The Arab-Israeli conflict is often said, not just by extremists, to be the world's most dangerous conflict – and, accordingly, Israel is judged the world's most belligerent country.

For example, British prime minister Tony Blair told the U.S. Congress in July 2003 that"Terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel." This viewpoint leads many Europeans, among others, to see Israel as the most menacing country on earth.

But is this true? It flies in the face of the well-known pattern that liberal democracies do not aggress; plus, it assumes, wrongly, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is among the most costly in terms of lives lost.

To place the Arab-Israeli fatalities in their proper context, one of the two co-authors, Gunnar Heinsohn, has compiled statistics to rank conflicts since 1950 by the number of human deaths incurred. Note how far down the list is the entry in bold type.

Conflicts since 1950 with over 10,000 Fatalities*

1	40,000,000	Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2	10,000,000	Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3	4,000,000	Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
4	3,800,000	Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present
5	2,800,000	Korean war, 1950-53
6	1,900,000	Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
7	1,870,000	Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
8	1,800,000	Vietnam War, 1954-75
9	1,800,000	Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
10	1,250,000	West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
11	1,100,000	Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present
12	1,100,000	Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92
13	1,000,000	Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88
14	900,000	Rwanda genocide, 1994
15	875,000	Algeria: against France 1954-62 (675,000); between Islamists and the government 1991-2006 (200,000)
16	850,000	Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-present
17	650,000	Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-present (200,000)
18	580,000	Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal's retreat (1972-2002)
19	500,000	Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999
20	430,000	Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)
21	400,000	Indochina: against France, 1945-54
22	400,000	Burundi, 1959-present (Tutsi/Hutu)
23	400,000	Somalia, 1991-present
24	400,000	North Korea up to 2006 (own people)
25	300,000	Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s
26	300,000	Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)
27	240,000	Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-present
28	200,000	Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80
29	200,000	Guatemala, 1960-96
30	190,000	Laos, 1975-90
31	175,000	Serbia against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999
32	150,000	Romania, 1949-99 (own people)
33	150,000	Liberia, 1989-97
34	140,000	Russia against Chechnya, 1994-present
35	150,000	Lebanon civil war, 1975-90
36	140,000	Kuwait War, 1990-91
37	130,000	Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-present (120,000)
38	130,000	Burma/Myanmar, 1948-present
39	100,000	North Yemen, 1962-70
40	100,000	Sierra Leone, 1991-present
41	100,000	Albania, 1945-91 (own people)
42	80,000	Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)
43	75,000	Iraq, 2003-present (domestic)
44	75,000	El Salvador, 1975-92
45	70,000	Eritrea against Ethiopia, 1998-2000
46	68,000	Sri Lanka, 1997-present
47	60,000	Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present
48	60,000	Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49	51,000	Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present
50	50,000	North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)
51	50,000	Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
52	50,000	Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79
53	50,000	Peru, 1980-2000
54	50,000	Guinea, 1958-84
55	40,000	Chad, 1982-90
56	30,000	Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)
57	30,000	Rhodesia, 1972-79
58	30,000	Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)
59	27,000	Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)
60	26,000	Kashmir independence, 1989-present
61	25,000	Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)
62	22,000	Poland, 1948-89 (own people)
63	20,000	Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)
64	20,000	Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979
65	19,000	Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)
66	18,000	Congo Republic, 1997-99
67	10,000	South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)

*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999,2^nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M.,"Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century," 2003.

	Mao Tse-Tung, by far the greatest post-1950 murderer.

These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting.

(Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.)

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

Comments: (1) Despite the relative non-lethality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its renown, notoriety, complexity, and diplomatic centrality will probably give it continued out-sized importance in the global imagination. And Israel's reputation will continue to pay the price. (2) Still, it helps to point out the 1-in-1,700 statistic as a corrective, in the hope that one day, this reality will register, permitting the Arab-Israeli conflict to subside to its rightful, lesser place in world politics.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/19/2007

Omar, YOU are the person who construed this statement of yours about Mossad as a "conjecture", "divination" and "guess". That means you were making an accusation against Mossad. Period.

You can't hide from what you said--your accusation against Mossad--this way, Omar. In any case, where's your EVIDENCE for this "conjecture' or "divination" of yours? And showering me with vile personal abuse for simply pointing out that you made this accusation impresses no one--except that I'm sure you know that the people who run this site are impressed with your barbaric bad manners.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Eckstein

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Except that it is a question of who is LYING I would not bother with refuting, once again, a worthless assertion.

MY very words were:
"Re: benevolent Muslim rule in Palestinian Gaza (#114623)
by omar ibrahim baker on October 19, 2007 at 2:03 AM

For all that we know Ayyad could have been killed by the Mossad, or Shein beth for people like you to write and gloat about like you do."

If "For all that we know... " and "could have been ..." are construed as basis of an assertion ,an "accusation" or a claim, then I stand guilty of an inadequate command of English., converesely if they do NOT constitute neither an assertion nor an accusation but a possibility (Could have been), as I claim, then what was hurled at me would be a conscious LIE.
To any body following this worthless exchange my deep apologies.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

From time to time Professor Eckstein comes up with a brilliant point that evokes and solicits immediate recognition and appreciation from Mr. Friedman ...or vice versa.

The point presently in question in their latest erudite exchange is the brain child of Eckstein :
"Why Israeli victories over the Arabs and or Moslems are viewed as "Horrific “(by Arabs and or Moslems)"

The utter stupidity in this case lays in the question itself; unless of course the presumption is made that Arabs (or others) would be "delighted" if defeated by any body but by the Israelis.

I know not of any human community that revels in its own defeat whoever happens to be its vanquisher.

Now to the brilliant answer to a mercilessly stupid question:

"The reason that the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Israel's relative victories in it, are viewed as so horrific by Muslims, despite the fact that as wars go, *relatively* few people have been killed,is because it is theologically unacceptable for dhimmis to be inflicting casualties--any casualties--on Muslims. This is the case even if all the dhimmis are doing is shooting "
(Re: Pipes as usual... (#114638)
by A. M. Eckstein on October 16, 2007 at 9:53 AM)

According to this brilliant point namely that: "is because it is theologically unacceptable for dhimmis to be inflicting casualties--any casualties--on Muslims." Muslims
do engage in fighting with dhimmis hoping? praying? betting? that the dhimmis will NOT inflict any casualties on them.

