Dean's World

Chomskyite: "I'm not anti-American. I don't condemn ALL Americans. I merely criticize."

Edward Said follower: "I'm not anti-semitic. I don't condemn ALL Jews. I merely criticize Zionists."

Islamophobic jerk: "I'm not Islamophobic. I don't hate ALL Muslims. I merely criticize Islam."

Did you guys on the right actually WANT any Muslim allies in the fight? Or did you figure you'd gain allies by consistently pissing on everything they hold most dear in your "brave" effort to "criticize" them for having the most evil and warped and disgusting religion in world history?

Most Muslims do not think that the Shia-Sunni rampage in Iraq is caused by theology but by political friction caused by the Iraq War. We don't sit around blaming Sadr on Husayn, and Iraqi insurgents on Sunni theology. Hitch thinks we do and it just doesn't work like that. Because many Muslims think of these issues in terms of "politics" they don't make a "religious" issue about it.

In fact, we had a whole debate on whether we should do an "Islamic Truce" petition for Iraq. We quickly realized that a lot of the Shia and Sunni clerics were not looking at the violence in Iraq in sectarian terms.

Shias and Sunnis do get along quite well. Recently in Multan Pakistan, 30,000 Sunnis prayed with Shias during the holy day of Muharram. I didn't see it reported except on our blog.

And I also contend that Hitchens in not of the right. He repeatedly and blatantly claims the left on ideological grounds.

Please do him and the right a favor and not confuse the two.

CN

"Niggers are destroying this once-great country."

"You racist, hateful jackass!"

"What, I'm not allowed to criticize black people?"

"The Jews control Hollywood and control the elite media, the elite universities, and all the major mainstream news organizations as part of their goal of world domination."

"You're a paranoid reactionary jerk."

"What, I'm not allowed to criticize Jewish people?"

"Atheists are the forces of Satan and represent everything that is destroying this country."

"I'm an atheist and I really don't think that's fair."

"What, I'm not allowed to criticize atheism?"

"Earned, he explains, by Muslims taking a breather from brutally slaughtering each other."

Fair enough. All Muslims who don't "brutally slaughter" one another are allowed to call Islamophobes Islamophobes. I can live with that.

Interesting point: as far as I know, there is no punishment for heresy in classical Islamic law.

Fair enough. All Muslims who don't "brutally slaughter" one another are allowed to call Islamophobes Islamophobes. I can live with that.

Works for me.

The traditional argument for tolerance of competing sects in Islam was made by al-Ghazali, almost a millenium ago.

Somebody hose Dean down, please.

Dean, don't confuse disagreement with disrespect. It is completely possible to be a power atheist who believes religion to be a mental disorder which is almost universally destructive while still greatly respecting the power of religion.

In fact it's hard not to respect that power if you hold that view.

Muslim is just a label

Sean: "Moe! Larry! Cheese! Woob woob woob woob, woob!"

Yeah I lose my cool sometimes. Too bad, so sad. I'm not a "media personality," I'm a real human being with all the frailties that come with that.

But look dude: You want to argue that religion is a burden on humanity, you go ahead and do it. There are plenty of Dean's World commenters who will agree with you. See Harris, Arnold or Snyder, Tim for good examples.

I don't have a deep problem with that viewpoint. I disagree, but think it can be looked at and discussed as a rational viewpoint.

Indeed, I have publicly given my opinion about the Prophet Muhammed before: probably a schizophrenic with a gift for poetry. But, amazingly, not a single one of my Muslim friends has tried to kill me for saying so. (Well there was that one letter-bomb that Aziz sent me which I had to have defused by the Westland Michigan police bomb squad. But that was just a joke between friends.)

Look man, if you really want to argue that religion is the bane of human existence, go ahead. But make it clear that that is where you're coming from. We can have many conversations about that. Many worthwhile conversations in fact.

But please, spare me the whole "I am only criticizing Islam" bullshit when we make gross generalizations about it. It's a religion with a 1,400 year history, some of it good and some of it bad. And as I have noted to many of my atheist friends, it's not like atheists have a sterling record over the last century. Atheists have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, and several others on their side. So it's not like atheism is a sovereign remedy for the world's problems. Richard "I am morally superior to all you backwards theists" Dawkins notwithstanding.

