Calling Al-Qaeda Fascist Doesn't Make It So

News Abroad

by Jeff Mankoff

Mr. Mankoff is a writer for the History News Service and a doctoral student in history and security studies at Yale.

Following the recent arrest of al-Qaeda-linked conspirators planning to bomb aircraft over the Atlantic, President Bush reminded Americans that they continue to face a fanatical, determined foe. Speaking in Wisconsin just hours after the plotters' arrest, Bush declared that the West is "at war with Islamic fascists." In case anyone missed the point, a few days later Bush described Islamic radicalism as a "totalitarian ideology" menacing people everywhere.

This comparison between Islamic radicalism and fascism, which some commentators on the Right have trumpeted ever since 9/11, is misguided and ultimately harmful. Because fascism, at least in its most familiar German incarnation, was a genocidal, totalitarian movement, Bushs comparison suggests that Islamic radicalism must, as with the Third Reich, be annihilated militarily.

Not only do many moderate Muslims find the equation offensive, it obscures the novelty of the danger posed by al-Qaeda and breeds complacency about our ability to win the "war on terror." Al-Qaedas ideology and methods are not those of fascism, and this new struggle will have little in common with that of World War II.

There is no question that al-Qaeda, and Islamic radicalism more generally, spring from the same sources of resentment and humiliation as the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s. In both cases, the replacement of an old order with instability and foreign domination, whether exerted by French troops in the Rhineland in 1923 or more recently, American support for corrupt Arab autocracies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have created a wave of xenophobia and longing for an idealized, if mythical, past.

Like European fascists, al-Qaeda extols militarism, coupled with a rejection of Enlightenment rationalism. Both emphasize the community, whether the global Islamic "umma" or the German "volk," which must be regenerated through the purging of alien elements. Al-Qaeda also espouses radical antisemitism, which it shares with most, though not all, European fascists.

Al-Qaedas use of religion as an inspiration for violence and intolerance also has precedents. World War II-era fascist regimes in Croatia, Slovakia and Romania all justified their genocidal actions on the basis of establishing religious purity. The Slovak fascist leader, Jozef Tiso, was even a Catholic priest.

Yet if the ideologies of fascism and Islamic radicalism share similarities, the political and military approaches of the two movements differ sharply, and these differences render Bush's comparison meaningless in the realm of strategy. For example, Al-Qaeda is not a mass movement akin to Mussolinis Blackshirts. Instead it is a small, conspiratorial organization whose influence flows more from its ability to inspire small numbers of fanatical followers with its mastery of modern communication technology than from its ability to become a mass movement or a force in electoral politics.

Even the nature of al-Qaeda's violence is different. Al-Qaeda mostly targets foreign enemies (the West) rather than "enemies" --whether Jews, socialists, or Serbs -- within fascist-ruled states or occupied territory. Most important, European fascists all glorified the state and sought to seize state power for themselves. Al-Qaeda rejects the legitimacy of existing states in the Muslim world, which were largely created by European colonialists.

Applying the template of fascism to al-Qaeda does more to obscure than to clarify the current situation. Fascism in Europe was destroyed when the states it ruled were occupied and their governments replaced. Al-Qaeda is not a government, and it is unlikely to ever rule a state. The United States and its allies have already occupied the one state ever to come under direct al-Qaeda control, Afghanistan, without eradicating the threat. The occupation of Iraq, modeled on that of post-1945 West Germany, has been an even bigger failure.

Al-Qaeda will continue to remain in the shadows, and the struggle against it will involve spies, diplomats and police more than soldiers. Conflating the threat of al-Qaeda with fascism makes for good political rhetoric, but it represents a failure of imagination, a failure to recognize the novel nature of this new threat.

This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.

comments powered by Disqus

A. M. Eckstein - 9/9/2006

Well said, E. Simon.

A. Eckstein

E. Simon - 9/9/2006

It's very simple, Omar. He is not just absolving "the deeds or sayings of any body, fool or no fool, professing any religion" from being "considered typical and representative of that religion," he is referring to the deeds of RELIGIOUS COURTS and THE ENTIRE STATES THAT BASE THEIR GOVERNANCE IN THEIR RULINGS (Saudi Arabia and Iran, - i.e. fairly large states at that) that base themselves on the Sharia law and model of Islamic statehood that you envision and seem to agree should be the ultimate global model for the entire world, even if you disagree with the tactics of how to establish that model of statehood and impose it on the west. He is not talking about groups like al Qaeda and Gemaat Islamiya, but real models of Islamic statehood that you seem to agree with as an overall goal for humanity.

So, do you agree with this explicitly Islamic model of statehood and jurisprudence that you wish, as a "goal," that the world should adhere to, or do you differ with: the Iranian judge, the Saudi government, and most importantly, the ISLAMIC MODELS BY WHICH THEY BASE THE LEGITIMIZATION OF THEIR METHODS OF GOVERNING?

Please, just continue to be honest in your answers.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/9/2006

Omar, the actions of the hanging judge which you yourself called moronic were OFFICIALLY DEFENDED by the Iranian government and in government-controlled media. The judge wasn't chastized. He wasn't criticized. He wasn't dismissed from his position. He was praised for hanging a 16-year-old girl personally. Thus we are not dealing with a lone madman.

Similarly, in Iran homosexuality is punishable by DEATH by hanging. Children as young as 16 have been publicly hung for homosexuality. This is government policy and it is defended as mandated by Islam.

I repeat--these are not the unique acts of madmen. They are the POLICIES of the Islamic state.

I therefore ask you, for the sake of our understanding of your position on how far you imagine the powers of your Islamic state ought to extend over individuals' private actions--do you APPROVE of this policy on the death-penalty for homosexuality?
Death is also the penalty for homosexuality in the Palestinian Authority, and in Egypt. It is given religious (Muslim) grounds. So--do you approve of this? I really think we have a right to know, since you say you wish to bring about an Islamic state, and simultaneously present yourself often as a "human rights" advocate.

The Saudi religious police have just outlawed dogs and cats as PETS. This is the policy of the Islamic government. In terms of how far you imagine the powers of your Islamic state ought to extend over the lives of individuals--do you APPROVE of this policy?

I repeat: these are NOT the actions of lone madmen. They are the POLICIES of Islamic states, extending their power over individuals. If you APPROVE of these governmental policies, you need to tell us honestly. If you do NOT approve of such governmental policies, you still need to explain WHY these governments base these interferences in the private lives of individuals on Islam, and act this way in the name of Islam. You need to answer this because you are an advocate of your envisioned "Islamic state."

Similarly, in terms of women's testimony in court counting only HALF that of men's, that is not the position of a lone madman, it is the official POLICY of the HIGHEST official Islamic judicial body in Afghanistan--and that's AFTER the liberation from the Taliban totalitarians! And it is ALSO official policy that any criticism of this situation by advocates of women's rights is punishable by DEATH as an attack on Islam--that is also the position of this highest Islamic judicial body in Afghanistan. These Islamic judges claim this policy regarding women's testimony counting only half as men's (which means that no woman's testimony in court can be taken as valid over a man's contradictory testimony) is based on Islam. So it is legitimate to ask you--in your envisioned Islamic state, would you change this? If not, tell us. If you would change it, please explain WHY this is official policy in currently-existing states which claim to be based on Islam.

Finally, I repeat that you have proclaimed that you are never going to give the specifics for the sources of your claims about "liberals" in Hezbollah who were "upset" about anti-semitic material being broadcast on official Hezbollah television. Yet while maintaining that position, you alos continue to claim the right to demand specific sources from others. I myself give such specific sources because that is what I am trained to do. But you, Omar--you are in the position of a complete hypocrite.

I repeat to anyone reading: Omar is a person who instantly DEMANDS specific sources for facts which make him uncomfortable, and even when those sources are cited is tempted to deny them, whereas he EXPLICITLY REFUSES to give specific sources for "facts" he himself cites--like "liberals" in Hezbollah who alleged opposed the vile anti-semitism broadcast for weeks on official Hezbollah television during the holiest Muslim time of the year.

Judge for yourselves.

E. Simon - 9/9/2006

It's funny, Fred. I seem to notice that both Judaism and Christianity underwent something called "reformations," - i.e. critical thresholds of theological development where sufficient self-inquiry and criticism were available to allow them access to developing in ways that more closely parallel other modernizing norms. Islam, to my knowledge, has not yet experienced a reformation. Is there a reason you neglected to mention this distinction, or did you not perceive the importance of this difference? But I can see why the point would be more lost on a Talmudic scholar than a scholar of comparitive religion - are you setting yourself up as an expert in both today or just the former?

Hmmmm.....

N. Friedman - 9/8/2006

Professor,

Thanks for your kind words. And, I agree with your added note.

I might note that negation of historical facts seems to run rather deep, at least just now, in the Muslim regions. Even the more modern and quasi-secular Turkey seems unable to cope with the magnitude of what occurred, at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, Kurds, etc., to the Armenians.

And the magnitude of the massacres is still overwhelming even if one were to accept the Turkish version of facts. And, notwithstanding Bernard Lewis' view, the evidence for a planned series of massacres to destroy Armenian society (i.e. genocide) is overwhelming. In this regard, the overwhelming evidence brought forth by Vahakn Dadrian is rather compelling.

N. Friedman - 9/8/2006

Omar,

A question to ask, in view of your response to the professor's questions, is whether the hanging judge holds typical or atypical views. I do note that in Iran and Saudi Arabia stonings occur upon orders from courts - based on religious precepts, to note - rather regularly which, to Western ears, is rather appalling. One could favor the death penalty and still be appalled. And one can, whether one favors strong measures against thiefs, oppose the amputation of body parts, as occurs in Saudi Arabia and, so far as I recall, Iran - again, per court decisions with the sanction of religious authorities -.

I tend to agree with you that it is not fair to ask that you defend every stupid action or thing that occurs in the name of Islam. On the other hand, the professor has a good point that a lot of awful stuff is being done in the name of Islam, with no apparent revulsion displayed among the mass of Muslims and no serious intellectual argument raised among the Muslim cleric class against what is being done. If anything, the elites appear either not to care or to approve, if not in the specific actions, then in their purpose. So, in that regard, I think the professor is right to ask most of the questions he asks.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/8/2006

Well, Omar used to allege that I was a paid agent of AIPAC. Of course he had no evidence to support that, and in fact I've never met anyone from AIPAC. Now, instead, I'm supposed to be a Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib interrogator. In the case of the "Hezbollah liberals", all I am asking Omar is for him to NAME HIS SOURCES, and to NAME those Hezbollah "liberals" he once touted on Aug. 17 as very upset about the sewer of vile anti-semitism on official Hezbollah television. That is hardly Abu Ghraib style interrogation. But now it turns out that Omar will do neither--while simultaneously demanding that everyone ELSE on this blog name THEIR specific sources (which I certainly do). That is very instructive.

Omar's answer to most penetrating questions about the nature of Islamists and their totalitarian vision of Islam is instantly to launch personal attacks on the questioner for asking embarrassing questions. That's what he does--instead of actually answering the specific questions asked.

Omar, the problem with the Rajabi incident is--precisely-- that this "moron" judge, as you rightly call him, acting in the name of Islam when he hung this poor girl in public, personally.
You know, this DOESN"T happen in the West. But it DOES happen in a state which claims to be fervently Islamic.
It is therefore legitimate to ask you, as a supporter of the Muslim-Sharia state in general, whether you support such conduct.
Those who flew planes filled with civilians, including many women and children, into office buildings filled with civilians, also were people who acted in the name of Islam.
Those who bombed the night-clubs in (HINDU!) Bali, acted in the name of Islam.
Those who bombed the trains in London, Madrid and very recently in Bombay acted in the name of Islam.

And these are tactics of violence which you claim, well, not exactly to approve, but to "understand".

It is therefore reasonable to ask you about your stand on the extent of the powers and violence of the Muslim state you imagine in the future.

I guess the answer to my question about whether you're ever going to look up the Mt. Scopus Massacre-- like your answer to my request that you name your sources as you demand everyone ELSE do--is: NO.

Well, that makes everything perfectly clear, it seems to me.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/8/2006

1. Omar, what you ACTUALLY wrote about this vile anti-semitic series shown on official Hezbollah tv in 2003 was the following, on August 17, and I quote: "I am also told that it did cause a furor in party circles, was the object of investigation, etc." That is the DIRECT quote from you. You then go on to say that your SOURCES for the "furor within Hezbollah" over the anti-semitic series were television people--but your ASSERTION was that it was official HEZBOLLAH people who were upset, and that these people were upset enough, AND powerful enough within Hezbollah, to have an investigation launched.

Those are serious and important assertions. You never have backed them up, and now you say you refuse to!
WHO were those--alleged--Hezbollah "liberals" We cannot know because NOW you REFUSE even to NAME YOUR SOURCES, which is something you ALWAYS demand of everyone else (and of course I always cite specific sources anyway). But, Omar-- WHAT hypocrisy!

You said these shadowy people had an "investigation" launched. Well, if so, WHY did it fail to stop the series, which went on through 29 episodes? And WHY did it fail to stop the vile anti-semitism the next year, in 2004, which led to official Hezbollah tv being banned from France? Those are important questions, regarding the depths of HA anti-semitism.

I ask you to engage in some ANALYSIS here on those questions. But YOU REFUSE EVEN TO NAME YOUR SOURCES, let alone anyone whom THEY might have named within Hezbollah as "liberals." Again--WHAT HYPOCRISY!

The rules here on evidence during argument here in the West hold for everyone, Omar. You are not exempt. You demand specific names and dates--yet simultaneously YOU REFUSE even to name your own sources, let alone name the people THEY allegedly were talking about! And you expect to get away with this?

The only acceptable reason for you not to name your sources is that you are afraid that if you NAMED your sources they would be in physical danger--in danger, that is, from your 'non-anti-semitic' Hezbollah friends. If tha is the case, you should admit it--and admit the implications.
If that's NOT the case, then you have no reason not to name your sources, AND the names of the people they claimed to be talking about within Hezbollah. Or did you simply fail even to ask THAT question?

In short, by now refusing to name your sources you have once more shamed yourself here.

2. Are you going to answer my questions about the specific powers over the individual of the Muslim state you envision? This is important so we can understand your position on the powers of the Muslim state.
3. Are you going to talk about the execution of 16-year old Rajabi by the judge in Iran? This is important so we can understand your position on the powers of the Muslim state.
4. Are you going to talk about the Mt. Scopus massacre? Have you researched it yet? This is an important test of your intellectual honesty.
4. Are you going to talk about whether you support the idea that women's testimony in court, as per Muslim tradition (I'm not saying this is the Koran), has only half the evidentiary value as men's? This is important so we can understand your position on the nature of the Muslim state.
5. Are you going to talk about the Mt. Scopus massacre? Have you researched it yet?

A. M. Eckstein - 9/8/2006

None of the above explains explicitly what your own position is on the question of how far a Muslim state should go in the enforcement of all-embracing Sharia law upon individuals' conduct of their lives in your "Muslim state".

One way to help us understand your position here would be for you to give your position on the hanging in Iran of the 16-year old girl Atefeh Rajabi for having "a sharp tongue" in court--thereby violating Muslim customs on the submissiveness of women. She was hung, from a crane, in the public square, by the presiding judge personally. Do you approve, or not?

Again, another way to help us understand would be to answer whether you accept the Muslim tradition that a woman's testimony in court should count only half that of a man's. A magazine editor in Afghanistan was arrested and threatened with the death-penalty a year ago for criticizing this tradition. And that's in post-Taliban Afghanistan! What's your position on this issue? This will help us understand your general approach.

Have you bothered to look up the Mt. Scopus massacre? Are you going to?

You STILL answer nothing about your shadowy nameless "Hezbollah" liberals who were upset at the "anti-semitic aspects" of the terrible series shown on official Hezbollah tv in 2003, although--as we have seen so often--you are very quick to demand specifics from others about facts that make YOU uncomfortable. This hypocrisy is truly shameful, Omar.

Omar, I ask again: WHO were these "liberals" who were "upset" at the anti-semitism of the "al Shatat" broadcasts? WHEN did they become upset? WHO did they speak to in authority about the "al Shatat" broadcasts? Did they speak to ANYONE in authority about it--or did they remain silent to those in authority, and if they remained silent, why? In general, WHY were they unable to stop those broadcasts, which went on night after night after night--or the ones the next year, in 2004, that got official Hezbollah tv banned from France on grounds of anti-semitism?

A. M. Eckstein - 9/8/2006

Exactly, N.F.! That was well-said, and that was all I was saying by the phrase "whatever happened at Deir Yassin." I wasn't denying that a massacre occurred. By the way, the Jewish Agency immediately apologized for what occurred. WHEN has an Arab government apologized for the masscres inflicted on Jews--either then (as with the Mt. Scopus massacre four days after Deir Yassin, an incident which of course Omar is ignorant of) or now?

It's Omar and his friends who consistently deny the obvious,not us.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/8/2006

Patrick--the April 8, 1998 reference is not to anything written by ME, but to a previous report on the national McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS, which is generally viewed as the most intellectual and respected of all national news programs. I should have made that clear.

The March 13, 2000 material is also from that same national PBS news hour program. Very respectable. It was followed by the well known correspondent Ray Suarez's colloquy with ordinary Americans about whether the Church had apologized for itself ENOUGH.

The national reporter here reports that "in the Vatican's own words," the mass on the Day of Pardon was to ask forgiveness for the sins of the Church.

Even the "forgive violence in the service of truth" remark which you cite actuallly refers to the Church itself, not only to ordinary Christians, for it was the Church that encouraged the violence.

This is enough evidence to establish my point prima facie that the Vatican apologized for the Church as an institution, enough to establish this especially on a topic designed to CHANGE the topic and get your Islamofascist friend Omar off the hot-seat.

By the way, Patrick, are YOU now doubting that the New Yorker 2002 interviews with the Hezbollah figures--figures who are NAMED, each and every one, two of them from al-Manar, and whose vile statements are then backed by the anti-semitic ACTIONS, broacasts of al-Manar in 2003 and 2004--are you now saying this is all FICTIONAL? Is that what you are reduced to? Is THAT how you propose to defend Omar? Talk about an argument from desperation!

Are you now arguing that I "dreamed up" the 29-episodes of the vilest anti-semitic slander that was put out during Ramadan 2003 by al-Manar? Not even OMAR went that far!! And are you minimizing this incident, in which the vilest anti-semitic slanders were run for a month on Hezbollah tv during the holiest period of the Islamic year by calling it merely a "Jewish soap opera"? Amazing--not even OMAR denied the, um, "anti-semitic aspects" here!!
.
Simply amazing.

N. Friedman - 9/8/2006

Omar,

I do not expect you to accept anything. However, it is to be noted that there are legitimate questions about what occurred at Deir Yassin, as there are about any other event which has occurred historically.

Now, even accepting wholesale the event as asserted by most Palestinian Arabs - which is based on Zionist scholarship -, it is only one massacre and, as massacres go, it was a small one, especially in the context of the 1940's. But, obviously, it is not a good thing that people are killed.

Now, there were massacres on both sides during the time that Israel came into being, both sides committed massacres. And both sides displaced people. That happens in war. It is unfortunate but that happens.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

Having disposed of Patrick (see "FACTS, FACTS, FACTS again), let us not be distracted by his attempt to change the subject and save his Islamofascist friend Omar from being on the hot seat.

OMAR, answer the questions we have posed to you.

1. Including mine about the judicial murder of a 16 year old girl in the name of Islam because "she had a sharp tongue" in court. Is this the kind of Islamic state you find "sound in principle"?

OMAR, these questions are meant to elicit explicit responses from you. I tend to agree with N.F. that your response to the following question, on the nature of the totalitarian state you prefer, is becoming quite clear::

2. OMAR clearly did state his preferences when he wrote, with reference to the re-establishment of a Muslim state:
"The principle is sound; it worked magnificently in the past, for a short period. How it will work in the future , since no Moslem, in the sense of total application of “sharia”, state exists now, remains to be seen if and when they , the Islamists but not exclusively, if at all, Al Qaeda, have one."

But perhaps you can clear this up for us.

3. You are saying that Islam is perfect, it sounds like to me--and therefore no criticism can have an honest basis, esp. if it comes from non-Muslims. You need to consider that your reaction to reasonable questions, given the enormous violence against innocent civilians all over the world that is being done IN the name of Islam, is--instead of answering reasonable questions-- to savagely question the motives of the questioners. Don't you see the intellectual problem here? You don't respond to the issues. Don't you see how you shame the Muslim intellectual tradition by acting in this way?

4. And WHEN are you going to name for me--as I have always given specific names to you--these so-far shadowy "Hesbollah liberals" who were "upset" about 29 episodes of vile sewer Medieval anti-semitism presented on al-Manar (official Hezbollah) television? Did they actually protest to anybody? Who? When? And why do you suppose they not only had no effect in stopping the sewer of "Jews eat Christian babies" savage slander in 2003, but were unable to stop equal sewer material from appearing on al-Manar in 2004--material so bad that it got al-Manar banned from France on grounds of anti-semitism? HOW COME these people were ineffective in stopping this primitive vile anti-semitism from appearing--by official decision--on official Hezbollah tv? You STILL, after two weeks, have not even attempted to answer this question.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

Patrick writes: "The Roman Catholic Church has never, ever acknowledged any sins of the church itself."

To which I cite the following:

A PAPAL APOLOGY

March 13, 2000

Following a background report, Ray Suarez leads a discussion on whether the Pope's Sunday apology for church sins was broad enough to satisfy other faiths.
.

JIM LEHRER: There was an extraordinary event in Rome yesterday as Pope John Paul II issued an apology for errors of his church over the last 2000 years. Our coverage begins with a report from Peter Morgan of Independent Television News.

PETER MORGAN: The pope's "Day of Pardon" mass was designed, in the Vatican's words, to ask forgiveness for the past and present sins of the Church. Pope John Paul wants Catholics to reexamine their consciences in the new millennium. His homily did not single out specific periods or groups in history but a plea to forgive the use of violence in the service of truth was a subtle reference to the brutal excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

And I add:

April 8, 1998:
The Vatican apologizes for its silence during the Holocaust.

FACTS, FACTS, FACTS

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

Nice post. And, Omar should answer questions although he clearly did state his preferences when he wrote, with reference to the re-establishment of a Muslim state:
The principle is sound; it worked magnificently in the past, for a short period. How it will work in the future , since no Moslem, in the sense of total application of “sharia”, state exists now, remains to be seen if and when they , the Islamists but not exclusively, if at all, Al Qaeda, have one.

That is not bad for this website. I think we have a pretty good idea where Omar stands.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

1. The Roman Catholic Church does not consider itself perfect. It has publicly apologized for the recent pederasty scandal; it has publicly apologized for past financial scandals; it has expressed concern about the conduct of Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust; it has even apologized for the Crusades!

FACTS, FACTS, FACTS

2. As for Judaism, Jews can't even agree on what it IS, both in terms of doctrine and requirements. There are at least three main branches, and they disagree about all sorts of things.

FACTS, FACTS, FACTS--an area you're really weak in, Patrick.

As for persecution, never mind the Middle Ages: I'd like Omar to explain why a judge in Iran PERSONALLY HUNG a 16-year old girl (Atefeh Rajabi) from a crane in the public square of his town, because she dared to talk back to him in court, thereby violating the proper (submissive) role of women in Islam: "she had a sharp tongue," he explained. This didn't happen in the Middle Ages. This happened two years ago. And it was done in the name of Islam. Please explain this, Omar. You know, things like that don't actually happen in the West.

BUT IN ANY CASE, PATRICK, PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO GET YOUR ISLAMOFASCIST FRIEND OMAR OFF THE HOT-SEAT BY CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

It's a classic debater's trick when you have a weak case, made worse in your case by the fact that you didn't even have the facts right. As usual.

OMAR--ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

Professor,

Well, I do not think myself cruel but then again, you could be correct.

I do not disagree with your assessment that the regimes in question are vile. I question the importation of terms that are unnecessary - and not a complete fit anyway but which, in fact, suggest a Western influence which is far less than meets the eye - to describe the reality that is.

I do, by the way agree with you that there are modernizing elements in places like Iran and even in Afghanistan. But, the Jihad against those regimes and us is a Jihad: nothing more and nothing less.

And Jihad is a thing of its own, an institution central to classical Islamic theology - and still taught today in places such as al-Azhar -, in fulfillment of devine commands to spread Muslim rule until the entire world is ruled by Muslims in accordance with Shari'a.

After that, one might note Western influences on Islamic thinking - as, for example, Paul Berman attempts, only in part successsfully, to do -.

Jihadism is not not something confined to the 7th Century. It is not to be forgotten that the last great Jihad was largely turned around as recently as 1683 - September 11, 1683 to be more exact - at the Gates of Vienna.

As for the cruelties of life under Islam - and please everyone note carefully that I am well aware that life for non-Christians under Christian rule, etc., etc. was also dismal -, as recently as the beginning of the 19th Century, Britain had to negotiate regarding the clothing to be worn by Jewish visitors (from Grenada I believe) into the Ottoman Empire, with the Ottoman Empire arguing that Britain did not have standing to negotiate (because the government of Britain was Christian), due to the requirements applicable to dhimmi Jews from an area once ruled by Muslims.

Which is to say, groups like the Taliban seek restoration and revival of Islam as it was recently, not in the 7th Century and they, as with all people, seek power. One should call it a form of extreme religious reactionarism.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

NF, I think we disagree somewhat about the INHERENT totalitarianism of Islam. You are harsher here than I am.

My point is merely that the results of the Islamist regimes in Afghanistan and Iran are totalitarian states, often with modern means of enforcement (as in Iran), and esp. of communications (as with the vile Hezbollah television station). Thus it is not a complete return to the seventh century; there are (as with the Nazis) modernizing aspects to these regimes. The use of the terms "totalitarian" and "Islamofascist", while admittedly not intellectually very rigorous and imports from Europe, nevertheless serves to get this point across.

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

Mr. Thomas,

With due respect, bombing an apartment building and killing millions of people are not remotely the same thing. I do not accept your premise. And, I might add: in war, people unfortunately die but, given that there have been literally countless wars in history, it makes no sense to call all wars eliminationist - which is actually what your argument is -.

Which is to say, your comment is a nonsense comment.

Frederick Thomas - 9/7/2006

When you bomb densely peopled apartment blocks with precision weaponry, you only want to do one thing-to kill those within. Why is that so hard to understand?

When you precision bomb "terrorists" with groups of schoolchildren all around, without a single thought ever to the schoolchildren, and do it hundreds of times over many years, those acts are eliminationist.

I understand that you identify with the Zionists, but you must admit that they are a) murderers and b) a human rights and PR disaster.

These awful criminal policies were invented by David Ben Gurion and presented to the WZO in 1935, where they were approved by the great criminal conspiracy there present.

That meeting was even more evil than the famous Wannsee conference. The mass murder of the Palestinians has been done in very cold blood, 110,000 in the year 1947 alone.

I find the comic book exaggeration of German sins laughable in view of what the Germans' "victims" have done to the Palestinians, and you should too.

The only reason why we have not seen gas chambers or worse in Gaza is that the Zionists think they can't pull it off from the PR standpoint, so they kill 'em a couple of dozen at the time.

For shame.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

"OMAR A2:
All religions believe they are perfect; otherwise why exist at all?
Islam and Islamists are no different.
Re criticizing Islam: it depends WHO is doing that and WHY is he doing that.
To denigrate or to reform?"

1. Folks, the first two sentences from Omar here are stunning examples of the thought-world we are dealing with. Omar clearly believes that Islam is perfect.

2. Since Omar obviously also believes that NO non-Muslim can criticize Islam from honest motives (and Islam, anyway, is perfect), THAT bit of sophistry about "why do you ask this?", EXEMPTS him from ever having to answer the specific hard questions on out-of-control Islamist violence--against Jews, Christians, and Hindus, and all of them innocent civilians--that have been put to him. Do these acts or don't they emerge from within the principles of Islam? I'm not making a judgment on this question (though N. F. has). I'm just pointing out the nature of Omar's response: instead of offering an ANSWER to those difficult questions, Omar's response is always to savagely question the motives of the person ASKING such difficult questions.

You can have no better example of persistent intellectual dishonesty. The tragedy, I fear, is that Omar doesn't even realize he is being intellectually dishonest.

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

CORRECTION: The laws governing non-Jews are as follows:

1. No worship of false gods.
2. murder.
3. No theft or kipnapping.
4. No sexual immorality (e.g. incest, bestiality, sodomy, and adultery.)
5. No blasphemy.
6. No flesh eating
7. A requirement to set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws.

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

Professor,

But, what occurred in Afghanistan under the Taliban - from veiling to marking non-Muslims - is part and parcel of the Muslim tradition, as it has always been until the West conquered the Muslim regions and brought in laws that were more humane.

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

Omar,

You write: A Moslem state does necessarily have to be “totalitarian”! It will depend how well the “shoura” system will work in practice.
The principle is sound; it worked magnificently in the past, for a short period. How it will work in the future , since no Moslem, in the sense of total application of “sharia”, state exists now, remains to be seen if and when they , the Islamists but not exclusively, if at all, Al Qaeda, have one.

While it is true that a Muslim state worked for Muslims, it is rather difficult to imagine that the noted state worked quite as well for non-Muslims. Such people were, as you surely know, for the most part conquered against their will and became the source of funds to support the ideal Muslim community. Or, in simple terms, the Muslims were overlords who conceived of themselves, but never their subjects, as equals.

I trust you would prefer I not cited the rather large number of Muslim sources for you to show, for our less knowledgeable readers, how non-Muslims are supposed to be treated in Islam. I shall, however, limit myself to one source - it being the most important source (i.e. the Qu'ran) and a verse which abbrogates all other verses on the topic in issue: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Sura 9:29.

As you are or should be well aware, this Sura is central to forming the relation of overlord to subject in Islamic theology. Which is to say, I think you are conceiving a fantasy based on an historic distortion that confuses self-agrandizement with egalitarianism.

As for your rendition of Jewish law, I suggest you read a book before you cite nonsense. The inequality that exists in Jewish law, contrary to what you believe, holds non-Jews to fewer laws than Jews are held to. Specifically, non-Jews are bound only to:

1. No worship of false gods.
2. murder.
3. theft and kipnapping.
4. No sexual immorality (e.g. incest, bestiality, sodomy, and adultery.)
5. No blasphemy.
6. No flesh eating
7. Requirement to set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws.

Unlike Islam, in Judaism "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Which is to say, you misunderstand the distinction drawn by Jews between Jews and non-Jews. And, since non-Jews are governed by their own laws, you misunderstand the Jewish view about how non-Jews should be punished.

As for the massacre of doctors, it is a well known event that is well documented. It is more commonly known as the Hadassah medical convoy massacre

In that most of what occured in the Arab Israeli conflict comes from Zionist writers - whether the writer is interested in highlighting Jewish suffering only or both that of Jews and Arabs or only Arab suffering -, what you are saying is that you prefer ignorance to truth.

I am - for purposes of humor - willing to discard all Zionist writers to make you happy. But consider: apart from these Zionist writers, the suffering, if any, of Palestinian Arabs would have gone unnoticed by the world. As it is, such writers have largely exagerated the evidence to goad the Israeli government into being more generous to Palestinian Arabs than the facts actually merit. The more neutral interpretation of the facts is that Palestinian Arabs largely made their own troubles by failing to seek compromises that were always available.

