The Decline of the Arabs

[ForestsBeatBushes]

The Arabs … are in a double state of decay that boggles the minds even of those who expected a hot summer of post-war decadence … The nation will be split between those who dance to the beat of scandal and defeat, and those who blow themselves up in what is turning into a deafening religious ritual. –Azmi Bishara<1>

In their half-century of independence, the Arabs have been defeated time and again by their adversaries. Arab armies knew humiliation in the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948 and the six-day defeat of 1967. They saw victory snatched from them by Israel in 1973, and they saw the largest standing Arab army put to flight by the United States in 1991. Arabs have hungered for military success. This past March, many of them thought they could smell one.

<snip>

But Arafat was coerced into this move by a combination of domestic and foreign forces, and he is fighting tooth and nail to preserve his own flagging authority. Arafat is a tenacious, experienced, and crafty political operator. He is not likely to succumb to those who wish to hasten his denouement without seemingly endless maneuvers and manipulations of mental attrition, deliberately calculated to exasperate all contenders and external meddlers alike. Furthermore, he has considerable popular support. There is widespread opposition to the appointment of a prime minister, coming as it does in the wake of external pressure. Hamas is not happy with Abu Mazen's appointment or with what he has done with it so far, especially his relatively conciliatory remarks at the Aqaba summit in early June 2003. After all, he presently stands for everything they flatly oppose.

So long as Arafat is not incapacitated, it will be very difficult to sideline the wily old "Mr. Palestine." Abu Mazen, therefore, has not emerged as a serious leadership rival to the historical Palestinian leader. His appointment is not the end of Arafat by any means. Even if it spells the beginning of the end, it will still be quite a while before Israel can discuss the end of conflict with a reliable Palestinian leadership.

<snip>


by Asher Susser
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2003
http://www.meforum.org/article/564

[Classical_Liberal]

1. There is no Palestinian leadership

Israel is the Palestinian's leadership. The Palestinians would be stupid if they offered up another whippin boy for Sharon to blame. Sharon is responsible for security on the West Bank and any palestinian who asserts his leadership there is just helping the SOB.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Being just a trifle one-sided, aincha?

[Aidoneus]

3. like you're one to talk?

Pipes' MEForum... oh.

[Darranar]

4. I noticed that, too...

this is, at least in theory, a left-leaning board, right?

I don't mean to imply that those who post from such right-wing sites are conservatives (I mean that seriously, not sarcastically) but couldn't a better source be found?

[Jack Rabbit]

5. True

Dr. Pipes is a bigot. I am disappointed that someone would post from his website as though it were worthy of respect.

[rini]

9. Daniel Pipes

is a scholar of great renown with whom you disagree.

[Darranar]

11. No...

he's a right-wing neocon.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. You flatter him

I disagree with the world view of people like Paul Wolfowitz, but I respect his ability to argue his point. I have no such respect for Pipes. He's David Duke with a Ph.D.

[Forkboy]

15. That right there says it all

But then you think Jeff Jacoby is good as well :shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Danial Pipes's scholarship

http://www.dailyillini.com/aug03/aug27/opinions/stories/opinions_column01.shtml

A day before his nomination to USIP was scheduled for consideration by the Senate HELP Committee, Pipes approvingly quoted Lee Harris, who he calls the "reigning philosopher of 9/11." Pipes said, "Had the United States retaliated in kind for 9/11, Harris tells me, the Islamic holy places would have been destroyed."

His Islamophobia, which he sometimes defends with clever wordplay, is longstanding. In the article "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!" (National Review, November 19, 1990), he wrote: "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. Also, they appear most resistant to assimilation ... West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene. Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies."

[rini]

42. equal values

"A day before his nomination to USIP was scheduled for consideration by the Senate HELP Committee, Pipes approvingly quoted Lee Harris, who he calls the "reigning philosopher of 9/11." Pipes said, 'Had the United States retaliated in kind for 9/11, Harris tells me, the Islamic holy places would have been destroyed.'"

I am suprised that on a progressive board there is dissent over Pipes comment that equates the symbols of capitalism/American military power with holy shrines.

[bluesoul]

44. Personally

I am surprised that anyone on a progressive board would post anything from the likes of Daniel Pipes and consider it credible, or from any of the other RW bastions of neoconservatism...