I don't have a problem with CRITICISM. I do have problems with gross sweeping generalizations. And I'm a little stunned that, still, anyone thinks there are no such gross sweeping generalizations.

I have some very stern criticisms of Evangelical Christianity. Yet I count many Evangelical Christians among my friends. I don't see a problem there.

I don't see a problem with criticizing the Islamic fascist radicals who want to destroy us. I do see a problem with trying to sweep the everyday Muslim into that net. In fact I think that very destructive.

You do realize that there are faithful Muslims serving in American armed forces, right? You do realize that American soldiers are fighting every day alongside Muslims to defeat terrorists, right? So, do you think they deserve to be told that the faith they hold dear is evil and wicked and the source of all evil in the world, and all you're doing is "criticizing" when someone says that shit?

I continue to be astonished that anyone finds this an obscure question. It seems eminently obvious to me.

Dean:

Because I posit the existance of a position doesn't mean I hold that position. I'm just saying it's possible to respect religion, and the people of a religion while at the same time believing that religion is a horrible thing that has done far more harm than good.

I personally don't believe that. I think the balance is much too close to call. If we wanted to get into a debate on the merits of religion itself, let's do that in a separate post so that we pull the whole "Islamophobe" bugaboo out of it, then you won't feel the need to rant and rave about all the Islamophobes who hate Islam. We'll keep the debate on religion in general as a concept, not a specific set of religious beliefs.

You seem to fall into a pattern that appears to be accusing me of Islamophobie in these sorts of posts, but I don't believe I've ever given anyone cause to believe that I am Islamophobic myself. I play Devil's advocate on occasion by pointing out that a perspective you have attacked as unsupportable is, in fact, supportable, but that's about the extent of it.

I think I have said more than once that my personal experience with Muslims in my life is remarkably similar to my personal experience with other people of faith. In general they are decent, respectful, hardworking people. In fact I've said that the Muslims I've worked with have been remarkably calm, intelligent, reasonable and diligent in all of my dealings with them, with one notable exception who called me the "child of the devil" because I had to lay him off. But I imagine I'd receive similar epithets from an unbalanced Evangelical Christian who felt I had wrongly terminated them, so I discount that experience altogether.

Do you want to get a "religion as a concept is bad" post going? I'm game.

All over the non-Muslim world, we hear incessant demands that those who believe in the literal truth of the Quran be granted "respect."

bulshit. Cite? Ron you seem to accept this statement uncritically. Does it resonate with your prejudices?

We are supposed to watch what we say about Islam, lest by any chance we be considered "offensive."

bullshit. Muslims are fair game by everyone. You can get away with a post full of bullshoit like this and then you pretend like it's somehow forbidden for you to do so?

A fair number of authors and academics in the West now have to live under police protection or endure prosecution in the courts for not observing this taboo with sufficient care.

a TINY handful, all in Europe! of what value is this observation? its meaningless crap. One might as well infer something about the misogynistic impulses of Haredim on bus lines in Israel - they threaten and attack women you know.

except, you wont find ME generalizing from that the way you and Hitchens generalize, because I am principled enough to know that it is meaningless.

A stupid term — Islamophobia — has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible "message."

a "stupid term" - sure, if it were used only in the conntext of the army of straw men above. But it actually has meaning beyond that.

Well, this idiotic masochism has to be dropped. There may have been a handful of ugly incidents, provoked by lumpen elements, after certain episodes of Muslim terrorism.

indeed, and a handful of ugly incidents, provoked by lumpen elements, of terror attacks as well. But how dare he suggest that genuine attacks on innocent muslims are direct cause of specific terror attacks! in truth it is clumns like Hitchens' that create an atmosphere of hatred and fear and mistrust that does more to facilitate "ugly incidents" than any attack by genuine terrorists. In fact even the latter nearly always claim more muslim lives than non.

But no true secularist or even Christian has been involved in anything like the torching of a mosque.

oh, is that how its played? well no true muslim has ever been involved in anything like the murder of innocents, either.

(The last time that such a thing did happen on any scale — in Bosnia — the United States and Britain intervened militarily to put a stop to it.

on ANY scale? Hitchens is a dolt or a liar. I leave it to you to judge, dear readers.