Frankly, Omar, when you say you will not read what a Zionist reads, you are calling yourself a bigot.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

1. The massacre of the 77 Israeli medical personell--which you HAVEN'T heard of, or I wouldn't have to name it for you!--is called the Mt. Scopus Massacre. This is also called the Haddassah Medical Convoy Massacre. Look it up. It occurred right after Deir Yassin.

2. If you point is really that any one suicide bombing doesn't equal what occurs in war, so what? . It's an idiotic point when given the totality of suicide bombing casualties in Israel--intentional murder of civilians, including especially school-children on busses--between 2000 and 2006, which far outnumbers Deir Yassin.

3. Deir Yessin happened, and so did many other atrocities in 1948-1949 by both sides. At Deir Yessin, however, the victims had weapons,and fought hard all day; then occurred a massacre of some of the surrendered (about 1/7 of the town, about 100-120 people) by out-of-control Israeli guerrillas (not the regular army, Palmach, which despised them). That doesn't justify what occurred after the battle not at all--though even residents of Deir Yassin were saying in the 1990s in Arab media that it had been greatly exaggerated by the Arab press--but that fact of armed combatants is not true of the Mt. Scopus Massacre. This is another case where people such as yourself are very good at feeling the victim while forgetting what Muslims have done.

4. I know perfectly well what al-Qaeda is, and I was talking about its philosophy--whether you adhered to it. Sounds like in good part you do, though your answers are quite evasive when I asked you to be explcit.

5. You STILL answer nothing about your shadowy "Hezbollah" liberals, though--as we see in no. 1--you are very quick to demand specifics from others about facts that make YOU uncomfortable. This hypocrisy is truly shameful, Omar.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

Dear NF,

As actually practiced in Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iran under the mullahs, at Fallujah, Iraq, when under the control of al-Qaeda types in 2004, and in S, Lebanon and parts of Beirut while under Hezbollah, we are talking--whatever the theoretical differences about what Islam could be, or has been in the past--we are talking in these cases (and these cases only) of totalitarian states.
As near to "1984" as Orwell envisioned. For women, worse than the "1984" that Orwell envisioned.

That's my point.

N. Friedman - 9/7/2006

Professor,

You write: "If you are in favor of the imposition of totalitarian Sharia law, then you are close enough to being a fascist for me to apply the term."

I think that, to put the kindest spin on it, is not your fairest comment. Shari'a is the law derived from the various Muslim holy books and the practices of Muslim scholars through the ages. While it is fair to call Shari'a a totality, as it addresses all aspects of life, it is really wrong and, in my view, ill-considered to confuse a totality with totalitarianism.

Were I Muslim, I would take your viewpoint as suggesting that you believe Islam itself to be totalitarian religion as, in fact, there is no real Islam without Shari'a - at least not thus far -.

Now, that is different from suggesting, as I would, that Shari'a. as currently conceived (in all the major juristic schools) is not remotely consistent with modern standards of morality, law, etc., etc. And that is different from suggesting, as I would, that the treatment afforded non-Muslims under Islam is, by any modern standards, appalling. And that is different from suggesting, as I would, that Jihad, as a mandatory communal obligation of the Muslim nation (i.e. umma) to spread Muslim rule throughout the world - or, in Islamic terminology, to the red and the black - is, by modern standards, appalling. However, to claim that Shari'a, without regard to its content and as a blanket statement, is totalitarian goes way, way too far.

I think we should stay out of demonizing other religions in their entirety and focus on the specific practices and teaching of such religions that are out of conformity with modern standards or that are otherwise offensive.

That, not totalitarian nonsense, is the issue we face with Muslims. Which is to say, those who lead or who support the Muslim religious revival have their heads in the 13th Century. And, the 13th Century mindset is intolerant and Islam, conceived as an immutable religion is rather dangerous but if Muslims wish to learn from the experience of mankind - and not merely dominate others, as a doctrinal necessity (which is the traditional as well as the current view among the ulema and mullah) -, there is no dispute. There would then be a basis for a serious dialogue.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

If you are a supporter of the goals of al-Qaeda--a question you still avoid--then you are close enough to being a fascist for me to apply the term.

If you are in favor of the imposition of totalitarian Sharia law, then you are close enough to being a fascist for me to apply the term. Omar, I've talked about this several times on the blog. Islamofascist isn't an exact term--but it's close enough.

You appear to support Hezbollah. They are anti-semites who use the fascist salute.

Does that mean they are European fascists? No. But as I said, as a term of art to describe Islamic totalitarianism, a totalitarianism backed by violence, it will do.

Now--are you going to answer MY questions?

And "a movie" is not the issue. The broadcasting of 29 episodes of this vile medieval sewer anti-semitism during Ramadan 2003 was an OFFICIAL act of Hezbollah. So was the broadcasting of the vile material in 2004 that got Hezbollah tv banned from France as anti-semitic--that was another OFFICIAL act of Hezbollah. You STILL don't know what "primary evidence" is, though James Frusetta tried to explain it to you.

Personal vituperation--I'm in the pay of AIPAC--is not the same as reasonable deduction (you have a favorable attitude towards al-Qaeda and Hezbollah).

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

When I talk about Omar possibly being a supporter of al-Qaeda's goals, I am not making a wild accusation, folks. Here is what Omar wrote on Sept. 6, in regard to that specific question. (It's not his whole statement, but what he wrote regarding that specific question):

by omar ibrahim baker on September 6, 2006 at 3:07 PM
To Simon, Eckstein , Friedman & Co

Q1-"Do you agree with them (OBL, etc)?
A1-Agree re WHAT?
Re their methods?
NO

Q2-Do you believe in the same things they do, or not,
A2-What do you mean by "the same things"?
Do I believe in their "methods"?
NO

Draw your own conclusions.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/7/2006

Omar, you must learn how to READ. I answered the question about my motives long ago, on Sept. 5. When E. Simon wrote HIS analysis on Sept. 5 of what he thought was going, I then said in the next entry that he had my motives correctly.

To save you time, here is what Simon wrote:

"by E. Simon on September 5, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Omar, perhaps it's possible that these guys are after nothing of which you vehemently accuse them and merely pointing out problems that some may wonder if they exist in Islam as a belief system. Perhaps you think or assume that Islam does not have any problems as a belief system and is perfect and sublime and always will be until the end of days. I suppose that's all fine and well for you to think that, but if you do, you must account for why people such as Mohammed Atta, Osama bin Laden, the Chechen hostage-takers in Beslan, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, Bali, India (multiple times and for a much longer history), etc., all appealed to what they said was the same belief system as some kind of justification for their acts. Do you agree with them? Do you believe in the same things they do, or not, and if not, are they wrong or aren't they?"

I then said, right afterwards on Sept. 5, that Simon had my motives correctly. They are very simple and are as Simon describes them.

So I answred that question, just as I gave the specifc names and specific dates of specific Hezbollah anti-semitic statements and acts when we began that argument--an important entry you seemed to have MISSED because you evidently don't know how to READ carefully, substituting for facts the unwarrented and false accusation that I have never given names and dates. Such conduct does not do you any credit here.

Omar, personal vituperation is NO substitute for presenting facts. Perhaps you have never learned this, but you must learn this. Here in the West, we LIKE facts and evidence. Personal vituperation and unwarrented accusations (like I am in the pay of AIPAC) are NO substitute for rational argument backed by facts. In fact they severely undermine your credibility, and such conduct defames Islam.

Every statement I have made has been backed by specific facts from the very beginning. None has every been proven historically wrong. The same cannot be said for you.

Your problem is that you don't KNOW many facts, and are also incapable of ABSORBING facts that run contrary to your profoundly emotional world-view. So you strike out instead in personal vituperation, rather than answering specific difficult questions. But you are NOT exempt on this blog from the rules of debate--rules that emphasize weight of evidence andlogic of argument--rules that we all follow. You must follow them too.

The real hypocrisy here is that YOU are the one who refuses to answer questions. Again, two specific examples:

1. I have asked you multiple times who these "Hezbollah liberals" are who were "upset" when official Hezbollah tv broadcast TWENTY-NINE episodes in 2003 of the vilest medieval anti-semitism. The decision to broadcast this vile material, and during the holiest Muslim month, was an official decision of Hezbollah (as was the decision to broadcast the different but equally vile anti-semitic material that got Hezbollah tv banned from France in 2004 for anti-semitism). While demanding specific names and dates from ME, which I have always given from the beginning (you just have a hard time READING carefully), you have NEVER answred by repeated question here. Who were these people? When did they speak out, and where? Most importantly: WHY were they TOTALLY ineffective in stopping the vilest sewer-antisemitism from being presented on Hezbollah tv night after night after night after night?.
You have never answered me, though I have repeatedly asked--while simultaneously you have angrily demanded names and dates of Hezbollah anti-semitic statements and actions as if I had never given them to you. But I did--right at the beginning. Such behavior makes you look ridiculous, Omar.

2. Answer the question we have put to you: do you support the GOALS of al-Qaeda? That is, do you support a worldwide Islamic totalitarianism based on the all-embracing and all-intrusive Sharia Law? Is it just that you find some of al-Qaeda's ruthlessly violent METHODS a little suspect, primarily because they are counter-productive, although you also "understand " them? is that your position? You support al-Qaeda's goals, just differ a little on their methods? Please answer this question. Be explicit. You have so far avoided being clear. We need to know the sort of person we are discussing things with.

Yehudi Amitz - 9/6/2006

Took me about 45 minutes and I'll make you happy once a week with what I programmed using the google API. I am one of these Jews making money in computers. The intellectual level, here, is quite low so I'll try to restrain myself to statistics.

N. Friedman - 9/6/2006

Frederick,

That is a pretty low comment. There is no eliminationist policy - as in exterminating people wholesale - on the part of the Israelis and you know it.

Frederick Thomas - 9/6/2006

Don't give me your "yeshiva dropout" line of argumentation.

The quotes from the Talmud predate the Koran by 700 years, and are presented to the world by some Jews as more authoritative than the Torah.

So what is your point? That they are not vile and racist because they are Jewish? But the Muslim quotes are somehow worse? If that is your point, then the radical racist side is at least clearly identified. YOU!

A. M. Eckstein - 9/6/2006

Omar, are you saying you agree with the GOALS of al-Qaeda, namely a totalitarian Muslim state, just not its METHODS, though you "understand" them?

Please be clear. We need to know whether we are talking to a person who believes in the totalitarian GOALS of al-Qaeda but just has some problems with its more violent methods.

You didn't answer most of E. Simon's questions concerning the nature of Islam as perfect, and any criticism of it--criticism which is actually quite normal, reasonable and restrained, given Islam's violent history of conquest and considering that it is from within Islam and in the name of Islam that so many savage attacks on civilians are coming--as amounting to "demonization" and even "destruction". Rational questioning and criticism is not the same as demonization, let alone destruction.

As for Muslim and al-Qaeda terrorism, you state:

Many more innocent, noncombatant civilian Palestinian Arabs died at the hands of the Zionist gangs ,that became the government of Israel, at Deir Yassin and lately at Qannaa than in any pizzeria bomb etc, etc, etc.

This is factually wrong. The number of dead at Deir Yassin (1948), whatever exactly happened there 50 years ago, is generally put at 100-120. The first Qana episode (about 120 dead) was a horrible accident of war, for which the Isaelis have apologized. The second Qana episode, in which 28 people were killed: since Hazbollah was firing missiles from right behind that builiding which contained civilians (and which did not collapse until eight hours after being hit in response), the responsibility for these civilian deaths is totally THEIRS. Meanwhile, the number of Israeli civilians intentionally murdered in the Second Intifada, between 2000 and 2006, is 694. That is seven times Deir Yassin, and everyone admits that the Muslim suicide bombings intentionally targetted helpless civilians, including the use of ball-bearings laced with rat poison. So--what a surprise--you are factually wrong on the scale of civilian casualties.

By the way, Deir Yassin was followed by the massacre almost immediately of 77 unarmed Jewish medical personel on a road near Jerusalem. My guess is that you never heard of this massacre.

Frederick Thomas - 9/6/2006

Learn a little history, Zionazi.

Perhaps if you truly disliked Nazi policies you could persuade your Irgun murderer buddies to stop emulating them. Based upon the Israeli policies which you support unquestionably, you must really love what the Nazis did. It's the same stuff.

Carpetbombing civilian apartment buildings in Lebanon? Lots worse, garlic breath, than the Nazi bombing of Warsaw.

Your comic book treatment of history precludes your ever learning anything from it.

Yehudi Amitz - 9/6/2006

hnn.us google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:22:30 2006

1) About 14300 search results for "israel" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:33 2006.
2) About 7300 search results for "israeli" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:34 2006.
3) About 2930 search results for "palestine" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:35 2006.
4) About 4950 search results for "palestinian" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:36 2006.
5) About 4680 search results for "israelis" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:37 2006.
6) About 3920 search results for "palestinians" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:38 2006.
7) About 307 search results for "jenin" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:39 2006.
8) About 1080 search results for "intifada" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:40 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 39467

1) About 17 search results for "ruanda" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:40 2006.
2) About 1010 search results for "rwanda" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:41 2006.
3) About 83 search results for "tutsi" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:42 2006.
4) About 134 search results for "tutsis" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:43 2006.
5) About 660 search results for "darfur" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:43 2006.
6) About 520 search results for "kashmir" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:44 2006.
7) About 578 search results for "chechnya" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:45 2006.
8) About 241 search results for "cyprus" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:46 2006.
9) About 35 search results for "grozny" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:49 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:hnn.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:53 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 3278

ON Wed Sep 6 11:22:53 2006 a google.com query on the site hnn.us returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 8.306% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

pbs.org google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:22:53 2006
1) About 7420 search results for "israel" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:54 2006.
2) About 3900 search results for "israeli" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:54 2006.
3) About 1630 search results for "palestine" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:55 2006.
4) About 2970 search results for "palestinian" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:56 2006.
5) About 2020 search results for "israelis" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:57 2006.
6) About 2550 search results for "palestinians" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:58 2006.
7) About 148 search results for "jenin" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:22:59 2006.
8) About 370 search results for "intifada" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:03 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 21008

1) About 12 search results for "ruanda" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:03 2006.
2) About 1540 search results for "rwanda" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:04 2006.
3) About 198 search results for "tutsi" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:05 2006.
4) About 224 search results for "tutsis" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:06 2006.
5) About 839 search results for "darfur" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:09 2006.
6) About 519 search results for "kashmir" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:10 2006.
7) About 906 search results for "chechnya" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:11 2006.
8) About 290 search results for "cyprus" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:12 2006.
9) About 315 search results for "grozny" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:13 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:pbs.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:13 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 4843

ON Wed Sep 6 11:23:13 2006 a google.com query on the site pbs.org returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 23.053% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

chnm.gmu.edu google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:23:13 2006
1) About 2550 search results for "israel" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:14 2006.
2) About 123 search results for "israeli" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:15 2006.
3) About 103 search results for "palestine" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:15 2006.
4) About 70 search results for "palestinian" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:16 2006.
5) About 35 search results for "israelis" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:17 2006.
6) About 26 search results for "palestinians" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:18 2006.
7) About 1 search results for "jenin" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:18 2006.
8) About 4 search results for "intifada" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:19 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 2912

1) About 13 search results for "ruanda" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:19 2006.
2) About 173 search results for "rwanda" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:20 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:21 2006.
4) About 1 search results for "tutsis" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:21 2006.
5) About 6 search results for "darfur" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:22 2006.
6) About 24 search results for "kashmir" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:23 2006.
7) About 9 search results for "chechnya" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:24 2006.
8) About 147 search results for "cyprus" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:25 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:25 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:chnm.gmu.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:25 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 373

ON Wed Sep 6 11:23:25 2006 a google.com query on the site chnm.gmu.edu returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 12.809% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

score.rims.k12.ca.us google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:23:25 2006
1) About 68 search results for "israel" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:30 2006.
2) About 23 search results for "israeli" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:31 2006.
3) About 10 search results for "palestine" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:32 2006.
4) About 13 search results for "palestinian" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:32 2006.
5) About 2 search results for "israelis" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:33 2006.
6) About 8 search results for "palestinians" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:34 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "jenin" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:34 2006.
8) About 2 search results for "intifada" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:34 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 126

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:35 2006.
2) About 2 search results for "rwanda" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:35 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:36 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "tutsis" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:38 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "darfur" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:38 2006.
6) About 6 search results for "kashmir" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:39 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "chechnya" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:39 2006.
8) About 6 search results for "cyprus" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:40 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:40 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:score.rims.k12.ca.us query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:41 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 14

ON Wed Sep 6 11:23:41 2006 a google.com query on the site score.rims.k12.ca.us returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 11.111% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:23:41 2006
1) About 58 search results for "israel" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:42 2006.
2) About 13 search results for "israeli" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:43 2006.
3) About 13 search results for "palestine" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:44 2006.
4) About 6 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:44 2006.
5) About 2 search results for "israelis" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:45 2006.
6) About 5 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:45 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "jenin" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:46 2006.
8) About 0 search results for "intifada" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:46 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 97

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:46 2006.
2) About 4 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:47 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:47 2006.
4) About 1 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:48 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "darfur" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:48 2006.
6) About 1 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:49 2006.
7) About 2 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:49 2006.
8) About 2 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:50 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:50 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.digitalhistory.uh.edu query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:51 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 10

ON Wed Sep 6 11:23:51 2006 a google.com query on the site www.digitalhistory.uh.edu returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 10.309% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.bbc.co.uk/history/ google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:23:51 2006
1) About 34 search results for "israel" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:52 2006.
2) About 3 search results for "israeli" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:55 2006.
3) About 42 search results for "palestine" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:56 2006.
4) About 5 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:56 2006.
5) About 1 search results for "israelis" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:23:57 2006.
6) About 1 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:00 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "jenin" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:01 2006.
8) About 0 search results for "intifada" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:01 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 86

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:02 2006.
2) About 11 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:03 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:03 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:03 2006.
5) About 3 search results for "darfur" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:04 2006.
6) About 5 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:05 2006.
7) About 3 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:05 2006.
8) About 11 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:06 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:06 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.bbc.co.uk/history/ query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:09 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 33

ON Wed Sep 6 11:24:09 2006 a google.com query on the site www.bbc.co.uk/history/ returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 38.372% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.bbc.co.uk google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:24:09 2006
1) About 64500 search results for "israel" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:10 2006.
2) About 5070 search results for "israeli" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:11 2006.
3) About 5590 search results for "palestine" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:12 2006.
4) About 5630 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:13 2006.
5) About 749 search results for "israelis" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:13 2006.
6) About 1110 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:14 2006.
7) About 693 search results for "jenin" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:15 2006.
8) About 982 search results for "intifada" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:16 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 84324

1) About 606 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:17 2006.
2) About 4670 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:18 2006.
3) About 258 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:19 2006.
4) About 906 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:19 2006.
5) About 5230 search results for "darfur" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:21 2006.
6) About 1390 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:22 2006.
7) About 710 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:23 2006.
8) About 4830 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:24 2006.
9) About 192 search results for "grozny" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:25 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.bbc.co.uk query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:25 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 18792

ON Wed Sep 6 11:24:25 2006 a google.com query on the site www.bbc.co.uk returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 22.285% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.historyteacher.net google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:24:25 2006
1) About 33 search results for "israel" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:26 2006.
2) About 19 search results for "israeli" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:27 2006.
3) About 19 search results for "palestine" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:27 2006.
4) About 11 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:28 2006.
5) About 5 search results for "israelis" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:29 2006.
6) About 3 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:32 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "jenin" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:33 2006.
8) About 6 search results for "intifada" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:33 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 96

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:34 2006.
2) About 4 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:34 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:35 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:35 2006.
5) About 3 search results for "darfur" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:36 2006.
6) About 7 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:36 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:37 2006.
8) About 6 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:37 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:38 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.historyteacher.net query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:38 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 20

ON Wed Sep 6 11:24:38 2006 a google.com query on the site www.historyteacher.net returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 20.833% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.historychannel.com google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:24:38 2006
1) About 670 search results for "israel" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:39 2006.
2) About 387 search results for "israeli" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:39 2006.
3) About 268 search results for "palestine" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:40 2006.
4) About 191 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:44 2006.
5) About 70 search results for "israelis" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:45 2006.
6) About 48 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:46 2006.
7) About 4 search results for "jenin" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:46 2006.
8) About 10 search results for "intifada" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:47 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 1648

1) About 6 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:48 2006.
2) About 55 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:49 2006.
3) About 13 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:49 2006.
4) About 2 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:50 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "darfur" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:50 2006.
6) About 35 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:54 2006.
7) About 23 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:55 2006.
8) About 59 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:56 2006.
9) About 6 search results for "grozny" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:56 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.historychannel.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:57 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 199

ON Wed Sep 6 11:24:57 2006 a google.com query on the site www.historychannel.com returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 12.075% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.historyplace.com google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:24:57 2006
1) About 37 search results for "israel" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:57 2006.
2) About 14 search results for "israeli" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:58 2006.
3) About 8 search results for "palestine" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:59 2006.
4) About 8 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:24:59 2006.
5) About 3 search results for "israelis" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:00 2006.
6) About 2 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:00 2006.
7) About 1 search results for "jenin" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:00 2006.
8) About 0 search results for "intifada" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:01 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 73

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:01 2006.
2) About 15 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:02 2006.
3) About 5 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:03 2006.
4) About 4 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:03 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "darfur" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:03 2006.
6) About 0 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:04 2006.
7) About 2 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:04 2006.
8) About 1 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:05 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:05 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.historyplace.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:06 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 27

ON Wed Sep 6 11:25:06 2006 a google.com query on the site www.historyplace.com returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 36.986% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.smithsonianeducation.org google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:25:06 2006
1) About 4 search results for "israel" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:06 2006.
2) About 2 search results for "israeli" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:06 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "palestine" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:07 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:07 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "israelis" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:10 2006.
6) About 0 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:10 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "jenin" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:11 2006.
8) About 0 search results for "intifada" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:11 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 6

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:12 2006.
2) About 0 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:12 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:12 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:13 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "darfur" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:13 2006.
6) About 0 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:14 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:14 2006.
8) About 0 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:17 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:17 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.smithsonianeducation.org query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:18 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 0

ON Wed Sep 6 11:25:18 2006 a google.com query on the site www.smithsonianeducation.org returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 0.000% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

www.TheHistoryNet.com google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:25:18 2006
1) About 8 search results for "israel" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:18 2006.
2) About 6 search results for "israeli" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:19 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "palestine" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:19 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "palestinian" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:20 2006.
5) About 2 search results for "israelis" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:20 2006.
6) About 0 search results for "palestinians" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:21 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "jenin" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:21 2006.
8) About 0 search results for "intifada" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:21 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 16

1) About 0 search results for "ruanda" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:22 2006.
2) About 0 search results for "rwanda" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:23 2006.
3) About 0 search results for "tutsi" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:23 2006.
4) About 0 search results for "tutsis" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:24 2006.
5) About 0 search results for "darfur" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:24 2006.
6) About 0 search results for "kashmir" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:24 2006.
7) About 0 search results for "chechnya" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:25 2006.
8) About 1 search results for "cyprus" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:25 2006.
9) About 0 search results for "grozny" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:26 2006.
10) About 0 search results for "janjuid" on site:www.TheHistoryNet.com query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:26 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 1

ON Wed Sep 6 11:25:26 2006 a google.com query on the site www.TheHistoryNet.com returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 6.250% from the Israel/Palestine results

=======================================================================================

English language google.com statistics for: Wed Sep 6 11:25:28 2006

1) About 519,000,000 search results for "israel" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:34 2006.
2) About 143,000,000 search results for "israeli" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:35 2006.
3) About 68,100,000 search results for "palestine" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:36 2006.
4) About 84,500,000 search results for "palestinian" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:36 2006.
5) About 15,600,000 search results for "israelis" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:37 2006.
6) About 29,900,000 search results for "palestinians" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:38 2006.
7) About 1,560,000 search results for "jenin" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:42 2006.
8) About 5,380,000 search results for "intifada" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:43 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 867,040,000

1) About 746,000 search results for "ruanda" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:43 2006.
2) About 123,000,000 search results for "rwanda" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:44 2006.
3) About 1,800,000 search results for "tutsi" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:44 2006.
4) About 589,000 search results for "tutsis" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:45 2006.
5) About 31,400,000 search results for "darfur" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:46 2006.
6) About 22,700,000 search results for "kashmir" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:47 2006.
7) About 6,390,000 search results for "chechnya" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:48 2006.
8) About 169,000,000 search results for "cyprus" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:48 2006.
9) About 1,070,000 search results for "grozny" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:49 2006.
10) About 9 search results for "janjuid" on English language sites, query executed on Wed Sep 6 11:25:50 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 356,695,009

ON Wed Sep 6 11:25:50 2006 a google.com query on the on English language sites
returns a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 41.139 % from the Israel/Palestine results

A. M. Eckstein - 9/6/2006

Dear E. Simon,

Yes, Ebbitt isn't important, so-called "trial balloons" being so easily disproved by FACTS.

Let us await now Omar. Let us see if he can respond to your very penetrating questions. Your analysis of what I and Friedman were trying to do is exact. Whether Omar can respond to your questions--well, let us see. But you did an excellent job.

OMAR: that's E. Simon's questions to you posted at 12:26 p.m., today, Sept. 5. PLEASE ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS!

E. Simon - 9/5/2006

And putting them into context.

So now your message that "Islam is just as fake as Judaism or Christianity" was not a "point" that you were trying to make?

Why not tell us what you really meant? I wonder if you are capable of doing so.

I'll leave it at that, just so you don't get confused as to who's personalizing things.

E. Simon - 9/5/2006

Hi Prof. Eckstein,

I don't engage Ebbitt due to his proven track record on this message board of relying on defamatory and anti-semitic statements to disparage and manipulate others. And I wouldn't have stepped in here were it not for the following statement:

"Islam is just as fake as Judaism or Christianity."

For someone to throw this kind of a statement out as a deflection for another's denial and deflection in regards to addressing potential failings within Islam, wouldn't be noteworthy were it not for:

1) Charges of deicide as a way to intimidate a Jewish poster:

Why Did You ??? (#96710)
by Patrick M. Ebbitt on September 3, 2006 at 12:20 AM
Kill Jesus that is..

2) Empathy with specifically Christian victims in the latest Lebanese-Israeli war:

Dan Halutz Yells Fore... (#95768)
by Patrick M. Ebbitt on August 17, 2006 at 9:46 PM

...............................................................
And my tax dollars go to this? It's bad enough our elected officials rob us now, I support foreign thieves to murder innocent Christians off the sweat of my back.

3) In previous conversations with Omar, Ebbitt has emphasized the Christian origin of whatever sympathy he might have had to the biblical history of Israel in legitimizing its political existence, and not in a way to suggest that he was in conflict over it.

I think the conflicting messages between his current statement here and previous statements suggest something called "cynicism." While Omar's denials are just as inexcusable to the cause of empiric inquiry, his stance might reflect a cultural bias that Ebbitt can't claim. Ebbitt's willingness to disparage religion generally when it suits his argument while alternating between engaging Christian appeals AS WELL AS traditionally Christian anti-semitic charges in his ad hominems and other responses, suggests a sense of dishonesty, that unlike Omar's, is not merely intellectual in nature. It's a form of personal dishonesty. And it's very transparent.

It's for reasons like this, (as well as for the nasty and outlandish nature of his ad hominems) that I have decided to no longer engage him.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2006

Sorry, that's E. Simon's ACUTE questions to Omar.

Well, Omar? Will you answer E. Simon's penetrating questions?

I certainly hope so. They are exact and to the point.

Yehudi Amitz - 9/5/2006

Don't give me skinhead argumentation. My point is that the Moslem anti-Jewish behavior is as old as the Koran.
The link I gave isn't interpretive but a real translation of the Koran and I believe it's a better site because gives 3 parallel translations of the Arab text.

Yehudi Amitz - 9/5/2006

Sure, your German spelling is korrect (sic) and normal for a white supremacist trying to justify German crimes.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2006

Somalia has no oil.
Kossovo has no oil
Bosnia has no oil

"Do you see the US intervening in Moslem countries without OIL?" That was Patrick's question. It's been answered.

We "cut and ran" from Somolia because just as the images of starving Somalis led Bush Sr. to act & send in the Marines, so the images of U.S. soldiers being dragged through the streets by (we now know) al-Qaeda operatives caused such a revulsion in the Democratic-controlled Congress that Clinton withdrew. Period.

But enough. Let us await with baited breath the response of Omar Ibrahim Baker to the acuse questions asked of him by E. Simon.

Those are the answers I'm waiting for.

Well, Omar?

E. Simon - 9/5/2006

You mean, aside from making the mistake of thinking that there was something to be honestly gained by responding to you?

A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2006

Peter,

You can't back off that way. You asked, sneeringly, for examples of U.S. military interventions in Muslim lands that were NOT connected with oil. I quoted your (sneering) question. I gave you three examples.

Those three were outright and large U.S. military interventions, with large and indeed continuing financial costs in the case of Bosnia and Kossovo, though (as it happened) few casualties.

As for oil in the future, at some point the price of oil will reach a level where the enormous oil shale reserves of Canada will become economically viable for export. They are HUGE.

Once more, then, Peter, you are factually mistaken. However, as you say, this is a matter for another page.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2006

Patrick--"Do you see the U.S. intervening in any Muslim countries without oil?"

YES--in Somalia in 1992 (to save Muslim people from starvation), in Bosnia in 1995 (to stop genocide against Muslims) and in Kossovo in 1999 (to stop potential genocide against Muslims).

The U.S. actually gets little oil from the Middle East: Japan does, and of course Europe. Our oil comes mostly from Mexico, Venezuela, and Canada.

FACTS FACTS FACTS

.

Frederick Thomas - 9/5/2006

These are simply manifestations of the tendencies of racially oriented populations to be racist in their religious expression as well, and God know the Middle East has had some seriously racist populations.

These are excerpted from the various books of the Talmud, and are rather similar to the quote you refer to in the interpretive books of the Koran:

Yebamoth 98 states that "all gentile (cuthean) children are animals."

Abodah Zarah 36 states that gentile girls are born in a state of filth (niddah) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22 states that "gentiles prefer sex with cows."

Racist? Wacky? Absolutely. Just like the commentaries of the Koran, they reflect the bigotry of the rabbi, imam or priest who authored them.

I might add that there are not a few Papal Bulls which do not pass muster as expressions of humanism either.

So don't make such as big deal about the sometimes wacky followers of Muhammed. All religions have them, including yours.

Frederick Thomas - 9/5/2006

And by the way, permit a little nuance into the mix. Kristallnacht was precipitated by the murder of a popular German diplomat in Paris, Ernst vom Rath, by a young jew, Zindel Grynszpan, over a grievance which had nothing to do with the murder victim. Terrorism? Surely.

Other than a few incendiary remarks by Goebbels, Kristallnacht was generated from low down in the political heirarchy, and was stopped by the senior heirarchy who saw the good will of the 1936 Olympics evaporating. Goering, aware of the increasing violence, pulled on Geobbels' chain and said:

"Since the problem is mainly an economic one, it is from the economic angle it shall have to be tackled.

Because, gentlemen, I have had enough of these demonstrations!