[Lithos]

62. Bluesoul

The issue is not whether someone posts from a non-progressive source or if it is considered credible, but how the person stands behind the article. Realize that sometimes the discussion is about why some particularly "popular" theory/thesis/ideology is wrong about an issue and what they are omitting.

Lithos

[Adalah]

63. Some useful discussion

can come from articles we disagree with. It would be helpful if the poster of the article provided some commentary to point out the faults in it. Without this, some can be led to mistakenly believe the poster subscribes to it.

[bluesoul]

64. Well

The problem is that in most (if not all) cases it IS so! They do agree with them and they clearly say so. Those articles aren't posted as a mockery of them, since they seriously talk about the claims in those articles. And that's why I have such a big problem with that. Pipes was even refered to by one poster as an intelectual giant! I am not kidding you...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

68. I'll try to keep that in mind.

Somehow I had the idea that an initial post should be simply the source material.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Adalah]

71. Sorry if that seemed

directed at you. I was suggesting it as a way to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

75. Much appreciated, Adalah.

I didn't take it personally from you; for example, BlueSoul's post was much nastier. I'm getting used to the way the majority of the people on this forum think...I think. BTW, that was not directed at you; it's the totality that is so stomach-turning and difficult to bear. Perhaps that is why on so many of the other forums @ DU, people refer to this as the "dungeon". I've noted several people remarking in an off-hand and rather off-the-point manner that they just won't post at I/P. I understand why.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

76. Your accusation concerned me and so

I went through my posts. The source material is as follows:

MSNBC (2 posts)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WORLD JEWISH REVIEW (too Jewish?)

HAARETZ (2 posts)

PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH (like FAIR for Jews)

JERUSALEM POST

THE ADVOCATE (mainstream, liberal-leaning gay & lesbian publication)



Apology, please.

[Darranar]

77. Jpost is most certainly right-wing...

as is PMW.

I don't know about World Jewish Review.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

79. How about Haaretz and The Advocate?

You really don't know about World Jewish Review, do you?

[Darranar]

80. Haaretz is objective...

and WJR and the Advocate are not known to be enough to judge.

But the problem isn't just the posting of news sources; it's the positng of right-wing and sometimes bigoted opinion pieces.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

83. Oh. Okay. Rule change!

You're supposed to let me in on the tactics beforehand...or, am I the enemy in your eyes?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

86. TimeLord, respectfully,

the piece isn't written by Pipes, the author is Asher Susser.

Although it certainly is not pro-Arab, it's hardly comparable to Aryan Brotherhood. If it were Aryan Brotherhood, it would be anti-Israel as well as anti-Semitic (all Semitic peoples!).

[TimeLord]

87. I understood that...

However, it was in response to Lithos' deleted message (which I can't referrence now) and the fact that it seemed to me that this was allowed not because it was racist or rightwing in nature but healthy for debate (I could be wrong). My point was then referrenced to an article from Aryan Brotherhood being healthy debate.

Edit - I might have missunderstood Lithos.

Double edit - I now realized that it as my post that was deleted and not Lithos. I might not be feeling well in the head today. :-)

[Lithos]

89. You may have misunderstood me

The I/P conflict is a swirling much of greys with very little black and white. While the Dr. Susser's post in toto is conservative, it does touch on many key issues affecting the ongoing climate. A rational settlement in the I/P conflict is going to have to deal with them at some level at some point in time.

The expectation is that the discussion will not be about why this is a valid position, but examining the context which makes this message valid to some or how it affects or hinders a progressive solution. Obviously stating support for some of the theses expressed in the article would probably severely shorten poster's longevity at DU. So it would be okay to discuss Bush's Middle East agenda, but to express support for Bush is an obvious 'faux pas'.

So in a nutshell, most content is okay provided the context is relevent and promotes a rational discussion. And again, obvious material from known hate sites is not allowed for use.

Lithos

[TimeLord]

93. Thank you for the clarification.

n/t

[edzontar]

96. But excuse me, Mr. Lithos.

By any standard of measure, the piece cited here is racist.