We also overthrew the Taliban, which was slaughtering the Hazara Shiite minority in Afghanistan.)

we overthrew the Taliban? are you sure?

But where are the denunciations from centers of Sunni and Shiite authority of the daily murder and torture of Islamic co-religionists?

yes, where indeed? why dont the heads of every major sect of Islam come to kiss the ring of Saint Hitchens and declare their condemnations to be entered in his royal registers?

Of the regular desecration of holy sites and holy books?

oh, the humanity, is this utter lack of condemnation! the world wept for Bamiyan, though.

Of the paranoid insults thrown so carelessly and callously by one Muslim group at another?

now he wants us to condemn talking smack? okay, sahib Hitchens. Yes Sahib. Anything you like, sahib.

This mounting ghastliness is a bit more worthy of condemnation, surely, than a few Danish cartoons or a false rumor about a profaned copy of the Quran in Guantanamo.

ah, and those riots over teh cartoons were so organic and genuinely representative of the attitudes of the vast majority of muslims!

The civilized world — yes I do mean to say that — should find its own voice and state firmly to Muslim leaders and citizens that respect is something to be earned and not demanded with menace.

aha! because the civilized world is indeed a separate entity from "muslim leaders and citizens". But Hitchens is not a racist imperialist snob, no sir.

Ron, I lose a little respect for you almost daily, by degrees. Would you apply even a fraction of fact-checking, or the lessons from your own people's history as the most-persecuted nation on earth, you'd be decrying this tripe. Instead you repeat it with glee.

I do think it is good to remind ourselves that we have all, collectively and individually, been on edge concerning this for over 5 years now. While not a long period of time in historical contexts, it is a long time when lived day to day with the intensity that our modern world forces on those of us who pay a great deal of attention to domestic and international events/issues. I would submit that for those of us in this camp, the tendancy is not to grow numb and disinterested, but to become more strident in our positions.

------

Someone like Hitchens makes a living selling articles, articles which attract specifically targetted readers. It is good to comment on them and inform others of the weaknesses of arguments. Perhaps I have the wrong attitude, but I just cannot blame Hitchens, in his chosen profession, for giving his benefactors what they demand. He is largely playing to a crowd that would never be dissuaded by an army of Dean Esmay's, no matter how correct they might be.

But how dare he suggest that genuine attacks on innocent muslims are direct cause of specific terror attacks! in truth it is clumns like Hitchens' that create an atmosphere of hatred and fear and mistrust that does more to facilitate "ugly incidents" than any attack by genuine terrorists.

Aziz's reactionary and narcissistic diatribe is an example of the self-righteousness that precludes my respect for an individual Muslim, while Ali's project to donate anti-Wahabbi Korans is an example of what I find worthy of a donation.

Ron, I lose a little respect for you almost daily, by degrees. Would you apply even a fraction of fact-checking, or the lessons from your own people's history as the most-persecuted nation on earth, you'd be decrying this tripe. Instead you repeat it with glee.

Aziz, the fact that Jews have been, and in some places (mostly Muslim places) are persecuted, does not mean that they are exempt from criticism. That criticism could not, however, involve accusations of fomenting, tolerating and celebrating mass murder, because it doesn't happen. Your proposed parallel is simply not operative. I suppose there was fighting among Jews in biblical times, and we have the (Jewish) prophets to criticize us for that. But what Muslims are doing to other Muslims in our time and place, in the name of Islam -- forget about what they're (no, not all of them, but the ones who are doing it) doing to non-Muslims -- is without parallel in our time and, as Hitchens says, you have to go back to certain periods of Christian history during which Christianity could not make a claim to being a "religion of peace."

I asked for specific refutations of what Hitchens says, as a fact matter. You wave your hand at the whole thing and call out the Jews, and me personally; Dean blows a fuse again and makes a series of facetious and fallacious arguments; but I would like to know what exactly it is he says -- not his conclusion and his rejection of the concept of Islamophobia; I grant you a complete right to disagree with that -- but what is wrong in his historical and political analysis that leads to his description. Dean, too, hates sweeping generalizations; but there's a whole article by Hitchens with very specific points; names, dates and places; and I have yet to see a single refutation of that here. And that was what I was seeking.