They don't harm the Jew but me, who is the final authority for coordinating the German economy. If today a Jewish shop is destroyed, if goods are thrown into the street, the insurance companies will pay for the damages; and, furthermore, consumer goods belonging to the people are destroyed.

If in the future, demonstrations which are necessary occur, then, I pray, that they be directed so as not to hurt us."

This rational aspect of the Nazi leadership's response is rarely reported, although the documents have been public since Neuremberg. But you and I now know about it.

That crazy period of history could have gone many ways, but the murder which created Kristallnacht changed the political climate for the worst.

It made the previously unpopular racism of the NAZIs popular, which was to have bloody results. Things would have gone much better had Mr. Grynspan left his pistol at home.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2006

I can't do better than E. Simon in explaining the situation both to Omar and to everyone else who reads this blog. Nor can I do better than E. Simon in explaining what kind of response I would like from Omar, instead of his constant personal vituperation and avoidance of very uncomfortable facts.

Omar, as James Frusetta explained to you, a "primary source" need not be official propaganda such as you advocate we all take at face value. Whatever the official propaganda is that you believe, the FACT is that this official propaganda is flatly CONTRADICTED by vile statements from high Hezbollah officials ("the Jews are the lesion on the forehead of humanity")--this is a primary source--and, more importantly, by the vile actions official by Hezbollah (TWENTY-NINE (!) episodes of Medieval sewer anti-semtism on Hezbollah TV in 2003 during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, followed by stuff so vile in 2004 that France bannded Hezbollah tv in 2004 as anti-semitic). The "truth" of the 29-episode sewer of anti-semitism was vouched for--"100%"--by a high Hezbollah spokesman on world-wide al-Jazeerah TV on Nov. 10, 2003.

I provided specifics every time I have entered this blog: I have given dates and names.

Omar, you, on the other hand, claim that Hezbollah "liberals" were "upset" by the tv show. However, you provide the NAMES of NONE of these people to us, or WHAT exactly they said, or WHO they said it to, or WHEN and WHERE they said it--the kind of specific information you DEMAND from me, and which I have always PROVIDED. Another example of the Omar double-standard in argument.

In any case, the series went on--episode after vile episode after vile episode.

But this issue is small potatoes compared to the questions which E. Simon asks you to answer.

If you want to have ANY credibility on this blog, I suggest you answer his questions honesty and at length.

E. Simon - 9/5/2006

Omar, perhaps it's possible that these guys are after nothing of which you vehemently accuse them and merely pointing out problems that some may wonder if they exist in Islam as a belief system. Perhaps you think or assume that Islam does not have any problems as a belief system and is perfect and sublime and always will be until the end of days. I suppose that's all fine and well for you to think that, but if you do, you must account for why people such as Mohammed Atta, Osama bin Laden, the Chechen hostage-takers in Beslan, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, Bali, India (multiple times and for a much longer history), etc., all appealed to what they said was the same belief system as some kind of justification for their acts. Do you agree with them? Do you believe in the same things they do, or not, and if not, are they wrong or aren't they?

What Eckstein and Friedman seek is that these actions and the beliefs used to justify them are exposed. If you don't like that their beliefs were exposed, is it because of embarrassment? You should not feel embarrassed (or threatened, with some kind of "war" to exterminate Islam) if your beliefs are indeed different from theirs and if you can explain why and what should be done to them - to these people who appeal to Islam in their murderous and hateful acts in way in which we are not sure whether or not you agree. But only you can provide an answer as to whether or not you are willing to do that.

Which will you decide?

N. Friedman - 9/5/2006

Omar,

If I might butt in: I think the Professor hopes for an honest accounting of what is occuring. Your approach, as I see it, amount to advocacy in which objectionable facts are not even explained away; rather they are simply denied.

N. Friedman - 9/5/2006

Professor,

I never said that all or most Muslims believe in the Jihadist program. I believe I said something quite different. My point is that the Jihadist program is not outside of the mainstream of what is, traditionally speaking, Islamic thought. That is a point about doctrine, not about people.

I think your approach basically creates the illusion that the Jihadist program fell to Earth from the Moon, as opposed to a program with actual historical roots in Islam.

N. Friedman - 9/5/2006

Andy,

I did not assert that religious belief is a defect. I noted that uneducated - in this case, I meant largely illiterate although the claim would apply to literate, uneducated people - tend to approach religion in an unthinking manner. That does not mean their faith is defective or their belief is defective, etc., etc.

I think the same point can be made about politics. Which is to say, uneducated people tend to have a less thinking approach to politics.

N. Friedman - 9/5/2006

Professor,

My contention was not that the content of Judaism and Islam are the same but that both religions are, by self definition, totalities. If we follow your contention and examine the content of Islam, your position is that Islam, as it is ordinarily followed and understood over the bulk of history, is totalitarian. Such, you will note, is the position taken by scholar Ibn Warraq. Perhaps the claim is correct.

As for your contention that Judaism has not had much association with actual political power, I agree. I, however, as noted above, think you read more into my comment than I said or thought.

Now, I would agree with you if you said that Islam is profoundly political and provides a rather complete doctrine or doctrines of governance and a political program for governance. Judaism did not develop such a program during the rabbinic movement but, instead, developed a doctrine for people surviving without power.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/5/2006

I didn't invent the Taliban totalitarianism, Omar--Islamofascists did.

I didn't invent the Saudi totalitarianism, Omar--Islamofascists did.

I didn't fly planes filled with innocent people, including woman and children, into buildings filled with innocent people--Islamofascists did, in the name specifically of Islam.

I didn't blow up 200 peaceful people in discotheques in Bali, or 240 on commuter trains in Bombay, or 190 on commuter trains in Madrid--Islamofascists did, specifically, they said, for Islam.

I didn't murder Theo van Gogh because he dared to criticize Muslim oppression of women--Islamofascists slit his throat. And when one of the murderers saw van Gogh's mother in court, crying, he said, "I have no sympathy for you. I do not believe you are a Muslim."

I didn't seize a school in Russia, eventually killing 150 CHILDREN, in the name of establishing an Islamic totalitarian state--Islamofascists did. The Muslim press said about this incident, "These people have done more harm to the reputation of Islam than all the enemies of Islam in the past 500 years." That holds for every one of the examples I am giving.

I didn't respond to cartoons which showed Mohammed condemning Muslim violence by---rioting and torching western embassies; Islamofascists did. I didn't do this while at the same time a vile sewer of anti-semitic and anti-western cartoons flows every day from the Muslim press--no, radical Muslims did that.

I haven't spend $100 BILLION on promulgating a FORM of Islam that overtly hates the West and demonizes Jews, creating thousands of Madrassahs to "teach the children well"--the Saudis have.

I didn't make a cult of slitting people's throats on television in the name of Allah--the Islamofascists did. THEY believe there is a wide audience for this torture of non-Muslims, or differently-believing Muslims, in the Muslim world; otherwise they wouldn't do it. I didn't make up slitting captives' throats on television, Omar.

I was not the one who denied and denied and denied the vile primitive anti-semitism of the terrorist group Hezbollah, despite evidence after evidence after evidence being presented to me, resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to specific facts, thereby calling into question both my intellectual abilities and my honesty--no, YOU did that.

I am not the one who interprets any and every JUSTIFIED criticism of the ruthless violence which the Islamofascists have unleashed upon innocent people the world over as an attempt to destroy Islam itself, thereby IDENTIFYING the religion WITH Islamofascism itself, which I have never done. YOU do that. Is that what you believe: that Islamofascism = Islam, and thereby deserves the same immunity from criticism that Islam, as the Truth, deserves?

I myself, in CONTRAST to you, made a point of NOT connecting Islam itself with the cult of Islamofascism and terrorism, thereby contributing (as you are) to the demonizing Islam per se; I pointed out repeatedly that there are many moderate Muslims. (Mr. Friedman and I are in disagreement about this.)

Nevertheless, if you wish to know why Islam is increasingly distrusted in the West, don't look for conspiracies of Jews, Omar--LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!

Bill Heuisler - 9/4/2006

Mr. Mahan,
Why waste your time on the likes of a man whose hero is Frank Zappa? A non-entity who who wants proof we haven't been attacked in the US since 9/11? Who takes delight in the deaths of US Marines because of his politics?

Speaking of Marines, 3rd Battalion 4th Marines is headed to Iraq for the fourth time - looking forward to the chance to kill more terrorists. They were there for the fall of Baghdad and welcome the opportunity for more.
Total 3/4 dead? 11 Marines.
Total estimated jihadists killed by 3/4 in three trips? Over 900 "sure".
We are winning the war against the Islamofascists and the Left can't even admit we're in a war.

Bush's plan to defend the US against those who attacked us has been a prima facie success and his enemies are too anti-US to admit this fact.

Economics? The national unemployment rate for July 2006 was a low 4.8%, much lower than the 5.7% average for the decade of the 1990s. US economy posted 35 straight months of job growth (more than 5.5 million new jobs created since August 2003).
In 2005 wages were 2 percent higher than in 2000, compared with the 1.1 percent rise in wages between 1990 and 1995. Wages are increasing at a rate that's more than 1 1/2 times faster than that of the early '90s, and the average total compensation in 2005 was 7% higher than in 2000. But the Left loves the Clinton years. Why?

Europe's job growth is half the US. Germany and France have unemployment double that of the US and long-term unemployment rates three times as high. In spite of two wars and 9/11 the US economy leads the world. US Department of Labor: "America's Dynamic Workforce" (www.dol.gov).

US haters can't handle truth.
Why waste your time?
Bill Heuisler

A. M. Eckstein - 9/4/2006

Dear NF,

The difference is that Muslim religious leaders have always had access to state power to enforce their total vision; rabbis historically have not. Sharia historically has been enforced by state violence, by state punishment of those who do not obey the totality: classic modern example is the Taliban govt in Afghanistan--or the Saudi govt.

That is a huge difference.

In addition, the Islamists are prepared, even eager, to expand as well as enforce their Sharia vision by violence, including violence upon--or rather, ESPECIALLY upon--innocent civiiians. That is because they do not view any non-Muslim as innocent. This is why Islamofascists were happy to fly planes filled with innocents, including woman and children, into buildings filled with innocent workers in New York. .

Jews don't do THIS, either, to spread Judaism. It is a huge difference.

This Muslim attitude also explains why many Muslims are enraged by images of Mohammad cartoons in western newspapers, while feeling perfectly free to publish the most vile Medieval anti-semitic and anti-western cartoons in their own newspapers, a sewer of invitation to violence day after day after day.. It is not a matter of hypocrisy. It is a sincere attitude of "What is permitted to ME is NOT permitted to THEE." It is a matter of superior status--which is why many Muslims believe that what it is permitted to Muslims in terms of criticizing everyone else is not permitted to anyone else in terms of even making fun of Islam. I repeat, this is not hypocrisy. It is based on a sense of superiority. Hence the definition of "we want respect" in this matter really means that every one must ACKNOWLEDGE that superior status, that exemption from the hurly-burly of Western liberalism which Islam deserves on the basis of its superior status as the Truth.

During the pederasty crisis in the U.S. Catholic Church in 2002, Jay Leno the comedian appeared on national tv in front of millions night after night, making savage fun of the Church (he himself is a Catholic). He never received any death threats.

That is a huge difference. Ask Pym Fortune or Theo van Gogh.

To me, because of the totalitarian goals, including the happy employment of totalitarian state power to enforce those totalitarian goals, and the massive, ruthless, even joyful violence of the method (which indicates what the goals, once achieved, will be like)--that is enough to call this movement "Islamofascist." It is totalitarianism achieved through massive violence.

Note, I am not speaking of all Muslims, but of this large movement within Islam against which few Muslims appear willing to speak out.

Some people will object that the term "Islamofascist" is not exact. No, it is not exact. But as I said, "It will do." It gets across effectively the nature of the threat to liberal society: a totalitarian vision of society which is to be achieved through massive, ruthless violence.

Art E

N. Friedman - 9/4/2006

Mike,

I took the trouble to read one of the Chomsky articles you cite as evidence about Dershowitz. http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20060817.htm . I do not quite see, at least in the noted article you sent me to, that Chomsky demostrated his point.

The fact that Chomsky is really pushing is that the Israelis "kidnapped" two Palestinian Arab "civilians" the day before an Israeli soldier was captured. From that fact, he see a causal association with events that occurred the next day.

His argument suggests, without quite saying - but his argument that the supposed "kipnapping" of two Palestinian Arabs is the beginning of the crisis makes this a necessary part of his theory -, that the capture of the Israeli soldier was a response to the "kipnapping" of the two Palestinian Arabs.

Note: his account has the problem that the Palestinian Arab operation had to have been in the planning for longer than a day. In fact, it takes time to build a tunnel and its use, given the complexity of the operation, would not be wasted on a mere response to an Israeli action. I tend to think that Palestinian Arabs are not idiots.

In fact, the building of a tunnel is not merely to respond to an Israeli act. Rather, Palestinian Arabs use violence and the like for a political purpose - not a mere response to Israeli actions -.

Which is to say, Chomsky's theory is stupid, unless you think that Palestinian Arabs have no plans and no goals.

I also question his terminology "kipnapped." I question his characterization of the two Palestinian Arabs as "civilians." He gives no factual reason to doubt that the two were, as the Israelis claim, about to commit violence against Israelis. Rather, he ridicules - but has no contrary evidence - that such account might be accurate.

And, his comments, generally speaking, about what Dershowitz wrote amount to nitpicking, not a serious critique.

N. Friedman - 9/4/2006

In this instance, when I say by Shari'a law, I mean by laws you believe to be totalitarian. I do not think that is how Muslims see the matter.

Islam is not totalitarian and the Islamist version is not totalitarian either. Islam is, rather, a totality, much as classical (i.e. Orthodox) Judaism is a totality, governing all aspects of life, from morning to night, from sex to commerce, etc., etc. Muslims refer to Islam as a "din" - a way of life -. Islam is traditionally viewed, just as classical Judaism is viewed, as more than a religion. It is a totality. The term totalititarian, as applied to Islamism, is merely a Westernized way of looking at someone else's way of life.

I note that if we go back a mere one hundred or so years, what you call totalitarian in our time would be the norm throughout the Muslim regions. Islamism is merely a revivalist movement.

And the view that Shari'a should govern the world has always been the norm taught to students of Islam in Muslim countries. It is a central feature of Muslim theology.

Now, I am not claiming that all Muslim regions over the ages have enforced Shari'a zealously. Such is certainly not the case. But, the push from clerics has been toward maintaining orthodoxy. That is no different than what would come from an orthodox rabbi.

N. Friedman - 9/4/2006

Dear Professor,

I would like to see evidence that Islamists believe things truly different than was believed by the vast majority of educated Muslims throughout the ages. [As for the uneducated, well, such people, in all parts of the world, have the defects associated with lack of education including susceptibility to religious dogma in an unthinking manner.] Any educated Muslim raised in the Sunni tradition was taught that society should be governed by Sharia. The same for any educated Muslim raised in a Shi'a community.

I shall say something you will not like to hear, especially since we agree on 99% of things I have seen you post. The notion that Islamists believe something new or different from most Muslims is merely a cover story used by people in the West who have a business motive or some other political agenda into which the noted concept is convenient. I do not think you share the noted motives and believe that if you examine the evidence carefully, you will cease to accept the associated cover story.

Islamism is merely classical Islam seeking to assert itself in the contemporary world.

N. Friedman - 9/4/2006

Professor,

I think we disagree here.

The Saudi regime may have employed modernizing rhetoric - at least to Western audiences - and the seizure of the Grand Mosque (Al-Masjid al-Haram) was indeed a shock to the royal family, but the royal family was never, in the sense you and I understand, really a modernizing force.

The issue with the attack was that it came from a group claiming association with a self-styled Mahdi. Self-styled Mahdis among Sunnis have traditionally spelled real political trouble, since a Mahdi will, if left unchecked, work - often rather violently - to overthrow the government. Mahdis tend to employ rhetoric - leaving any other motivation to the side for this discussion - accusing a government of failing to be sufficiently Muslim, which, at the time, was a rather difficult accusation to make against a remarkably orthodox religious government where religion tended to dominate all aspects of life. It was made nonetheless.

Now, the approach to dealing with the Mahdis was, indeed, to suppress it. And that involved attacking the notion of whether Mahdis are a legitimate part of Sunni Islam - which, in effect, also means that the Mahdi's message is false -. Fatwas appeared in papers attacking the notion of a Mahdi. And mosques gave sermons on the topic as well. The government, however, was already spending lavishly on evangelical activity, although you are correct that funding did increase.

I have a different suggestion for you about the cause of Saudi spending. In the mid-1970's, money from the rise in oil prices was pouring into the Saudi regime to the extent that the regime was truly flush with cash. Evangelicalism, being a central element of Islam including the dominate strain in Saudi Arabia, led to the government deciding to devote a bit more money to the cause.

I am not aware of any reason to think that the increase of spending would not have occured even if there had been no attack. I do not see the two items as causally related. Rather, we have a coincidence.

I would, of course, be interested in reading documentation showing that the cause for more spending - and, as I said, evangelicalism is a mandatory part of Islam - was not tied in the late 1970's to the appearance of greater oil revenues.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/3/2006

I notice that as of today, Sept. 3, Sukan has not tried to reply to the facts I have listed in this posting.

Art Eckstein

A. M. Eckstein - 9/3/2006

Mr. Friedman, the propaganda of the Saudi regime up to 1979 was one of being "modernizers"; this was especially true in the 1950s and 1960s, though it was indeed fading all through the 1970s. It was the shock of the seizure of the Great Mosque in 1979, however, that brought about the deal between the Monarchy and the Mullahs which has led to the Saudis spending $100 billion internationally to spread (via funding madrassahs and mosques) their particularly atavistic form of Islam.

Art Eckstein

A. M. Eckstein - 9/3/2006

Dear NF:

My own position on the use of the term "Islamofascism" was posted on Aug. 25, and I reprint a slightly modified version of it below. Omar might want to read this as well, but only for his own enlightenment (i.e., the last thing I want to do is get into a discussion about theory with a man who has great difficulty understanding simple FACTS).

Re: calling it fascist now better than later (#96309)
by A. M. Eckstein on August 25, 2006 at 5:39 PM:

The Islamists (not all Muslims, but the Islamists) are totalitarians in the formal sense. Thus, they want everyone in the world to obey Sharia law, and they want a form of Sharia law that is totalizing: which controls, prescribes and punishes human behavior of EVERY possible sort: it is a total straightjacket, Its purpose, naturally, is "total virtue". We've been here before: this is Orwell's vision of totalitarian society in "1984". For women, it is WORSE than Orwell's vision. "Fascist" may well not be intellectually exact as an adjective to describe this vision, but as Edmund O'Brien says at the end of Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch": "it'll do."

Yehudi Amitz - 9/3/2006

Make me understand why British children and not Jewish children?? The US Congress changed the law when it wanted, so keep your shameless "historian" mouth as shut as possible, you are unqualified !!

N. Friedman - 9/3/2006

Professor,

You are wasting you talent here on Omar. I doubt he will choose to employ his capable mind to making an actual argument supported by real evidence.

Take up my argument that your use of "Islamofascism" misses the point that we are not dealing with a fascistic movement but a religious revival movement. This is a movement among Muslims and it is not outside of the Muslim tradition.

Your terminology makes it seem as if an alien philosophy has dropped into Muslim political thinking, when that is simply not the case. Which is not to say that all Muslims believe in this nonsense but that the movement in question is very, very well precedented in the Muslim tradition. And, theologically speaking, the Jihadists are not really out of the mainstream of Classical Islam.

And, as for the Jihad raids such as the Shahid attacks all over the globe, such has considerable precedent in Muslim history. Such is chronicled by numerous historians including Patricia Crone - who writes of Muslims settling, during the first 600 years of Islam along the border with Christian and other regions wherein regular raids would be conducted - akin to the shahid raids made by al Qa'ida - and by Bat Ye'or, with reference more specifically to raids conducted over a long period of time on a semi annual basis out of Andalusia into France. Moreover, the razzia was an important element in the spread of Islam from the very beginning. Muhammed and his companions participated in such activity.

Now, I am not saying that there is only one stream of Islamic thought. I am, instead, saying that the movement we face is an authentic Muslim movement that is well based in Islamic theology. I might note: for all the talk of this or that Muslim cleric condemning the attacks, there has not been a sustained theological objection to the aims of the Jihadists or, for the matter, even of the Islamists.

By contrast, there have been sustained theological attacks against Islamic phenomena about which there is serious dispute. A good example is the Mahdi phenomena among Sunnis - as opposed to
Shi'a, where the phenomena is basically well accepted -. Professor Furnish is the expert on this topic so my comment here is derivitive of his. As he notes: serious theological objections to a Mahdi have been raised. My point: were the movement of the Jihadists that far removed from the mainstream of Islam - as to be beyond the pale -, there would be serious theological counter-arguments (i.e. scholarly theological treatises challenging the phenomena). Such, as I noted, does not appear to have occurred.

N. Friedman - 9/3/2006

Professor,

I take issue with you when you write: "it was the result of events in the 18th century, reinforced by the seizure of the Great Mosque in 1979 (a purely internal Muslim event, though a shocking one)--which led the Saudis to begin propagating the image of themselves not as modernizers but as fanatical Muslim believers." I would suggest you read Professor Furnish's analysis of this event in his book Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Jihad and Osama Bin Laden. The religious fanaticism you see in Saudi Arabia long pre-existed. The issue in 1979 was a party claiming to be the Mahdi. The government began a propaganda campaign against the false Mahdi.

While I agree with you that the revival movement among Muslims is a movement within Islam, the term "Islamofacism" makes it sound as if the movement were not an authentic Muslim movement when it is quite clearly a revivalist movement.

Otherwise, you make some very important points.

N. Friedman - 9/3/2006

Peter,

This is silly nonsense. The first things that are attacked in war involve infrastructure. It is standard.

When the US invaded Iraq - not a war I think highly of -, the US went after Iraq's infrastructure. Why? Because that is how wars are fought. Why? Because it makes it is an effective way to undermine transport, communication, etc.

Now note: you make an illogical argument. Which is to say, an argument is not true or false because it is made by AIPAC. That sort of argument is a non-argument and is unworthy of an historian. In fact, it does not pass logic 101 as your argument is a simple logic fallacy.

Further, the notion that Israel lost the war is a fallacy put forward by the press. Anyone who examines the infrastructure of Southern Lebanon knows that Hezbollah's position has deteriorated. And that is why Hezbollah is now apologizing so profusely. Which is to say, now that the propaganda has faded, the Lebanonese Shi'a have the opportunity to live with their "victory." And, they are complaining bitterly.

N. Friedman - 9/3/2006

Peter,

I am not quite sure you understood Amitz's point. Yes, you are correct that no one could be sure what would happen in Europe in the 1930's. However, anyone who opened the NY Times knew of the severe persecution of Jews in Europe in the 1930's. Which is to say, Amitz makes sense when he writes "in 1940 the US Congress refused to pass a law permitting about 40000 (forty thousands) European Jewish children to enter the US but a few months later same Congress approved the entry of about 40000 (forty thousands) children from UK into the US." That amounted to cooperation with the Nazi program, which was known full well. That does not require the US to know the details of Hitler's plans.

To note, the same pattern appeared even when the government - if not the average American - appreciated that the fate of Jews in Europe was, in fact, on the line. You might consider reading Walter Lacquer's book, The Terrible Secret, which details just how fully the fate of Jews was known, and rather early.

Michael Barnes Thomin - 9/3/2006

Mr. Friedman,
I agree, if the quote is accurate, and I have no basis for believing it is not accurate aafter doing a bit of research and locating the original source, then it is pretty shameless. However, it is pretty clear that Dershowitz flat out lied in regards to his letter exchange with Chomsky, and was caught red handed. You do not have to take Chomsky seriously as a scholar to see that Dershowitz lied through his teeth.

Regards,
Mike

N. Friedman - 9/3/2006

Michael,

The main point is that if the quote is accurate, Nasrallah is pretty shameless. As for Dershowitz's credibility, Chomsky is not a basis, in my book, to discredit. Chomsky is certainly not an historian and he is entirely with his way of interpretting historical facts which, to my way of thinking, is simply nonsensical. Which is to say, I do not take Chomsky to be a serious scholar of events - other than as a linquist -.

N. Friedman - 9/3/2006

But, of course, Byzantium did have quite a bit to do with the Roman Empire.

Yehudi Amitz - 9/2/2006

Didn't pass the subtraction level yet, so quite normal to not get it.
Actually in Darfur the perpetrators are Arabs and isn't politically correct to call them criminals, after all they didn't, allegedly, killed Jesus!

Bill Heuisler - 9/2/2006

Mr. Clarke,
I will answer your question about John if you answer mine about an alternative to Bush's war on terror.

Okay?

John came out here twenty five years ago, a carpetbagger from Conecticut, to fill John Rhodes' seat in Congress at the behest of a thoroughly corrupt State Majority Leader named Burton Barr. There was a five-way primary with four other longtime AZ Repubs. McCain used his (ex) wife's United Liquor fortune to smear an old friend of mine, Sam Steiger. The combination of Barr's in-house money, Dem. Governor Babbitt's collusion and arm twisting and a half million dollars of TV and newspaper ads beat Sam.

Years later, McCain gratuitously stabbed a Republican Governor in the back during a Dem recall campaign in 1987. I was a close associate of that governor and confronted McCain at a Republican dinner about his treachery.
He whimpered something about a free country and backed away with his hands up. Hanoi Hilton experiences give him a lot of passes for his fortitude, but he has little else to recommend himself for President.

Our mutual dislike is personal, but he is known as a politician who chases money, has a nasty temper and cannot keep his word. His famous bill to get money out of politics has been gainsayed by his own bent campaigns and by his infamous toadying to the corrupt financier, Charles Keating.

Corrupt Burton Barr to corrupt Charles Keating with many good men stepped on and betrayed in between. He is a sanctimonious fraud and I have files full of more detailed information if you're interested.

Your turn.
Bill Heuisler

E. Simon - 9/2/2006

Peter, I'm only engaging those with a proven interest in engaging evidence with an open mind. Just because you've made an ally here with someone who hates Israel as much as you do doesn't mean I have a problem with those who want to criticize Israel, or engaging them on an objective basis, or agreeing with them if the discussion has a stable basis for leading that way. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). I already spoke on this subject at length (2 weeks ago!), and you are free to show where I have been anywhere near as wrong as you have been (or even slightly wrong) in jumping to conclusions without any basis, simply because they fit some bias (like Hizbullah taking root in Jordan and Egypt), but you haven't done it. Just because you are upset about that doesn't mean you can choose a false basis for villifying me or casting aspersions that don't apply. That just means that maybe you should be as careful as I try to be before jumping to villify things I don't like in the world, and accepting that people who see things differently than I might could still have a valid (or at least interesting) point. I don't see where you have demonstrated that. But luckily today is already Saturday and this ridiculous repository of (already > 240! posts) will be put out of its drawn-out misery within just a few short days. At that point any one of us is free to start again with the regularly allotted 1 week time frame to see if something interesting can be said, on an evidentiary basis, to engage the topics chosen. Or not.

E. Simon - 9/2/2006

Peter,

I've already made clear, at least a few times, that I pretty much agree with the definitions that James Frusetta's provided.

I suspect that we would be in agreement that neither al Qaeda, (nor Israel), nor Hizbullah fall into that neatened category, with all its attributes, that grew out of a Roman (and therefore, Western) term for a tight bundle of sticks.

However, I also don't see why anything should be wrong analyzing those attributes point by point, and noting in what ways they might be similar to the topic of discussion, as well as different, rather than drawing a blanket dismissal (or blanket approval) as the end of discussion.

And a general point (not necessarily for you individually):

Although it would be nice if more here would be interested in engaging evidence in their discussions, I think we can both agree that absence of evidence (of someone villifying another's least favorite political bogeymen, etc.) is not evidence of absence (of having a problem engaging in criticism of those subjects). That should be especially evident when throwing around labels to draw blanket villification of a debate opponent in an effort to identify them with an object of one's political vilification, and I think this thread, (starting at post #96520) is a perfect example of the futility of focusing on personalizing your debate partner (or his debate partner, for that matter) as opposed to actually engaging in the evidence and topics provided.

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=96455&;bheaders=1#96455

A. M. Eckstein - 9/2/2006

Omar thought I wasn't a professor. He was wrong. And no one has caught me in a wrong fact yet. Period.

Omar charged that I was making unsubstantiated statements. He was wrong--I had all the hard evidence anyone will ever need. James Frusetta tried to explain to him what "primary evidence" was, but Omar is too primitive and unteachable.

Someone like that can post here any time he wishes, because of freedom of speech, yes. But people who look in on HNN deserve notice of what kind of dishonest Islamofascist propagandist they are dealing with. I intend to keep people alert by warning them. That is my right of freedom of speech as well.

When a person such as Omar is impervious to masses of specific and powerful primary evidence, they are not taking up a scholarly "doubting" position; they are simply denying the facts. When they continue to say they are merely "expressing doubt", they are being doubly dishonest: first for not accepting facts when presented with a mass of primary evidence, which any honest scholar will do, and then for denying that they denying rather than just "doubting". For such people, NO amount of specific and dated evidence will assuage their "doubts", which is what makes their "doubts" a demonstration of intellectual dishonesty.

When Omar was presented with the incontrovertible evidence, specific and dated, of 29 episodes of the vilest and truly primitive type of anti-semtic fantasy presented over and over on Hezbollah tv during the Muslim holy month, his only response was that "some Hezbollah people were disturbed."
This demonstrates how he argues.
Why? Because:

a. From me he demanded names and dates--which of course I had given to all readers from the beginning.
b. But for himself, he doesn't feel he needs to provide ANY names or dates. He provided and has provided none. Nor does he feel the need to confront the fact that whoever these shadowy Hezbollah moral people were (what were their names, Omar--you must know, since you made the claim; TELL us), these shadowy figures were totally ineffective in stopping a program that went on and on and on for TWENTY NINE episodes, episode after episode after episode. Therefore, even if they exist, all their existence would prove is that they are a small and ineffective minority amid the anti-semitic majority of the Hezbollah leadership that decided to put on this series. That, of course, is confirmed by the half-dozen vile statements, attributed to specific people, which I cited. This is basic historiography. Nor could they stop a high Hezbollah spokesman on al-Jazeerah as testifying that everything in this vile television fantasy, including the idea that Jews eat Christian babies, was "100% true" (al Jazeerah, Nov. 10, 2003). Nor could they stop MORE vile anti-semitic slander from being shown on Hezbollah tv the next year--material so vile that it got al-Manar kicked off French airwaves by a French court for "anti-semitism." This vile medievalanti-semitic propaganda
Omar, was released by Hezbollah leadership decision after decision. Why should we believe that the unnamed Hezbollah people exist who "protested" (not that this would show much, since they LOST) when you don't name them AND when they had no effect? I named my sources--like a good scholar does. You cannot play by such a double standard here at HNN.

Like I said, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Bill Heuisler - 9/2/2006

Mr. Clarke,
As usual, you avoided the issue. The issue here is the rise of fascism in the upsurge of radical Islam. The Sec. of Defense rightfully compared our current debate with that of the late '30s about Hitler, Mussolini and even about Stalin's genocides of the Don Cossacks and the Georgian Kulaks.