Imagine if someone posted an artcile on the "perfidy of the Jews" or some such...NOT to point out its horrible-ness, or an an example of anti-Semitism fropm some significant source, but to ENDORSE that view?

The post would, i am reasonably sure, be deleted.

But casting blanket, racialist generalities at "Arabs" seems somehow to be OK.

What gives?

[bluesoul]

46. Daniel Pipes

"brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene"

Pipes, a racist and a bigot...

[Jack Rabbit]

58. The Muslims Are Coming! The Muslims Are Coming!

EDITED for grammar.

The article, The Muslims Are Coming! The Muslims Are Coming!, is an exhibit to be used by those who would demonstrate that Dr. Pipes is a bigot.

Speculations about a Muslim threat divide into two distinct types. Some observers point to hostile states and the military forces bent on jihad (Islamic righteous war). Others focus on migrants to the West and fear a subversion of Western civilization from within. For the latter, the mischief of a Saddam Husayn or Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi poses fewer dangers than that of their followers living in our midst.

Here we see Pipes' argument in its embryonic form. Jihad is one threat to the West. I don't have a problem with that statement, as long as Pipes carefully defines jihad and exactly who are its adherents. Pipes is not being so careful. His next statement is to call Arab immigrants to the West a threat, fearing that they will "(subvert) Western civilization from within". That is the sort of statement we would get from the likes of Pat Buchanan or David Duke.

Even Dr. Pipes' proposed answer to jihad is troubling. Overall, he sees Islam as an enemy of Western Civilization. It is interesting in reading the article how Pipes at first referes to "radical Islam", as though to distinguish it from mainstream Islam, and then simply to "Islam", as though the faith, unlike Judaism and Christianity, were monolithic. For example:

(T)he fear of Islam has some basis in reality. From the Battle of Ajnadayn in 634 until the Suez crisis of 1956, military hostility has always defined the crux of the Christian-Muslim relationship. Muslims served as the enemy par excellence from the Chanson de Roland to the Rolando trilogy, from El Cid to Don Quixote. In real life, Arabs or Turks represent the national villains throughout southern Europe. Europeans repeatedly won their statehood by expelling Muslim overlords, from the Spanish Reconquista beginning in the early eleventh century to the Albanian war of independence ending in 1912.

Note that to demonstrate this "reality", Pipes has citied a battle fought nearly a millenium and a half ago, the seizure of a colonial relic by a secular Arab nationalist leader, works of fiction and historical facts centuries old and long forgotten.

Dr. Pipes' remarks about Arab/Muslim immigration is more troubling:

All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. Also, they appear most resistant to assimilation. Elements among the Pakistanis in Britain, Algerians in France, and Turks in Germany seek to turn the host country into a Islamic society by compelling it to adapt to their way of life.

Pipes then makes a series of unsubstantiated claims, such as an insistance that factories keep to the Islamic calendar. He also claims:

A significant body of Muslims, especially followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, appear to hope they can remake Europe and America in their own image. And they are not shy to say so.

For this, Pipes presents some anecdotal evidence. However, he never justifies his characterization of this body of Muslims as "significant".

It is clear that Dr. Pipes sees Islam as not just one of the great faiths of mankind, but as a menacing ideology. He worries about the high birth rate among Muslims:

High Muslim birth rates already drive politics in the two non-Muslim states of the Middle East. Christians lost control of Lebanon after Muslims became a majority there. The challenge of maintaining a Jewish majority lies near the heart of the Israeli political debate; the local Muslim population keeps up a fertility rate of no less than 6.6 children per woman (1981 estimate). Comparable political tensions have arisen on the fringes of the Middle East-in Ethiopia, Cyprus, Armenia, and Serbia-as the minority Muslim population climbs toward either political power or majority status.

Thus, it isn't just Islam that is a menacing ideolgy, but Muslims who in themselves are a threat to Western Civilization. Pipes concludes:

Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene. Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies. The signs all point to continued clashes between the two sides; in all likelihood, the Rushdie affair was merely a prelude to further troubles; already it has spawned a Muslim political party in Great Britain. Put differently, Iranian zealots threaten more within the gates of Vienna than outside them.

In other words, Pipes fears that Western Civilization is threatened by allowing the barbarians to enter. The question, he says, is whether or not Muslims can "modernize."