Does this brilliant answer imply that Muslims go, or should only go ( according to their own theological perceptions) into a fight with iron clad (Divine? theological?)guarantees that they will suffer NO casualties and that if they DID suffer any that would be their punishment for not obeying the dictates of their own theology?
Or is that that :Conversely it is theologically acceptable only for Muslims, not dhimmis, to inflict casualties on Moslems !!!????

Is this ground breaking revelation into Islamic theology the brilliant point lauded by Friedman?

For all I know it could well be for with the herd any thing that could be associated negatively with Islam is not only " a la mode", and has an avid buyers' market, but is " de rigueur" no matter how inanely asinine it is as with this Eckstein/Friedman contribution to Moslem theology that has absolutely no relation with Moslem theology or basic, minimal common sense, for that matter.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

What this has to do with your earth breaking interpretation of Moslem theology ("jawaz" Moslems beingkilled by Israelis or Preferably? Desirably ?Hopefully by Moslems) Professor?

Is that what you teach your unfortunate students:LIE and be as cheap and as anine in your campaign as you can and if caught pretend that you have nothing to do with it...ignore and go to another, bigger lie, ? The campaign must go on!
Well I guess Professor you are now at the stage of compounded sophistry cum mega stupidity.
Show your readers some respect ...think before you committ yourself,although I ,for one, enjoy each and every one of the fruits of your fertile brains.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Except for his inanely suffixed contributions , mercifully enclosed in ( ) to the "three Pillars of Wisdom" ((E) 1 to (E)3) Eckstein , in a way , well encapsulated the issue.
The following is his:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"There are "three pillars of wisdom" here:

(E)1. A tremendous sense of *entitlement* on the Arab and Muslim part (since they are worshipping God correctly, rule of the earth is theirs by right)."

OIB ***:(( the tremendous sense of entitlement certainly and most rightly is there. It is born out the duty of upholding and defending inalienable RIGHTS born out of historical, economical , cultural cum religious developments and geopolitical considerations .
Such as defending and retaining the Arab , and mostly Moslem, character of Palestine against the cultural and geopolitical distortion, inflicted on the region in general and Palestine in particular ,through the implantation of a Zionist colony populated by ALIENS gathered and screened according to racist criteria. It has nothing to do with "rule of the earth" .Where would Spain stand, except in lunatic minds, if it had anything to do with "rule of the earth"?
Although, from a Moslem religious/theological viwpoint Palestine and Jerusalem in particular have a standing equaled only by Mecca and Medina.))



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"(E)2. A tremendous sense of narcissistic injury (even the pitiable and contemptable Jews have beaten them in battle and are capable of creating a viable society while the Arabs and Muslims some how cannot)"

OIB***: ((The sense of injury is certainly there and is particularly aggravated by the realization that the "umma" failed in its primary duty to defend Palestine and Jerusalem and preserve its Arab and ,mostly, Moslem , character.
The entity of the invader and alien occupier is immaterial; it would have been, it should be, as relentless had he been a Hindu, or Buddhist or Christian or Godless .

Being a Jewish made defeat neither increases nor decreases the bitterness of the pill of defeat:the failure to protect one's inalienable rights, nor the urgency and historical/cultural necessity to liberate Palestine from Alien occupation! ))
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"(E)3. An explanation via conspiracy theory (there is nothing wrong with Arab or Muslim culture that requires self-examination and reform in a modernist direction: the fault of this situation can never be publicly admitted to lie with the Muslims and Arabs, that would be dishonorable, and so it ALL is the fault of "magic Jews" who evilly manipulate their Christian/Western allies against the innocent Muslims.)"

OIB***:((All Arab and Moslem serious thinkers reached a unanimous conclusion re 1967 and 1948 before it: that it is the unmistakable symptoms of a deep and far reaching indigenous malady residing, predominantly but not solely, inside our society, political institutions etc and our very souls and psychological build ups whose cure rests, predominantly but NOT exclusively, in the revival and empowering of our own internal resources.
That was the consensus reached by mainly Arab thinkers, both secular and Islamist; the defeat is /was practically self imposed and inevitable in view of our own internal both material and spiritual/cultural conditions.
Never was the defeat attributed to a conspiracy theory except possibly with some of the hacks Eckstein seems to be so fond of.
The fact that western imperialism, earlier represented by Great Britain and presently by the USA ,had and still have a lot to do with our defeat is certainly a serious contributing element but was never deemed as the primary nor secondary factor to it. ))
So except for his suffixes Eckstein did fall on something meaningful .
His suffixes though could be read and enjoyed for what they are: deep, sincere wishful thinking.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Professor STOP LYING: I never claimed that it WAS a plot by the MOSSAD. My words are:” For all that we know….".
That is NOT a claim; that is a conjuncture (a divination, a guess) as you should know Professor.

However patently your primary expertise lays in LYING.

I suggest you STOP LYING if not out of shame then out of pity for your poor students who will be burdened with the legacy of having had you teach them a course.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Right you are Prof; the term should have been" conjecture"
not "conjuncture" in the sense that one suspects, NOT claims which implies an assertion.

Otherwise what you have to say is a lot of hot air, to be polite, and not for the first time either.

However the mere fact that you correctly spotted my meaning by correcting my “conjuncture” into the appropriate “conjecture” ( which means: guesswork, something guessed, unproven theorem,”) this mere fact proves that ,as always, you were consciously LYING when you interpreted my words to mean a claim which implies an assertion .

Had it been my intention to "claim " I would have used my often used "I contend"!

Nevertheless your prowess in English is recognized for what it is: an attempt at erudition to hide your LIE.

Once Again I propose you try to STOP what seems to be a life long affliction of yours : your ceaseless unabashed conscious LYING, no matter how difficult it is bound to be it is surely worth trying .

When as surely you will fail I will not be surprised.
Kicking lifelong habits is never easy!
( This is certainly a debased form of dialogue that , sadly, seems to be the only possible way to address the LYING , unworthy Professor Eckstein!
From everybody else I apologize!)