I'm sorry, Aziz, sorry Dean, but I am not going to buy into this idea that the Muslims are just another group that's a victim of prejudice. They're treated with kid gloves here and in Europe, last time I looked one was elected to the United States Congress and was sworn in with the scripture of his choice, a child of one is running for President and is considering a front-runner, and the number-one favorite prejudice among Muslims -- murderously exercised not as a complaint or over-generalization on blogs but in school curricula, official press and broadcasts, national policies, laws and constitutions -- is the only form of ethnic hatred that the United Nations refuses to condemn even as it virtually outlaws criticism of any aspect of Islam. This is not oppression.

It's not the same. You know, I made an argument here months ago, and took a world of hurt from it from a lot of conservative, including Sean, to the effect that there is a difference between what blacks can say about whites and vice-versa, because blacks have experienced generations of oppression at the hands of whites, and blacks are a minority. A lot of people said that was outrageous -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I disagreed. I said the majority can tolerate being poked at, even experiencing moments of discomfort, in a way that minorities should not have by virtue of their status as minorities.

I believe the same applies here. Muslims simply are not an oppressed minority, and they certainly are not oppressed at the hands of Americans or Jews. They are a group whose power is in the ascendant, worldwide and locally, and they affect, as a group, world affairs in a profound way and in a manner than cannot seriously be separated from their being Muslims -- "extremist Muslims," even, but Muslims qua Muslims nonetheless. So don't give me your ridiculous parallels of oppression, not to the Jews, not the blacks, not the atheists (please!).

Speak truth to power, Dean. Islam today is power, not weakness. The argument here is not that Islam should submit to anyone other than Allah. It is that it should use its power as a force for good, internally and externally, as great nations and great peoples are obligated to do. You agree with this because you have more or less said it yourself. But if you think the Umma is doing that now -- yes, as a singular people, as a religious body, as a nation, as a faith community -- then I don't think I'm the one with blinders on.

In any event, I'm still waiting for the refutation of Hitchens' analysis. Now I must say that, to be fair, I can't impose homework on anyone here. But I will say that he's moved the ball on this issue: Islam is a source of violence, internally and externally.

And when Hitchens writes the same thing, despite his well known antipathy to religion, about Judaism or Shinto or Catholicism in the 21st century -- or, Dean, about blacks or gays or atheists -- I'll be sure to throw that up here, too, and if he gores my ox I'll answer substantively, even if I have no obligation to do so. But in my book, the screams of protest at the very thought of the thing, the emotional outbursts, and the resort to ad hominem attacks surely do not move the inquiry.

Only a tiny handful of writers and politicians are living in hiding or under police protection.
How many does it take to make a case?

Mao said the guerilla swims in the sea, the sea being the people. It would seem that non-terrorists Muslims are not entirely inhospitable to terrorists. Or the terrs would have a hard time swimming.

Europe is another ball of wax. Why? What lessons is Europe learning--we hope--that we can ignore? What made and continues to make the US different? Would seeking to continue the difference constitute Islamophobia?

Why were there riots all over the world over cartoons when there are not riots over Muslims slaughtering other Muslims? One would think--call me crazy--that mass murder is worse than mockery. Of course, it isn't. Not to Muslims. Or the riot lineup would be different.

The problem is not that all Muslims are terrorists, but that Islam seems for some reason to breed a goodly number of terrorists, terrorist sympathizers and those insisting on special treatment which has the effect of putting restrictions on non-Muslims.

I do not call for--of course pointing out something is usually considered calling for it, usual demagogue trick--the non-Islamic world's assault on Islam resulting in the deaths of most Muslims. But I do suggest that the ordinary Muslim has the most to lose--his life--if his co-religionists manage to pull off the big one.

Since Muslim armies cannot stand up even against tiny Israel, the anti-western effort is asymmetrical, which is to say, done by those trying to look like civilians, from among civilians, seeking to facilitate the deaths of civilians at the hands of the opposition as political chips, and attacking non-Muslim civilians, all done to use western sensitivities against the west. Muslim armies would not strain themselves to avoid civilian casualties, or so far, at least, they have not. Muslim wackjobs know we will, which is why they use human shields against us, but not against each other. The latter would be a waste of time.
This kind of assymetry is considered a particularly vile and unfair method of warfare. It is not a respectable method of warfare in western thought. It limits the utility of the soldier by making him worry about civilians, while the Muslim terrs not only don't worry about civilians, they actively seek to get them killed. Soldiers are supposed to fight soldiers. Rational or not, disgusting glottal noises passing for rationcination or not, this is a fact. The terrs do not have much sympathy among normal people.

