word I finally understood, like the pitcher of water I use every day , like the face of my mother, like a ship that carried me through the deadliest storm of all. ('I am too alone in the world' by Rainer Maria Rilke)

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can understand Ironyroad's bewilderment at my choice since "a lone wolf" does not at all resonate in the same way as a "lone vixen" (which would suggest a sort of a wicked femme fatale on the prowl innocent men to devour and destroy). But truth be told I don't think I know what the female counterpart to a "lonely wolf" would be. As I said, the French does offer the gendered possibility but not the English. Never mind. There is a song by Bruce Cockburn that is called "Loner" which I like because it describes that lone-ness in an alien world in uncompromising way: "Down at the bus station Shark grins and sandpaper conversation Men's faces women's bodies on the magazine stand And a headline about Sarajevo and Tehran They are radiant angels, they are earthly slaves They are predators moving in their endless days Days of striving, nights of novocaine Never going to bring them freedom from their pain"

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

how delightful to read the past 34 hours in this uber-thread! noga: the screeching of my summer-guest vixen training her kits in mole-genocide the past two nights makes me want to find another genus for your female lonely wolf metaphor, at least one with a more dulcet voice, and not susceptible to mange :) A feline? The Caracal, or the far more beautiful Snow Leopard, which does not roar, but hisses, chuffs, mews, growls, and wails? thank you, willjames77 for "... the feeling/thinking split seems to me to be too simple which is why I like the notion of "sensibility". In addition to thinking and feeling, it also admits other guests to the party, such as intuition, perceptiveness, imagination, memory, sensitivity. In Pater's sense it's the whole gestalt of what you bring with you to your perceptual encounters with the world's phenomena, including the novels you've read, the movies you've seen, the places you've lived. When we're trying to digest current events, I think it's what clearly distinguishes those who can offer insight into the subtleties of what's happening from those who merely shout out their arguments. ..." btw, Khaled Abu Toameh will be worth your time in November. http://www.hudson-ny.org/author/Khaled+Abu+Toameh did we not previously concede that roid is a synthesis of Austen's Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Dickens' "Bleak House" lawyer Tulkinghorn?

- K2K

July 21, 2010 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This afternoon I brought my daughter into town to pick up a Roald Dahl novel that she was assigned for her 6th grade summer reading. At we were paying for the book, I noticed a CD on the rack behind us featuring Shakira dressed in animal skins. The title of the CD was "She-Wolf". Clearly, she's convinced that "sexy as a she-wolf" has sizzle. "Wow, is that Shakira's newest release?" I ask, hoping to connect with her during this challenging phase of early adolescence. "Nah, it's been around forever..." In Siena, Italy, there are 17 neighborhoods that compete against one another fiercely every summer in a horse race that's been going on since the 16th century. One of the neighborhoods is named after the she-wolf, the Lupa, famous as the surrogate mom of Romulus and Remus: Here's their banner: http://www.unisi.it/lawandeconomics/students/XVIII/manganelli/stemma-lupa.jpg Here's the Lupa contrada celebrating at their pre-Palio dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ueYyJ8P_68 Curiously enough, it just occurred to me the two guides that we use most often in Siena are both Lupa women. Noga, apart from the need for solitude which doesn't exist yet in Italy, you would fit in perfectly...

- willjames77

July 21, 2010 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, thank you for sharing the lovely poem by Rilke. I will read it again over the next few days. He is so clear and simple in his language, and mysteriously impenetrable at the same time. It's been a few years since I've listened to Bruce Cockburn, but I've enjoyed some of his songs very much. Here are a couple of lines from one of my favorites: Joseph comes to Mary with his hat in his hand Says "forgive me I thought you'd been with some other man" She says "what if I had been - but I wasn't anyway and guess what I felt the baby kick today" Like a stone on the surface of a still river Driving the ripples on forever Redemption rips through the surface of time In the cry of a tiny babe

- willjames77

July 21, 2010 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, that's a great link to Khaled Abu Toameh's writings. Thanks! He seems willing to stick his neck out and discuss some of the topics that are clearly off-limits for so many other journalists. re: your question the other day about books on the Ottaman empire, I wonder if you know Robert Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts"? It's half travel memoir and half historical backgrounder. And it leaves one with a memorable impression of what it was like for the Balkan peoples to live under the boot of the Sultans. I think you'd enjoy it if you haven't already read it.