Future relations of Muslims and Westerners depend less on crude numbers or place of residence, and much more on beliefs, skills, and institutions. The critical question is whether Muslims will modernize or not. And the answer lies not in the Qur'an or in the Islamic religion, but in the attitudes and actions of nearly a billion individuals.

Dr. Pipes seems to be suggesting that the problem with Muslims is that they read the Koran, if they can read at all.

It is, of course, fallacious to assume that one cannot be both modern and adhere to a religious faith, including Islam. The latter belongs to the private realm, just as the food one eats (although Pipes seems to have problems with Arab cuisine as well).

Pipes is a bigot. That should be as obvious as the sun against a clear blue sky.

[bluesoul]

59. Pipes

Great post Jack Rabbit! Bigotry and racism of people like Pipes exposed...

[TimeLord]

88. Excellent breakdown, JackRabbit.

Thank you.

:toast:

[sushi]

91. There's no difference

"A significant body of Muslims, especially followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, appear to hope they can remake Europe and America in their own image."

Well, Europe and America have been trying to do just that to their (the Muslim) countries, and are still doing it!


It can't be possible that a person with "Dr." in front of his name could think that "the problem with Muslims is that they read the Koran, if they can read at all." I think he just likes to ignore that there are tens of millions of very educated Muslims, maybe because he feels threatened. There are many Muslims who speak better English than those whose first language is English!

[rini]

82. His actual words

* Ignore my having explained that "brown-skinned peoples" and "strange foods" were quotes of then-current European views, not my sentiments. (In retrospect, I should have placed those words in quotation marks.)
* Never quote two subsequent sentences: "The movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."


can we say "oops, I'm sorry for the mistake?"

[Jack Rabbit]

84. His actual words, ma'am:

Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene. Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies. The signs all point to continued clashes between the two sides; in all likelihood, the Rushdie affair was merely a prelude to further troubles; already it has spawned a Muslim political party in Great Britain. Put differently, Iranian zealots threaten more within the gates of Vienna than outside them.
Still, none of this amounts to Richard Condon's notion of "another terrible threat" in any way resembling the Soviet danger. Muslim immigrants will probably not change the face of European life: pubs will not close down, secularist principles will not wither, freedom of speech is not likely to be abrogated. The movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies.
The United States faces less of a problem, thanks to a long tradition of immigration and the healthy attitudes that go with it. Being an American depends far less on ancestry than on shared values, and this encourages enfranchisement. Meritocratic ethics and an open educational system do much to integrate the next generation. Should fundamentalist Muslims move to the United States and choose to remain outside the mainstream culture, that two can be accommodated, as made clear by the Amish Mennonites in Pennsylvania or the Hasidic Jews in New York City.
There is a final point. The prediction that Communists will be replaced by Muslims as the main threat suggests that ideological divisions will be give way to communitarian ones. And this conforms to Francis Fukuyama's thesis about the end of history-where the "end of history" means not that time when literally nothing happens but (as befits a term coined by the philosopher Hegel) a time of no further advancement in the understanding of the human condition; that is, the moment when no new ideologies can be devised. If history in this sense should end, what one thinks will lose importance; who one is becomes key.
But Fukuyama's prediction seems most improbable. A great and bloody argument over the human condition has been the driving force of history for two centuries, from the French Revolution to the Nicaraguan civil war. Can this deeply divisive intellectual dispute entirely burn itself out, to be replaced by the atavistic hostilities prevailing before 1789? That prospect seems too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

For the link, see post number 58.

[The Magistrate]

20. He Is Rather Over-Rated, Ma'am

Sort of a mirror of Chomsky on the right. His greatest claim to fame is leadership of "Team B", critiquing C.I.A. estimates of Soviet military and economic strength. Though the produce of this was prefered by Reagan, its conclusions have been conclusively demonstrated to be wholly false.

There is not much worth to the man, except as a window into the enemy's mind....

[Classical_Liberal]

21. I thought it was his father that was on Team B

, and he created Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech.

[The Magistrate]

22. It Is Possible They Blur In My Recollection, Sir

It does happen on occassion.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. My recollection of Richard Pipes is from a book by Scheer

See With enough Shovels by Robert Scheer.