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

You are truly hopeless Prof!
Child is too mature and too honourable for you Prof.
As much as I hate to have anything to do with you; your shameless LYING often compels me to respond.

Once again I apologize to all readers except to this worthless Professor .
How debased is the word Professor when used with such worthlessness!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

It is interesting to note that the 51000 fatalities suffered in the Arab Israeli conflict are:
a- the “32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks" and
b-the "19,000 due to Palestinian attacks"

A set of figures which gives us the nice round figure of "51,000 in all.”out of 51000!
Which leads us to a good, neat 100% (One Hundred Percent) due, one way or another, to Arab and/or Palestinian, which is also Arab, aggression.

*** Noting that these fatalities were the outcome of an Arab/Palestinian, British imperialism assisted and enabled, invasion and conquest of the peaceful and peace loving indigenous state of Israel which has been in continuous existence in Palestine for the last 2000 plus years.
*** Equally noting that this indigenous state of Israel has had a continuous and uninterrupted overwhelming indigenous Jewish majority THROUGH OUT these last two thousands plus years and that the purpose of the Arab/Palestinian invasion was to supplant this indigenous majority with ALIEN Arabs and/or Moslems gathered from all over the world (say; China, Uzbekistan, Indonesia ,Chechnya, Chile and Australia etc) Arab total and complete responsibility for these fatalities can neither be underestimated and underplayed nor denied.

So much and so far Western public opinion is led to believe!
(However, since both scholars are playing the numbers game it is astonishing, and disappointing, to note that they, both, failed to include the 5,000,000-6,000,000 Holocaust fatalities in this scientific tally, although they are patently and undeniably an unshrinkable Arab AND Palestinian responsibility.)

A discussion of the issue of Arab-Palestinian/Israeli conflict based on these parameters, and conclusions there from, reflects a serious (no kidding) attempt by Israel, friends and associates not only to rewrite history by radical modification but to obliterate completely all its history.

I, for one, am NOT surprised; Zionism/Israel did in the past launch a BIG LIE:"A land with no people for a people with no land" that did bear good, very good, fruits!

The ONLY rational conclusion to be drawn by the Arabs and Moslems from this new Zionist/Israeli demarche is that:
"IT is utterly hopeless and completely USELESS to have any dialogue with the Zionist movement and Israel."
The Arabs and Moslems did substantially reach that conclusion irrespective of what some of their states do and believe in.

The only remaining option for the Arab and Moslem world is to settle this conflict with anything BUT words; that is anything EXCEPT dialogue.

That OPTION is being increasingly adopted by them.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

For a look at the real face and mettle of Israel a book by two Israeli writers is worth a glance.
Go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/books/review/LeBor-t.html?ref=middleeast

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"for purposes of conquest-fatah"
No, NOT fatah it is for the purpose of liberation from zionist/Israeli colonialism of Palestine!
That goes beyond Hamas and includes many, many others.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman

To wonder whether I did understand Pipes point is as superfluous as the point itself.
(Re: Omar, learn to read. (#114542)
by N. Friedman on October 13, 2007 at 5:57 PM)


Pipes point is crystal clear:
the importance of an issue or a conflict is totally disassociated from its rights and wrongs, from its legality or illegality, from its morality or immorality from whether it is a confrontation between aggression and resistance to aggression etc
IT is, according to Pipes, totally independent from anything that distinguishes the fight of man with man from the fight of beast of prey with beast of prey.


Pipes point is that the importance of an issue depends SOLELY on the number of fatalities it caused.

For human history simply and solely as a ,the, chronology and annals of an abattoir Pipes point makes sense and faithfully reflects the mentality of a frustrated butcher or a butcher in waiting brought up in the best of Halahkaic tradition .

Pipes point however deserves more careful scrutiny.

***Does it, for example , equate all fatalities in terms of equal human worth or does it follow the "good" and "moral" teachings of his, and Zionism’s, spiritual alma mater the Halkaha which certainly DOES NOT?

If Pipes ever claims that it DOES ( which is possible due to overriding PR considerations)equate the human worth of those engaged in a confrontation he would ,certainly and unequivocally, be going against the precepts of his alma mater and the fountain head of his spiritual guidance which is clear cut about the issue:

FOR:
” Murder and Genocide

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion,
the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.
When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4
A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.5
All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.
Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6
XXXXXXXXXXXXXx
Chapter 5: The Laws Against Non-Jews By Israel Shahak
(http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis7.htm#Maimonides)

1 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.
2 R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).
3 R. David Halevi (Poland, 17th century), Turey Zahav" on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158.
5 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Ger' (= convert to Judaism).
6 For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
So this whole thing, the PIPES -Gunnar Heinsohn formula should be construed and digested as the empirical quantification of the importance of an issue in terms of, primarily, the number JEWISH fatalities!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

However many , many of the goyim, the poor defenseless ( to be ?to become?) goyim, do have another outlook about conflict which:

***For one think equates all human lives in terms of their intrinsic value

***For another DOES scrutinize a conflict in terms of right and wrong, in terms of moral or immoral, in terms of who is the aggressor and who is the object of aggression in terms of who is practicing the universal right of resistance to aggression and who is serving the cause of aggression and usurpation.

***For a third, and no less important point, draws a definite distinction between human History as the annals, and book keeping of an abattoir, and as the , predominantly ceaseless and relentless effort of mankind to distinguish itself from bestiality through the upholding of JUSTICE, Legality and the inevitable dictates of the requirements of human progress; as is the case of the human progress achieved through its transition from the stage of marauding tribes to the stage of settled human communities.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

However in fairness to Pipes it is only just and logical to understand and interpret his formula by looking at its rational corollaries ..
One such could conceivably run as

:Unless and until the Arab/Zionist-Israeli confrontation causes MILLIONS of fatalities the world and mankind could do better than pay any attention to it.
In the mean time the think to do is ignore it. and go on supporting the Zionist colony of Israel in Palestine laud its racist policies and finance its expansionist and domineering designs.


AS things stand now with the USA as the universal hyper power at the service of and the soon to become the mercenary at the pay of the Zionist movement /Israel/AIPAC this is the line to follow and the cause to “sell”!
Is that NOT the logical course to follow since it will be the USA that ultimately pays the substantial cost, the price, in blood, treasure, and world standing?