But there is not a state target. There is only a people (Islam) target.

All of Dean's arguments and Ali's arguments will be like wet tissue paper if something bad happens. Meaningless.

Remember, we felt bad, afterwards, about interning Japanese Americans, and there had never been a disloyal act by any, single Japanese American. The disloyal acts by Muslim Americans are not many, but far more than zero. That is not a good thing.

I'd love to have Muslim allies. They can start by turning in every militant son of a bitch in the country. By ceasing attendance at every Saudi-funded mosque in the country. By recording sermons for FBI perusal.

How's that Tucson alternative mosque coming, guys? Christians would rent a school auditorium until they got a building fund together. Happens all the time.

Not being actively against us is not the same as being an ally. The stakes for Muslims are too high for them, any single one of them, to sit quietly and hope for the best. Their co-religionists are working too hard for that.

[Muslims are] treated with kid gloves here and in Europe

which is why Hotchens can write nonsense as this which is so severely factually challenged (as my links above prove). However, the Jewish community which outnumbers the muslims by an order of magnitude is under threat, even though its literally illegal to question the Holocaust and no mainstream writer in their right mind would be foolish enough to try and publish something that argues "anti-semitism" is some silly concept.

The Jews are absolutely exempt from criticism.

By which you mean in polite company, i.e., not the UN. And not among Muslims. Fine. For one thing, I have explained why this might not be unreasonable; we are after all essentially the tiniest minority in the world, and the most vulnerable, as history proves, and the most hated, and the most victimized. So perhaps an exemption is in order. I will not budge from this position: Criticizing Jews for X and criticizing Muslims for Y -- even holding X and Y equal -- is not equivalent, for reasons I have set out in great detail above.

But to the extent that you believe Jews are amenable to criticism for fomenting mass murder, or terrorism, or violence, and that they do so under the banner of Judaism (as opposed to those too many who did so under the banner of Marxism), by all means consider yourself exempt from the exemption. I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

Just realized that Hitch is doing a classic blame-shift. Even though many analysts, and many, many Muslims, predicted that war in Iraq would lead to civil war, the parties who brought the war in Iraq would like to blame all Muslims for the civil war that has followed the invasion, and not themselves. Thanks Hitch. You have opened Pandora's Box, and now you blame Pandora.

Ron, I think Americans must share in the blame for Iraq, and the reasoning goes as follows:

1) Many knowledgeable and credible analysts predicted that regime change and the dismantling of existing Iraqi institutions would unleash old animosities that would lead to uncontrollable bloodshed.

2) Knowing these predictions, Americans argued that the expected benefits outweighed the expected costs of regime change, and moved forward with their plan.

3) Civil war ensued.

Therefore, I contend that, since the US gov't knew that civil war was a distinct possibility following invasion (and that it would likely not happen with no invasion), they are a crucial link in the causal chain. I am not saying that those who plant bombs are not somehow less at fault. Causality, especially in the human world, is a complex beast.

What I am suggesting, however, is that Americans who argued for regime change in Iraq are more at fault than your typical non-Iraqi Muslim who is not supporting a bloodshedding side in Iraq, and in fact believes that Sunnis and Shia are brothers and sisters and should live in happy harmony.

As to the Zionism = Judaism, I am sorry you got that from my post. I did not mean to suggest anything of the sort. Judaism is a wonderful and complex religion, and I hold it in very high regard. I even respect Israel, even though I disagree with some of its policies. However, I don't think it is a stretch to say there is a religious (in this case Jewish) component to the ideology of the religious (i.e. not the secular) Zionists. Furthermore, I think this (and allied) movements, have enough influence in Israel to make peace difficult (but not impossible), which has certainly contributed to the violence in the Middle East.

That said, I do not think that religious Zionism is a necessary outgrowth of Judaism. It is one possible interpretation. Just as the Hamas interpretation is a possible interpretation of Islamic principles, but, I would argue, neither necessary nor straightforward.