In the book, Richard Pipes was quoted as arguing that a quantitative superiority in nuclear weapons translated into a qualitative superiority, and therefore a nuclear war could be won.

That may work with conventional weapons, but it seems a fallacious point to make with arsenals whose strength is measured in how many times over life on earth could be destroyed. My reaction to Pipes' argument was to recall a remark by Sir Winston Churchill: something to the effect of That is an idea so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of it.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. I don't know if I would describe the neocons as intellectuals

They formed think tanks because they didn't do well on campus. There scholarship was too lousey.

[bluesoul]

28. Intellectuals

Actually I wouldn't underestimate their intelectual capabilities, since even the worst regimes and ideologies had them. Nazis had them, one of the masterminds of the ethnical cleansing in Bosnia was Dr. Radovan Karadzic who was also considered an intelectual. Which is the most frightening part.

Just because you have a PHD or superb intelectual capability doesn't mean you can't become a war criminal, terrorist or a generaly despicable person. Sadly there are many cases that have proven just so...

[Classical_Liberal]

32. The neocons have fueled anti-intellectualism in this country

for 24 yrs. I hardly think we should honor them with title.

[bluesoul]

33. We agree

Most of all they are very dangerous and should be removed from power as soon as possible. 2004 elections will be the ideal oportunity :kick:

[The Magistrate]

69. That Is True, Mr. Soul

Intellect is no gaurantee, and may even be a detriment at times. Most of the really grotesque harm is done by people clinging to some theoretical view they are so convinced of as to deem it necessary to impose it on the world. This requires a great deal of mental effort, that a thoroughgoing dullard may not be capable of.

It is my own general view that an honest rogue can do relatively limited harm, by compare to an energetic and lofty idealist.

[bluesoul]

70. Agreed

Very true Magistrate! Your thoughts are as always more then worth the attention ;)

[Forkboy]

72. Thats it!!!

I knew I had heard his name quite awhile ago and couldn't remember where.That was a great,if scary,book.

The title refers to the idea that people could survive a nuclear exchange by digging a hole in the ground and covering it with a door....hence With enough shovels..

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Pipes is a bigot

From an interview of Daniel Pipes conducted by Eric Boehlert for Salon, published November 9, 2001:

Question: What's the percentage of American Muslims who want to see the government, as you've said, "brought to its knees"? Would that be at the same level of those here who share bin Laden's hatred for America?
Dr. Pipes: Well, there are different degrees. Some, a small number, actively embrace the bin Laden ideology. But that is very small. There are a large number who feel an alienation from the country.
Question: Do you think CAIR wants to create an Islamic state in America?
Dr. Pipes: Without a doubt.
Question: Would that include prohibiting conversion out of Islam?
Dr. Pipes: Of course.
Question: Criminalizing adultery, banning consumption of pork and doing away with the equality of the sexes?
Dr. Pipes: Of course. Now, they don't say that in black and white in their writings. I can't prove that to you. I can tell you that there are all sorts of intimations of it. I can tell you I can sense it. I can make this case, but I can't make it specifically for CAIR. But you asked me, do I think that's what they want? Yes.
Question: That seemed to be the most startling part of your writings-the notion that Muslims in America want to create an Islamic state here and institute Islamic law.
Dr. Pipes: I'm not saying it's going to happen. I'm just saying if we do have a body of people who want this, this is something we should know about. And pay attention to.
Question: But if they're not saying it, how do we know that's what they want?
Dr. Pipes: Well, CAIR is a Washington lobby group, and if it wants to be invited to the White House it has to be somewhat cautious about saying this. There is an environment in which such ideas are fairly common. So they're not specific to CAIR. It is what anyone who is an Islamist wants. It goes almost without saying. If you're an Islamist you want Muslims in power and application of Islamic law. There was a nice quote in the San Francisco Chronicle in a story about the American Muslim Alliance convention that took place a few weeks ago, quoting a man saying, "I want to see a Muslim president by 2020." He didn't say "I want the application of Islamic law," but what's the point of having a Muslim president?
Question: Well, what's the difference in somebody saying I want to see a Jewish president by 2020?
Dr. Pipes: Don't compare Judaism and Christianity with Islamism.
Question: But the person you mentioned who said he wanted a Muslim president by 2020, he didn't say he wanted he wanted a fundamentalist Muslim president.
Dr. Pipes: It's like saying I want a fascist president.
Question: Are you equating Islam with fascism?
Dr. Pipes: No, I equate Islamism with fascism. And the person quoted by the Chronicle was at an Islamist conference. Assume anyone at an Islamist conference is an Islamist and wants Muslims in power. Granted, you can use the language and in the mouth of somebody else it would be as innocuous as wanting a Jewish or Mormon president. In this case, in the mouth of an Islamist it's not innocuous. One has to have different filters. Islamism is a totalitarian ideology. An Islamist is a danger in the same way a fascist is a danger. I don't advocate locking them up. I do advocate keeping a close eye on them. Those people can make real trouble.
Question: Saying Muslims want to create a Muslim state in America, does that strike you as alarmist at all?
Dr. Pipes: How could that be alarmist when I can see signs all around?