He is correct that this Islamofascism must be resisted as a matter of self-defense. We ignored terrorist attacks for years - as we ignored the older fascists - and the attacks worsened. Do you disagree? Why?

As to attacking Bolivia, we attacked Libya after Pearl Harbor. Did the North Africans attack us? No, but they were part of a growing worldwide problem and the Nazis were involved in North African countries through the Vichy French.

Which leads me to the main point. We attacked Afganistan after 9/11 and the Left complained, predicting long quagmire and many casualties. We then attacked Iraq with the same success and the same predictions. We are now killing terrorists every day and we haven't been attacked in the US since 9/11. No attack since 9/11. Success.

During the war our economy is booming and our unemployment and job-creation is unprecedented. Success. Attacking the President as incompetent without any suggestion of alternatives is not only foolish, but makes you seem an ignorant partisan.

We have not been attacked. We have killed nearly 50,000 terrorists and wounded three times more. Our own casualties are nearly as low as peace time training and our volunteers are coming home with many more accounts of success than we read in the press.

State the failures.
Suggest an alternative.
Bill Heuisler

Yehudi Amitz - 9/2/2006

HNN.US google.com statistics for: Sat Sep 2 13:25:40 2006

About 15700 search results for israel on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:54 2006.
About 6870 search results for israeli on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:55 2006.
About 2840 search results for palestine on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:56 2006.
About 5280 search results for palestinian on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:57 2006.
About 4700 search results for israelis on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:58 2006.
About 3820 search results for palestinians on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:59 2006.

The number of results for Israel/Palestine: 39210

About 6 search results for ruanda on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:25:59 2006.
About 82 search results for tutsi on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:26:00 2006.
About 131 search results for tutsis on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:26:01 2006.
About 647 search results for darfur on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:26:02 2006.
About 509 search results for kashmir on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:26:03 2006.
About 560 search results for chechnya on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:26:04 2006.
About 211 search results for cyprus on site:hnn.us query executed on Sat Sep 2 13:26:04 2006.

The number of results for real crimes against humanity : 2146

ON Sat Sep 2 13:26:04 2006 a google.com query on the site HNN.US returns
a number of results about real crimes against humanity in the world
representing about 5.47309359857179 % from the Israel/Palestine results

Yehudi Amitz - 9/2/2006

Kielce pogrom was perpetrated by Poles with the full help of the local Polish law enforcement authorities. The catholic church refused to condemn the pogrom. The allied armies in Europe did nothing to help the Jews to return to the homes they had before WWII. The US army forced hundreds of thousands of soviet war prisoners, in Germany, to return to USSR at Stalin's request. If the Americans wanted they could enforce things but helping Jews go home wasn't the pleasure of the US government and UK government.
You pretend to be a historian, which I doubt. About USA collaborating with the Germans in killing Jews the following historic fact: in 1940 the US Congress refused to pass a law permitting about 40000 (forty thousands) European Jewish children to enter the US but a few months later same Congress approved the entry of about 40000 (forty thousands) children from UK into the US. The Jewish children died in the holocaust. The Germans perpetrated the killing of these children but the Americans, who could save them, cooperated with the Germans in the killings.
You are too much of a low life to accept facts about the US cooperation with the holocaust perpetrators. Should I call it "idiotic truth paranoia"?

Yehudi Amitz - 9/1/2006

As I told you before you have reading and understanding problems. I begun this thread with a link to an article about the old "blood libel" published in a mass circulation Egyptian newspaper. So the subject is very relevant when talking about Islamofascism.
You may be a little confused believing that you write your masterpiece "the chronicles of hillbillia"

E. Simon - 9/1/2006

Didn't any of your gay friends tell you...? Rejecting someone's advances or invitations is not a sign of homophobia. Funny, mine never got the impression that they were, either. I guess it's just for emotionally thin skinned unhingeables to misinterpret things as they will, after claiming immunity of their anti-semitism and other assorted spite by positing a pre-meditated experiment in eliciting reactions - the utterest of cow dung if I've ever seen it.

As for the rest of your straw men, and your somehow all-the-more-appropriate plea that I not even respond to your stupid posts in any event, I guess they illustrate the point better than I ever could have. You didn't have anything worth responding to; thanks for proving that your post here was just as worthy of ignoring as all the others. Your bile and contempt has limits that don't impede others' search for something better, you know, like intelligent discourse.

In any event, this back and forth bored me long before the popularity contest/feats of strength/gossip columnist nature of your slack-jawed/knuckle dragging/furrowed brow discourse became as evident as you've managed to make it.

And Patrick, slander ("enabler/defender of premeditated murder") can be remedied by legal methods that I don't think you'd want to tempt. Your grasp on evidentiary standards is already low as is.

I quote HNN rules that any 1st-year law student can understand:

If you violate the law or are guilty of defamation you may be held legally responsible.

Again, that's about it.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/1/2006

Peter--Despite the title of your entry, the U.S. did nothing to support bin Laden in the anti-Russian jihad of the 1980s. U.S. funds went strictly to the Afghan resistance, to Afghans alone, and none ever went to "the foreign fighters"--of which bin Laden was one, except he never did any fighting. Bin Laden in the anti-Soviet war of the 1980s was supported and financed and armed by the Saudi govt--them ALONE.

This is not to say that every Afghan the U.S. was
supporting was on the side of the angels. Some were--such as Ahmed Shah Masood. But Noam Chomsky was right to point out that the U.S. was supporting the most retrograde and medieval and primitive Afghan Islamists, in order to fight the Russians. Of course, Chomsky had his own axe to grind,--he thought that the Soviets were bringing "progress" to Afghanistan! I dunno--is a Stalinist gulag "progress" over medieval darkness? But Chomsky was in general
right about the type of Afghan Islamists the U.S. supported at that time. Well, they were the only game in town, the only ones fighting the Russians (in fact, they had provoked the invasion of 1979), and geopolitics is a harsh business. The vile Islamofascist Hekmatyar, the man who destroyed Kabul in 1992 (those ruins were neither the result of the Russians nor of U.S. bombing), is a good example of who we supported. Now he's supported by the Islamofascists in Iran and is fighting the U.S.

But, to repeat, the U.S. had nothing to do with Bin Laden during the anti-Soviet war. Nothing. Not one dime.

Art Eckstein

E. Simon - 9/1/2006

Wow. That really must have hurt.

I suppose I should have realized that post would have intruded on your savior complex,
but don't worry, everyone here (including "real" historians) still
understand that you remain the undisputed champion of clarifying things, or at least they should.
Not that we ever needed evidence here or anywhere else for that, but who cares, right?

As far as your no true scotsman/appeal to motive/ad hominem
circumstantial/guilt by association fallacies go, they just speak to what
you aren't able to establish by reason or evidence, only what fears - rational or otherwise - you might harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Your sheer paranoia and contempt for Israeli political participation and
organization doesn't mean that anyone who engages a line of reasoning that
you don't like is an agent thereof, nor does it mean that you gain any
legitimacy by demonizing them as such.

But I hope this raving behavior of yours made you feel better. Nice boy,
Peter. There, there now.

Bill Heuisler - 9/1/2006

Mr. clarke,
Where was Mr. Rumsfeld wrong? Do you know? Your "arrogant and incompetent" attempt at relevance has once again backfired by reminding HNN that you have never served in the military and do not hold degrees comparable to either Mr. Rumsfeld or the President. Who is the "fratboy" here?

Your sophmoric insults and continued attempts to seem knowlegable are pitiful. Mr Rumsfeld served in the military and as an official in 3 administrations. President Bush has flown F102s in the military, has an MBA from Harvard and was a two term Governor of Texas. What are you?

Rumsfeld warns us not to relive history. Where is he wrong? Come up with facts rather than your childish and inappropriate insults.
Bill Heuisler

A. M. Eckstein - 9/1/2006

Two further points, Omar.

1. When "doubts" cannot be assuaged by SPECIFIC MAJOR FACT AFTER SPECIFIC MAJOR FACT AFTER SPECIFIC MAJOR FACT--like statements by Hezbollah spokesmen on al-Jazeera!--this is no long "doubts". It is denial. It's just that the dishonesty here is doubled by denying that it is denial.
2. You accused me in several postings of not providing the names of the Hezbollah officials who said the vile anti-semitic things, as evidence of my dishonesty or at the least my lack of scholarship. But the fact is that I DID provide those names, on my original posting!! So, folks, either Omar is a conscious liar or he hasn't learned how to read carefully. Take your pick.

A. M. Eckstein - 9/1/2006

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Omar never learns.

1. Omar I have listed half a dozen STATEMENTS from NAMED Hezbollah officials, with a specific DATE, which are grossly and vilely anti-semitic.
2. I have listed 30 separate ACTS of al-Manar television, WITH THE DATE GIVEN, that are grossly and vilely anti-semitic. Since two of the men making grossly and vilely anti-semitic STATEMENTS in no. 1 were themselves officials of official Hezbollah tv al-Manar, we see that their vile STATEMENTS were backed by vile ACTIONS--NUMEROUS VILE ACTIONS. The anti-semitic diatribes on al-Manar, medieval in their origin, were gross enough to get al-Manar banned from France in 2004 by a French court.

And note that Omar claims he doesn't deny the anti-semitism of Hezbollah, just "doubts it". (It's the same thing, folks.) Then he contradicts himself about merely doubting it, by overtly denying it in the same post--by daring me to show him where (where ELSE, you mean, Omar, other than IN INTERVIEWS WITH MAJOR HEZBOLLAH OFFICIALS, or with the broadcasting of a 29-episode series on OFFICIAL HEZBOLLAH TV!!) Hezbollah is anti-semitic.

As with Hezbollah official statements, his only "argument" is "I doubt it". No proof, no evidence, just emotion. No proof, no evidence. I give both.

Note the same primitive mind set in his doubts about my own status. No evidence, no argument, just "I doubt he is a professor". But I gained my status, Omar--unlike you--by writing books filled with FACTS. FACTS, not "arguments from 'probability', the translation of which is: 'what I want to believe even though I have no evidence.'

Every time you post here you perform an act disgraceful to Islam, Omar, for you make Muslim "intellectuals" such as yourself look incredibly primitive.

Yehudi Amitz - 9/1/2006

You are a denier, which is very normal for someone who calls Jews "paranoid" and "whiners". You "argue" history with hillbilly arguments.
I am not sure you can properly read so I can recommend you two documentaries:
The long way home - received Oscar, but of course Hollywood is full of Jews.
America and the holocaust - a PBS documentary.

If your hill top library is big enough you can find them in your public library.
If you want to practice reading I can also recommend you reading material. Let me know and don't inform your white supremacist club because they are going to expel you.

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

Your points weren't worth addressing, as you neglected to read. The ones you denied speak to the limits of your own capacities.

What evidence exists for Mr. Clarke's status as "a true historian/scholar/intellect", and do you care to comment on what kind of a relationship with him, or Omar, or any other one posting here you must have to prompt you to come to their defense as nothing more than an apparent character witness? Good one below, BTW, with paragraph upon paragraph of character references for someone you don't know, simply as a way to take issue w/another for pointing out his lack of standing in his bizarre denials of Hizbullah's anti-semitism.

I think I've kept a safe enough distance from your issues to not require a shower, as excited as you seem to be by the prospect. I can see now that just ignoring you will be good enough in the future, as these strolls through your naked and troubled psyche, while they might not appeal to anyone merely more conventional than Pee Wee Herman, just encourage you. That's a pretty sad thing.

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

Oh, Yehudi, I think I've figured out Ebbitt's approach, BTW:

"You can scrub with Babbo until your skin is torn raw but, you can never wash away the blood stains of history committed in the name of Israel against humanity and the defenseless Palestinians. We know the truth and no amount of spin will ever change that uncomfortable fact."

Basically he wants anyone pointing out omissions of fact or context in the historical record of the Arab/Israeli dispute to atone personally or accept some kind of retributive martyrdom (rhetorical, emotional, ballistic, who knows) by Israel's enemies (and their sympathizers) for Israel's apparent sins. One should note the visceral blood curse imagery evident in visiting past events as if they can be conflated with current responsibilities, too. The physical nature of these remarks sound eerily like an invitation to Mel Gibson-esque fetishistic corporeal masochism. Maybe that's good enough for him and sickos like Gibson, but it's hard to see why any sane person would be interested.

As I said, not really worth engaging.

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

You know, it takes more effort to respond to what you get all blustered about than to actually recount the record by which, as Amitz pointed out, "(t)he Poles, in 1945-46 organized pogroms against the Jews trying to return, under the approving eyes of the allied armies stationed in Europe."

If your point is to dismiss or belittle Amitz's contention that Europe was not a viable choice for the _hundreds of thousands_ of Holocaust survivors, or to point out the dictionary definition of "deportation," then what in heaven's name does any of that have to do with your dismay over its relevance to "Rovian crackpot propaganda about 'Islamofascists'"?

I repeat: why would any sane individual complain about lack of relevance to an original topic when he writes post after post after post after post after post responding to posts that already veered off topic?

And so on. And so forth.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

Congratulations!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

Go to the dictionary!

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

It's hard to know what Peter actually was attempting to clarify. As far as post-war Europe and Jewish immigration to the Palestine mandate goes, I think the relevant history is that pogroms started in places like Poland after concentration camp survivors attempted to see if they could return to their former homes. This historic insight seems to be at least as relevant as whatever he was quibbling about.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Kielce.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

His reading problem is evidently compounded. I never mentioned anything normitive about - let alone remotely connecting - Palestinians and residence in Egypt or Jordan, yet he addressed the post to me. Needless to say I don't bother reading his posts anymore; it's hard to tell if he ever even wanted to be taken seriously. Which I suppose would have been too bad as it seems his second to last paragraph might have (finally) been worth engaging. But the time for considering that was long gone after he claimed simultaneous bravado, cunning deception and antipathy in response to pointing out instances of bigotry. How smooth. Smooth, as in, slippery; not substantive; not worth engaging. Keep taking him on if you want.

That's about it.

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

Let's also nevermind that he will undoubtedly view this post, and any others like it, as a challenge to himself personally, rather than EVER admit that there might be something interesting, challenging or illuminating in a post uploaded by anyone whom he has deemed unassimilable by the neat confines of his politics and worldview.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

The Quran from USC:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

check the chapters 5:60/65, 2:65 and 7:166

and an article from hnn.us (June 25 2004) with some pro and con about the subject.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5843.html

E. Simon - 8/31/2006

Neverminding the difference between critically exploring the attributes of a belief system and the bigotry of tersely ascribing physically or psychologically limiting traits to ethnic groups en masse;

Neverminding the fact that Pseudo-Clarke regularly berates - on the flimsiest of grounds - professors such as Eckstein and others while never brandishing his own bona fides, let alone publication record (other than a googleplex of manifestoes at hnn), all the while appealing to the majesty of "real historians," (whose theoretical, superior qualities, BTW, he conveniently never identifies or describes);

Neverminding the difference between going out of one's way to berate the English skills of Yehudi Amitz while seeming to be one of the few who can actually decipher what meaning remains under the grammatical assaults by Arnold Shcherban on the English language;

Neverminding the fact that the process of proper reasoning is more important and respected than rallying to foregone and religiously-held, pithy political convictions;

Neverminding the fact that his full-length citation here could have easily fit in a new post, rather than as a whitewashing cover-post to take issue with pointing out bigotted slips of an unhinged reader's tongue;

Neverminding the bold arrogance of proclaiming foregone conclusions simply on the basis that they accord with his politics and worldview, while pretending that the stupendous blunders they rest on (such as that Hizbullah will take root in Jordan and Egypt) can be easily swept under the rug as a minor error;

the following question remains: Is there ANYTHING under the sun emanating from Peter K. Clarke's keyboard here that is NOT worth neverminding?

Michael Barnes Thomin - 8/31/2006

Correction:

In the quote I attributed Dershowitz meaning of "This book" to his book "The Case for Israel," when in fact it seems from listening to the debate he was talking about a book called "Myths and Facts."

Michael Barnes Thomin - 8/31/2006

Mr. Mahan,
For the most part I agree. As far as I am concerned anything and everything Dershowitz writes is suspect to suspicion and should not be taken as fully true until his source is verified. Nonetheless, an insane man can tell you that water is wet, but just because his brain is sick does not mean his observation is automatically false. You are correct though- Dershowitz is a "bomb thrower" an deserves the criticism he receives for it.

From Dershowitz himself:

"This book (The Case for Israel) and none of my writing, I don't purport to be independent historian who goes back to the Middle East and reads original documents. I am making a case. I'm doing what a lawyer would do and what lawyers do is they find sources, they check the sources, I had a research staff that obviously checked the sources."

http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml

I would say that Dershowitz should fire his "research staff", but being how he has manufactored evidence and quoted from book reviews I doubt that it would do him any good.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

Thank you for your historic insight!

James Frusetta - 8/31/2006

From my knowledge of Israeli history (and knowledge of postwar Europe), didn't the UK in fact attempt to *stop* Jewish immigration to Israel until Israel's independence? Morris' _Righteous Victims_ was on the "reading for fun" list this summer, and I recall he treated the subject in length. (I can't imagine the Stern Gang would have been attacking the British for helping emigration!)

And in fact, the US, too, was rather ambivalent about the creation of Israel.

Unless you're talking about occupation officials "on the ground" in organizations like OMGUS...?

James Frusetta - 8/31/2006

I agree: in Europe history *is* usually called a science, but the Anglo-Saxon tradition has been that it's a "humanity" or "art," which indeed I think it fits better. Alas, we can't make "mini-history laboratories" to test such things (and those that wanted to created Political Science...).

And agreed: I'm focused on Europe because I *study* Europe, and just happen to know the history better. Arguably, European history is critical in the modern period -- but mostly because Europe's conquest (if brief) of most of the world made it extremely influential. No worries that I'm a ravening pro-European fanatic or such. :D

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

The deportation was from Europe mainland with total cooperation of UK and US.
For Quran translations go to jihadwatch.org

A. M. Eckstein - 8/31/2006

This actually belonged here:

Peter, I'm in the midst of going over the page-proofs and making the index on my fourth book, for University of California Press. I have a fifth book finished and under contract with Blackwells. Both of these books deal with the intersection between international-systems theory (including theories of imperialism) and history. So as to my scholarship, you just throw out more baseless personal vilification--you know nothing about me.

But, although I'm in the midst of going over the page-proofs, I just can't stand the lies and ideological idiocy that often appears on this blog, so I take the time to try to reply to some of the people here

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

I believe you have a reading problem. I didn't say that the Palestinians should be transferred to Egypt or Jordan. You wrote that the only wall/fence in the world that transforms the territory in a zoo is the one built by the Jews for defense and I wrote that the territories are open toward Egypt and Jordan. That's all. The Palestinians reject economic development, don't want to work in Israel so they are free to find work in the neighboring Arab countries!
And last but not least, my fellow American, when about 10 million illegal Mexicans do the heavy lifting here, it's highly hypocritical to criticize Israeli economic decisions!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

My, short of memory, friend, the level of literacy of mosque/church goers it's irrelevant, they listened to what the priest, Martin Luther or the Imam told them that is written in the "holy book".
What you, with great insolence, call a "Jewish "invasion"" was actually a deportation caused by mainland Europeans, British and Americans and following the historic path you now blame the Jews for it. Welcome to the hate club!
The Europeans organized enough pogroms and Dreyfus trials and this way they convinced the Jews to become Zionists. US, UK and other allied powers fully cooperated with the Germans in facilitating the extermination of the Jews during WWII. The Poles, in 1945-46 organized pogroms against the Jews trying to return, under the approving eyes of the allied armies stationed in Europe.
The first Arab pogrom was in Khaibar around 740 A.D. Mohammed invited the Jewish leader of Khaibar to come unarmed for negotiations, then killed him. Afterwards the Jewish population was forced out of the town. You can find and article in wikipedia.
As you see the historical context is very rich but your memory (or maybe your knowledge) is poor.
I, of course, don't expect you to agree with the true facts I presented because you are the result of 2000 years of Jew bashing! Blaming the Jews is now a conditional reflex for you but you are not guilty, you are brainwashed!

A. M. Eckstein - 8/31/2006

I'm in the midst of going over the page-proofs and making the index on my fourth book, Peter, for University of California Press. I have a fifth book finished and under contract with Blackwells.Both of these deal with the intersection between international-systems theory (including theories of imperialism) and history. So as to my scholarship, you just throw out more baseless personal vilification--you know nothing about me.

But, although I'm in the midst of going over the page-proofs, I just can't stand the lies and ideological idiocy that often appears on this blog, so I take the time to try to reply to some of the people here.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/31/2006

But Sukan, what then about the 700,000 JEWS who were expelled from MUSLIM lands after the foundation of Israel, including from Iraq, Morocco and Egypt? Their property was confiscated by the state, they were left penniless, and they immigrated elsewhere, mostly to Israel. THESE people never make the news, they are the forgotten of history, the UN did nothing for them, but the result is that we are talking about the same number of displaced people as Palestinians who were displaced by the war THE ARABS started in 1948.

So, S, it is even-steven in terms of displaced refugees. It's just that the world ONLY talks about the displaced Palestinians and NEVER talks about the 700,000 Jews who were forced to flee Muslim lands. This leaves Muslims free to feel like victims while forgetting the people they victimized.

The situation of mutual displacement of people is not unlike the situation in India and Pakistan which occurred at about the same time.

Actually, if one considers the trouble spots in the world--Israel/Palestine, Kashmir,
Iraq--one sees at once a common demonimator. That common denominator isn't JEWS, folks--it's BRITISH EMPIRE mistakes and left-overs.

But the point is, Muslims forget about the 700,000 Jews who were forced to flee and who lost everything between 1948 and 1952 or so. Time to remember them in this conversation. As I said, even steven.

One difference is that the Jewish refugees were absorbed into israeli society, while the Palestinians were left--by Arab government decision--in refugee camps to fester. Nice work by those govts!!

In any case, you said "the problem is that Israel hasn't reached out". My reply was to show that it had--while Palestinians never have reached out. Their response to the offer of 98% of the West Bank was instead to launch the Second Intifada, with its genocidal message via the suicide bomber that "any Jew--man, woman, or child--will do." Israeli concessions have led not to peace but only to increased violence, increased hatred of Jews, and escalating demands. That's a simple fact.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/31/2006

Baker cannot accept facts that contradict his deeply-held emotions, and when presented with those incontrovertible facts he comes up with more and more outrageous reasons not to accept them. It's a shameful performance There's nothing to learn here. There's no debating style to study or engage with here. Except the appalling primitiveness and sleazy evasiveness of the pre-empirical mindset. Evidently, it's a style that suits you. But as a scholar bound to the discipline of facts, which I am, it does not suit me.

There's no intellectual engagement to be had between a commitment to lies (Hezbollah isn't anti-semitic, and if you present me with evidence after evidence after evidence I just evade or deny and meanwhile I insult you as a paid agent of AIPAC; I do not believe I've ever met any member of AIPAC), and truth (here's fact 1; here's fact 2; here's fact 3; here's fact 4--all of them specifically and correctly cited).

There's no golden opportunity to engage in communcation here, because he refuses to engage with the EVIDENCE. There's only the opportunity to witness the spectacle of Omar's shameful intellectual degradation.

As for my own teaching, I've won teaching awards from my university for my teaching at both the undergraduate and the graduate level, so--as usual--you have no idea what you are talking about, you just engage in personal vilification of those with whom you disagree.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/31/2006

The quote comes from a Lebanese source, a Lebanese newspaper, quoting a specific speech given by Nasrallah at the time of the report.

That's the main point.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/31/2006

As soon as you learn subtraction go and try a GED. As low life member of the porcine family you are entitled to free breakfast, lunch and dinner so don't worry you are set for life. I see that you get even computers in the rubber room?!

Michael Barnes Thomin - 8/30/2006

Mr. Friedman,
I found it a bit odd the way Dershowitz cited the quote in his article, so I checked it out (Dershowitz has a past of fabricating evidence- see letter exchange between Dershowitz and Chomsky in the Boston Globe from April-June 1973: http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20060817.htm,
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/197304--.pdf).

It appears that the quote is accurate as was originally reported in an article entitled "Nasrallah alleges ‘Christian Zionist’ plot” by Badih Chayban of the Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star on October 23, 2002. Chayban quoted him from a speech given at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik (http://web.archive.org/web/20021024133755/http://www.dailystar.com.lb/23_10_02/art5.asp).

I think Dershowitz cited the article in the manner that he chose (no title, no author, only "section 2, column 1"), because the source for his evidence came from a book review by novelist Elena Lappin, in which Lappin responds negatively to a book by Richard Ben Cramer titled "''How Israel Lost: The Four Questions." You can read for yourself here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEEDB1F3CF930A15756C0A9629C8B63&;sec=&pagewanted=print
There are two plausible reasons I think Dershowitz did not properly cite the source (name of article author): 1) Simply a matter of word count, or 2) basing evidence off of a book review by a novelist might not seem as credible as insinuating that it was from a news article in the New York Times. Nevertheless, the quote is accurate, but next time Dershowitz should do more research instead of basing evidence simply off of a book review. He might even gain some credibility back.

Regards,
Mike

A. M. Eckstein - 8/30/2006

Unbelieveable. Baker, that primitive who cannot absorb the basic facts about Hezbollah's vile anti-semitism, who denied them when he could, evaded them when he could, and ultimately minimized them when he had to ("some people were concerned", he said, about a TWENTY-NINE episode series on Hezbollah tv showing Jews eating Christian babies; really? not "concerned" enough to stop the series, or to prevent more anti-semitism the next year on the official tv), this man whose first recourse is abuse and character assassination--to Peter, THIS moral and intellectual primitive is "a good man"?

There you have it, folks.

Sukan Gurkaynak - 8/30/2006

Art,

you are of course right that rascism makes all conflicts harder to solve. I have heard that there are Greeks who tell their children the Turks had killed Jesus and in Germany people were for some time being told Hitler had got the idea of killing Jews from the way the Turks had dealed with the Armenians and a lot of Germans were very angry with us for being responsible for the worst crime in German history. The Jews are not the only people to suffer under rascism. The solution is to treat everybody equally. Recently a Greek Cypriot woman went to the European court of human rights to sue Turkey for preventing her from going to her home in the part of Cyprus under Turkish rule since 1974. Although it had been the Greeks who started that conflict and refuse to reach an agreement with the Turks this court decided she had to be given 1000000 dollars as compensation. The European Union forced Turkey to pay her that money as a price for having any hope of joining the Union. If we apply the same principle to the 5000000 Palestinians who cannot go home since 60 years that makes about 10 trillion dollars Israel owes the Palestinians, the US national product for one year, give or take a trillion or two. This is what they force their major Moslem ally to accept! But of course not everybody is equal. The US forced Libya to pay 10 million dollars each for the innocent people killed at Lockerbie. When innocent Iraqi Moslems get killed by US forces they are compensated with $2500 each, about the value of a TV set. I find it very frustrating not to be worth more than a TV set.

E. Simon - 8/30/2006

This one (58):

"The Palestinians would be able to take responsibility for themselves if not for (58) solid years of totally brutal oppression and economic strangulation. The Israeli's broke it so, guess what? Fix it."

But this one is a little more interesting:

"As for replacing unskilled Palestinians with foreigners, why doesn't that surprise me? Two things that don't ever seem to mix/match... Jews and heavy lifting."

Aside from being wholly untrue (see early history of Israel for details, you know, the one Ebbitt seems to never mention), it seems to conflict with little things like this:

http://hnn.us/articles/982.html#civil

Please do not post any comments that are anti-Semitic or racist. Please do not malign ethnic or religious groups.

Please do not post any comments that are defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, _bigoted_, or unlawful. If you violate the law or are guilty of defamation you may be held legally responsible.

Keep it up, Ebbitt. Please, do tell us more about what physical characteristics define, and in your mind, put limitations on, Jews. Better yet, copy the text and send it in an e-mail to the editor and see what he thinks of your idea of "reasoned discourse." I would be curious to see what happens next.

E. Simon - 8/30/2006

Wealthy Palestinians abroad also poured money into their proto-economy, but won't any more as intifadahs, burning tires and an internal government too corrupt to the core to prevent anarchic street gangs from ruling the land, aren't good for business. I don't recall the yishuv having these problems, let alone deciding that Arab aggression was a good excuse for them.

Sukan Gurkaynak - 8/30/2006

Yehudi,

the Israelis want to live in the Middle East and so they have to fight to be accepted by the people who already live there. Even if you got anybody to accept that Turkey is a horrible place, what is that going to gain you?

The Armenian issue is from an aera in history, when the major Christian Powers agreed that Moslems must disappear from the map of Europe, where there were Moslem majorities living in Crimea, Caucasia,the Balkans and Anatolia. Over the 19th century 5 Million Moslems were murdered and a further 5 Million were forced out of their homes to turn Crimea, Caucasia and the Balkans to Christian majority areas. 1,5 Millions of them were murdered in the Balkan war 1912, after which the same act was planned for Anatolia (effectively present day Turkey), which was to be divided up between Russia, Greece and Armenia. The area the Christian called Armenia had about 20% Armenians and 80% Moslems, who were to be killed or forced to move to Arabia in a policy of driving Islam back to the desert where it came from. For this the leaders of the Armenians collaborated in WWI with Russia to commit atrocities against the Moslem population, whereupon the government of the day forced them out of Anatolia. After peace was made in 1924 the government of Turkey did what the Arab governments today are refusing to do and accepted territorial loss to concentrate on the future. This meant forgetting all that happened, including the 5 Million dead Moslems and the fact that when you think about it some of the borders are in fact not legitimate. Now the Christians come back and at the same time they continue their policy of atrocities against Moslems in Cyprus, Bosnia and Karabagh demand that the Turks apologise, and the Turks want to continue the forget it policy. An alternative policy would open a Pandora's box of a discussion about genocide and the legitimacy of borders and turn the Balkans into a super-Palestine issue. There are 25 Million Balkan Moslems either living in Turkish exile or in the Balkans, approximately the same number of Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs dominate the Balkans.
There are no atrocities against Kurds in Turkey just a secessionist war supported by powers who like the idea of dividing the Moslem World into a large number of ever smaller mutually hostile countries. That is how they treat their moslem allies.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/29/2006

I guess you had to stick your hands very deep up your rear end to find this 58 years. Go back to primary school and learn some basic arithmetic and you'll find out that 2006 - 1967 = 39. The first 19 years the Palestinians were under friendly Arab control (Egypt and Jordan)
As I understand your "moral rage" you are not against walls/fences in general only against walls/fences defending Jews.
Of course you begin with a classic anti-Jewish argument, we discuss now about Jews and nothing else. You don't want to talk about moral principles but only about how to blame the Jews. You have the full right to hate Jews but at least be a man and say it directly don't hide behind your false "moral rage".
True a lot of Jewish money poured into Israel but in addition the Jews have the talent and the know how and they can build and invent useful things. On the other hand who's to blame that the Palestinians used most of the money they have to buy weapons?
Jews can do a lot of heavy lifting, only low life members of the porcine family use stupid generalizations like "Two things that don't ever seem to mix/match... Jews and heavy lifting". What can one expect from a rubber room dweller?
And last but not least the Jews will of course fix what they broke.

E. Simon - 8/29/2006

So it seems you'll have us take this as an admission that you didn't have basis for a substantive disagreement with any points argued by Eckstein, just that his general approach or point of view is wrong, (not being the same as that to which you subscribe, and all).