- willjames77

July 21, 2010 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This afternoon I brought my daughter into town to pick up a Roald Dahl novel" Funny because just this morning I reminded my daughter who is also going into grade six that she has to to pick up French and English novels to read from the lists she got. She read Dahl's "Matilda" and enjoyed it a lot. _______ "Joseph comes to Mary with his hat in his hand" Joseph and Maria are the two main characters in "Divided we fall" and not by coincidence.

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

About "Balkan Ghosts": I recently began to read Robert Kaplan's seminal account about that region which I intend to finish. I am declaring my intention by way of committing myself to this task. That is because after I read the first ten pages, I put the book down and so far have not been able to open it again. I used to think that Bin Laden's minions were highly imaginative and innovative in the horrorist brutality they inflict upon their victims. I thought they were harking back to a distant medieval past when human beings were not yet, well, conceived as quite human, or better still, not all equally human. I was mistaken. The creativity of the human mind, when it is engorged with hatred and instructed by authoritative leaders, is boundless when it comes to inventing new forms of slaughtering outsiders. I'm referring to the passage in one of the opening scenes with which Kaplan sets up the stage for introducing the reader to the kind of historical ghosts he will be visiting. Do note that this horror took place in 1940, not 1490! http://cominganarchy.com/2005/02/24/balkan-ghosts-exerpt/

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wj77 and noga: I have read all of Robert D. Kaplan's books except for his last two, "Imperial Grunts", and just published "Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground" (in time). Travel memoirs that incorporate history are my favorite genre. His first two books, "Surrender or Starve: Travels in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and Eritrea" and "Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan" are my Kaplan favorites. Kaplan has a habit of revealing the dark side of the histories of his early travels. noga, am not sure why you decided to read "Balkan Ghosts". I would have recommended Robert Byron's 1937 "Road to Oxiana", or William Dalrymple's 1997 "From the Holy Mountain: A Journey among the Christians of the Middle East" in which he re-traces the A.D. 587 pilgrimage through the lands of Byzantium by two monks. Both so very lovely to read. Be warned, if you get hooked on William Dalrymple, he turned into an historian, and "The Last Moghul" is extremely graphic in it's description of the 1857 Rebellion in Delhi, told from the Indian point of view. The British in their worst form of hysterical slaughter.

- K2K

July 21, 2010 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Flying back to the States early in the morning for a "reverse vacation". I'll will bring my laptop with me to convince Netflix and everyone else that I really am in the U.S. Looking forward to learning more about Joseph and Maria. The horrors of Balkan Ghosts are considerable. So much cruelty, savagery, bitterness and lust for vengeance. Every small nation had its moment of glory when it dominated its neighbors, and all still live with their dreams of regaining their "lost" territories. Makes me wonder if Marko Hoare's great admiration of Tito stems from the fact that he managed to keep them from killing one another for a few decades. I should be reconnected to the world from the other side of the pond in a day or two...

- willjames77

July 22, 2010 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wj77: "still live with their dreams of regaining their "lost" territories", none with a longer memory than Serbia. 1389. I think everyone admired Tito mostly because "he managed to keep them from killing one another for a few decades". this cold thread wishing wj77 a safe trip. ok, the Kurds have a longer memory than Serbia, but the Kurds just want to live in peace in THEIR homeland. No designs on Damascus :)

- K2K

July 25, 2010 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, I'm slowly getting over getting sleepy at 4 pm and waking up bright and bushy-tailed in the middle of the night. I've got connectivity finally and will begin my quest for an online rental of "Divided We Fall". Wish me luck...

- willjames77

July 28, 2010 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close