I am not able to substantiate Dr. Pipes' claims about CAIR's desire to impose Islamic law in America or to criminalize adultery or ban the consumption of pork. While I will agree with him that Islamism is a form of fascism (assuming he and I have a common definition of Islamism), I do not believe that Dr. Pipes' belief that American Muslims in general constitute a suspect group is correct. His reasoning is no better than that of many who advocated the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II: this is an alien group that comes from a nations whose political leaders are hostile to America, and is therefore suspect.

Dr. Pipes give no reason why Islam cannot be compared to Judaism or Christianity. All three are among the great faiths of mankind. They all believe in the worship of a single God, essentially the same God. They share a common mythology. In the case of all three, there are a set of fundmental tenents that distinguish believers of one faith from those of another. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam has produced great men of faith and, like Judaism and Chrisitanity, has seen the faith invoked for evil purposes.

In his other writings, Dr. Pipes shows examples of Muslims who would, if they could, establish Islamic Law in America or other Western nations. However, he knows very well that this isn't going to happen anytime soon; more importantly, he fails to show that these specific instances are true of the general. Rather, he simply asserts this as fact with rhetocical slight-of-hand more worthy of a politician than a scholar. Pipes' approach is like the close-cropped shot of a demonstration that appear to show a large crowd, when in fact there were less than a dozen noisy people with plackards at a street corner. It is propaganda, not scholarship.

Even in this interview, Dr. Pipes says he sees signs all around him and then basically tells the interviewer to trust him. He says we need to be vigilant, but does not for what we need to be vigilant.

Pipes is doing nothing more or less than directing suspicion at a class of people who, as outsiders, are viewed with suspicion in the best of times by those who don't give the matter enough thought. It is demogogery at its worst.

Dr. Pipes is a bigot.

[bluesoul]

26. Interesting

"Daniel Pipes is a scholar of great renown with whom you disagree."

Such comments (praise) speaks in volumes. I am glad you finally admitted your views...

See post regarding mr Pipes views above for clarification...

[Malikshah]

65. "great renown"?

He's most known for his anti-Islamic, witch-hunting rhetoric. A failed academic who now delights in attacking others with histrionics.

If he was such a great scholar, why did Bush have to sneak him in with a recess appointment?

[dudeness]

90. actually , I saw pipes debate tariq ali..

if pipes is a great scholar..then so am I..

[edzontar]

94. Pipes is a Bush advisor, a far-right neo-con, and a failed academic.

Read the full text of the "Osama University" artcile on Salon. which i posted in this forum this morning, and decide for yourself.

Pipes is no freind of Democrats, or democracy.

He is a RW, repukelican bigot.

His opiniosn should be shunned by all people of good will.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

74. I'm so sorry I disappointed you.

However, I didn't 'post from his website as though it were worthy of respect'; I simply posted an interesting article.

[Aidoneus]

6. hey, nothing is too rightwing for I/P

funny how it works out, but the steady consistancy is easily noticed.