AS such Pipes formula promises to be if not only a self fulfilling prophecy but a definitively cost effective course to follow by Zionism and Israel
Unless and UNTILL the USA wakes up!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

No it does NOT as much as you would like it to.
However this is a clear cut case of LIBERATION from aggressive aliens which could be comstrued as "fatah" in the sense of an achievement in restoriong rights and deafeating and frustrating a racist colonoalist plan .

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Why be sorry Mutik ; is that not the level, the mode of dialogue you cherish?
Is that not your real level.
Do NOT be sorry; BE yourself and enjoy.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

For all that we know Ayyad could have been killed by the Mossad, or Shein beth for people like you to write and gloat about like you do.

Israeli intelligence services have been known for acting against Jews when and if it serves a political interest.
The Lavon affair stands out in this domain. Look it up and tell your avid readers what you find about it.


On the other hand it could have been a crime of larceny or fanatisisim; crime and criminals do exist in Gaza as in any other human community.

However the interesting thing to note here is that whenever a crime or bizzare act occurrs in Palestinian or Arab land a member of the herd, usually poor dim witted Eckstein (for lack of any thing worthwhile to write about), runs to post it addressed to me and point it out as an Arab or Moslem or Palestinian mean act with a triumphalist remark stating "behold the meanness of this people and the acts they do"
What really intrigues me is ,notwithstanding Eckstein 's childish mentality, why the triumphalist attitude:

-Did I ever pretend that we are a community of super men with no crime and no other human abberrations and he, poor Eckstein, is refuting me with his posting ?

I do not recall that I ever did or possibly could ever make such an asinine claim
OR
-Is it that he is contrasting our community with a crimeless, spotless Jewish community in Tel Aviv or New York or Tuscaloosa or Stuutgart where such crime or abberration as pointed out in Arab communities never ,ever occurrs?

Which both, refuting an unmade claim or claiming a spotless Jewish record any where in the world, would be totally and fully asininne and in complete conformity with the mentalirty and morality of a worthless professor (???) called A.M.Eckstein.

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

I'm not pushing it much, N.

N. Friedman - 10/18/2007

Professor,

I am certainly glad you said "perhaps suggestive."

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

No, Luther didn't abandon Christianity, N--but after years of obsessive-compulsive perfectionism in Catholic practice, he suddenly abandoned THAT, and created what amounted to a new version of Christianity for the first time in 1000 years. That's pretty radical.

I'm suggesting a possible parallel with AZ's current obsessive-compulsive and ultra-violent piety, given his history of doubt.

Not totally parallel, of course--but perhaps suggestive.

N. Friedman - 10/18/2007

Art,

I do not quite recall Luther abandoning Christianity, only the Catholic version of the religion.

It takes a lot for a person to walk away from a religion - something Luthre did not do.

Of course, as before, you could be correct.

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

I read the Ayan Hirsi Ali piece, N. If one cannot quarrel with Allah, cannot engage with him, then one's only choices are (a) to accept his will, humbly, whatever it is, or (b) to deny him altogether.

The latter may seem very extreme for someone like Zawahiri, who has compensated for his momentary crisis of faith in 1967 by manaically slaughtering infidels. But the obsessive-compulsive compensation does not prove that the crisis never happened. A possible parallel: Martin Luther was an obsessively perfect Catholic, an obsessively perfect monk, really obsessively and compulsively confessing the most minor sins, etc., until the pressure within him grew so great that he abandoned Catholic beliefs altogether.

N. Friedman - 10/18/2007

Professor,

Yes, it is interesting and for the reason given by Ms. Hirsi Ali. But, it is not an interview. It is more of a demand for a justification or, as with the word Y'srael, a form of wrestling (i.e. Y'sra) with the Almighty (i.e. El). Such is rather central to Jewish mythology, after all and, to a lesser extent, has at least some impact on those versions of Christian mythology which admit to the importance and legitimacy of the Hebrew Scriptures.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/18/2007

Okay, N. It's interesting that this sort of Job-like interview is not allowed in Islam.

best,

A

A. M. Eckstein - 10/18/2007

Omar is just trying to weasel out of the accusation he made against Mossad. He "divined" it was Mossad; he "guessed" it was Mossad; he "conjectured" it was Mossad. That is, he made a claim and accusation against Mossad. It is not only transparent bad faith on his part to deny it by saying it was only a "divination", a "guess" and a "conjecture", but his attempt to cover his retreat by spewing out repeated personal attacks as he retreats is grotesque and shameful.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/18/2007

I therefore "conjecture", Omar, that you are a secret homosexual.

Are you saying that is not a *claim* about you on my part?

Stop being a child.

N. Friedman - 10/18/2007

Art,

I just read an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali who would have it that a demand for (or the possibility of) a Job-type audience with the Almighty is entirely un-Islamic. On thinking about that, she is correct. So, I would remove my argument based on Job.

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

Omar, in your own words, you "divined" it was Mossad behind the persecution of Chrsitians by Hamas, you were "guessing" it was Mossad, it was a "conjuncture" (you mean: "conjecture") on your part that Mossad was behind the persecution of Christians by Hamas. NOW you claim that this wasn't an "claim.". Omar, this is a sophomoric and unconvincing way of avoiding responsibility for what was clearly an accusation on your part that Mossad ws behind the persecution of Christians by Hamas.

Omar, if I were to say "I *divine* that behind his Islamofascist exterior, Omar is actually a secret homosexual," or, "I'm conjecturing that behind his Islamofascist facade, Omar is actually a secret homosexual," or "I'm *guessing* that Omar, behind his Islamofascist exterior, is actually a secret homosexual," would that not be in fact be an assertion that you were a homosexual? And how would you respond if I then said, in response to your outraged protests, that all I was doing was conjecturing, divining and guessing you were a homosexual, I wasn't claiming you were, and then call you a LIAR for saying I had made that claim? Don't you see how infantile, and unconvincing and indeed repulsive that looks?

In fact this is one of your childish styles of argument and you do this all the time--you make an outrageous accusation, then flee behind the argument that you were only "guessing," or "conjecturing", so it's as if you never said it. But you did say it. It's a childish way of avoiding responsibility for what you say, and no one is convinced. Adding yet more personal abuse on top of it against someone who has provided facts--while not bothering to respond to those facts--only convinces readers that you are a childish person.