I should state clearly that I do not think the major motivations on either the Israeli or Palestinian sides are religious. I think it is mostly a political struggle for control of land and resources. Some leaders couch their arguments (for the most part not cynically, though) in religious terms. And certainly some people are motivated by the religious ideas of these leaders. But that does not change the fact that, at bottom, it is a political struggle. Neither Judaism nor Islam necessarily lead to conflict, whether political or theological, and yet there are interpretations of these religions, such as the notion that God gave all of greater Israel to the Jews and that all of Palestine is an Islamic waqf. (While groups supporting the latter notion are well known, reports such as this and this are much less so.)

Again, I do not think that religious Zionism is a mainstream Jewish idea, but it does have an effect on Israeli-Palestinian relations, and some of its ideas are derived from Judaism. But I have a lot of respect and admiration for Jews and Judaism, and I think it would be ridiculous of me to ask a Jewish person I had just met to prove that he has done everything in his power to oppose religious Zionism. I would not do that, because he/she deserves my respect.

Yes, Judaism holds the land of Israel to be G-d's gift to the Jews.Any ideology espousing to the contrary -whether proffered by Jews or non-Jews is not Judaism.It is also a Torah obligation to destroy mortal threats to the Jewish people mercilessly.So I guess, in a sense, Judaism sometimes dictates violence.There's a Time for war and a time for peace.The Grounds for greater Israel are
security related.

The arabs are not at peace with Israel.There is no way to just undo decades of mindf-ck propaganda.Brief perusal of books written by insiders suffices to reveal that the west does not,dare I say can not, fathom the depths of the hamastinian cultural depravity.

"All Americans?" Please, Mary, read my whole post before laying on the heavy criticism.

Did you miss this

What I am suggesting, however, is that Americans who argued for regime change in Iraq are more at fault than your typical non-Iraqi Muslim who is not supporting a bloodshedding side in Iraq, and in fact believes that Sunnis and Shia are brothers and sisters and should live in happy harmony.

where I specified which Americans?

Or here

And I don't mean to demonize those who supported the invasion. There were reasons to support it. I will admit I thought it a good idea when it started. All I want is for those who supported the war to think hard about what we have done and realize that we are partially to blame for the mess in Iraq, and lastly realize that we are more to blame than Joe Muhammad down the street who didn't want this war in the first place.

where I placed myself in the group that deserves some of the blame?

"So, i guess you're not just against the American government, you're against the people too. That's a refreshing admission." So, no, I am neither against the government nor the people. My argument was pretty clear and careful. And I never suggested that Saudis don't share in the blame. So why the smear?

As to who the analysts who predicted all would not be so rosy, I wrote that comment based on memories of years gone by. If you'll allow me some time to find what I remember to be the case, I will kindly thank you.

Most critics of America and Judaism introduce their views with qualifiers, but you came right out and said that "Americans" are to blame" (and Jews are to blame) for the violence in the Middle East. Unlike most, you saved the weasel words for later.

There it is. Mary insinuates that I am an anti-Semite, even though she swears she "wasn't criticizing" me. She accuses me of blaming all of the woes of the Middle East on "America" and "the Jews." Let's put the anti-American charge to the side for a moment. I am not anti-American, but I can live with that accusation more than I can with anti-Semitism. Accusations of anti-Americanism are so common these days that they are virtually meaningless. The latter is a heavy charge, and should not be rendered meaningless by overuse.

What did I do? I suggested that Religious Zionism is inspired by a certain reading of Judaism, and that some Religious Zionists are to fault (along with Hamas and other parties) for some of the recent violence in the Middle East (nor did I ever say that I fault Religious Zionists and Hamas equally). But to Mary, this is "blaming the Jews." Apparently one word of criticism of one point of doctrine from one interpretation of the Torah equals hatred of the Jews, and any explanation at why that is not the case is just using "weasel words", out of character with my previous anti-Semitic, "(albeit temporary) honesty."