[Melsky]

7. I've noticed this too

frequently

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

8. Arabs Celebrate Strikes on U.S. in Iraq

Arabs Celebrate Strikes on U.S. in Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20031103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/arabs_iraq

Across the Arab world, strikes like the deadly downing of a U.S. helicopter are applauded by many as resistance to occupation and proof that Iraqis were not completely humiliated by the ease of the U.S.-led victory over Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

The reaction is not surprising given prewar opposition among many Arabs to the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites). At a meeting in Damascus Sunday, foreign ministers from countries bordering Iraq and others in the region repeated calls on the United States to restore order in Iraq.

In Egypt, U.S. Ambassador C. David Welch has accused Egyptian commentators of spending too much time criticizing the United States and too little exploring how Iraqis might benefit from the fall of Saddam. Egyptian journalists responded by declaring a boycott of Welch.

"Iraq is now building the glory of the (Arab) community," Mustafa Bakri, editor-in-chief of the Egyptian weekly Al-Osboa, wrote Sunday, referring to the resistance.

Samir Ragab, editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gomhouria, lauded the Iraqis in his column for fighting back.
"Every citizen who lives in Iraq, be they Baathist or anti-Baathist, whether they support or oppose Saddam, will stand up and shout at the top of his lungs: `We will chase the Americans and their followers until they leave our home ashamed and defeated.'"

----------------------------------------------------------------

what ??.....no candy ???

almost seems like they wish americans dead.........nah.

[Darranar]

10. Why shouldn't they want the occupation to end?

Why shouldn't they want the invaders dead?

It's no different from Palestinians cheering the deaths of IDF soldiers.

This sort of violence doesn't really improve anything, but it is legitimate and it is understandable.

I wish for their safe return - now.

[rini]

12. wishful thinking perhaps!

Samir Ragab, editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gomhouria, lauded the Iraqis in his column for fighting back.
"Every citizen who lives in Iraq, be they Baathist or anti-Baathist, whether they support or oppose Saddam, will stand up and shout at the top of his lungs: `We will chase the Americans and their followers until they leave our home ashamed and defeated.'"


Seems no one told them "you dance with them that brought ya."

[Classical_Liberal]

18. I doubt any of the people in question supported the invasion

to begin with so you make no sense.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

13. You are wrong!

of course there's candy

[Aidoneus]

14. 4 questions

Yeah? And? So? What?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

30. Demonizing Arabs

The article DOES demonize Arabs/Palestinians and if you agree with it then I do think Forkboy has a point..

If you fail to see the problem in such articles that doesn't mean that many others don't. So much about double standards. Obviously one can get away with many nasty (and most of all generalizing)things said about Arabs, while if they were said about Jews it would be anti-semitism. Just for a moment try seeing it from the other perspective. Maybe you'll understand it someday..

[drdon326]

31. You are mistaken.

this article reports true facts...according to the author.
You can decide if this"demonizing" a certain group.

If you disagree with the facts of the article, feel free
to post an alternative view.

Specifically, what part of the article do you disagree with ?
Or is the article true and you simply dont like the truth ?

If you dont like the message, dont blame the messenger.
Post you own alternative view.

[bluesoul]

34. No

How can the views and interpretations of an author that is clearly anti-Arab be considered automatically as facts? I fail to see that. Sorry...

[drdon326]

36. Youre funny...

I ask you what SPECIFICALLY what you dont like about the article and all you can mumble "is clearly anti-arab" ??

Are you serious??

Feel free to post an article that states:

"Arabs CONDEMN AND DEPLORE Strikes on U.S. in Iraq"

please,please,please find that article....i will be happy to read that.




edit for unusual grammar

[bluesoul]

38. WTF?

Why should they? Iraq is occupied! Do you support the occupation, Bush's illegal war built on lies, the fact that several thousand Iraqi civilians were killed because of those lies (non existing WMD) and those several hundred US soldiers killed because of those same lies? Resisting occupation is a legitimate thing.

[drdon326]

39. Dont try to wiggle out of it.

thats not the point and you know it.

You claimed the article is "clearly anti-arab" but could not refute
one thing the article says that is factually incorrect.

[drdon326]

40. Btw....

Do you think all those quotes are made up ??

NEWSFLASH >>>> Maybe the story is true.