Yehudi Amitz - 8/29/2006

If you talk about the Moslem feelings toward the Jews, that's the truth, they joined the hating club a long time ago.
By the way do you agree that the blood liebl published in a main Egyptian newspaper as true is the way to go?

E. Simon - 8/29/2006

Ah yes, Peter, I see. Your point is now not to claim that the distinctions between intentional targetting and collateral damage are "AIPAC propoganda-based" or the product of "Likud apologists," but that the actions of Israel are responsible (to what degree, BTW?) for anti-semitism in the Middle East. Thank you for clarifying your purpose for stepping into this thread.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/29/2006

About investing in Palestinian infrastructure that's exactly what Shimon Peres tried when he was prime minister and I am sure he would like to do it now. The problem is that the Palestinians don't want economic infrastructure on the lands they live on but they want the Jewish infrastructure and the Jews dead. What can we do if the Jews disagree with the Palestinian wishes?

A. M. Eckstein - 8/29/2006

Dear Sukan,

You write: "I am not saying that Israel can work with Hamas, but that they should reach out to the Palestinian people."

You seem to believe this has not been tried. But it has. For instance, the Shimon Peres Peace Institute SOLICITED millions of dollars for the PALESTINIAN infrastructure in the 1990s. THAT is "reaching out," indeed! (When did any Palestinian ever raise money for israel, eh? To ask the question is to see how ridiculous the idea is. Yet the Peres Institute DID that, sollicited money for the Palestinian Authority.). But now Peres believes that Israel's existence is threatened by genocidal Islamofascism. So it's a sad story, isn't it--and suggests that "reaching out" hasn't worked.

I'm afraid "reaching out" isn't much of an answer when Palestinian children are bombarded from birth with anti-semitic propaganda. The way to begin the peace process is to FORBID such things. Wouldn't you agree?

Yet that propaganda is found throughout Palestinian Aurthority official textbooks--or the official naming of streets and squares after "martyrs" who killed women and children. Check MEMRI.org, under rubrics such as "anti-semitism, Palestinian."

best,

Art

E. Simon - 8/29/2006

Nevermind Peter. It seems possible that you are either getting confused or changing the subject once again. I think my question was very clear in asking how your contention that:

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

The distinction between “intentional” killings by Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists (real modern historians –this is actually the topic
of the page!- do not use Rovian crap phrases like “Islamofascist”) on the one hand, and the government of Israel's "unintentional" "collateral damage" on the other is revealing

(a) because this shows the gutter standard by which Likud-apologists now judge what used to be considered one of the few civilized nation-states in the Mideast and

(b) because it, again, is AIPAC propaganda-based.

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

is or is not refuted by the fact that scholars of international law seem to have no problem concretely describing legitimacy to these distinctions without somehow having anything to do with AIPAC or the Likud. Or is the distinction (again, between intentional targetting and collateral damage - how soon we forget!) only irrelevent to historians? This would be a fascinating contention! Please do explain! (If you don't mind).

You see, I would not want to misunderstand the message of an otherwise eloquent post on what is important to "real modern historians."

If you are willing to illustrate which point you are trying to defend or establish, or refute, then I would be more than willing to proceed (with further citations, not with bad, confusing, full-text links) to show how such points are either supported by relevant evidence and interpretations or not.

I think this is called "reasoned discourse!" How exciting!

Sukan Gurkaynak - 8/29/2006

Art,

I am not trying to excuse murder in any way. Even if government policies are wrong, this is no excuse for killing innocent people. There the Israeli people have my full sympathies. Politically these murders are part of an escalation where everybody in the Middle East loses. I am not saying that Israel can work with Hamas, but that they should reach out to the Palestinian people. I know this is not easy but there is no easy way out for the Middle East.
Yes the US saved the Bosnians in the end, after making their point that the Europeans couldn't or wouldn't. If they had been Christians the US would have saved them without making any points.
My personal view of Islamist movement is, that it is at least partially a frustrated reaction to seeing the oil wealth flowing westwards, without being of much good for the Arab people. If more of that money was being invested in the Arab world the resulting increase in education levels and the living standard would encourage the Arabs to look for more moderate and rational solutions to their problems. This does not mean I think Islamist fundamentalism is a solution of any problems, quite the contrary, it is an irrational disaster for the Moslem world.
In the Middle East, the US is credited for having more influence than you allow. They were seen as special friends of the Saudis, though this is obviously no longer the case.

Paul Mocker - 8/29/2006

I don't mean to hijack your discussion but I'm trying to understand Andrew Jackson.

Who is his closest modern counterpart? Harry Truman? Bill Clinton? Karl Rove?

Frederick Thomas - 8/29/2006

..is a good thing, but too rare at HNN.

Thanks for your correction, but it only works if one believes that Byzantium somehow resembled Rome! It's a good point that they did somewhat resemble Byzantium.

Paul Mocker - 8/29/2006

I've got nothing new. I'm adding this because it seems relevant in explaining the world and in explaining the popularity of George Bush.

"In general, they [Jackson Democrats] shared that contempt for intellect which is one of the unlovely traits of democracy everywhere."

Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, page 423.

E. Simon - 8/29/2006

So sorry, another one - likely even more relevant:

http://kennethandersonlawofwar.blogspot.com/2006/07/civilian-collateral-damage-and-law-of.html

A. M. Eckstein - 8/29/2006

Susan,

Neither the British nor the Americans made the Saudis kings of Arabia. The Americans were never involved in Arabia in the 1920s, the British supported the Sheriffs of Mecca (Hussein, Feisal, etc.) against the Saudis. Ibn Saud won his kingdom by himself.

Having won the Kingdom on their own, neither do the Saudis need U.S. aid to remain in power. With their wealth, they can buy all the firepower they need. Nor, needless to say, do they need U.S. training in secret police work and torture.

WE (the West) did not create the Saudi monster. It created itself. And the ferocity of Wahabism has little to do with U.S. anti-communism (though you have a point about the U.S. supporting Islamic "alternatives" to communism): it was the result of events in the 18th century, reinforced by the seizure of the Great Mosque in 1979 (a purely internal Muslim event, though a shocking one)--which led the Saudis to begin propagating the image of themselves not as modernizers but as fanatical Muslim believers.

All of this sort of thinking is in the service of believing that if only WE (the West) did something, THEY would stop their fanatical violence and vile hatred--i.e., WE are responsible and, thus, WE are actually the ones in control of events. This is actually rather traditional "imperialist" thinking. I'm not accusing you of that, not at all; you are a serious person. But I'm just pointing out that the geopolitical world consists of multiple synergistic interactions simultaneously, and there is false comfort in the idea that WE can control what is going on if only WE did "the right thing," or "adopted the right policy," whatever that might be.

It's ultimately a comforting thought--like, for instance, if only WE had done something else, the monsters who struck the Trade Towers (the products of internal forces within Islam, and indeed in that particular case not involving Israel) would never have flown planes filled with screaming civilians (including women and children) into commercial buildings filled with civilians (including women and children), shouting "Allahu Akbar!!"

I don't think it works that way. This violence and hatred is coming from within Islam and has to do with internal Muslim developments. And as for "lumping" all Islamofascists together, while Shias aren't Sunnis, the Islamofascists I am concerned about all as a group tend towards the same totalitarian goals (e.g., rule by Sharia law), to be achieved with the same utterly ruthless violence. So it's fair to talk about them as a group, whatever doctrinal differences may exist between them. At least, that's how I see it.

As for Bosnia, that was a European failure (one thinks of the Dutch UN troops at Screbenica), and it was actually the U.S. which saved the Bosnian Muslims and it saved the Kossovar Muslims as well. I think those inconvenient facts have been wiped from Muslim memory.

As for the Palestinians, they have elected a government with a theoretical program of genocide, and it's not just theory: when a suicide bomber killed a half-dozen Israeli civilians in March, the Hamas Government expressed approval. That is genocide in practice. Suppose an Israeli government expressed approval for intentional massacres of Palestinians and overtly proclaimed a program to remove them all, from the River to the Sea? But that is the Hamas program. So I don't know who is it whom you wish the Israelis to work with to improve the lot of the Palestinians, who have been betrayed by the leadership time after time. It was Arafat who couldn't make the deal in 2000 for 98% of the West Bank, because, ultimately, his vision was (again) "Palestine from the River to the Sea." Palestinian children under the PA are propagandized from childhood to murder Israeli civilians. How do you wish the Israelis to deal with this? This is education for a genocidal war. How would any state be expected to deal with it?

And my point originally was: if your friends are angry at the Israelis for (accidentally) killing people, that's understandable but... how do you think the Israelis feel about people who INTENTIONALLY KILL CHILDREN? (I mean the guy who murdered the four-year old girl after making her watch him kill her father; or the Maalot massacre of 1974; or the bus-bombings of the Second Intifada, or the Hebrew University bombing in the same period.) You must allow the Israelis human feelings too, I'm afraid.

best,

Art Eckstein

E. Simon - 8/29/2006

Hi Peter!

I know it upsets you when people point out arguments that don't fit well with your point of view, but I'm interested to see if you could please clarify how you think it is that well respected professors and jurists of international law also find the distinction between intentional targetting and collateral damage are not only salient in all analyses of war, but relevant to the context mentioned. If you are capable, please explain how you would do this labeling them with ad hominems such as "AIPAC propoganda-based," "Likud-apologists," which (and since) in all probability, they are most likely NOT.

http://kennethandersonlawofwar.blogspot.com/2006/07/quick-note-on-proportionality-jus-ad.html

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002807.html

(Re: Comment by Jeff Younger).

I'm sure I can scrounge up many more non-AIPAC-based, non-Likud generated publications in international law that illustrate why this distinction was not created for, and has applications far beyond the purposes of, Israeli propoganda, if you like. Just let me know.

Also, if you choose to respond, please respond to the question posed and not to a reiteration of how angry it should make you that an entire field of study doesn't accord with your point of view.

Thanks so much, Peter!

Sukan Gurkaynak - 8/29/2006

Art,

you misunderstood me. I do not think Israel has anything to do with what you call "Islamofascism". I just wanted to show how Israel's military tactics are perceived in a country which previously had little anti semitism. There has been a poisoning of the political climate between Moslems and the rest of the world after the Bosnian genocide, where 300000 Moslems have been murdered although the major Christian powers could have stopped that within several hours, had they chosen to. They chose to use massive pressure to stop other Moslems from helping the Bosnian Moslems. The impression was, that the Christians were using genocide to prevent the emergence of a Moslem state in Europe. This has led to increased sensitity in the Moslem world about Moslems getting killed, and now goes against Israel, whether the military tactics are right or wrong. It surprises me very much that nobody in the West seems to see a connection of later events with Bosnia. As a Turk I might add Cyprus to the list of resentments, where the Cypriot Greek version of Eichmann, who was one of the leaders of a conspiracy to solve the Cyprus issue by killing all Turks is now president of the Greeks and the European Union is using massive pressure on Turkey to recognize him as the legitimate president of all, including Turkish Cypriots. Modern Greeks do not vomit about rascism.
I can understand that the Israelis are nervous about all the hate around them. I am just trying to say that a policy of helping Palestinians attain a better life would be more effective against hate than the fury they are showing.
You seem to see a homogenity in the Islamist movement. I do not think this exists. The Islamic World is too heterogenous for a unified movement although the Saudi billions are of course a problem. May I remind you that it was England and the USA who made the Saud family the kings of all that oil and used their version of Islam to counter the influence of Communists, teaching the masses to never mind what happens with the oil billions because afterlife was the only thing to count? Now the monster they have created has come home and they don't know how to deal with it.

E. Simon - 8/29/2006

It might also behove Sukan to read up on the economic development of the Palestinian territories that were part and parcel of the Oslo accords. In particular, he could use the info in Annexes 3 and 4 as a starting base for further research on the economic development envisioned and implemented within Oslo that it seems he might want to read up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Annex_3:_Economic_cooperation

As for the prominent role played by the Palestinians in planning and implementing the conflict that killed Oslo, economic benefits and all, he could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada

It's a bit difficult to maintain joint industrial zones when the area of "economic cooperation" is subjected to the laundry list of incidents described at the bottom of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Gaza_Strip_barrier

But overlooking the context of how all of these facts and interpretations show us that the Palestinian leadership and population at large rejected a course toward peaceful economic development in favor of stopping the "Trojan Horse" hudnah and seeing how far the Second Intifadah could go, fits much more easily into the propogandized perspective that Sukan seems to justify in finding that, at base, there should always be some way to blame the Israelis for all negative developments and absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility for their decisions. Whether the comprehensive and relevant history, which we have seen indicates otherwise, should be repeated, may require appeals to overlooking all these facts, but the Israelis are not gullible enough to do that. Sukan, unless he acknowleges and accounts for the narrative, can at best only hope for pulling the wool over the eyes of everyone else instead.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/29/2006

Susan and Peter,

A Hezbollah thug killed a woman's husband right in front of her four-year old daughter, and then crushed in the four-year old's head with his rifle butt--you know, I'm sure that this woman isn't happy about Arabs. The difference is that this despicable act was done INTENTIONALLY. It was not an accident of war.

This monster happens to be one of the "political prisoners" whom Hezbollah wants released in exchange for the 2 soldiers-- a man who intentionally shot a father in front of his four year old daughter, and then manually killed the 4 year old.

None of what Israel does to defend itself from attacks INTENDED to kill civilians--every one of which attacks send a genocidal message, folks, every "suicide bomber" does, "any Jew will do, man woman or child"--none of what Israel does, which ANY state would do to defend itself from such attacks--can explain the worldwide rise of a totalitarian version of Islam whose goal is totalitarian and whose preferred method is violence.

This is far too big a wave to be explained by Israel. Totalitarian forms of Islam are big in the Philippines and Malaya too--where the objects of attacks are Catholics. They are big in Nigeria--where the object of attacks are Protestants. They are big in Sudan--where the objects of attack are Christians and animists. They are big in Pakistan, where the object of attacks are Hindus. Israel has nothing to do with any of THIS violence. The common denominator here is Islamofascism.

This violent totalitarian wave is not all of Islam--not by any means. But it is coming from WITHIN Islam. This violent Islamofascism, with its totalitarian goals and its love of violence, is an internal development of Islam. It is a major event. It gained great power and prestige with the success of the Iranian revolution, which placed a powerful industrial state at the service of religious terrorists, And conversely (since the Iranians are Shia), it has gained great power because the Saudi government has spent $100 billion since 1975 in propagating Sunni Wahabism, it's own totalitarian brand of Islam, around the world. Both phenomena have had very large impacts.

Beyond the specific role played by Iran and Saudi Arabia in transforming the Muslim thought-world, one main academic argument is that Islamofascism is in general a response to the challenge of modernity, a desire for Muslim authenticity and identity, a desire to defend a premodern culture and its premodern ideas from the universal assault on premodern values through which the entire world is going because of globalization.

In any case,Peter and Susan are still blaming Israel and the Jews for what is a huge world-wide wave that has emerged from within Islam. But the problem is much larger than Israel, and the targets of Muslim religious violence much, much broader. More Hindus have been killed in the past 10 years than Jews. Anti-semitism of the most vile kind is only part of what is going on. But the Jews are the canary in the coal mine. A warning to all non-Muslims of what is coming, of what the attitude is.

Arab governments contribute to this anti-semitism, they intentionally foster the most vile anti-semitic lies. Hezbollah--as I have proven--does this on its official tv station al-Manar, in the most vile kind of way. And so do "responsible" governments such as Egypt. When the Library of Alexandria reopened
after 2,000 years a couple of years ago, the first exhibit put on by the Egyptian Government was on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, presented as authentic documents, instead of the vile forgery it is. An ancient Greek intellectual would have vomited.

In terms of anti-semitism itself, as opposed to the broader violent hatreds being promulgated, it is necessary, Susan and Peter, not to "explain" the vile lies which Arabs and Muslims are injesting daily, but to COMBAT them. There's a reason beyond sheer morality: the message of this anti-semitism is genocidal. No Israeli TV show displays Muslims eating Jewish babies--as Hezbollah presents Jews eating Christian babies. Those lies, deriving in part from Nazism ("Mein Kampf" is a big seller in the Middle East) are easy to view as the practical preparation for a genocide.. And THAT is sending a very bad message to the Israeli public, don't you think?

Art Eckstein

Yehudi Amitz - 8/29/2006

Patrick,
Plaestinians are not in a zoo, they can go to Jordan and Egypt. The Israeli economy is in the process of replacing Palestinian workers with foreign workers and I hope they'll find work in the neighboring Arab countries.
My question is: why are you only against walls/fences built by the Jews for self defense?

Sukan Gurkaynak - 8/29/2006

I had a Palestinian neighbor, whose parents had been killed in an Israeli air attack. He was teaching his 3 year old son to dislike the Jews. My impression is that the IDF is trying to scare the Arabs into giving up by being more brutal than militarily necessary also making life unpleasant in the occupied areas so the people go live elsewhere. This has caused a wave of antisemitism in the Moslem world. In Turkey, where I come from and never heard anything bad about Jews the first 50 years of my life an increasing number of people now see Jews as cruel people who enjoy killing Moslems. Israel has to solve the problem of Palestinian suffering, if it wants to be accepted as a member of the Middle Eastern club of nations. They could for example invest in factories in the West bank, where the Arabs could work and make money. Instead they bomb the infrastructure and accelarate the vicious cycle of violence-hate-more violence.

E. Simon - 8/28/2006

Isn't it interesting that some of the most powerful of the Palestinians' economic benefactors - Saudi Arabia and Iran, (and so many others who are aligned with them on this issue), have for decades refused trade with Israel in a sustained effort to choke it off financially.

Remarkably (or perhaps not so remarkably, given generous diplomatic, military and financial support by some, and probably more importantly - a willingness to promote something called "human capital" internally) Israel has prospered. Israel has also found partners who meant it when they said "peace." But the prosperity that the Palestinians saw under Oslo vanished under a subsequent, planned Second Intifadah. And now Israel, in the eyes of some, is obligated yet again to give aid those who want to abolish their state; who support, by a large margin, enough suicide-murders and missile attacks to terrorize Israelis into acquiescing to such an unwanted fate, and who put those priorities over establishing their own politically and economically viable polity in order to accomplish all that. And still it is Israel that has more to prove in the way of establishing trust. Except to the Arab governments of Egypt and Jordan, that are somehow light-years beyond the Palestinians in defining and asserting their own rational interests. Interesting. And yet, paternalistic and condescending. It's almost like some view the Palestinians as retarded little children, who should be coddled in expectations of violence and immaturity - lest responsibility eluded not be ascribed to someone else: a "fascist" Israel.

But the collective, unwanted martyrdom of large numbers of Israelis exposed to suicide-murder attack is a small price for Mr. Ebbitt to see them pay in exchange for his vindication of not having to explain why the Palestinians should be responsible to themselves first.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/28/2006

Mr. Ebbitt,

While those are nice words that you wrote, I suggest that you consider the implications of the fact that al-Manar, Hezbollah television, broadcast not one, not ten, but TWENTY-NINE episodes of "this totally disgraceful lie", and broadcast it during the HOLIEST of Muslim months, for extra religious impact..
I'd like you to think about that, when you think about what Israel is up against.

You might also consider that Mr. Omar Baker still refuses to believe that Hezbollah is anti-semitic. I'd like you to think about the implications of Mr. Omar too--the kind of primitive thought-world that can maintain that SEPARATE lie and unashamedly post it here at HNN over and over and over.

Once you understand the virulence of the hatred that Israel confronts, and the primitive ignorance surrounding it, perhaps you will think again about what the actual situation is in the Middle East, and who is aggressive, racist and genocidal.

A. M. Eckstein

E. Simon - 8/28/2006

Mr. Frusetta, do you have another blog (a umd site seemed to be devolving), favorite links or reading list on international relations in the context of empire that you could recommend? I would like to read more of what you can say about these topics, or alternatively, what works by others you have found important in informing your approach. Thanks!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/28/2006

Eurocentric (or Europocentric) could be OK but may be quite misleading, in some cases. An example is the well known projection of the world map where Europe looks bigger than Africa.
I used the term not so much as "focused on Europe" but more as "interpreting the world in terms of western and especially European values and experiences".
We are all products of education and background and maybe that's the reason history isn't a science and we can't really talk about a theoretical basis in history. In physics a theory is based on an objective event, exactly repeatable in a laboratory, or in nature. I don't think we can do the same in history.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/28/2006

James Frusetta - 8/28/2006

Well-taken. BUT...

While it's not a defense of US intervention, I always rather liked (and have used as the basis for seminar courses discussing morality in foreign policy) the quote "A Great Power doesn’t ask if it should dominate lesser nations. If it’s a Great Power, it can, and it does." Now that's no defense, it's (IMO) a rather accurate summation of international diplomacy as driven by power interests rather than morality (which rather aptly describes the current situation).

While I take your points, and certainly the US has a lengthy history of intervention around the world, so do most "powers." While it behooves *me* to be sure that US foreign policy fits what I find to be an ethical standard, you might well want to look closer to home -- after all, just as the US has a tendency towards intervention in Latin America, the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation (which you rarely bring up to these kinds of criticism) has (and continues to have) its own history of dubious intervention in the near abroad. (While one might say, "Well, yes, but the US does it more," that's more of a question of capacity rather than of morality (as I'm sure Balts, Moldovans and Georgians would rather agree, of late...). The EU has engaged in aggressive economic policies; the French have their history of backing unsavory regimes in the former colonial sphere, the UK engages in a bit of intervention here and there. Nor may only great powers get in the game, as both Lebanon but even more aptly, the Congo, demonstrate.

You single out the US in terms of violation of the UN's points on non-intervention, which to my ears (my apologies) simply sounds silly. (While US support for Pol Pot is bad, is French support for a genocidal Rwandan government not? Or, rather, both -- but that gets more complicated.) If one wants to transform the political system one (IMO) has to face up to the fact that *all* "great powers" muck about abroad, interferring in the affairs of other countries. The problem for the US is, IMO, its on-again, off-again flirtation with morality in foreign politics in a way that few regimes (following the collapse of socialist bloc, which also claimed to place morality as a central point of its foreign policy) bother with (I say this because inasmuch as the US is an ideological state rather than a nation-state, the pressure points in its politics vary). It does makes the US' own violation of these points rather immediately hypocritical. It does not make the US the Great Satan of Neo-Imperialism of the rhetorical cast of Tanjug circa 1947.

James Frusetta - 8/28/2006

Eurocentric, yes: I'm a European historian.

Yes, all history is local (and, indeed, a matter for argumentation -- though there's also the issue of arguable data. There's no "right" version of history, but there *are* wrong versions (e.g., alien conspiracy theories and the like).

My point is not that Mussolini and Hitler were so great that Arabs can't fill their shoes (lots of non-Europeans have managed to be vicious dictators), than that they were products of their historical context. It might be possible for an Arabic equivalent of Fascism to be created (Saddam seems to have tried), but the social conditions between the 1920s Central Europe and the 2000s Middle East are different enough I can't imagine why they'd *want* to. And I'm saying it would be supremely difficult (for contemporary Europeans as well, note) to *create* a Fascist party the way the 1920s-1930s context defined it.

IMO, the key thing is what are the similarities and what are the differences, and in what ways do these matter. As you point out, there's aesthetic similarities. So how does this impact the movement?

Yehudi Amitz - 8/28/2006

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3296188,00.html

E. Simon - 8/27/2006

Well, at least he didn't label it to be a hopelessly biased "Zionist" spokespiece.

(Kidding, Peter).

Yehudi Amitz - 8/27/2006

Egypt Mufti: True face of blood-sucking Hebrew entity exposed

Sheikh Dr. Ali Gum'a publishes article in establishment newspaper al-Ahram in which he claims 'lies of Hebrew entity' expose 'ugly face of blood-suckers… who prepare matzo from human blood'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3296188,00.html

Yehudi Amitz - 8/27/2006

First I'll change a little the famous Tip O'Neill quote "all politics is local" and I'll say that "all history is local". As I see it history isn't a science but a point of view and there are as many "good theoretical basis for comparison" as there are historical points of view. For example what the French consider a great emperor for others is a cruel dictator.
The implication from your postings may be that the Arabs (the natives) can't fill the big shoes of Mouselini and SHitler and they are not good enough to invent their own kind of fascism (I don't know the Arabic for "fasces").

Yehudi Amitz - 8/26/2006

n Cyprus 20% of the population is Turkish. The Turks took 40% of the island kicked the Greeks out of the 40% and built a fence. There is a fence between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir built by the Indians. The British built a wall between the Protestant and catholic parts of Belfast.
There is a fence between Zimbabwe and Botswana, built by Botswana, they say to stop the spreading of cow diseases but the reality is that a lot of people from Zimbabwe try to look for work in Botswana.
Can anyone here can prove that he protested against walls/fences not built by the Jews for defense?

N. Friedman - 8/26/2006

Mr. Simon,

It is rather amazing that Peter has never heard of MEMRI. To claim to follow the Middle East carefully and never even to have heard of MEMRI rather speaks for itself.

N. Friedman - 8/26/2006

Professor,

You should add an additional fact to your post, assuming that Alan Dershowitz is not making things up. He reports as follows:

Listen to the words of its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.)

(Emphasis added). Source: "Hezbollah's Final Solution," By Alan M. Dershowitz, FrontPageMag at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23823

Assuming that such is an accurate quote - from The New York Times, at that -, we are dealing with a person who believes in eliminationist Antisemitism.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/26/2006

Omar, you are simply nuts.

1. My original posting said exactly which high Hezbollah officials (named them), and said exactly which officials said exactly what vile anti-semitic remarks, in the New Yorker article. So you owe me an apology twice over.
The New Yorker article is easily available online in any case. You have no excuse for not reading it.

Personal interviews by a reputable reporter in a reputable journal are primary evidence. The reporter, to repeat, is recognized by CNN (not FOX News, CNN) as an authority on Hezbollah TO THIS DAY.

2. Those vile anti-semitic statements recorded by the reporter in 2002, two of which came from officials of official Hezbollah TV al-Manar in 2002, are backed up by specific vile anti-semitic al-Manar ACTIONS in 2003 and then in 2004: they are all of a piece.
a. The showing of the 29-episode vile anti-semitic "al Shatat" "The Diaspora") series during the holiest Muslim month of Ramadan in 2003. To show that vile anti-semitic series was an official act of al-Manar, and an official act of Hezbollah, and the series went ON and ON and ON, for 29-episodes. To keep showing for 29-episodes was another Hezbollah decision (you claim that some Hezbollah people were "disturbed" by the series but you provide no names, no specific statements, like I myself provided in good scholarly fashion, and in any case, that "disturbance" wasn't enough to stop the showing of the vile anti-semitic show, was it? NO.)

b. That the vile slander of Jews eating Christian babies was "100% true" was then reiterated to a world wide audience by a high Hezbollah official (I NAMED HIM, Omar) on al-Jazeera on November 10, 2003.

c. Then, in 2004, al-Manar aired a program that again recycled vile medieval anti-semitic themes: Jews were intentionally infecting Muslims with AIDS. To air that show was an official act of Hezbollah. The show was so repulsive that al-Manar was banned from France, on grounds of anti-semitism, by a French court.

Those are FACTS. You on your side have no case, only personal invective. James Frusetta patiently tried to explain to you what "primary source" means. You are incapable of listening.

But keep it up, because every time you post an entry like the one above on this blog you make yourself look more and more ridiculous, shameful, ignorant, primitive, and, indeed, insane.

Since you cannot deal with the simple facts above,--simple, simple, facts-- I certainly am not going to get into the more complicated theoretical discussion of fascism with you.

Professor Arthur M. Eckstein

E. Simon - 8/26/2006

Peter, MEMRI is the Middle East Media Research Institute, which should be evident since the link I provided to the article (which included "memri" in the URL, and which Patrick evidently accessed) can subsequently direct the viewer to its home page.

Anyways, I don't see why you take issue with starting a new thread simply because it touches upon points raised in others, and by extension the original article as well. I think the article I linked to might establish different and perhaps more parallels to fascism w/Hizbullah than with al Qaeda, (as has been the focus so far), even if, (as Mr. Frusetta) points out, all the parallels are clearly not established in the case of al Qaeda, and almost certainly not in the case of Hizbullah either. If you didn't find that interesting, I apologize, and while likely a wee bit tangential, I certainly don't see a reason for lambasting the direction out of relevancy alone. There are enough elements of the overall, relevent context being considered here that I think enough could find interesting in a potential twist by seeing if the analysis can be applied to a Shi'ite, as opposed to Sunni, organization.

I'm hoping the thread comment is just peripheral to a substantial issue you were trying to make and not just nit-picking.

Thanks to John Crocker for raising some interesting points. If I may, I think I would attempt to clarify by suggesting that the professor is addressing Lebanese Shia as opposed to Iranian Shia, and no, I don't believe he (or myself, etc.) has standing to assume that those views are the views of the majority of Shia (at least not in the Middle East, with Iran - whose population, as you point out, is generally not sympathetic to anti-American, anti-globalization populism. That population alone dwarfs the numbers of Shia anywhere else if I'm not mistaken). But that doesn't mean his views are irrelevant because as we know, a majority doesn't have to agree with or approve of - let alone tacitly endorse - its purported government in order for an extremely authoritarian or totalitarian government to remain in place, as it is in Iran. Among Lebanese Shiites, I think support for Hizbullah is much stronger than support for the Iranian regime is among Iranians (not least of all among Shiites who comprise the majority).

Hope this makes some sense - I'll be out of contact from the ethernet later this weekend, but if you get some comments in before noon or so, I'll try to respond by then!

Later -

N. Friedman - 8/26/2006

Peter,

It is you who are playing games with Omar's words. To end Israel's character as a Jewish national home, with its Jewish population required to leave - other than a fraction of Jews who Omar claims to be Arab Jews - is the end of Israel.

Frankly, Peter, your comment is dishonest and this discussion is over.

Go away!!!

john crocker - 8/26/2006

I seem to remember you saying in a post under another article that the US was very popular among the populace of Iran. )I am too lazy to search the archives now and perhaps I am misremembering and it was not you.) The exerpts you quoted were perportedly the view of a majority of Shia. These views are mutually exclusive. Which do you believe?

My view is that the view expressed by Mona Fayyad is not likely true of the majority of Shia, but is a growing constituancy. That growth has likely been accelerated by the ham handed foreign policy of the current US. administration.

E. Simon - 8/26/2006

Dear Mr. Patrick Ebbitt,

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

But your efforts at expressing your thoughts are certainly inspiring.

To paraphrase the police chief in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, all the guys here at the station are pulling for you. Oh, and James Joyce (or perhaps Lewis Carrol) is looking for someone with whom to engage as a partner in a political dialogue.

Later,

N. Friedman - 8/26/2006

Peter,

Actually, if you have read enough of Omar, you would know that the only issue for him is the elimination of Israel. He does not accept Israel on any grounds. And, he thinks highly of HAMAS. Which is to say, he seeks Israel's destruction. Which is what I have said all along.

N. Friedman - 8/26/2006

Peter,

The issue for Peter is that you have not bothered to read.

Again: the Israeli government, in fact, has sought to settle. HAMAS opposes settlement on principle. In the view of HAMAS, a non-Muslim government is, by definition, oppressive.

But, of course, Peter, who has never picked up a book about the region, knows it all and judges based on comment, not based on actual reading.

What an historian!!!