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

I myself think I'm on the right track with Ayman's Crisis of Faith. :)


AE

N. Friedman - 10/18/2007

Art,

I liked Wright's book. It was filled with fascinating tidbits of information not available anywhere else.

Whether he has Zawahari exactly correct is another matter. I shall take it, for argument, that he reports accurately.

Perhaps Zawahiri wanted an audience with God in the manner of Job - as in how could God do these bad things to decent people. That is also consistent with what is written.

Maybe. Or, maybe it is as you say.

I do not know for sure.

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

1. Omar, I was pursuing your ridiculous claim that the persecution of Christians in Gaza was actually a plot by Mossad and wasn't being done by Hamas. In Nigeria, 2,000 miles from israel, Muslims are persecuting Christians in exaclty the same way as they are doing in Gaza. Or are the events in Nigeria ALSO a plot by Mossad?

2. You wanted an example where defeat by dhimmis was viewed as shame and caused theological doubt among Muslims. So I gave you the specific example of the reaction of Ayman al-Zawahiri, hardly an obscure figure, to the Muslim defeats of 1967 at the hands of contemptible dhimmi Jews. This caused a theological crisis in Zawahiri's thought: the defeat led him to doubt Allah's *power* or even *existence*.

3. I suggest you learn how to READ EVIDENCE. Especially before resorting to your usual tactic when faced with uncomfortable facts--putrid and corrupted personal abuse.

art eckstein - 10/18/2007

But Abraham in the story never doubted God's *power*, N. By contrast, the Arab-Muslim defeat of 1967 at the hands of Jewish kaffirs and dhimmis made Ayman, acc to Lawrence Wright, doubt God's *power.* Or even His *existence.* That Ayman has now made up for this moment of profound doubt by obsessive-compulsive slaughter of infidels doesn't, I think, change the existence of that moment of profound doubt. And thus, it could come again.

At least, that's my view. Others, I guess, will differ. Okay.

N. Friedman - 10/17/2007

Professor,

You may be correct but, as I see it, it surely also crossed Abraham's mind that a dead Isaac would not help establish a great nation. In fact, it surely crossed Abraham's mind that sacrificing him on the altar was not a fatherly, much less a moral, thing to do.

N. Friedman - 10/17/2007

Arnold,

Why not the conflict regarding Kashmir? That seems to be a whole lot more dangerous as there are two sides with nuclear weapons. And, it just recently almost went annihilatingly nuclear.

I would say, to be fair to your point, that any danger in the region is region wide but to say that it crystallizes around Israel is to misread the evidence. Consider that the Sunni Arab states have been showing more and more acceptance of Israel and more and more concern about Iran. These Arab states are buying more weapons from the US due to Iran, not Israel, since Israel is receiving an extra share of such armaments in the same shipments that are going to Arab states. And, whatever weapons Israel has, such has not caused enough worry in Egypt or Jordan or Saudi Arabia to get a bomb. That push, if there is one, did not begin until Iran started making hostile noises and admitting to secret programs, etc., etc.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/17/2007

Ah, we do read it differently, N. To me, it looks as if the "unthinkable" has clearly crossed Ayman's mind, and for very good reasons--and so, with a shudder, he is trying to put "the unthinkable" (which he has thought) far off to one side by means of his redoubled devotion and fanaticism. But...he cannot. It is there. More defeats might well turn the tiny and repressed worm of doubt that sits in his belly into something far worse--and while he would no doubt deny the worm's very existence, and point to the sore on his forehead from having bowed down to Allah so much, having had *one* crisis of belief, as he had in 1967, one has always has it.

Ask Mother Theresa, about whom shocking information about her crisis of faith--who would've guessed it, from her behavior?--has recently emerged. (Not that one should compare a saintly person like MT with a monstrous, ruthless Jihadist murderer such as AZ, but you see my point)

N. Friedman - 10/17/2007

Professor,

My good friend and fellow kaffir, I read Wright differently than you. I would place emphasis on the phrase "which was unthinkable." That is the religious position par excellence. It will never be thinkable to the true believer. It is not, as I see it, a sign that someone is contemplating that the unthinking is the truth. In the religious person, it is a statement of strength in the face of contrary facts.

Recall your Kierkegaard. Recall Abraham, the paradigmatic moral man, promised a great nation through his offspring Isaac following God - in complete violation of his parental duty and any imaginable moral course of action and contrary to any logic that killing his son could create a great nation from his offspring descended via Isaac - and taking Isaac to be sacrificed. Faith, as so envisioned, means belief beyond all logic and beyond all good and evil. I think that such is rather universally the meaning of faith at play among devout Muslims (although they have a different sacrifice story).

A. M. Eckstein - 10/17/2007

N, in the sense in which you are speaking, you are correct that "dhimmi" is in appropriate term. I think that "Kaffir" ("Infidel") would be a better term than "Dhimmi" to describe the successful non-Muslim-dominated societies under discussion.

But from the *radical Muslim* point of view their goal is to *reduce* such societies, and their populations, to an official dhimmi status acknowledged by those societies and populations. Thus radical Muslims see these populations as dhimmis-in-prospect (if they don't convert to Islam).

The *theological* threat to Islam that the success of such infidel societies in the world and their power in the world constitutes nevertheless remains (imho) a very real one. And the success of the Jews is perhaps the most disturbing, because ever since the 630s A.D. the Muslims have seen them as weak and contemptible. That the source of Jewish power is modernism and secularism just makes the situation doubly disturbing. Hence Omar's "magic Jews". But leaving Omar aside, it is clear that Zawahiri himself believes something very much along the lines I have said, which is why the great Israeli victory of 1967 was a *theological* crisis for him, not just a political one.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/17/2007

Dear NF:

As for defeat by dhimmis constituting a real theological crisis for Muslims, here is Lawrence Wright, from The New Yorker's long and detailed discussion of the intellectual development of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, no. 2 man in al-Qaeda:

"For Zawahiri, his salvation could only come through the "perfect" religion, Islam, but great humiliations were to follow. In 1967, Israel destroyed the Egyptian army in a staggering defeat for the Arab armies, though in characteristic fashion, the Arabs proclaimed their disastrous misadventure a great victory. Nonetheless, to someone like

Zawahiri, such a defeat could only mean that either Islam was wrong, and not the final answer, which was unthinkable, or the application of Islam was wanting; if the failure wasn’t Islam itself, it could only be those who professed to be Islamic yet failed to exercise their religion virtuously. This became a deeply held belief by Zawahiri, who expended a great deal of energy and time fighting against those who were not pure enough in their practice of Islam; it led to multiple splits in the ranks of the Islamists as time went on."