[bluesoul]

41. Ok, here we go

"Like Usama bin Ladin, they represent the rage and the desire for revenge of a civilization in retreat"

"And though it is true that the vision of President Bush and the Quartet includes an independent Palestinian state, what the Palestinians wanted was not to be included in the international community's vision but for their own vision to be imposed on Israel."

I am not even going to quote the rest as it is too much. BS after BS after BS

And the source:

Asher Susser is director and senior research fellow of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University. This essay is based on a lecture delivered in May 2003 to analysts at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Need I say more?

[drdon326]

45. Nope...

you were commenting re Fboy's comment about MY article and said:

"The article DOES demonize Arabs/Palestinians and if you agree with it then I do think Forkboy has a point.."

that was about my sub-article.

[Adalah]

49. drdon326

An article does not need to be factually inaccurate to be racist. This article took historical events and parlayed these into broad statements about "Arabs". An example...

"In their half-century of independence, the Arabs have been defeated time and again by their adversaries. Arab armies knew humiliation in the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948 and the six-day defeat of 1967."

The problem is the author takes historical events involving some predominantly Arab nations and used these to make a generalization about "Arabs". We would not want to see critcism of a predominantly Jewish nation, Israel, expresseed as "The Faults of Jews". Similarly, we shouldn't see critcism of some predominantly Arab nations expressed as "The Decline of Arabs".

[bluesoul]

50. Exactly!

Adalah right on the point! ;-)

[Jack Rabbit]

54. Very good

We would not want to see critcism of a predominantly Jewish nation, Israel, expresseed as "The Faults of Jews".

We've seen that here from time to time. When it is seen, it is rightly denounced as anti-Semitism.

This article is racist in that respect.

[drdon326]

57. Point taken...except one small problem..

this entire subthread is about the article *I* posted
and Not about the original article.

sheeesh

[ForestsBeatBushes]

60. I keep tellin' ya

I'm Rodney Dangerfield - don't get no respect - but, a doctor, oh yeah, they run off on an entire subthread tangent for you

but, hey, I'm not bitter - actually better you than me :evilgrin:

[Adalah]

61. Sorry, my mistake

My comments concerned the original article. I'm pleased that we agree it's racist.

[sushi]

92. I agree!

"Just for a moment try seeing it from the other perspective."

People don't do it enough.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

52. How many times have I posted it's all about the

messenger and never about the message @ I/P?

[bluesoul]

53. Oh

So if a RW bigot says something it doesn't matter what they are. Or if a klansman said something about blacks it wouldn't matter? If a neonazi said something about Jews it wouldn't matter? And if an Arab hater says something about Arabs it doesn't matter what he is, his background and his agenda? Gee, now I've just learnt something new :shrug:

[ForestsBeatBushes]

55. Your comparisons

of Jewish or Israeli news sites to those of KKK etc. are unbecoming, to say the least.

[bluesoul]

56. I wasn't comparing them

But if a site is evidently anti-Palestinian/Arab then in their very core they are not much different to those anti-Israeli anti-Jewish sites that promote hatred against certain people. Don't you agree?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

81. How about a round of Kumbaya?

The KKK etc. puts the Jews @ #1 with a bullet (and a noose and walled up into a levee) AND they also hate Arab people.

Can we agree on that?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

78. Why are you using Yahoo, the well-known right-wing source?

:yourock:

[Adalah]

35. A racist article

Very disappointing to see it here.

[bluesoul]

37. I totally

agree Adalah!

[rini]

47. May I ask

what is racist about it? Please explain this to me as I truly do not see it.

[bluesoul]

48. That is the whole problem Rini

You don't see it! Because you don't find a problem in generalizing accusations of Arabs (with a racist/hateful undertone) and your tolerance for that is much higher as opposed to those concentrated against Israelis/Jews. That can mean only one thing. And I am not even going to say it here...

[Adalah]

51. Please see post 49

(No message)

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Malikshah]

66. Joke or not

It's still an inaccurate comment. Furthermore, jokes against a people are quite easily taken as belittling them...hmmm let's make some jokes about blacks, gays, jews, catholics, polish people, disabled people. How would we feel then?

It's not an issue of having a sense of humor--there is no room for "light-hearted" jokes when discussing stereotyping.

[bluesoul]

67. Oh my

I don't find that funny even a bit. Maybe you revealed a bit too much...