A. M. Eckstein - 8/25/2006

I agree with Mr. Keuter. The Islamists are totalitarians in the formal sense. Thus, they want everyone to obey Sharia law, and they want a form of Sharia law that is totalizing: which controls, prescribes and punishes human behavior of EVERY possible sort: it is a total straightjacket whose purpose is "total virtue". It is Orwell's vision in "1984". For women, it is WORSE than Orwell's vision. Fascist may well not be intellectually exact as an adjective to describe this vision, but as Edmund O'Brien says at the end of Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch": "it'll do."

Art Eckstein

E. Simon - 8/25/2006

I'm wondering if Ebbitt's likely uninformed interpretation of such tidbits as:

"For a nation to poll at 72% claiming that they would not live in the same building with a fellow Arab citizen; 63% that Arab citizens are a security and demographic threat to the state; 40% believing the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens demonstrates a moral degradation and a paradigm shift to the extremist right that enabled the rise of a fascist such as Lieberman."

...considers whether or not those attitudes are also directed toward groups such as Bedouin and Druze, who unlike the majority of Arabs in Israel, volunteer to serve in the armed forces of the state in which conscription is otherwise - for the rest of these Israelis - the norm, i.e. compulsory.

But considering so subtle, yet so crucial, a possibility doesn't make for good boilerplate hate-propogandizing/proselytizing.

N. Friedman - 8/25/2006

Peter,

I do not claim that Gaza is the WB. If I suggested that, it was an error.

There is, last I looked, no Internationally recognized boundary for Israel regarding the WB. Perhaps you want a lesson in history. Or, you might look at UN 242. The issue of recognized boundaries is noted explicitly in the resolution. Israel's demand, which is incorporated into the resolution, is for the boundaries it eventually negotiates to be secure and recognized.

Further, the Israeli government does recognize the right of Palestinian Arabs to a state. And so do the Israeli people - the vast majority of them. And, American Jews tend, if you examine the polling, to be rather hawkish, until very recently, about the need for Israel to cede land in order to create a state for Palestinian Arabs. Of course, you would actually have to investigate the facts to know such things. You, quite evidently, have not bothered.

Note: Kadima's publicly stated position is to cede roughly 90% of the WB. And, all of Gaza has already been ceded. The reason - and this shows you to be a demogogue or not well informed - is expressly to create such a state.

In short, your stated position - assuming that you actually know the facts - amounts to propaganda.

The issue is and has always been: to create a state for Palestinian Arabs without endangering Israel's existence. At present, such does not appear to be possible because the Palestinian Arab side is led by religious fanatics who, on religious principle, oppose even talking to the Israelis, much less ending the dispute.

Lest you doubt me, read the HAMAS covenant. It states the matter in black and white such that only a real dufus could misunderstand what that group has in mind. If, as I suspect, you have trouble reading a long document - which is why you have not read any books about the Middle East -, here is the portion I have in mind:

Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

Is that clear enough? Perhaps you prefer the sections which discuss the forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here is an excerpt:

Article Twenty-Two:

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

"So often as they shall kindle a fire for war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).

The imperialistic forces in the Capitalist West and Communist East, support the enemy with all their might, in money and in men. These forces take turns in doing that. The day Islam appears, the forces of infidelity would unite to challenge it, for the infidels are of one nation.

"O true believers, contract not an intimate friendship with any besides yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you. They wish for that which may cause you to perish: their hatred hath already appeared from out of their mouths; but what their breasts conceal is yet more inveterate. We have already shown you signs of their ill will towards you, if ye understand." (The Family of Imran - verse 118).

It is not in vain that the verse is ended with Allah's words "if ye understand."

In fact, the document expressly accepts the noted forgery as authentic.

Of course, we can make believe that the HAMAS does not believe what its covenant asserts. And we can make belive - as you apparently do - that the Israelis do not seek to find a reasonable settlement for the Palestinian Arabs. But the fact is that it is not possible to resolve a dispute with a party which has vowed your annihilation, as a requirement of their religion.

In fact, there has been talk of a change of heart from HAMAS. However, a cursory examination of what HAMAS's statement say belies that assertion. HAMAS has said they might accept a Hudna - a truce. But, in Jihadist theology, a truce is a time to re-arm and then, upon re-arming, to fight. Or, in simple terms, HAMAS has no interest in peace. I should add that the same idiots who see a change of heart by HAMAS claim that HAMAS would change its covenant. Note: the covenant has not changed. The reason: the covenant states HAMAS's position.

I reiterate my view that you should read a book in order to familiarize yourself with the actual views of the parties. Otherwise, you will continue to embarress yourself, by making objectively false statements. Surely, you can find the time to read a book as, in fact, you find all sorts of time to post Eurobabble.

E. Simon - 8/25/2006

Patrick, that reading exercise would have shown you that my thoughts were provided at the top of the post.

Long excerpts, when cited, are not plagiarism.

I realize that you seem to have needs in responding to others that don't have much to do with "reasoned discourse" but do try to keep your unrestrained hatred and perceived justifications for it, as well as whatever "thoughts are your own matter," to yourself and someone who is better trained at helping you deal with them than am I. I don't see why you can't restrict an apparent need for notoriety through publication of your problems to some other place - even if just on other threads.

As far as what the world thinks, I'm sure that even popularity "aroused" for rabble rousing loudmouth firebrand shas its limits, as well as limitations in audience intellect, but I was never in it for that anyway.

So I hope your little tantrum at least made you feel better.

I also don't see why anyone else would have a problem commenting on the points raised by this post, which in a quote by MEMRI of a Lebanese professor, shows perceived intellectual justifications for a movement that seems different in scope than that of al Qaeda, and has nothing to do with Israel (not the topic of the article), let alone Patrick's irrational hatred of either it or of anyone making anything other than an acridly boilerplate polemic on behalf of that hatred.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/25/2006

Thanks for the vote of confidence, James, which I am happy to receive--though I hardly needed defense against Mr. Omar Baker's grotesque arguments!

Nevertheless, just an addendum here about our Mr. Baker's style of argument. It's not just that he prefers vicious personal attacks to actually addressing facts presented to him. It's true, he does, and this has been pointed out to him often. But there's more: this is a case where he also can't even get the facts correctly.

Thus he claims in his entry above of Aug. 23 that I did not cite any names from the New Yorker article I cited, i.e., names of specific Hezbollah officials who made vile anti-semitic remarks, and he attacks me for this.

But...the factis that I did give those names. On my August 10 posting I cited by name the following Hezbollah officials as making vile anti-semitic remarks (which I also quoted):

1. Ibrahim Mussawi, director of Engllish-language news at al-Manar, the official Hezbollah television station, a high Hezbollah official;
2. Hussein Hassan, a Hezbollah official who represents Baalbek in the Lebanese Parliament;
3. Hassan Nazrallah--we all remember HIM;
4. Hassan Fadlallah, general news director of al-Manar, the official Hezbollah television station, and thus an even higher official than Mussawi (#1), and this man is also a relative of Hussayn Fadlallah, the Hezbollah "spiritual leader".

So, it's not just that Omar can't face or absorb facts that make him uncomfortable (as we have seen throughout in his grotesque performance in denying Hezbollah's anti-semitism). It's true, he can't accept such facts. But he also doesn't bother to read others' posts carefully, to get the facts about what they said correct, before attacking them.

Since the fact is that I DID give specific names, I am now owed an apology from Omar for making this specific false accusation. But you know--somehow doubt I'll get one. Let alone that he will both to read what they said.

Still, it's good to have another outstanding example of Omar Baker's style of argument.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/25/2006

Mr Frusetta,

Well taken points: all of them.
If one thinks that some of my statements as of resolution of very complex international issues represent my absolute faith in my own analytical impeccability they are mistaken.
There are no easy answers to any
of such issues.
So where can we get guidance from?

I think the core of such guidance lies in the main principles of international peace, stability, and cooperation that on paper, i.e. theoretically, are endorsed by all
major world powers and consistent and honest application of those principles through the UN and its Security Council to all states.

To begin with, these principles have
to superseed national strategic principles of any state or better to say, the national strategic principles should be built along with
those principles, not instead or contradicting the former.

What situation, in this regard, have we now?

The only UN member state whose national foreign policy strategy, as it openly expressed, contradicts the UN's one on some issues of prime importance is the US.

I'm talking, first of all, of the principle of "distributing" US-type democracy and freedoms throughout the world and the so-called preemptive war principle.

Why would, say, Iran or Syria not
to interfere in Lebanon or Iraq, their immediate neigbors, if
US not only does it all the time and around the world, thousand miles away
from its national territory and not only through sanctions, sabotage, support of anti-government guerillas,
but, if nothing of previously mentioned measures worked, through change of regimes by force of its military and occupation.
Am I talking here just about the humanitarian crisis situations, the possible or happening genocide, or
something similar to that?
Nooooo! Recall Chili, recall Argentina, recall Grenada, recall Panama, recall San-Salvador, recall Nicaragua, and recall many cases when
essentially one firm word coming from the USG (which never came) would be enough to stop
the same genocide the US strategists
like so much to cry about in justification of their military intervention.
Finally, recall, perhaps, most horrific genocide of 20th century -
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Vietnamese stop that Genocide, right?
Immediately, they became AGRESSORS
and murderers of Cambodians... looked upon through the vision distorting glass of US official propaganda, right?
Asked Europeans, Vietnamese and Cambodians, how it happened that Pol Pot - one of the 3 major mass murderers of 20th century has not been captured and prosecuted.
They will tell you that US showed no desire to help with that matter, on the contrary, it essentually protected Pol Pot from being captured.
You wanted to talk history, that's history, isn't it?

Do you know elementary probability
theory, Mr. Frusetta?

If yes, tell me how great is the probability that on any more or less contravercial international issue the
US governments, mainstream historians and official propaganda are ALWAYS right, despite overwhelming world majority opinion, including the one formed by leading historians and scientists?

Now, about all those issues in doubt, you mentioned.
Live up to the international principles I mentioned before as the primary guidance for states behaviour.
Of course, when a superpower that pretty much unilaterally dictates world order and imposes their own principles and policies, against the international ones (in theory and practice) on unwilling countries, has already terribly messed up the situation in some region, the tremendous difficulties to maintain peace and stability, not mentioning
elementary democracy, will ensue.
And you pointed out those difficulties in choosing the less
damaging option.
But, don't we, including USG always
say, when reffering to our enemies, that only the end of foreign occupation is the absolutely neccessary condition for building real democracy and sovereignity of
the occupied state?
I don't remember any of American officials, protectors of peace and democracy ask the questions they ask
now, such as: "what will happen after
the end of coccupation?";
"whether even greater violence begin?" and so on on those occasions.
No, sir, it's always an ultumatum:
get out, period.

I don't see how any unbiased observer cannot come up with the conclusion of the vicious double standards that penetrate every limb
of the body of US foreign strategy and policy and their ominious effect on the peace, stability, and real democracy.
And we still want the other countries to follow us?

Of course, there are millions other issues and opinions around.
But my firm belief is that the ones
I have mentioned in three of my last comments, if resolved (which I'm
more sceptical about than you're)
even somewhere along the path I indicated, will lead us to the safer and, hopefully, better world.

James Frusetta - 8/25/2006

Ah... I did misread you, in part: I assumed by affinity you meant "nature" rather than "resemblance."

Sure, Hezbollah bears a resemblance Fascism in the symbols you describe. But since European fascism is the only fascism to date, you can see why I'd be reluctant to lump them together. I'm not convinced that this isn't a subtly (or, indeed, not-so-subtly) horse of a different color.

What's needed is a good theoretical basis for comparison. (Which suggests that the scholarly community should get off our butts and *do* that. Hmm.)

N. Friedman - 8/25/2006

Peter,

You write: "folks who believe in the Old Testament sole right of Jews to the "promised land" actualy inhabited by 95% Palestinians, on the West Bank, etc..."

Like Patrick, you judge Israeli politics through one lens, the view of a party toward the dispute with the Palestinian Arabs. My suggestion is that if you examine the entire spectrum of the views of Israel’s major parties, they are all rather leftish by American political standards. They all strongly support a generous welfare state - which is the gold standard for distinguishing left from right, so far as I know -. The "right wing" Likud party supported some reforms in the welfare state but their reforms would bring Israel’s economy closer to the view held by the left wing of the US Democratic party.

Next, you write, with reference to Kadima: "folks who believe in the Old Testament sole right of Jews to the "promised land" actualy inhabited by 95% Palestinians, on the West Bank, etc..."

Actually, that is not correct. There are Israelis who view Judea and Samaria through religious eyes. But, the leadership’s position and that of most of even the Likud is that the issue is security, not religion. Clearly, Peter, you have no understanding of Israel’s geography so you have no appreciation for why an Israeli might, for reasons having nothing to do with religion, reasonably conclude, whether or not correctly, that ceding what was, at one time, called the Arab bulge might place Israel at existential risk. Lest you not get the picture, such would result in Israel being, at its narrowest stretch, only nine miles across.

I might also note that there are religious Jews who hold that the boundaries of Israel are drawn in the Holy Scriptures. That, frankly, is the view of only a very small minority of Jews and, if you bother to check, a small minority of religious Jews. Yes, it is true that quite a number of the people who have moved to villages created - in some case, villages recreated after the Jewish population was expelled in 1948 - in the disputed territories are religious. No, it is not true that most of them draw Israel's boundaries based on religious principles. In fact, that is not even close to being the case.

Moreover, if you had - which you obviously have not - been paying any remote attention to the actual views of Israelis, rather than reading the propaganda you evidently read, you would perhaps have noticed that Israelis ceded land in Gaza and, lest you also may have noticed, under Likud. So, your religion theory does not make a lot of sense with reference to Likud, if you bother to check your facts. And, it makes even less sense with respect Kadima. Were the issue religion, the land would not have been ceded.

Now, it is true that the view among large numbers of Israelis that the dispute can be settled by ceding territories in exchange for a peace treaty has fallen substantially after 2000. The view of most Israelis - not to mention President Clinton - is that the Palestinian Arab side balked at a proposal, made in December of 2000, which adequately addressed all of the stated demands of the Palestinian Arab leadership. Prince Bandar, the then Saudi Ambassador to the US, blamed that fiasco and the violence that followed squarely on Arafat - as noted in his interview in The NewYorker. Whether or not he is correct, such was the view held by most Israelis. And such talks having failed to end the dispute and after all the violence that followed, the Israelis still ceded Gaza. Rather than leading to even a remote sign that Palestinian Arabs were really interested in reaching a settlement, rockets began to be shot and HAMAS - which opposes peace with Israel on religious principle - was elected. Such, in any event, is how Israelis largely saw the matter.

Then, the summer of 2006 brought issues with Hezbollah. The ability of Hezbollah to rain rockets into major Israeli cities and the ability of HAMAS to rain more primitive missiles into Israel basically undermined (a) Kadim'a policy to cede land and, by such means, draw Israel's final borders and (b) the far Left's view that there could be peace by exchanging land. And, note that the problem here is the Arab bulge. Were Israel to cede land, the ceded land would be close enough to Tel Aviv that even HAMAS's more primitive weapons could reach Tel Aviv and the airport. Which is to say, this is not the issue you portray, at least as understood by Israelis. And, frankly, it is not a swing toward fascist parties. It is a pragmatic question: namely, how to resolve a dispute with people who, in the view of most Israelis, reject Israel's existence as a matter of religious principle in a territory that is, to say the least, rather small.

Peter, do you actually think that HAMAS would end its campaign and stop shooting missiles against Israel if Israel ceded land? Or, is it not more likely that, were Israel to cede more land, HAMAS would declare victory and continue its violent campaign?

Jason Blake Keuter - 8/24/2006

The idea that the fascist label calls for eliminating Islamists militarily doesn't mean waging World War III. As a matter of fact, the label is a way of avoiding World War III, as it is intended to open eyes to the destructive and nihilistic nature of the Islamists. In other words, it is an effort to learn for history. Nit picking aside, the terms fascist and totalitarian are apt in the most significant terms - namely, if ignored, rationalized, downplayed or contorted into something consistent with humane and civilized values and aspirations, Islamism will grow into a monster as horrible as Nazism.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/24/2006

I didn't say anything about Hezhollah being identical with fascists, i said that they have their affinities with the movement, they like the fascists. If the fascist movements can have so many European colors why can't they have Islamic/Arab colors? You say that the American nazis are a faded copy of the other Nazi movements, so why can't be hezbollah the Arab kind of faded copy of fascism? If you say that hezbollah isn't fascism in they European sense, i agree with you. They are Arab extremists. The Arabs call the stalinist/communist type of movement, baasist parties. As far as i know they don't have a term for the other side of the extremist political spectrum so we named them islamofascists, which is fascism of Islamic color.

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

Patrick,

You write: "Common sense dictates that there is something drastically wrong in the Knesset and overall in Israeli society. The influx of Jews from across the globe especially, the former Communist bloc has stewed juices for an internal dynamics that just doesn't feel right. Israel seems to have a sickness/ malaise/ loss of direction and sense of purpose. Even the longer term residents have a resentment/dislike for the newcomers especially, the former Soviets."

What you describes sounds rather ordinary to me. Countries always have their petty bickering among competing groups. What of it?

You write: "There is no left as we know it here."

Well, that is objectively false. All of Israel's major parties are on the Left side of the political spectrum. Again, you view Israel through an one issue prism.

Regarding Avigdor Lieberman, your evidence that he is a fascist is belied by the evidence you cite. Fascists do not believe in ceding land. That is not part of the beast.

As for the polling information you cite, that is not evidence of a problem about Israelis. It has to do with the political desires of Arabs to kill Jews. Were you to live in Israel and to face such opposition, you too would not want to be too close with people who have a funny way of blowing up.

As for taking the best farmland, whatever land Jews hold in Israel will be the best land because they use the most up to date techniques to develop the land. Were the two sides to change places, the areas that have the best land would change as well. In other words, you are spouting nonsense.

E. Simon - 8/24/2006

Without refuting Mr. Frusetta's well articulated posts illustrating the distinction argued for in the article, it seems that this MEMRI document points out developments peculiar to Hizbullah that may blur the lines between some of those distinctions to a further degree than we can w/r/t al Qaeda. Namely, I believe these elements which he mentioned, seem more prominent:

The goal of empire, expansion, or radical change in interstate relations.
Oppositions:
• Antiliberalism.

The overt nature of a non-state's (Hizbullah) relationship w/Iran (an aspiring hegemon of a new and different sort) might speak to a "radical change in interstate relations."

Style & Organization:
• Mass mobilization, with militarizaiton of political style.
• Mass party militia.

In particular, the subservient nature of a cult of leadership argued for by the professor seems the the strongest and most ominous.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD125806

Selected excerpts:

"What is the meaning of being Shi'ite for the majority of Shi'ites at this point and at this critical juncture?

"To be a Shi'ite means that you entrust your fate to the wise and infallible leadership without daring to ask any question, even if just as a point of understanding.

"To be a Shi'ite means watching the Al-Manar channel, or New TV or NBN, exclusively, and that you enjoy their inspirational songs and their exclusive news, and that you look with enmity on all other channels because they are either 'American' or 'Zionist,' as long as they refer to Israeli forces by their name, and do not call them the 'forces of the enemy,' and do not have enough eulogies and only broadcast information.

"To be a Shi'ite means that you do not question the meaning of victory. Is it the victory of armies while keeping soldiers - flush with weapons - alive, while destroying all of what is built, and the killing of the human beings that worked hard to build it up, and constitute the true protection for the fighter himself?

"To be a Shi'ite means that you do not question the meaning of resistance and pride. Is it fleeing from bombing and being heaped together on the tile floors of schools…?

"To be a Shi'ite is to contribute to the creation of a Lebanese 'Karbala 2,' as the Iraqi 'Karbala 1' did not perform its role as needed in building up the Arabs and carrying them on to victory over the enemy."

"To Be a Shi'ite Means to Incapacitate Your Mind and to Leave it to Khamenei to Guide You… and He Imposes on You a Notion of Victory That is No Different Than Suicide"

"To be a Shi'ite means to confer on the leader of the resistance his role as a loyal hero to the cause of the Arab nation in its entirety, not only whether you like it or not, but whether that nation likes it or not. You only have to hear the popular praise of the masses, that was preceded by the praise the masses heaped on their loyal hero 'Abd Al-Nasser, and is still shedding tears for its other hero, Saddam Hussein. And the masses are still able to heap praise on any hero that tickles its dreams and its feelings so that it can sleep tight at night… or to recover its lost dignity under the boots of rulers like Saddam, as long as we, and only we, pay the price until your real awakening.

"Isn't it a Priority to Make Iran a Regional Shi'ite Superpower? What is the Problem With Sacrificing a Country Called Lebanon?"

"To be a Shi'ite means to defend the meddling of the Iranian [Foreign] Minister Mottaki in Lebanese state affairs without even trying to care for appearances. Maybe he came to 'point out' to the ministers of Hizbullah that they [the Hizbullah ministers] 'did not agree' to the seven-point plan, especially the point about the multinational force, so that the door of the resistance would not be shut, and so that we can remain a country exploited and abused, after it was proven that the Shab'a Farms are Syrian and would be dealt with in accordance with Resolution 242… And in that he is warning them about putting their Lebanese identity before their following Iran.

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

James,

Point well taken. Your point, as clarified, captures both that we are dealing with a very dangerous movement and that such movement needs to be understood on its own terms, not reduced to Western concepts. Very well said.

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

Peter,

Now addressing your topic. The issue remains whether we are less or more safe or whether none of this makes any difference. My gut reaction is that we are not the cause of the violence. We are merely an excuse for the violence. So, I do not think that the Iraq war - dumb as it may be - is the issue. The issue is what I said above.

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

Peter,

First, regarding Lebanon, I note that Lebanonese parties are starting to turn on Hezbollah and, notwithstanding the hype you believe, whether or not Israel won or lost, Hezbollah did not win quite the battle you imagine. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329560264-111416,00.html and http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3295251,00.html (relevant passage: Fouad Siniora: "I don't believe it can happen again... I don't think Hizbullah is in the same position where it was before the war, and won't be able to repeat what it did. It learned the lesson from what happened.") Credit to Norm Geras at http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/08/lebanon_afterma.html

Second, the issue here is to resolve the dispute, not convince the Muslim regions that Islamist Jihadism yields results. Your theory - basically Chamberlain's theory - is that you can calm a ideologically driven movement - in this case, tied to a revival of religion, as Omar indicates - by offering the movement a sacrifice (e.g. the sacrifice of Czechoslavakia at Munich). The world does not work that way. That, frankly, won't do. It is a fantasy.

Now, the Israelis do not return land because the Jihadist government would use the land to launch missiles at the Israelis. That is exactly what they did when the Israelis ceded Gaza. And, were Israel to cede the rest of the disputed land, Hamas' missiles could actually be fired at planes taking off from Tel Aviv. That, frankly, is not acceptable.

The Israelis are willing ot cede land. But, they want such to mean the end of the war, not the start of a new battle. I reiterate what I have said many times: not one of the major Palestinian Arab parties is willing to accept even their own demands as a final settlement. Arafat's plan, by his own words, was merely an interim plan. Polling of Palestinian Arabs shows essentially no support for a final settlement which leaves Israel in tact but, instead, only an interim settlement. And, the Israelis are not looking for an interim settlement as that means there will be more violence, not peace.

James Frusetta - 8/24/2006

I'd suspected it was poor wording, and it was, nuts. Not just possibly insulting but as you say, imprecise. Hmm.

No, members of Hezbollah are not autonomatically ignorant (any more than anyone else); and you're right that the group is not to be dismissed as not dangerous.

It's, rather, that I suspect that while they are indeed familiar with their *own* rhetoric and ideology, they're *not* versed with fascist rhetoric and ideology; it's copying by rote. (My own experience with neo-Nazis in Eastern Europe reinforces this assumptions.)

Let me withdraw the 4-year-old analogy. Perhaps better would be to say that I suspect Hezbollah's adoption of fascist symbols has about the resonance (IMO) that, say, a large group of European white supremacists would display if they adopted the kaffiya and yelled "Jihad! Jihad!" while they marched. No matter how sophisticated they may be as white supremacists, a symbol or two doth not a fedayeen make. (Now, white supremacists with degrees in Islamic Studies or significant time spent in the mideast, okay, I'll grant them . I suspect they're rare, though...:). At the same time, of course you're right: no matter how ridiculous (if repugnant) such actions may seem, it doesn't mean they're not a *danger.*

Indeed, as you suggest, what's needed is a "comparative" term. I'm not 100% sure totalitarian is the right term -- thought it's definitely an improvement . And does reflect the totalitarian beliefs of both. As I tell my students, the Fascists don't want you to "vote" fascist in the 1920s, they want you to *live* fascism -- something radical Islam does seem to parallel.

I'd probably lean towards "revolutionary," but *that* term is at least as debased as Fascism, if not more so. :(

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

James,

This is a rather interesting post. I agree with much of what you write. However, when you write what I quote from you below, I think you are mistaken, as I shall address after I repeat the pertinent text:

(And to be honest, I'm rather biased on this: I don't think most of Hezbollah is sophisticated enough to really *understand* why and how the Fascists used these symbols. To make a crass analogy -- and I apologize to anyone who is offended -- it's like a four year old swearing. Yes, it's a swear word, but the kid doesn't know what the word means, the kid knows it's a word that gets him attention. I think Hezbollah is doing this because the leadership knows that 1) Nazis were anti-Semites, and 2) it'll make Israel mad.)

Now, in every movement, there are leaders and followers. Saying that many followers of the Hezbollah leadership (or, if I follow you, even perhaps some leaders) do not understand - or understand like a 4 year old, to use your phraseology - is rather irrelevant. I cannot imagine that the brown shirts, etc., of the Nazi movement were all that sophisticated regarding the why's and how's of Nazism either.

Now, I think you are correct that, technically, we are not dealing with fascists. Instead, we are dealing with a different totalitarian movement, namely, Islamist Jihadism. And I think that the average Muslim in the Arab regions and wider Muslim regions has a very good idea what Islamist Jihadism is about - it being the topic of topics in their societies.

Last October, Iranian President Ahmadinejad - of the same Hezbollah party and, in fact, the party which funds Hezbollah and trains its fighters and nourishes it intellectually and in every other imaginable way - gave his infamous "World Without Israel" speech. Most people did not bother actually to read what Ahmadinejad said so most people think that the speech was directed against only Israel.

In fact, Israel is as much a symbol as real in Ahmadinejad/Hezbollah's Islamist Jihad ideology. The real enemy is the West and the US - not merely Israel -, as he makes rather clear. In his words:

We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’

The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem] was a major move by the world oppressor [the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.

Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.

The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation [Umma] against a system of oppression, and thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle and so we have witnessed their progress and success.

Now, this may not be quite fascism but, frankly, we are speaking of a rather dangerous, revolutionary party which has an extraordinary agenda, namely, to reclaim losses in power, prestige and land from over the course of the last 300 years - when Islamic power was up to Poland and also into Austria -, using Israel as a means toward that end.

So, whether or not we are speaking of fascism or Jihadism, the key point here is that we are dealing with something very dangerous and that needs to be taken seriously, not dismissed as something akin to the notions of a 4 year old.

E. Simon - 8/24/2006

Thanks for your post, Mr. Frusetta. I think it clarifies much of what is being debated or confused regarding the question in the article (in which I already would have been inclined to agree with your stance).

E. Simon - 8/24/2006

I should add that size figures into it as well. The two-party system makes sense for a country as large as the U.S., whereas single-constituency governments (Israel, Netherlands, etc.) seem to promote the elements of political participation that work better at a smaller level.

E. Simon - 8/24/2006

I was going to thank you for giving a more lucid and rational response to Patrick's boilerplate than he seemed interested in, but, YOU'RE SUCH A FASCIST! (Kidding).

Anyway, even Peter's post has some explanations I found interesting. "(H)yper-democracy" in particular I found to be a fun, new one.

Politically, I think that the advantage of single constituency governments is that they can promote a lot of solidarity while allowing for a wide range of freedom for individual and group political expression. I think that's healthier than suppression (even if less-well read posters like Patrick mistake such expression for widespread sentiment), whose consequences we see in the other extreme of the horrendously bland moderation of the two-party system witnessed in federal elections in the states (following ridiculously partisan primaries).

James Frusetta - 8/24/2006

The man that uses the duck analogy accuses me of simplicity? <Sigh> No, I'm not. If I was, I'd say, "Hezbollah isn't Italian and it's not 1930," nyah nyah. THAT'D be simplistic. But I'll try not to be obnoxious and sarcastic -- after all, you're addressing my point (and with fewer personal attacks! Hurray! Okay, that was sarcastic, but I get *one* gimme. Wait, two. Hmm.)

I'll make you a deal: I'm going to *seriously* try and engage what you're saying. Will you do me the favor in return?

I'm saying -- note that thar fat theoretical post just below -- that fascism has several components, as defined by a breadth of scholarly literature. I *agree* with you that Hezbollah is drawing on the Fascist parallel in terms of "look and feel." No question. I've said that from teh start. But I don't believe that shared symbols -- even if intentional -- mean that movements are identical. European socialism and Communism share key symbols and style, after all, but they're quite different.

I think I'm being pretty explicit that I think it's important *why* someone uses those symbols. And I don't think Hezbollah uses them for the same *intent.* No offense, but are you addressing this point? Perhaps I'm misreading you, but what *I* see is you say, over and over, "they look the same, thus they are the same." I feel it's more useful to say "do they *think* the same?" The only linkage I can see between Hezbollah and the various fascist groups is anti-Semitism (which links it to the Nazis and Arrow Cross pretty well), some of the symbology (salute, etc.), and certain aspects of revolution.

(And to be honest, I'm rather biased on this: I don't think most of Hezbollah is sophisticated enough to really *understand* why and how the Fascists used these symbols. To make a crass analogy -- and I apologize to anyone who is offended -- it's like a four year old swearing. Yes, it's a swear word, but the kid doesn't know what the word means, the kid knows it's a word that gets him attention. I think Hezbollah is doing this because the leadership knows that 1) Nazis were anti-Semites, and 2) it'll make Israel mad.)

But the Jihadist (and I disagree with you -- I think it's a resonant term) approach to the crisis of modernity is different than the fascist approach, and that this is significant enough to set them apart.

Fascism was a very broad movement. We can see that it has certain things in comparison. Paxton, Payne, Griffin, Eatwell have suggested core elements to this. Do any of these definitions (or one you might suggest) show Hezbollah possessing a direct similarity? (Or do you think this stuff is scholarly hoo-hah -- I mean, I'd disagree, but fair enough. Still, it's HNN, I think it's reasonable to bring this up.)

Maybe a parallel to what I'm arguing is useful: are neo-Nazis in the US fascists? (Small s: I'm not saying Italian Fascism, I'm saying fascism as a political ideology). Some groups are, but some aren't, *IMO.* The fact that someone wears an SS uniform and waves a swastika is very suggestive (disgusting, too, but we'll leave that aside for the moment). But most neo-Nazis tend to be fairly simplistic racists; they're not *interested* in many of the ideological areas that fascists in general (or Nazis in specific) were interested in. Nazis argued for social and economic revolution, ecological restructuring and an expanded state -- few White Supremacist groups *want* that.

I think it's crucial to differentate accordingly -- that doesn't mean I like stupid white bigoted thugs. I'm saying I think there *are* valid reasons to *distinguish* between violent mass movements.