The beginning of the second paragraph: that's my point, N.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/17/2007

Here's a little fact for you, Omar:

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria, October 10 (Compass Direct News) – Militant Islamists in this city in the northern state of Borno have sent three letters to a church warning that members would be attacked in the next few days, raising tensions where 50 Christians were killed and 57 churches destroyed last year.

Yep, that's how dhimmis get treated. Oh, well--maybe it was *Mossad* that was doing this in Nigeria, to make Islam *look bad*, eh, Omar? Like in Gaza?

As for defeat by dhimmis being both shameful and a theological crisis for Muslims, here is Lawrence Wright, from The New Yorker's long and detailed discussion (Sept. 16, 2002) of the intellectual development of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, no. 2 man in al-Qaeda:

"For Zawahiri, his salvation could only come through the "perfect" religion, Islam, but great humiliations were to follow. In 1967, Israel destroyed the Egyptian army in a staggering defeat for the Arab armies, though in characteristic fashion, the Arabs proclaimed their disastrous misadventure a great victory. Nonetheless, to someone like

Zawahiri, such a defeat could only mean that either Islam was wrong, and not the final answer, which was unthinkable, or the application of Islam was wanting; if the failure wasn’t Islam itself, it could only be those who professed to be Islamic yet failed to exercise their religion virtuously. This became a deeply held belief by Zawahiri, who expended a great deal of energy and time fighting against those who were not pure enough in their practice of Islam; it led to multiple splits in the ranks of the Islamists as time went on."

Arnold Shcherban - 10/17/2007

You certainly can look at my comments under that angle (again, in the post-mortal sense), but as you well know the Israeli-Arab conflict is far from over.
The continuation of this conflict
is undoubtedly pregnant with the possibility of one or numerous nuclear strikes, since as we know, at least, one side of the conflict, i.e. Israel definitely has nuclear
weapons (actually - huge arsenal of those for such a small country - by
the united opinion of the majority
of experts in nuclear armaments, including the American ones).
In turn, that possession and Arab awareness about it may drive, if not already is driving some Arab countries (yes, like Iran or even some fledging US allies in the Arab world) to seek their own nuclear weaponry and willing to use it against dangerous, at least, in their own view, Israel.
Or, perhaps (actually definitely so) some Arab countries more scared of the loyal (though not completely subservient, as Omar thinks) to Israel world's superpower that has usurped the right to agress against whom they want and when they want (under real or false pretexts, in Israeli interests or not).
Anyway, the potentially great danger of much more deaths and destruction is there, and thus it MAY become one of the world's "horrific" conflicts.
That's why it is the most dangerous (for the future) among the active conflicts in progress TODAY, in my humble opinion.

N. Friedman - 10/17/2007

Professor,

A dhimmi society is one that exists by virtue of acquiescing in a pact of security. That is something different than making some of the concessions that have been made, most especially by Europeans.

There are European countries which, by Bat Ye'or interpretation of events in her book Eurabia but also in her book Islam and Dhimmitude have entered into pact-like arrangements intended, among other things, to keep terror out of Europe - arrangements which have now mostly not stood the test of time. Such arrangement, as you know, also address the introduction of a large Islamic population into Europe that is intended, by the arrangement, to remain essentially Islamic in outlook.

Good evidence for these arrangements is provided by her but also, with respect to keeping terror out of Europe, by Professor Dershowitz. But, I do not think even she - and certainly not he - would really call current European countries dhimmi societies, at least not yet.

Her assertion that captures the reality her evidence addresses is that Europe has stepped beyond Munich. But, of course, there is still a distance between that and being a full dhimmi society that enters into an actual pact that places it under the wings of Islamic power.

And the US, bless her, is no dhimmi society.

Israel is not a dhimmi society. It refuses to bow down to such demands, at least thus far. That, if we go by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's analysis, is Israel's main sin in the eyes of most Muslims. Perhaps that is what you have in mind.

What we have are societies, most especially in Europe, that are in serious transition. Where they land has not yet been fully determined. I note Walter Laqueur's recent book - which I wholeheartedly recommend although much of what he has written has been presented by others, most especially Mark Steyn, with more polemic presentations - entitled The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent.

Laqueur does not see the future automatically being Eurabia, as in Europe becoming a true dhimmi society under Islamic rule. He sees a likelihood that Europe is in irreversible decline and he sees dreadfully divided societies - divided between Muslims and non-Muslims - but not, for the foreseeable future, dominated entirely by Muslims with an Islamic oriented agenda. And, he sees an increasingly less, not more, religious Muslim population - albeit one that pays lip service to religion - that he sees growing over time. So, he sees big changes coming on the Muslim side which work in a different direction than Bat Ye'or envisions.

Laqueur also takes the view that given the reality that he thinks exists in Europe, Europeans should be taking steps to appease their Muslim populations. He says that there is no viable alternative at present. The other alternative - standing one's ground in favor of our way or the highway - cannot possibly succeed on his telling because the number of Muslims is already too great for such a policy to work. And, he notes, the demographics at work in Europe make it essentially a losing strategy over the long term. Rather, he says, if I understand him correctly, that the only chance of a peaceful European future involves accommodating certain Islamic practices.

He may be wrong but his is not, quite obviously, a voice that can be dismissed. Of course, Bat Ye'or may be correct, namely, the loudest and most violent among Muslims - i.e. the Islamists and their followers - will become able more and more to force their demands on society to the point where Europe really does become a dhimmi society, not merely showing real signs of becoming one.