My assertion is quite similar to the suggestion that some interpretations of Islam, such as Wahhabism, have been used to justify violence in the Middle East and elsewhere. Nowhere have I suggested that this equals "blaming the Muslims." In fact, I have often argued that certain interpretations of the Qur'an (which I strongly disagree with) have been used to support terrorism. I have always argued that criticism of ideas of Muslims is legitimate; that there is a big difference between this and prejudice against Muslims. Mary knows this; we have discussed many of these issues before. Blaming all Muslims (and only Muslims) for the violence in the Middle East would be Islamophobic (or "bigoted" if you don't like the former word). Similarly, blaming all Jews (and only Jews or even including a few evil Americans in the equation), would be anti-Semitic. I have never done this.

Need this be stated again? Bogus charges of anti-Semitism do not help the Jews. There is real racism out there. There are Muslims who hate Jews, and Christians who hate Jews; even atheists who hate Jews. I am not one of them.

Mary, believe it or not, I don't spend my time thinking of how to blame the troubles of the Middle East on America or the Jews. I am much more interested in discussing solutions than in apportioning blame.

You also say:


1) Many knowledgeable and credible analysts predicted that regime change and the dismantling of existing Iraqi institutions would unleash old animosities that would lead to uncontrollable bloodshed.
2) Knowing these predictions, Americans argued that the expected benefits outweighed the expected costs of regime change, and moved forward with their plan.
3) Civil war ensued

Assuming you believe this analysis, and assuming that you or I haven't misinterpreted any clumsiness or freudian slips within these statements, what do you think would be the best course of action from this point on?

That's easy. Americans who supported the war should not treat Muslims who do not support inter-Iraqi bloodshed with an air of superiority, like Hitchens does. We should treat these Muslims with respect, or we will have a difficult time getting them to work with us. We all have an interest in seeing Iraq get better.

If you're not giving 50% of the blame to Religious Zionists and 50% to Hamas, then what percentage of blame are you assigning to both parties? 20-80%? 40-60? What percentage of the blame belongs to America, Americans who supported the war, pacifists, the Left, the French or the Saudis?

I am sorry, but I really don't know how to attribute blame in a mathematical fashion; and truly, nor do I think it is that productive. I was only responding to Ron's challenge that one couldn't make an argument that any "Jews are amenable to criticism for fomenting... violence...under the banner of Judaism". Forgive me for rising to the challenge. I only think this argument is useful to counteract the notion that all of the fault for violence between Israelis and Palestinians lies with Muslims and with Islam. Healing the hatred, making peace, etc. will require both sides admitting some fault for the conflict. It is probably better not to bring numbers into this. Just admissions of partial fault.

But, if you would like me to go into it a little more, neither the Religious Zionists nor Hamas deserve (in my belief) anywhere near 50% of the fault for the almost 60 year on-and-off struggle between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Besides those parties you have the USSR and its allies like the PLO and some of the Arab States, the US, the Labor Zionists, etc. It would take a book to describe all of the incidents for which each of these parties deserves some blame. Much of the fault of the continued nature of the conflict lies with the Cold War. And this is not to blame the US. We had more important things to worry about than the welfare of the Palestinians, I would argue. But some people did get stepped on as a result of our Cold War policies. And certainly the Arab States calculation that they would win the 1948 war contributed to the refugee problem. And, further, the Arab states, including Lebanon, have added to the ongoing refugee problem. For even if you argue that ideally the refugees would have been allowed to return to their homes, barring this occurence, there is no justification for the lack of humanity with which Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria have showed the Palestinians (I exempt Jordan from this accusation as it gave citizenship to Palestinians). Of course we should consider that Lebanon has had a delicate sectarian balance. But while I understand their reasoning for not giving full citizenship to the Palestinians, I cannot agree with how they have treated them.

But again, instead of dwelling on the blame, I would rather promote peace. I think it is time for Jews and Arabs to live in peace in the Middle East. I think the highest values of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam demand such peace.

OMG I have a headache reading all that...

From my POV I see the problem is that the extremists dominate the debate.

Aziz, I applaud you effort to disseminate non-extremist literature. While absolutely amazing, it will not counter the enormous amount of wahabi literature that Saudi Arabia imports and funds with our own oil money every year.

With that being said, Dean... man, that was ridiculous. I'm not trying to be mean, but when you "explode" like that, I tune you out. I hate to do that because you keep me honest.