Where I *would* agree with you is that this is a *scholarly* difference. I think it's a useful one. Labeling something "Islamofascist" suggests using the same remedies that were used on fascism. But if they're *different,* it suggests different remedies. Again, I think what people *think* is more important than what people *look* like.

Where I *would* agree that walk like a duck _applies_ is that it doesn't really matter _why_ someone is blowing you up: they're still blowing you up. Hezbollah, just like Fascism, is a violent movement and not to my liking. I just don't think the "fascist" label is accurate or descriptive. If you want to call 'em "terrorist thugs," you've my blessing on *that.* Call 'em obscenities. But -- IMO -- the "Islamofascist" label sounds much like the debate, done to death, over Communism = Fascism. Differences can be *important.*

Now, if I'm misreading what you're arguing, okay. I'm a historian; part of the creed is being willing to accept other data. (Heck, I even work on fascism.) Why is look and feel more important than intent? Are you arguing that fascist ideology was too diffuse and tactical to be truly meaningful? That the "look and feel" reflects a real willingness on Hezbollah's part to *emulate* fascism? E.g., that if Hezbollah adopts such symbology, it's *ideals* will grow to resembles those of Mussolini?

Whew! Lots of wasted paper avoided, thanks to the WWW.

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

Frederick,

You write: I am not aware of any "Islamic" govenmental structures or symbols which remotely resembles that of Rome...

In fact, the government structure adopted by the early Muslim empires was not only heavily influenced by Byzantine governmental structures but such structures basically became Islamic without need for major overhaul. And the laws used to separate Muslim from non-Muslims employed traditional Roman laws, applying them not only, as originally enacted, to Jews but also to Christians.

On the other hand, I agree that the Jihadist are not fascist. Such, however, is not intended as a compliment. It is merely to note that the two are not the same thing.

Frederick Thomas - 8/24/2006

The "fasces" was a bundle of sticks around a waraxe held together by two lengths of twine. It evokes the unity of the polyglot Roman Empire held together by force (the twine,) and warfare (the axe.) It was a common Roman public symbol for the period of the Roman empire, and crowned many a Corinthian column.

"Fascism" was a manifestation of Benito Mousselini in Italy, in the period 1922-1943, tho' Franco's party and later a Lebanese Christian group, and some Balkan parties called themselves "Falange" (Kateeb, "whip"), promoting essentially the same political program.

Hitler was too proud to use an Italo-Roman symbol for his movement, which carefully eschewed the fasces and called itself the "National Socialist German Workers Party" ("Nazionalsozialistischedeutschearbeiter Partei"), which for good and clear reason was truncated to "NAZI." It had nary a Fasces nor a Falange to its name.

Then came the US and Brit press, particularly the left leaning press, who lumped Mousselini, Franco and Hitler, and others into one bag because they were not particularly good at nuance, or at understanding the fine details, although they understood very well that each of these movements was anti-communist to a strong degree.

Almost immediately, "Fascist" became the pejorative descriptor of choice for all authoritorian regimes (except the most authoritarian-Communists) and the favorite "flagellem" (whip) to prod the anti-war USA and Britain into getting into a war they did not want.

It does not say much for the American and European public that this little piece of flummery had such an effect.

Today, "fascist" has been watered down into an all purpose perjorative, which has, like a used prophalactic, been sloppily applied again, this time as "Islamofascist," one of the premier oxymorons of all time. I am not aware of any "Islamic" govenmental structures or symbols which remotely resembles that of Rome, or for that matter Italy under Mousselini.

But we are stuck with it. All the talk jocks have been ordered to use it unremittingly, and they do. Wouldn't it be nice if words were used to eloquently describe, rather than to befuddle?

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

Patrick,

You write: "For an acclaimed university professor and an attorney of note not see that this poster was an Arab Moslem while, a dullard such as I found nothing odd about the postings, says more about the less educated being in tune to the world's address more so, than the elite."

I have no idea whether the poster is Muslim or Arab. Instead of challenging his bona fides, I challenged his comment and made fun of his views by saying, with a bit of irony, that they are not Islamic. See http://hnn.us/comments/96084.html

You write: "Although, the professor feints a desire for dialogue, here at HNN any points made by the reality based community that calls out the flaws/ missteps/ criminal actions of Israel is squarely met/ rebuked/ glossed over/ clouded/ ignored by a handful of blind defenders in a workman like/ methodical/ nauseating manner."

I do not challenge the right of those to post comments critical of Israel. I do often - but not always - disagree with such criticism but I do not deny that Israel is imperfect.

I do, however, object vehemently to posters who make absurd criticism, claiming, for example, that Israel behaves criminally in any sense of the word other than the fact that Israel has engaged in war. In my way of thinking, war is always, in a sense, a crime and Israel's use of war is, as I see it, no worse a crime than that of any other country which has engaged in war.

And, so far as I know, Israel's war behavior has been, by world historical standards, pretty tame. So, to me such overblown criticism amounts to stating a person's view that they hate Israel.

You write: "You on the other hand deftly avoided, as to be expected, the main question; that of is she or isn't she (Israel) fascist? "

I do not consider such to be a rational question. So, why would I address the question. That argument is akin to the criminal argument, which is a red-herring for the view that those who call Israel fascist merely are stating the view that they hate Israel.

Objectively, Israel's Kadima party is social democratic. The Likud's politics are somewhat closer to that of the US Democratic party. Those who would view Israel as fascist judge through a single lens, namely, that Israel should appease the Muslim regions by ceding land without regard to whether such ends the dispute and without regard to whether the remaining Israeli state would be capable of military defense.

You write: "There will be NO return of Palestinian refugees or NO end to occupation/colonization of Palestinian Territory or NO recognized full equality for the indigenous Palestinian population."

What does any of this have to do with whether Israel is fascist? The democratic state of Poland and the democratic Czech Republic, to note, are not permitting the return of Germans they expelled in large numbers at the end of WWII. Does that make such countries fascist?

Now: your nonsense comments will now be addressed - although I do not have the space to address all of the overblown critique you make.

Regarding refugees and their offspring, Israel has no more obligation to accept the return of refugees or their offspring than any other state. And, frankly, no other state is volunteering to take in refugees and their offspring, much less hostile refugees and their offspring.

For example, I do not see India agreeing to take in those Muslims who fled to Pakistan (or their offspring) when India was created. In fact, Indian law expressly forbids their return. As I understand the matter, such is part of India's consitution. Pakistan, at the same time, will not take back any of the Hindus who fled (or their offspring) when India was created. Greece is not willing to take back the Muslims that were exchanged with Turkey (or their offspring) and Turkey is not willing to permit return of those Christians who were exchanged (or their offspring). I already mentioned Poland and the Czech Republic.

The point here is that there is rather strong precedent from which Israel can look when it refuses to permit the return of refugees or their offspring. Such is not a sign of fascism and, in fact, has nothing to do with it.

Consider further the alleged morality of the view that Israel should be required to take in refugees and their offspring. I understand the view that we are all entitled to live in circumstances where we can have a good life - or at least attempt to have such a life -. I ask you - since you seem to think Israel has an obligation to do what Poland is not being told to do -, does it follow that Palestinian Arab refugees or their offspring could only have a good life in Israel? Of course not. We are not dealing with plants that can only live in one type of soil. In simple English: we are all entitled to live where we can live a good life but we are not all entitled to live in a particular location in order to accomplish that goal.

And, consider the other side of the coin. Palestinian Arab refugees and their offspring have expressed their hostility not only to the Israeli state. In fact, their leaders assert that they would, if they could, turn Jews from the region into refugees. Some openly call for genocide of the Jewish population. So, why on earth would it be moral for Israel to take in people who do not promise that they will live in peace with their neighbors? Such flies in the face any notion of morality I can imagine. In fact, my view is that the demand that Israel take in people hostile to Israel's population is an immoral, bigotted position held mostly by people who hate Jews.

As for an end to occupation, my recollection is that all of the major Israeli parties with the possible exception of Likud - and even that is not certain - are looking to find a way to create a Palstinian state while preserving Israel. The question raised is whether that is feasible.

I note that the alleged fascist - or, at least alleged by you and some other people - Avigdor Liberman proposes the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. His thought, evidently, is that Israel ought cede portions of Israel within the 1948 Armistice line with the idea that the Palestinian state should maximize its Arab population and Israel should maximize its Jewish population. Most fascists in this world do not espouse ceding land. Most fascists actually seek to conquer land so, frankly, your theory about Avigdor Liberman do not appear to be well taken.

I gather, in any event, that only a small group of Israelis are willing to follow his theory. Most prefer Israel to retain something akin to its current ethnic/religious makeup.

On the other hand - and you should consider this carefully when you are calling people names, as you have done with Avigdor Liberman, that few, if any, of the Palestinian Arab politicians who claim to favor a two state solution are willing to have any Jews in their state. Such, you will note, was Arafat's official position. Or, in simple terms: the Arab position is that the Palestinian Arab state should be Judenrein while the Jewish ethnic state must (a) be a mixed state that (b) takes in millions of people of Arab background.

You write: "or the discussion the past few weeks to point steadily toward Islam/al Qaeda as being fully functioning fascist entities while covering up for the same condition that inflicts Israel is clearly duplicitous."

I have not argued that Jihadists are fascists. I have said that the better term for them is Jihadist. And, I have not covered up anything. Israel is not fascist any more than the Canada or any other democracy is.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/24/2006

What you are trying to do is disguise a very simplistic logic using a "learned" barrage of futile argumentation. Your main line is: if the Hezbollah program doesn't 100% fit Mussolini they are not fascists and you continue to use the argument even when I say that symbols prove affinity. Hezbollah is an extremist ISLAMIC movement which strongly expresses its sympathies for FASCISM. the subject is after all ISLAMOFASCISM.
If you follow parallel threads under this article you'll see that someone said that Jihadist is the best term and I totally agree, but the problem with Jihad (struggle) is that it loses a lot of meaning in translation and this loss of meaning is used by Moslem propaganda. Islamofascism isn't the fascism of Mussolini or Hitler it is Islamic extremism expressing great sympathy for fascism (and sometime for communism). As a foot note (because we are talking about sympathies) the Islamic world is in our days the biggest consumer of "Main Kampf" (my struggle) and of "the protocols of the elders of Zion".
I can't call our discussion a disagreement, because you all the time hammered a different piece of iron. First thing in a discussion is the definition of terms second is the subject. My subject was "fascist symbols used by the Islamic extremists" and yours was a kind of "O.J. trial" for a learned audience, one thread to subjects!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/24/2006

What US did in Iraq may have added very little to the Moslem anger. The main reason for it is the fact that the Moslem world looks at the 21st century from a 13th century perspective. Their main problem is the sexual revolution, they can't accept free women, they want our daughters sisters and wives with no cleavage and short skirts. The term best describing the situation is backwardness , it may be politically incorrect but very correct historically. About 98-99% of the Islamic world is composed of failed societies, failed economies and failed political systems. These are societies that prefer to use their skilled young men for destruction and not for improving the Islamic world. What attacked the Islamic world is the modernity and they are afraid of the changes they may face if it kicks in.
Don't mix you American political feelings with the world reality. Keep this in mind: baby Bush became president in 2000 because Al Gore is big idiot and this big receptacle of stupidity didn't use Bill Clinton in his campaign because he was afraid of his penis. Baby Bush and baby Gore are the sides of the same coin, idiots going into politics because of the merits of their fathers. Because of your political anger you try to justify Islamic violence!
A very good explanation of the sickness of the Moslem world you can find in the theory of a political scientist named Thomas P.M. Barnett http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/ . You can begin with the map http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/pnm/map_index.htm .
You can also try http://jihadwatch.org/ .
These sites are good only if you want an infusion of facts about the reality around us, if not you are, of course, free to stay inside your image of an Orwellian world fueled by you political frustrations.

N. Friedman - 8/24/2006

Peter,

You write: "Indeed the danger of such is greater than before thanks to the bungled mess and horrible atrocities made by the Cheney admin in Iraq which provide tremendous propaganda rationale for impressionable young minds from West Pakistan to West London to be recruited for new terrorist acts."

I question that proposition, to the extent that it suggests that the Iraq war - which is certainly a real mess, both in conception and execution - explains the ongoing threat of terror across the globe. Such might be true but, then again, I think that there are alternative explanations that should be considered, most notably the impact of terrorist activity in inspiring recruits for Jihad and the ability of Jihadist propagandist to state their case for Jihad. And, then, of course, there is the issue that the Jihadist message is simply part and parcel of the Islamic revival movement - a violent leading edge of it, perhaps (to keep within your formula of a few bad apples), but part and parcel of it nonetheless - and is itself a major cause.

I recall that, even before the Iraq war, there was quite a bit of terror following 9/11 including, notably, the Bali bombing October 12, 2002 at Kuta which killed 202 people and injured an additional 209 people. There was an al Qa'ida attack on November 28, 2002 at a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya in which 16 people were killed. On December 13, 2001, there was terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. Lord knows how many terrorist attacks there were, during that period, in India and Israel, among other places. Lord knows how many attacks were prevented during that period by the spy agencies.

Here is a listing of known al Qa'ida attacks: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html . They appear, so far as I can discern, to continue at rather constant pace. Of course, terrorism is not limited to al Qa'ida.

Now, some terrorists might have been recruited due to the Iraq war. That is certainly possible. But, whether that has caused a spike in terrorism or otherwise made us less safe is not, in my view, so very obvious.

Then there is the point that one must consider, if we are to make a statement such as you have made, what would likely have occurred if the US had taken a different course - which is, of course, in part guess work, but, as a matter of logic, a necessary consideration in order to judge your statement -. Perhaps, had the US done nothing, that would also have inspired terrorism. And suppose that the US had gone on a peace promoting campaign - peace in our time, as it were -. That, too, could even more likely have inspired terrorism, on the propaganda argument that we are weak. Etc., etc., etc.

My view: While numerous terrorists are, no doubt, recruited in response and due to the Iraq war, the main recruiting devices are the Jihad attacks themselves and the propaganda employed by Jihadists, propaganda that shifts as the circumstances shift. And, there are not likely to be any circumstances where, in fact, the propagandists will come to conclude that their demands will be met so that they can go home and, in all probability, they can always find material around which to build their case. As noted in a rather brillian article in the London Telegraph by Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester: "Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement, and new demands will continue to be made." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=V4VTCCQZFTWHZQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/08/15/do1501.xml

So, I think that there are no simple formulas involved. It is not at all obvious that the Iraq war has, as a true causal matter, made us more vulnerable to terrorism. What is, in fact, known is that the Jihadists were making a substantial amount of terror anyway, and without the help of the Iraq war.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

baby Bush is an idiot, all right and he has a lot of bad guys around him who made a lot of mistakes but you can't blame them for 9/11.
It begun after Watergate and after the involvement of the CIA in the Pinochet putsch in Chile. The US congress changed the laws and the legal situation till 9/11/2001 didn't allow the FBI to police against terrorists didn't allow CIA to cooperate with FBI. The reality was that FBI had all the information but it was legally bound not to use it not to search it with modern computer techniques. Before 9/11 was illegal for an FBI agent to do a WWW search from his office computer and use the data to fight terrorism. Do you remember the thousands of pages that were strangely "found" one month before the McVeigh execution? It was mainly because the FBI didn't have a centralized computerized document repository and it was mainly for legal reasons.
I hope things are better now!
The main reason that FBI didn't use modern techniques before 9/11 is the past abuses of power of good old Nixon who used the CIA and FBI for his abuses.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Mr. Baker --

TV shows *can be* primary documents, inasmuch as they reflect what the producers of the TV show believe. Art's point is not invalid. I drill into my students every fall that primary documents aren't just "documents." A TV series can be analyzed to infer attitudes and beliefs of its producer and editors and of its audience: e.g., what material is being raised and how is it presented.

If I quit my teaching job and dash off to make movies about blood libel, this *would* be a primary document about what an American historian (with too much time on his hands, given how much I'm posting today...) thinks about the issue. (But not, true, one about blood libel itself).

And -- meaning no offense -- wouldn't engaging the article and TV show Art mentions be more profitable than casting slurs on him? His points seem reasonable. Why would anti-Semitic references be included in the TV show? (There are a number of answers ranging from core ideology of Hezbollah to factionalization which could be analyzed, after all.)

I've known a number of his students, and I don't pity them at all; he's a fine and respected historian.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

<laugh> Oh, that's my fault, sorry -- I meant the Legion of the Archangel Michael, not the FFR.

Though "Viva Le Mort" would fit the Iron Guard -- probably the strangest of the major fascist movements. (The founder claimed he was inspired by a vision of the Archangel Michael, who told him to save Romania, "nests" drank each others blood in rituals, and members were ordered to give themselves up commiting assassinations since they'd be required to repent from the sin of murder. Gah!)

I assume everyone's a historian of the Balkans -- there's other Legions, aren't there. ;)

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Oh, I'm willing to surrender the high ground -- and of course, give you all those kisses I deny Nasrallah -- if you'll just do something like show some similarities (which, heck, might exist) between Hezbollah's program and that of Mussolini in, say, 22 or 23 instead of duck metaphors.

Freebie point: saying, "I don't agree, but okay, I guess we can't convince each other" (which I'll concede), fine. Pissy parting shots about how since I don't agree with you I must love Islamic terrorists? Heck, sweets, I'll bicker with you all day after that. Art's got Omar, I've got you. Ah, couples...

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Ah, fair enough. I misread your comments as being rather monocausal, so my fault, yes. We're off into politics rather than history, but why not. :)

One point, however: I'm not sure that the West *could* "take sides" with the majority of the population without, as you put it, "interferring" (or rather, being *perceived* as intervening). Unless such a transition could be managed exceptionally well, I'm pessimistic that it would involve conflict -- and as the UN learned in Bosnia, there's no neutral humanitarian aid during a conflict. If the "Islamic crisis of modernity" is as severe as the "European crisis of modernity" (to link to the article and theme), the internal conflict (not all violent, I stress) would be severe.

I think there's three problems with what you suggest (I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying in terms of practical issues, IMO). The first is that if the US (EU, etc.) withdrew support for the regimes you mention, the result would be a spate of conflict that would discredit the framers of such policies *at home.*

On ethnic cleansing (I'll use my preferred term), I'd suggest the problem is more complex. The lesson of Yugoslavia was -- unfortunately -- that the international community was not well-suited to *stop* crises first in the SRY, then in Croatia and Bosnia. (The US didn't intervene in 1999 over Kosovo, it intervened because of what had happened, and assumptions -- some reasonable -- about what would happen next.) I think the question is less about white hats and black hats commiting cleansing and more reluctance by the US government to intervene (in any fashion) after the debacles of the 1990s (Somalia, Haiti) unless it has a clear political mandate to do so. Iraq will not help: unless the outcome is far more positive than I expect, alas, neo-isolationism will return en vogue in the US.

At the same time, however, what's better: intervenion (ala Belgrade 1999) or non-intervention (ala Dafur 2005 or Rwanda 1994)? There's no easy answer. :(

Finally, while I'd like to see the US do more to tie human rights into its foreign policy, both current elitist regimes *and* future populist regimes are likely to scream bloody murder that this is "intervention" in their affairs.

To put the question in a microcosm: if the US pulls out tomorrow in Iraq, say, my worry is less about the Jihadis "winning" than Iraq imploding. To wit, at this point (as opposed to 2003), does disengagement help the most people? In all honestly, I'm not sure (in part because the issues in Iraq are complex, and in part because I work on SEE, not the ME.) It's the "waiting for the bus problem" -- should and the West disengage (and reengage, as you suggest) *now*, and expect a degree of violence, casualties and death? Or "hold the course," and potentially see worse outcomes over time?

Even worse: whatever the merits of the US intervention into Iraq, I think it's reasonable to say that the policies taken on occupation have proven problematic. Any suggestion of "nation-building" or "society-building" in the US is rapidly becoming political anathema, i suspect.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

Your choice. At least the WWW doesn't waste paper. That's my try on being sarcastic.

Bill Heuisler - 8/23/2006

Mr. Frusetta,
Well said. I particularly liked the Legionairre reference.
Vive La Mort,
Vive La Guerre,
Vive La Sangre Legionairre!
Bill Heuisler

Bill Heuisler - 8/23/2006

Thank you Peter, Omar and Shcherban,
Your impassioned responses, though largely incoherent, lend wings to my self esteem. Rather than struggle with facts, people and history you three scatter witless claims about positions and theses you obviously do not understand.

Examples? Repeating terms like neocon twice in one sentence is an example of intellectual poverty; forgetting all the Muslims the US has saved in the Balkans and all the unanswered attacks on Americans since 1980 shows either historical ignorance or a rather awkward unamerican agenda.

You're entitled, but the slipshod writhing is comical and welcome.
Thank you for your anger, it measures my effectiveness.

Lastly, the killing will stop when the last Muslim fascist bleeds out. Notice how the one number you seldom hear is the terrorist body-count? Ever wonder about our kill-ratio? We have killed over 40,000 terrorists in Iraq, near 8,000 in Afganistan. Once the Zawahiris run out of dupes and realize Americans don't really mind killing their minions - and are doing so with great efficiency - they will beg for our mercy. Our troops are volunteers; the war in Iraq is only a little more dangerous than peace-time routine and far better training.

You three are very useful idiots.
Thanks again for your inadequacy.
Bill Heuisler

Arnold Shcherban - 8/23/2006

Mr Frusetta,

Noone is saying that ALL the woes of
Muslim world come from the West, neither that a struggle will be finished as soon, as the West withdraws. E.g., religious fanaticism
is another major problem of Middle East, so the battle there will definitely continue. But it will be the battle between and among Muslims
and they are not so stupid as to fault
Americans or British, if the ones don't support either side.
Now, provided someone cares about possible genocides, which as far any objective observer aware of, the US usually does care about when genocide perpetrated by the "wrong" side, let
wide international community take care of that, and ICC - of prosecution of respective
criminals, as it was done in Milosevich case, but not through the
bombing of civilian objects in national capitals, as it was done by US in Belgrad.

What I recommended that INSTEAD of interfering and withdrawing the West should take sides with democratic majority, not financial or religious
elite (not to say this not a wishful thinking).
If the West got to do something there, on top of buying oil, is to drop its financial and other kind of support to oppressive, theocratic or anti-democratic regimes, such as Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Pakistanian and the one it maintaines now in Iraq, which could not and will not stand on their own.

Surely, not all in Muslim world will appreciate Western constraint and neutrality overnight, after many decades of the colonialist, abusive and adversarial policies. But this appreciation will certainly come sooner than if "staying the course".

Give it a try for crying out loud, instead of brushing it off without
giving it any serious thought (the way
Bush treated the long letter from Iranian President, cleaning the way for one more US agression).

Besides, I yet to understand why the issue of non-interference in internal affairs of sovereign states, members
of UN that constitutes one of the main principles of world peace and stability, recognized by pretty much all governments, at least, on paper, should even be debated about... just
in one single case: West in the Third World.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Heck, if I can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!

Yes, Mr. Amitz – you’ve convinced me! My god, I don’t wanna have to smooch Nasrallah! Ew! Yuck!

The fact that Hezbollah wears black uniforms and give a salute identical to the fascist salute makes them fascists. If it weighs the same as a duck, it must be a witch! I mean, if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck!

But they’re not alone! There’s fascists everywhere! You can't stop now, there's more fascists to expose!!!

The East German government kept the old WW2 German uniform patterns. Nazis! Not to mention the Soviet Union – goosestepping! Jackboots! Military reviews! Militarized discourse! Fascists!

The Boy Scouts: suspiciously similar salute in the pledge! Obsession with cleanliness (e.g., hygene)! Brown shirts! Fascist! (The Cub Scouts seem safe at first -- but those yellow neckerchiefs are just like the ones in some of those photos of Hezbollah!)

OMG! Nunez must be a fascist given that salute! Coincidence of camera angle? No! Buchanan was RIGHT!

Prince Harry’s wearing a Nazi uniform and giving the salute at a party: insensitivity? Stupidity? No! Fascist! Fascist! Fascist!

The US pledge of allegiance, using a fascist-style salute! Well, that’s FASCIST! Wait… it was adopted a couple of decades before 1920… OMG, the FASCISTs evolved out of the United States! It was America’s fault all along!

Mr. Amitz. I don’t agree with your interpretation, for the reasons I’ve stated: I feel ideology and intent is more important than aesthetics: does it THINK like a duck. Hezbollah *may* resemble fascism, but I'd want evidence of intent and discourse.

Consider the sarcasm a nice return on your personal attack, though. Heck, who needs alt.flame! (I mean, wow, I got a Python reference in: I can't do that by addressing the academic corpus, can I.)

And dont' worry, Yehudi, I'm savin' all my kisses *just* for you!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

Or you'll prefer Americans blown up in subways, railroads or buses?

N. Friedman - 8/23/2006

Peter,

Muhammed said: "War is deception."

A. M. Eckstein - 8/23/2006

Omar,

1. I TOLD you exactly where you could find the article, exactly WHERE it appeared (in The New Yorker), I GAVE you the exact date and place it appeared (Oct. 7, 2002), the names of the leaders are all in there, I'm not hiding anything, and in fact I named several of the leaders in my original posting on this--but do the research yourself. The New Yorker is a highly reputable journal, the reporter is a highly reputable reporter who is still viewed four later by CNN (NOT FOX--CNN) as an authority on Hezbollah. But whereas I've given you exact information on the article. YOUR only argument, in the face of exact quotes by a reputable reporter in a reputable journal is merely "it is unlikely" that Hezbollah leaders said these things (such as "Jews are a lesion on the forehead of humanity"), on the sole grounds that YOU think Hezbollah leaders aren't anti-semitic (!). You offer no further proof except a bald-faced assertion that this didn't happen. You don't even have any Hezbollah denials, which, were they to appear now, four years later, would obviously be suspect. But so far, four years later, there aren't any. Frankly, you make yourself look ridiculous.

2. At first you had "no opinion" about the official Hezbollah TV program which had as its proclaimed theme Jews eating Christian babies, and which was broadcast for TWENTY-NINE EPISODES (!!) during the HOLIEST Muslim month of Ramadan (Nov.-Dec. 2003. Later, after I pressed you and pressed you, you said the show might have "anti-semitic aspects", and that these had in fact "disturbed the leadership of the Party." Not enough to get them to cancel the series, Omar--which ran (to repeat) for TWENTY-NINE episodes! In response, I also then NAMED the high Hezbollah official who appeared on al-Jazeera, and gave the EXACT date of his appearance (Nov. 10, 2003), and quoted him as saying that everything in this TV series was "100% true". This was an OFFICIAL statement of a Hezbollah official on world-wide TV, Omar. Is THIS supposed to be an example of how "the Party was disturbed" by the series' anti-semitism? Once more, you look ridiculous.

3. I then brought forward what happened in France in late 2004, when al-Manar, the official Hezbollah tv station, was banned in France for anti-semitism, to wit, a show in which Jews were accused of intentionally spreading AIDS to Muslims, the recycling of one of the oldest of vile medieval themes. Bad enough for the French courts to ban the tv station.

I, Omar, am on solid ground here. YOU, again, just look ridiculous. You have no evidence, no case, nothing. In fact, you are suffering from a serious epistemological difficiency: the inability to accept empirical date (FACTS) when they conflict with deeply held emotions and ideological beliefs. You display that severe difficiency concerning the ability to deal with specific FACTS every time you enter this subject.

Art Eckstein

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

There is no point continuing this discussion. Kiss your hezbollah angels wherever you want!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

Jihad is a good term for describing the islamic extremism but it loses quite a lot in translation and as such serves the Islamic propaganda and they usually make the point that jihad has a lot of meanings in Arabic. On the other hand fascism is very clear for the western ears and after all there is a war going on!

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Yes, you're right: "fascist" has deliberate political connotations in the west. I agree with you. I agree that to serve political agendas, using the word to refer to Hezbollah is useful. It's also useful to use "eco fascist," "femi-Nazi," or to call the US a den of "imperialist fascist warmongers," but that doesn't mean it's actually accurate.

And yes, if you read what I've posted, I agree that Hezbollah is probably drawing on historical precedent from fascism (though, frankly, I would assume the SS is a bigger draw than the squadristi in terms of fashion.) I don't recall suggesting they found the salute in a box of crackerjacks, say. :P

I'll repeat again in the vague hope that you'll engage what I'm saying: just because Hezbollah apes the trapping of fascism doesn't "make" them fascist anymore than the fact that the hipster kids I teach grow Castro-style beards, wear Che shirts and sport camis "makes" them Latin revolutionaries.

Now, if you can show how Hezbollah is preaching the same kind of social transformation that Mussolini proposed in the early 1920s, sure, okay.

But the fact that they've aped the shirt his thugs wore doesn't make them fascists. I would be amazed if the Hezbollah leadership actually had any sophisticated *understanding* of what Italian Fascism (or German Nazism, or the Legion, or the Arrow Cross, or the Ustashe, or, hell, even Pelley's Silver Shirts) actually said and did.

*Intent* rather matters, IMO -- and while Hezbollah shares a striking anti-Semitism with the Nazis (though not with Italian Fascism), it shares that with Black Hundreds, Queen Isabella, Martin Luther and the KKK.

Let the innumerable "Hezbollah are Klansmen" threads begin.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

If you read some of my other posts under this subject you can see that my point is that fascist sounds better for western ears.
Now how can you explain the following about Hezbollah.
1) black uniforms - the normal colors for the area would be desert or green camouflage uniforms. Probably green because Lebanon has a lot of green. This kind of uniforms can be easily found on the military surplus markets but they preferred the special order for black uniforms (probably more expensive). Black is the original fascist color used by the Italian fascists.
2) the fascist salute they use.
From where did they borrow these symbols and why? You tell me!

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Or, erm, rather, "casual" use of the term fascist. Ooops.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Since I've yapped several times about causal use of Fascist, I'll put my money where my post is (as it were). The original post by Mr. Mankoff is discussing whether or not comparison is useful. Griffin has been mentioned as well, in postings; my preference has been for Stanley Payne, since his starting position was from the *smaller* fascist movements frequently overshadowed by Nazism/Italian Fascism.

He argues (A History of Fascism), that *all* fascist movements can be compared as possessing *all* of the following:

Ideologically:
•“Idealist” philosophy espousing a new, self-determined, secular culture.
• Creation of new state not based on traditional principles or models.
• Highly regulated, multi-class, national economic structure.
• Positive evaluation and willingness to resort to violence and war.
• The goal of empire, expansion, or radical change in interstate relations.
Oppositions:
• Antiliberalism.
• Anticommunism.
• Anticonservativism.
Style & Organization:
• Mass mobilization, with militarizaiton of political style.
• Mass party militia.
• Aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, liturgy; emotion and mysticism.
• Stress on male dominance.
• Exaltation of youth above other phases of life.
• authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command (even if initially elective.)
(Now, individual movements has their own characteristics as well: the Nazis were racist and genocidally anti-Semitic, but not all Fascists were anti-Semitic; views on religion ranged from secularist Nazis to mystic Legionairres; etc. etc.)

Now, I'd personally argue (and while I work on Fascism, I don't work on the Middle East), that contemporary radicalism (or Jihadism, as Mr. Friendman suggests) fits in here vaguely. I'd say it *does* fit Payne's points 4-7, 9-12; and *doesn't* really fit points 1-3, 8 (possibly debatable), 13 or 14 (again, possibly debatable).