As for Islam depending on the current policy of the Salafists and Islamists and Khomeinists succeeding, I think you overlook the ability of religion to explain anything and everything away. Failure is not typically a reason for the decline of a religion unless the failure amounts to the annihilation of a civilization - and, given the Jewish experience, not even then.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/17/2007

Dear N, I agree about the secularism threat to Islam, and especially about this point: "Israel is an up close and personal version of that secularist lifestyle that, thanks to satellite TV, is seen in homes in places like Jordan."

But those all-successful and powerful secular societies are also simultaneously dhimmi societies. So it is *combination* of Israeli social and economic success, Israeli military victories and strength, Israeli secularism, the simultaneous failure of "Arab (secular) socialism" as a secular Arab alternative, along with the bitter example of Israeli secular success, the resort instead now to increasingly rigid forms of Islam in hopes of success, in hopes of a victory-solution, and then the fact that Israelis are dhimmis but *still* successful while the Palestinians wallow in a death-cult: all this *in combination* is presenting, I think, a *theological crisis* to Islam.

If Islamofascist extremism and extreme salafist/Wahabist fundamentalism fails militarily, then Islam itself as a belief will face decline, for the theological reasons I am suggesting. That is, it will have failed in the real world, although it promised the Arabs and Muslims *rule* over that real world.

Yes, my analysis could be exaggerated; and whether this negative development for Islam will actually occur remains of course to be seen. But I think I'm on to something here.

N. Friedman - 10/17/2007

Professor,

Omar is surely archetypal but there is no need to focus so often on him to make a point.

I have some difficulties with your presentation.

Theology certainly helps fuel the Arab Muslim view about Israel. No doubt about that.

But, I think you may perhaps extend too far when you write: "If Muslims can be beaten by Jews over and over again in battle, this raises questions about the truth of Islam and the nobility of battle." I have not heard Muslims who see Israel quite that way. I think you are projecting onto Muslims the view taken by large numbers of Jews after the Shoah about the loss of a covenant with God or about God's existence.

What I hear in Muslims with reference to their war losses is that they have been insufficiently Muslim. Such is more or less akin to the early Jewish religious interpretation of losses as God punishing Israel for its collective sins.

I might add that Muslims have been extremely self-critical, although not as modern people would be. Which is to say, instead of examining how to improve their situation to build up their educational infrastructure, etc., they have focussed on their failure to be sufficiently devout.

That relates all the way back to the time of the demise of the Ottoman Empire but, with the repeated defeats against Israel and losses, again and again, pretty much elsewhere and with the increased availability of television, even more than radio, which brings all of this home with greater and greater "realism" and urgency, we have people listening more and more to the call to be devout.

And, at the same time, we have in the mix those who see sinister forces at work. That is necessary with respect to defeats by Jews, as I have noted. And, theologians who have adopted that sort of ressentiment - to borrow a Nietzschean term - have combined such with the need for the faithful to become more devout. Such preachers have found more and more favor with the masses who yearn for an explanation.

But, I do not see this as calling Islam into question. That, I think, is a different matter. What calls Islam into question is secularist society, which displays happy people who are masters of their own fates and adopting a path of morality that is seductively attractive yet condemned by Islamic morality. Such has certainly cast doubt on Islam, just as it does on Christianity and Judaism, a whole lot more than Israel ever has or will.

At most, Israel is an up close and personal version of that secularist lifestyle that, thanks to satellite TV, is seen in homes in places like Jordan.

art eckstein - 10/17/2007

1. That should be: Israel as currently constituted is *not* a Western colony in the Middle East [since the *majority* of its population descends from people who have lived in the Middle East fo hundreds of years, and who were turned into refugees by Arabs and Muslims between 1948 and 1960).

2. I do not mean to say that the views described above constitute the position taken by *all* Arabs and Muslims. Not by any means. The views described above *are*, however, the views taken by intellectually primitive people such as Omar, a person totally impervious to facts--and, as he insists, he is representative of many Arabs and Muslims.

art eckstein - 10/17/2007

Yes--since it's the contemptible Jews who are defeating the Muslims, this is an even worse theological blow, a worse theological threat, than if it is done by Christians. The latter, of course, are bad enough.

But for me the point is the *theological* threat. This is the ultimate origin of the racist hatred of which Omar is such a grotesque and unteachable example, impervious to facts. If Muslims can be beaten by Jews over and over again in battle, this raises questions about the truth of Islam and the nobility of battle. Christians beating Muslims is bad enough, but for centuries they were known to be powerful. The contemptible Jews doing it is a far worse theological threat since historically they have not been powerful.

Hence Omar's "magic Jews." If the Jews can beaat Muslims in battle, this cannot be by means of any *virtue* on their part, it must be because they are evilly manipulating more powerful Western forces in their favor. Hence, too, Omar's refusal *ever* to respond to the fact that the population of israel is now Western European colony because the majority of the jewish population are from the Middle East--refugees themselves who suffered a worse Nakbah than the Palestinians. That these majority Middle Eastern refugees have recovered from the trauma of being dispalced and robbed of all their property, and have gone on to help create an economically and cultually vibrant, militarily powerful, and democratic country, while the Palestinians wallow in misery and whose major contribution to world culture is the racist suicide bomber--this, too, is not merely infuriating (though it is certainly an infuriating insult to Arab honor) but also *theologically* devastating.

Hence, the answer to this terrible situation cannot be the positive qualities of the israeli population and Israeli culture, and its ability to adapt positively to very difficult circumstances, or the grotesque failure of Arab and Muslim political and military judgment. God forbid!
Hence the answer must be conspiracy theory-- "magic Jews" who can manipulate western governments: Yes, THIS must be why all of this is happening. Such thinking in turn justifies ANY act, no matter how barbaric, to overturn the situation.

There are "three pillars of wisdom" here:

1. A tremendous sense of *entitlement* on the Arab and Muslim part (since they are worshipping God correctly, rule of the earth is theirs by right)

2. A tremendous sense of narcissistic injury (even the pitiable and contemptable Jews have beaten them in battle and are capable of creating a viable society while the Arabs and Muslims some how cannot)

3. An explanation via conspiracy theory (there is nothing wrong with Arab or Muslim culture that requires self-examination and reform in a modernist direction: the fault of this situation can never be publicly admitted to lie with the Muslims and Arabs, that would be dishonorable, and so it ALL is the fault of "magic Jews" who evilly manipulate their Christian/Western allies against the innocent Muslims.)