I think we can all agree there extremism is bad and they are not the majority of muslims... but they are most of the problem.

The rest of the problem here both is and is not the average muslim. Let me explain:

The extremists are the voices being heard. What they are saying may not be the view of a majority of muslims, I accept that... the average muslim is NOT an extremist or a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathasizer. In that respect they are not the problem. I'd like to add that I served alongside Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Soldiers. They are good people, patriots, brave and Muslim.

While the avg. muslim does not espouse the extremist viewpoint... I still do not see any widespread backlash against the extremists. Instead the terrorists thrive as a "society within a society". Not protected, but not universally condemned either. There is no pressure by the community on the leadership to clean their own house. Instead they latch on to MPAC and/or CAIR, cry Islamophobia, and try to identify themselves as 'victims' rather than take responsibility for what is being taught in the name of Islam. Extremism, like racism, is taught...

Dean, Ali, I'll make you deal... you post links (mainstream media or high profile blogs) to moderate muslims speaking out against extremism (because I know they are there, I thank you for showing them to me) but I'll post 2-3 with the opposing Point of View for every one you post. I don't think that will be very hard, why?... because the voice that is being heard is not "tolerant" Islam. It is not the majority who is being heard. This is why a pro-Hezbollah rally in Dearborn, MI gets from a 1,000 to 10,000 and an anti-terrorism rally in DC gets a "few dozen". What kind of message does that send the average American who has never seen a Quran let alone read one?

Up until now, most of those I have read about standing up to/critisizing radical Islam, have been people who have been threatened and/or killed by extremists/Islamofascists. Not exacly a PR gem there. So who exactly is dominating the radical vs moderate debate, and why?... That should be the focus here...

Mary, I'm pretty exhausted, partly due to this extensive conversation, so pardon me for keeping it short. As for Iraq, though I am cognizant of our lack of lasting success so far, I am not ready to support a pull out of our troops. That said, I think we should think seriously about whether we could be more effective pulling our troops out of population centers like Baghdad, as it is possible our overt presence is leading to more violence than it is preventing. Just an idea.

As to the Israelis and the Palestinians, I think the general outlines of what a peace agreement are well known. Borders based largely on the pre-1967 borders of Israel. A capital in East Jerusalem for Palestine. Shared access to holy sites. Palestinians should accept a symbolic right of return, i.e. while a small number of Palestinians might be allowed, as a gesture, to resettle in Israel, most will "return" to the new Palestinian state, and those who lost property may be compensated some. But this can all be negotiated on. It is only an outline.

As for the Palestinians, most polls show a majority wishes some kind of solution along these lines; about the same percentage, actually, for Israelis too.

Brad, I don't think it will help the debate between moderates and extremists if everytime Ali posts something by a moderate you post three statements by extremists. Why would you want to spread extremist views like that? Why not just encourage the moderate voices to develop, and wish them well?

"The Palestinian voting record shows that they support Hamas' goals."

So a majority of American Catholics believe birth control is bad? A majority of British supported the war in Iraq? When you vote for a person or list of candidates, you are voting on a bundle of issues. It is difficult to discern from one such vote how the supporters of a party feel on any one issue, which is why you must turn to polls that ask questions issue by issue. Hamas ran last on a "Change and Reform" platform. Some who supported them did so because they were sick of Fatah corruption, not because they suddenly decided they were more in favor of "driving the Jews into the sea." Anyway, Hamas only won 42% of the last vote, a plurality.

"Are you saying that there are polls indicating that the majority of Israelis support a 'symbolic' Palestinian right of return? I'd like to see those polls."

I forget. Obviously, there will be some gap between what Palestinians and Israelis want. It is always the goal of negotiations to bring the parties closer together.

Strange indeed is a world view that holds the killing of Jews to be just one of a "bundle" of hamas issues.Destruction of the Jews is the animating and unifying force of the hamstinian national entity.The hamstinian national identity is rooted in grievance,shame,and vengeance.It is a monster.Hopefully the hamastinian arabs will one day
be forced to assimilate into the wider arab culture which is, as a whole, better by some small measure.

Since 2002 my life has revolved around two things... Fighting the GWOT and preparing to fight the GWOT.

And I thank you for that, most sincerely. And we have to help the reformers while you're fighting the extremists.