Now, there's correlation there (though I'm not sure it'd fit Mr. Amitz's 80% threshold, which is a reasonable point: fruitful comparison is better than nitpicking). But Soviet-style communism (of at least the 1930s) matches about 10 points, and 19th century anarchism matches about 9.

Now, I'm not arguing that Payne's work is offbase! Rather, it suggests that Fascism was one of a number of movements that reacted to social, economic and political changes of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries, and has a number of things in common with them. There's things in common with radicalism/Jihadism as well, but I'd suggest this indicates a similar *problem* the movements are reacting to (as Prof. Herf's recent article suggested).

Since I actually am interested in scholarly work on Fascism, I don't like the "close" comparison, which drowns out Fascism (and Jihadism's, if I may bend the term) unique features. But I think some broad similarity suggest that comparison might be made to revolutionary movements which opposed "modernism" in various forms.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

Heh. Rather to say, that if the West disengages as suggested, indeed conflict between radicals and the West will, indeed, be reduced.

Instead, the shift will be to conflict *within* the Middle East, as radicals attempt to embark on the social revolution they wish, and what I would expect to be inevitable collisions with both existing elites (corrupt and otherwise) and rival movements (secularists, etc.) (Mind, aspects of such a social revolution might indeed benefit a majority of the regio, though I'd be less optimistic about the overall results: but that's my own admitted bias.)

I am *not* arguing that this is a justification for current Western intervention. I *am* saying that if the US and EU withdrawl from the Middle East, I doubt conflict would suddenly end.

This also assumes that the conflict would not continue within or transfer to related issues: e.g., the status of Muslim minorities in Western Europe created mostly through emigration and the status of Muslim minorities created through territory obtained as a result of imperialism (Russia and China, arguably India). If I was a jihadi of universalist ambition, demanding that *all* Muslim territories be relinquished from foreign rule seems a logical enough next step, after all.

Again, this is not to argue "America must stay the course, or else!" but to say that the idea that a cabal of Western oilmen-cum-illuminati have caused all conflict in the Middle East seems a bit, ah, monocausal.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

If a surface resemblance proves affinity, then what isn't fascist by your definition? Since it's *easy* to find surface resemblances...

Given the news that a restaurant called "Hitler's Cross" just opened in Bombay, are you now going to advance that, aha!, there's an affinity between Hindus and Nazis?

The fact that someone in Hezbollah either thought that

A) the Nazi use of symbology and ritual was effective and could be emulated;
B) this will irritate the hell out of Israel, let's do it; or
C) why not emulate a powerful historical anti-Semitism?;

means -- exactly that. It doesn't mean that Hezbollah is actually fascist any more than someone on the political left screaming that [Insert Name of Right-wing Dictator Here] is fascist makes them a fascist.

N. Friedman - 8/23/2006

Yehudi,

I use Jihadism to refer to the theosophical belief in using violence for purposes of spreading Muslim rule. Those who are fighting non-Muslims today believe in Jihadism and are Jihadis.

In Arabic, the root JHD refers to struggle and exertion. Jihad, when it signal its most common war-like meaning is usually written as Jihad fi sabil Allah (i.e. Jihad in the path of Allah). A mujahid is one who makes Jihad war - i.e. a Jihadi.

Professor Lewis reports, in his book, The Political Language of Islam, that use of Jihad in its war sense is its most common usage, historically speaking. Professor Phares reports that, growing up in Lebanon and travelling in the Arab regions, Jihad was used pretty much only to mean war. He notes that his first exposure to other meanings for Jihad was among American university professors - a rather interesting comment -. He thus thinks that such other means are applicable only in non-Muslim universities.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

that's all

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

I am far from being an expert in the intricacies of the Arab language, as far as i know jihad means struggle and the Quran meaning of the word is usually very violent. So sometime struggle may not describe extremism the best way.

James Frusetta - 8/23/2006

... it's still not necessarily a duck?

The debate of "if it looks like a fascist" has been done to death. The key debate was over Communism, because Soviet-style Communism was very *similar* to Fascism in many ways. But it *wasn't* Fascist, and the points of difference were rather significant (Communism is, in at least its ideology, far more positive, is not racist, and is (presumably) universalist rather than nationalist: and these differences are very great.). There's a *reason* why Arendt developed "totalitarianism" -- to find a way to compare things she believed were similar. There's a certain relation (both were attempts to deal with the same perceived flaws in modernity), but they're not the same thing.

Arguing that because Hezbollah (and I would agree, probably consciously) adopted trappings of fascism it *is* fascist would be like arguing that because the IDF is very well trained it's the same as the army of Frederick the Great. Or like, as I see daily on HNN, arguing that any right-wing entity of any kind is fascist. This may be good politics, but this is crap history, and until the name of the site is changed to PNN, well...

N. Friedman - 8/23/2006

Yehuda,

Terminology is very difficult. I hear your point about using fascist, as is used much in politics to describe, for example, people in the opposite, hated party.

I think the problem with your view is that the word "fascist" has taken on such a broad meaning as to have lost its serious, historical significance as an accurate appellation for a terrible political movement that had at least some specific characteristics. So, the only thing the public likely learns from use of "fascist" is that someone does not like the movement so named. That is not very helpful, in my view.

I might also note that it was possible to defeat the fascist movement in a reasonable, albeit bloody, period of time. The Jihadist movement - which is the most accurate name I can imagine - is possibly another story.

Its roots really do include religion and, whether or not modern Jihadist thought has brought in Western ideas and whether or not, as some claim, modern Jihadist thought is deviant and incorrect under Islam, the fact is that large numbers of Muslims - and even on Peter's view of a tiny group, still millions of people - believe in modern Jihadism as revivalist Islam acting to restore Islam to its full glory.

As I noted above, whatever opponents there may actually be among Muslims - most or some or something in between -, an adequate theological objection has yet to be put forth, much less in a serious way, that such movement is heretical or deviant. By contrast, serious theological objections, as shown by Timothy Furnish, have been made against those who espouse the religious bona fides of a Mahdi in Sunni Islam. And, to a part of the world and groups of people who take religion very, very seriously, the absence of a serious theological challenge to modern Jihadism is very significant since the reasonable implication is that there is no serious theological objection. And, that means that the movement is not really heretical.

The Jihadist movement is likly far more difficult to defeat than was fascism, at least on my theory that a religious movement - one that is not wholly heretical - is far more difficult to defeat than a secular one.

My view: we should call the movement the Jihadist movement. It is accurate and clear - except for misinformed people who think that Jihad is a ritual bath. Such people, however, are not susceptible to rational argument or facts anyway.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

If it walks like a duck ............ ?!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

Fascist is a term invented by the Italians and comes from the fasces used by the Romans. Nazi means national socialism. Ask Mussolini if you don't believe me!

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

the term "Isalamofascists" is a way to describe the islamic extremism in western terms, it doesn't mean that it fits 100%.
In the heat of the conversation we call fascists everything right of the political center and communists everything left of political center and most of us know that it's an exageration.
Islamofascist decribe the islamic extremism maybe 80-90%, that's good enough for me, the rest is an exercise in futility.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

Please try to take out of your thinking the western mind set. We are talking about Islamic culture and its "fascist" like characteristics not more not less.
"fascists for allah" suits you?

Yehudi Amitz - 8/23/2006

Al-Qaeda glorifies the caliphate which is for sure a form of state.
As an example the Croatian fascists glorified the Croatian fascist state, which was in existence for a few years duting WWII, and contested the legitimacy of the kingdom of Yougoslavia.
The state is there but, of course, not in the European form of it.

N. Friedman - 8/23/2006

Peter,

This is a factual issue, not an ideological issue. The question is how large a group. The evidence suggests that the group is quite large. But, how large is an open question. And that is what I was saying.

What you are doing, by contrast, is playing games with words. I suspect you are alone in your interpretation of what I said.

Do you, by the way, challenge Professor Phares' point about what occurred on TV stations such as al Jazeera? If not, how do you explain that evidence other than to suggest a large group of people must be, in some way, pro-Jihadist?

A. M. Eckstein - 8/23/2006

Dear Readers,

In assessing the intellectual value of anything that the Islamofascist propagandist Omar Baker says, including accusations of the most primitive type against Israeli society, I urge all readers to look back at his entries on Islam and fascism over the past two weeks, There you will discover that this is a person who vociferously denied and indeed continues to deny, in the face of overwhelming and specific evidence--dated events and quotes--that Hezbollah is anti-semitic. The evidence includes statements from a Hezbollah spokesman on al-Jazeera tv in November 2003 that the idea that Jews eat Christian babies on Passover is "totally true." That wasn't enough for Omar. That includes the showing on official Hebollah TV, during the HOLIEST month for Muslims (Ramadan) in 2003 of a TWENTY-NINE-episode television show (!!) based on this premise. This, however, was NOT enough to convince Mr. Baker that Hezbollah was anti-semitic. This includes the broadcasting the next year of a show accusing Jews of spreading AIDS. This led to the Hezbollah network being banned from France by a French court as anti-semitic. That wasn't enough to convince Omar Baker either.

This sort of primitive medieval hatred is what Baker means by "the Islamic revival."
.
Draw your own conclusions about the intellectual worth and honesty of this person. Any statements Omar Baker makes that actually happen to be true? Well, folks, it's purely an accident..

Art Eckstein

N. Friedman - 8/23/2006

Peter,

The problem, then, is that you did not understand what I wrote. I did not say or imply all or most. I said a large group of people must be rather supportive of the Jihadist movement. You, by contrast, made an idiotic analogy.

N. Friedman - 8/23/2006

Patrick,

I was merely indicating that Omar appears to be what he claims. The context was Professor Eckstein's claim that certain posters, such as Omar, might be phoneys.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/23/2006

Some neocon, ultra-right, i.e. essentially fascist, commentators, loyally echoing the lexicographic a-la-end-of-the-world-is-coming "inventions" of imperialist neocon ideologues, hope
for the main chapters of 20th century history to disappear from peoples' minds.

They say that "we", i.e. Western civilization, has never faced
such a global and terrible threat as
the one coming from Islamic terrorism/fascism.
As it has become traditional for those
folks they are lying again.

According to essentially the same singers in this choir of ideological terrorists (they do murder the Truth all the time) Western civilization has already faced the threat that (if
one took their contructions for a face value at the time) was, by all means, more global, capable and lethal: the Reds - inside and outside.
Moreover, since apparently their imagination for trumping up a fresh lie failed them miserably, the
the same obsolete terms are employed for their meta-religious rhetoric with
which they try to line up one group of
religious fanatics(evangelical Christians) against the other (Islamic
fanatics). The terms like: "Axis of Evil" - obvious reference to Soviet Evil Empire (the invention of
the Father of neoconism - Ronald Reigan) along with the catching phrases like "Russians are coming" were meant exclusively to scare the life out of the US common folks, having, at the same time, nothing to do with military, political, and strategic reality.

The fascist Axis was really a global
and deadly threat, but the relative economic, technological and military capacities of even all Arab nations taken together cannot be marginally compared to respective capacities of
the Western civilization, in
striking difference with the relative
capacities of countries of fascist
Axis to their respective adversaries
at the start of their wars of agression and territorial conquest.

The probability of Iran or Syria or entire Arab League military attacking major Western countries, like UK and US, is as big, as the probability
of GWB typing Kamu's "Stranger" from memory without making a single error
from the first attempt.

The real end of so-called War on Terror will come when the West stop
its greedy attempts on the mineral and human resourses of other sovereign nations and the policies
of economic, financial and military
dictate, the policies of inhumane sanctions, insulting ultimatums, and
military agression and start paying
elementary respect not to Muslim elite, but to Muslim populus majority
around the world, as well, as to the majorities in the other countries, including their own.

Not coincidentally and quite symbollically that GWB openly and shameleslly called captains of Big Business, not the US majority, his political and social "base".

understand through the harsh lessons
of prolonged political defeat

N. Friedman - 8/22/2006

Professor Eckstein,

Goldhizer was presenting what is the classical understanding of Islam, as understood by the mass of Muslims over the course of the millennia. This should not, at least in my view, be a controversial matter although I have heard that there are people in universities who make a habit of re-creating the word "jihad."

A. M. Eckstein - 8/22/2006

Dear Mr. Friedman,

The quote you quote in Italics is enough to show the possible connection of Goldhizer's understanding of jihad to Qutb's thinking. But I may be confusing Goldhizer with someone else (a Jewish convert to radical Islam in the 1920s whose work certainly did influence Qutb), so I won't press this at all. (That is, I may well be wrong on Goldhizer, who certainly was a great scholar of Islam.)

Art Eckstein

N. Friedman - 8/22/2006

Professor Eckstein,

While I read everything I can get my hands on about Islam, its theology, practice and history, etc., my doctorate is in law, which I practice. Which means, that I can read many hundreds, but not thousands, of books on my noted area of interest, fitting such things between work and family.

I wonder about your comment on Ignaz Goldhizer. I suspect that he would be mortified if what you say is correct. And, he is certainly one of the best informed scholars about Islamic theology and law that I have ever read. In any event, please explain the connection you see between Qutb and Goldhizer. I do not see it but, of course, we are all here to learn.

N. Friedman - 8/22/2006

Peter,

Do not put words into my mouth. I said what I said, not what you have twisted my words into.

Moreover, I have never supported the Iraq war and am not a devotee of Mr. Horowitz. I have, however, read him and some of what he writes makes sense to me and some does not.

Again: stop twisting my words around. I did not say what you attributed to me.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/22/2006

Dear Professor Friedman,

Dear Dr. Friedman,

Of course it would have been better if a Muslim (or someone claiming to be a Muslim) had explained all this and thus had begun a real conversation about the crisis of modernization within Islam. Even as it is, you provide much food for thought. I believe that Goldhizer was actually an intellectual influence on that inspirier of terrorists and neo-traditional primitives Sayyed Qutb.

But I remain to be convinced that "Omar Baker", intellectually illiterate but ineffably stubborn and impervious-to-specific-evidence, is an actual Muslim. Mr. Halabi, if he is indeed a Muslim (which I hope he is not, but just a trickster), represents the most primitive and hate-filled and historically ignorant of "Jewish conspiracy" theories. If both these guys are actual Muslims, however, and this is the way they actually think (I mean not merely in ignorance of facts but in triumphant hatred and rejection of rational argument to boot), and they represent a significant portion of the Muslim population, then--as I said--this represents a serious problem which has reared its head on HNN for all of us who are actually civilized to consider.

I seriously hope, however, that these are just guys trying to give Islam a bad name.

Art Eckstein

E. Simon - 8/22/2006

Peter,

Thank you for the first sentence; it clarifies all for which I ask, and NO, I did not know that this was your position.

As far as what you say that Friedman is "trying to" do, or what you think that I knew before I made my post, I think that such speculation is, frankly, what drives missattribution. The statement of what you thought I knew was certainly not an accurate representation of what I did or did not know. And if none of us speculate into the motives of others, but rather do our utmost to clarify positions that we shouldn't guess are as clear as they are to ourselves, then it seems many less of us would feel any need to preemptively torpedo misattribution, as this would be less likely to occur.

Thanks!

E. Simon - 8/22/2006

Peter, I'm a bit unclear on what you're trying to say here. Is it your contention that the tradition of nonviolent political dissent and change is as established and as accepted in every part of the world as it is in the West? Please clarify (in a civil way) if you don't mind. Thanks!

James Frusetta - 8/22/2006

A myth of the "chosen people" is not unusual in national movements; while fascist movements and Zionism might be comparable in this regard, so would innumerable other national movements (including some in the Islamic world, I suspect. It's an exceedingly common nationalist trope.)

The racialist thinking of the Nazis was a factor apart, however. While I'm sure that there's racism in Israel (as there's racism everywhere), I'm not sure how the ethnic diversity resulting from the Jewish Diasporah would *allow* for a Nazi-style racial categorization. I'm sure a few loonies have tried, but there's loonies everywhere.

I suspect we're far into the territory of Godwin's Law, I fear. Though indeed, your point on radicalism's appeal when other forms of secular politics have apparently failed is a good one. If we continue the original parallel to Fascism, the problem that radicalism might face is whether or not it can promise long-term "constructive" growth. (Fascism certainly failed to deliver on either its promise of revolution or of growth, but this was in a different context so it's not necessarily prescriptive.)

N. Friedman - 8/22/2006

Mr. Halabi,

It would help if you read the comment to which you responded. Professor Eckstein wondered whether you were really Muslim, as your parting words (i.e. "God will defend Islam against 21st century draculas") suggest, or whether you are a person seeking to give Islam a bad name.

That is a fair question as, in fact, the tenor of your comments (e.g. http://hnn.us/comments/96057.html ) appear to deny the humanity of those who have a dispute with certain Muslims.

Surely, true Muslims should understand that the issue in the Arab Israeli dispute is how to accomodate competing legitimate claims - that of Israeli Jews and that of Christian and Muslim Arabs - on a small tract of land. So, the professor finds it difficult to imagine that you really believe in Islam.

He was not attempting to create a network where Jewish people can debate. He was concerned that someone was posing as a Muslim and, given the tenor of your comment, bad mouthing Muslims by attacking Israel.

N. Friedman - 8/22/2006

Professor,

I do not know about Mr. Halabi, but Omar is the real thing, in the sense that he is Arab and, quite clearly, of Muslim background. I take his view as rather typical of those of Muslims in the Middle East.

Note, also, that he believes that we are dealing with a revival of Islam, not a neo-fascist movement. See http://hnn.us/comments/96076.html . I, for one, think that he is entirely correct.

If this is a religious revival, we are dealing with a phenomena likely to be far longer lasting and more difficult to overcome, as an active force to contend with, than was fascism. There is, as it were, no way to tell people that what they do in the name of their faith is wrong-headed. And, since Jihad is a rather central element of Islam, it is rather difficult to tell Muslims that Jihad is wrong and immoral when, in the Islamic scheme, it is just and enjoined by Allah.

As for the traditional view of Islam, I quote, as I have numerous times before, a passage co-written by the greatest, by far, Islamicist of his time, Ignaz Goldhizer - and he was no enemy of Islam but, if anything, a man who saw it his life mission to present Islam in a positive light - in order to explain the Islamic world mission:

In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the "jihad" (= "fighting against infidels") is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, "ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad" (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that "God's word may be raised to the highest place." Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those "who possess Scriptures" ("ahl al-kitab"), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute ("jizyah") and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam ("dar al-Islam") and the territory of war. ("dar al-ḥarb"), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful ("amir al-mu'minin") to lead the community in the jihad.

It is important to understand that Jihad is, in fact, a potent issue for those who really believe in Islam. And it is important to understand that Jihad, by small groups, is an issue of debate by Islam.

Note that Goldhizer presents the classical Sunni view that Jihad is the collective - rather than an individual - endeavor. Not to challenge Goldhizer's view, which is clearly correct in theory, but it is important also to note, with today's problems in mind, the existing history in which small groups engaged in non-officially sanctioned Jihad through most of Islam's history. In this regard, there is precedent in the early razzias of the Prophet and his companions. There is well documented precendent in the razzias conducted during most of the history of the religion thereafter. So, what is going on today not only has precedent but that precedent is within not outside of what is arguable, based on what occurred from the very earliest days of the faith.

Mubde HALABI - 8/22/2006

Excuse me. This forum is for jews only... Right?
Sorry, I forgot that only jews are the intelectuals of this world while all others including christians and muslims are 2nd class people who are ignorant and should not express their views or they will be insulted. Thank you

N. Friedman - 8/22/2006

Peter,

You are being unfair to Bill. And, as I said in my post above, the number of people who are part of al Qa'ida itself is unknown. The number of people who are rather supportive of al Qa'ida is unknown. The number of people who, while not liking the violence espoused by groups such as al Qa'ida, believe in such groups' long term goals is unknown.

What is known is that while groups like al Qa'ida have been challenged by "moderates" at least to some extent, challenges have not been much on theological or moral grounds. And the reason that such is the case is quite probably that groups like al Qa'ida are not, intellectually speaking, entirely outside of the mainstream of what is considered traditional Islam.

That is not to say that a traditional Muslim might not have a theological objection to al Qa'ida but, rather, that such objection is not so profound as you and I might like it to be. In this regard: I remind you that the call to da'wa is a traditional and profound one in Islam and the use of Jihad to advance the cause is also traditional and profound one in Islam as well. And, historically, there has been quite a lot of small groups engaged in Jihadic activity - usually termed razzias and, sometimes, ghazwa.

Now, after 9/11, Walid Phares - whom you berate but who, to anyone who has taken his classes or read him, is really a close watcher of the debate among Muslims in the Muslim regions - reports that there were substantial debates broadcast on al Jazeera TV. According to Phares, not one of the debates included a single panelist or even questioner who objected to the attack as being wrong or unIslamic. Instead, these debates - which apparently were frequent and rather far reaching in the wake of 9/11 - focused on practical issues, such as whether it was really good tactics to blow up buildings in the US, whether it was the right timing then or whether, as a practical matter, violence was necessary to push the cause. As he says in his recent book, no one - as in not a single person on any of these TV shows - argued or even doubted the justice of the attacks or the propriety of the attacks in the Islamic scheme of things or in the general moral scheme of things.

Assuming that Phares is correct, the idea that the groups which share the aims - if not the methods of - al Qa'ida cannot be small. In fact, even if he overlooked mention by someone as to the morality or Islamic appropriateness of the attacks, the groups which share the aims must be very large and there must be widespread support as to the long term goals. So, I am rather doubtful that we really are dealing with a tiny group, even if al Qa'ida itself only has a few hundred inner circle members and a few thousand other members.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/22/2006

I meant this as a serious question, folks. I'm not trying to be satirical.

We have no evidence that the people posting here as Muslims, i.e., with "Muslim" names, are actual Muslims. And the intellectual level of their postings is so disgracefully low that it is hard to believe they are. I certainly hope they are not. But...if they are (which I have serious doubts about)...wouldn't that raise very serious questions?

art eckstein

art Eckstein

A. M. Eckstein - 8/22/2006

It's so nice once more to have the usual rational input to this forum from a Muslim. This person proves Borum's and Heuisler's point

Isn't anyone here concerned about the disgracefully low intellectual level that people claiming to be Muslims have exhibited on this forum in the past three weeks? What are we to make of it? Is this yet another "plot against Islam", or are we dealing with real but incredibly ignorant and ideologically blinded people? Hard to tell.

art eckstein

Mubde HALABI - 8/22/2006

It is really unfortunate for the USA in the 21st century to have such a president. G.W. Bush is a zionist who belong to the Bush dynasty which lives on oil and humanity blood.
Islam doesnot need any defence, God will defend Islam against 21st century draculas.

N. Friedman - 8/21/2006

James,

You make some interesting points. I am definitely not an expert on Fascism.

As for Islam, there is some evidence of Western influence on thought in the Muslim Arab regions. For example, the Baathist movement was clearly influenced by the Fascists. It is said that Sayyid Qutb was influenced by Western thought also although the alleged connections seem, from what I can tell, to have less to them than meets the eye. Then again, no one is an island.

My gut reaction is that we are dealing with an Islamic revival, not an outbreak of fascism. The form that the revival has taken is one that looks to the first great era of Islamic expansion, the first several hundred years of the faith. Its cause is, in my view, opportunity: a large generation of hungry young, the rise of global communication via the Internet, the appearance of large numbers of Muslims in Western countries, etc., etc. There may be other causes but the above is sufficient to explain most of what is occurring.

Bill Heuisler - 8/21/2006

Mr. Borum is correct, but restrained.

Fascism has become a pejorative that means many things to many people. Most agree it is an ultranational political force that manifests in repression and expansion. Radical Islam is all that and more.

Mr. Mankoff spends most of his essay showing similarities and produces rather easily overcome distinctions:

First, he calls al Qaeda, "a small, conspiratorial organization whose influence flows more from its ability to inspire small numbers of fanatical followers with its mastery of modern communication technology than from its ability to become a mass movement or a force in electoral politics."

This is sophistry. Al Qaeda is a group of like-minded fanatics who are expanding where they are allowed and allying with groups like Hamas, the Taliban, Hezb'Allah, etc. to reach a common goal of world domination. This is clear from their espousal of the Caliphate, the 12th Imam legend and their stated intent to destroy all who do not believe.

Muslim radicalism is everywhere similar. Look at Darfur, Somalia, Iran, Iraq and Afganistan. Killing innocents is customary and there's no treating with them, only submission.

Second, Mankoff writes "the nature of al-Qaeda's violence...targets foreign enemies." That is not true in Darfur, not true in Afganistan and not true any where else strict Sharia takes control. First they target domestic enemies as did Hitler and Stalin.

Lastly Mankoff writes how, "European fascists all glorified the state and sought to seize state power for themselves." True. But conveniently he forgets the Islamic Radical goal of a grand Caliphate replacing all other countries.

Greater Germany in spades; USSR worldwide and a new Roman Empire in all continents. Worse than Fascism, these radicals demand we submit or die. They will accept nothing less. Fascism does not encompass this evil.
We must invent another word.
Bill Heuisler

James Frusetta - 8/21/2006

The point regarding state control is interesting. One possible point of correlation between European fascist movements and Islamic radicalism (and I state up front, my knowledge of the latter is mostly cursory) might be *weakness.*

European Fascist parties were generally surprisingly weak. In every case where they came to power through their own efforts (Italy, Germany and, briefly, Romania) they did so with the complicity of domestic conservatives. (In Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary, they were installed through German intervention).

For various reasons, I'm not sure I buy much of the "Islamofascism" argument (I find the movements too different in ideological and social terms. If nothing else, Islam is a universalist creed while Fascism in all its incarnations was strongly nationalist.) But the question of whether or not radicalism in the contemporary mideast is comparatively *stronger* (and state structures comparatively weaker than in 1920s-30s Europe) is a very pertinant one, I think.

James Spence - 8/21/2006

Lighten up, Mr. Shcherban, and stop trying to gage my intellectual capacity – it’s probably nothing close to yours. Posts (#96000) through (#96014) are just trying to be lighthearted. A newspaper recently reported that Bush is reading Camus was the reason for my jest. Is it so difficult to believe that our president could read an existentialist writer?

Randy Borum - 8/21/2006

Thank you Mr. Mankoff for your thoughtful article. With the precision of a well-trained historian, you insightfully point out some key differences between Al-Qa’ida and the Third Reich, and I concur with your view that this “new struggle will have little in common with that of World War II.”

I am not a trained historian, so I will leave the ultimate question (and debate) of whether Al-Qa’ida’s ideology could be properly regarded as “fascist” to those better informed than I . In his recent book, The Anatomy of Fascism, historian Robert Paxton uses the following definition: "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion" (p. 218).

Using the general contours of this definition, I certainly see some ways in which a global militant jihadist ideology might fit the bill, but perhaps that misses the point. I don’t know that it is necessarily true that the “comparison suggests that Islamic radicalism must, as with the Third Reich, be annihilated militarily” - or at least only or primarily militarily. Stephen Biddle of the US Army War College, with remarkable foresight in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, said: “Our real opponent is the ideology that underpins al-Qaeda’s terrorist program—it is not terrorism per se, nor even al-Qaeda itself.” He also remarks, as others have, that “this war {on terrorism} can be won, not merely contained. But this will require war aims focused on our enemies’ ideology, not their tactics.” Even if Al-Qa’ida is destroyed, that ideology will be its legacy. That ideology should reasonably be the focus of our long-term counterterrorism efforts.

In 2004, President Bush declared that: “We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.” Whether or not it can be characterized as fascist, it is a hateful, intolerant, anti-democratic ideology that is totalitarian, at least in the sense that, it seeks to control all domains of life and behavior.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/21/2006

You're right about one, sir: GWB is not dumb, he's (if you allow me to use
neocon's religiously mythical terminology) evil with low IQ.
Not all evil personas are exactly geniuses, you know.
May be dumb, but right (no pun intended) was also one of the intentionally created by neocons GWB's electorial images to make him
likable for common, less educated Americans.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/21/2006

Peter,

It looks like you didn't taste the juice of my last comment at all.
I did not make any attempt to compare Bush administration or the ideological constructions it builds
the policies on with respective ones of the Nazis.
You perhaps misread what I typed or
was misled by poor construction of
some of my sentences.
But you did grab the main point made by me correctly: Cheney-Dubya's and neocon's propaganda's labeling Islamic terrorism as 'fascist' is not coincidental or inaccurate rhetoric, but part of systemic manipulation of US public opinion to justify the preemptive war (essentially - agression) strategy.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/21/2006

The person is known by what conclusions he draws from his reading,
and actions, perhaps, based on those
conclusions, not by what he's reading.
So, if you Mr. Spense are really serious, as you stated, then ... well,
I'll refrain from offending your intellectual capacity for now.

N. Friedman - 8/21/2006

The article conflates al Qa'ida with the totality of Jihadist movements. Then, its suggests taht al Qa'ida, as if it were the only movement, is a tiny group which inspires small numbers of people.

The reality is that the number of violent Jihadists is unknown. And the number of supporters of violent Jihadists is unknown. And, the number of people who share the end goal, but not the means, of the Jihadists is unknown.

We should stop pretending otherwise.

As for the comment that al Qa'ida is not a fascist movement plays a bit loose with the evidence, in my view. Fascism was not always the movement of particular governments. At some point, it did not control states. Yet, it was a dangerous movement - as the historical record shows - that, in time, came to control states.

As for coming to control states, we know that the Jihadist movement came to control not only Afghanistan, as the article suggests. The movement also controls much of the PA, controlled Sudan and is now making inroads toward controlling Somalia. And, while not Sunni movements or states, there is a pretty good case to be made that Iran is Jihadist and, it should be added, serious inroads are being made in the Hezbollah ruled portions of Lebanon.

So, I think that a good case can be made that Jihadism is making serious inroads at governance in the Muslim regions.

Now, I think - and believe Professor Furnish has made an excellent case in his article last week - that the Jihadist movement is not really fascist, although there are elements clearly in common, as the current article also indicates. So, I agree with that part of the article but am not quite sure that its reasoning is so good.

James Spence - 8/21/2006

Actually, I was serious. Bush has been reading Camus, unless the media is trying to be funny.

Emmet Cooney - 8/21/2006

No, no ... You've misoverestimated Dim Son - he thought that he would be reading The Campus Strangler and was looking forward to empathizing with another murderous social deviant. Oddly enough ...

James Spence - 8/21/2006

Now now, my friend, I think you have it all wrong about GW Bush. According to a news report, he was reading Albert Camus' 'The Stranger' this summer before he got rudely interupted by the bloody war in the Levant. So Bush could be a closet existentialist. Not so dumb after all.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/20/2006

The definition of Al-Qaeda (somebody yet to explain to any educated and logical listener what that is on the first place) as fascist presented to Western public by neocon propagandists besides being, at the best, poor analogy, is by no means just accidental or political rhetoric intended to solidify the West against Islamic terrorists.
It is deliberate neocon propagandist strategy to justify the so-called preemptive wars against sovereign
Muslim states, the ones who are <not
with us> (as GWB ones mentioned), by
putting the equality sign between radical group mentality and criminal choice of means of a struggle and the openly declared and persistently followed racist state ideology pursuing the ultimate goal of world dominancy by Arian race and, led by that very goal, attacking foreign countries to occupy, control them, often planning to turn their entire populations into slaves of the "higher race".