I do not choose these three pillars at random. The tremendous sense of entitlement, the tremendous sense of narcissistic injury, and the explanation by conspiracy theory--these were the three pillars of... German Nazism.

N. Friedman - 10/16/2007

Arnold,

In other words, you provide additional ammunition for the view that the Arab Israeli conflict is not, over all, appropriately termed among the most dangerous.

N. Friedman - 10/16/2007

Professor,

I think you have a point. However, I note that the view is not so much the fact that Muslims are being beaten by dhimmis as the fact that Muslims are being beaten by Jews.

Being defeated by Jews raises an issue of impotence which losses to Christians do not entail. Jews, after all, are seen historically by Arabs as contemptuous but without power. This finds its origins in Islamic religious writings.

So, the truly powerless Jews beating Muslims comes as a truly terrible blow which, in turn, called for a re-evaluation of Islamic texts to emphasize the treacherous supposed ability of Jews to control more powerful Christians. Hence the appeal of Sayyid Qutb who adopts this reevaluation of the role of Jews in the Islamic conception of the Other.

Arnold Shcherban - 10/16/2007

Notice how scrupously the Pipes' list is sanitized to circumvent any notion of the US, its allies' and clients' participation in the killings on the Right side and many distortions of the nature of the conflicts and numbers themselves on the Left side:

The fact that it was the US military forces, in general, and the so-called saturated bombing of South, and North Korea and Vietnam that led
to most number of victims on the "native" side or even participated in those conflicts, is not mentioned.
The facts that Indonesian Sukharto regime, strongly backed by the US, committed two genocides: first against the Left and Chinese with the number of victims from 500,000 to about a million, second against East Timor with the number of dead in hindreds of thousands - are figured in the list as "Marxists" and as East Timor, Papua, Aseh, respectively.
Some of 40 million of dead in Red China (1949-1976) are killed by "man-made" famine, there was no real famine... in pipes' mind.

Guatemala - 200,000 dead (not a word
about well-documented US proxy war terror continued for about 20 years that killed the most of these people).

Nicaragua - Marxists. Not a word about the similar and also overwhelmingly documented US proxy war of terror against those Marxists - primarily
against their supporters - simple peasants and priests.

Columbia. The fact that the most dead (peasants and the Left) are the victims of the Army or the goverment-sponsored paramilitary murderous gangs with the government
for decades strongly backed by the US
made moot.

The secret (for Americans at the time) carpet bombing of Cambodia, that have been recenly revealed was much broader campaign than told in the past leading to many thousands of deaths, has not found any place on the list either, but Khmer Rouge rule and genocide (obviously having nothing to do with the abovementioned bombing) appropriately has.

The Iragi victims of the US-UK implemented murderous sanctions have vanished out of sight (since apparently the hunger, epidemics, and malnutrition they caused are not man-made, as in every case related to Communists/Marxists), as well as the Iraqi victims of the first Gulf War, but less numerous (if the number indicated is close to to reality) victims of Saddam Hussein are promptly there.
The number of dead since the start
of the US agression against Iraq in 2003 is shamelessly lowered by hundreds of thousands(!), and what does the qualification "(domestic)" mean?
Good part of the Tito regime (no doubt totalitarian one) victims were Yugoslavian fascists - Ustashis and and Nazi collaborators.
(Tito's Yugoslavia resisted both foreign interferences: from the East
and from the West. The resistance in the latter direction is what really angered the pipes of this world.
Now, after numerous splits and deadly wars, partially instigated by the West, NATO is there, so everything is fine).

One notable exception is worth mentioning: French sins (including the Indochinean) are all on the list. But I think the question "why?" would be a rhetorical one.

N. Friedman - 10/16/2007

Omar,

Aside from the non-expert Shahak, do you have a single source for your understanding of Judaism? If so, whom?

A. M. Eckstein - 10/16/2007

The reason that the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Israel's relative victories in it, are viewed as so horrific by Muslims, despite the fact that as wars go, *relatively* few people have been killed, is because it is theologically unacceptable for dhimmis to be inflicting casualties--any casualties--on Muslims. This is the case even if all the dhimmis are doing is shooting back.

This also explains the relative indifference of the Muslim world to the 2.5 million deaths inflicted on Christians and anamists in the Sudan by the Muslim Sudanese government: this is death rightfully inflicted on dhimmis for resisting their lawful masters. Similarly, this also explains the relative indifference of the Muslim world to the 250,000 or more deaths inflicted by the Muslim Sudanese government in Darfur: this is death inflicted by Muslims upon Muslims, an internal matter. But when dhimmis inflict casualties on Muslims--then *there* is cause for outrage, for this overturns in the grossest and most offensive way the manner in which God has ordered the world, in which those who correctly worship him (namely the Muslims) are granted power and rule.

One must understand the psychology here. It is not hypocrisy or conscious double standards on the Muslims' part. It is, rather, theology.

Hence too the "normalizing" of the imposition of reactionary Muslim culture-forms (such as veiling of women) even on non-Muslims most recently in Hamas-ruled Gaza. This is only *natural*, the proper way of things.

N. Friedman - 10/16/2007

Arnold,

While I thought I understood your comment, I take your word that I did not. My apology for misreading you.

I think that Pipes states his reason for believing that the number of deaths in the Arab Israeli dispute is inconsistent with the assertion that the conflict is the world's most dangerous conflict. He writes:

it assumes, wrongly, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is among the most costly in terms of lives lost.

I, for one, think that proposition makes sense and can be logically supported. The number of deaths does not prove that the dispute is not the most dangerous but such fact supports that position. Were the matter in a court case, it would be comparable to a defense attorney in a murder case presenting evidence that an autopsy reveals the victim was likely shot in the back by a tall person in a case where the accused is a midget. Such, by itself, does not acquit the accused but it is consistent with such a finding.

I do not claim that horrific and dangerous are synonyms. You note that dangerous points to the future, which can certainly be the case. But, it is equally the case that past is prelude. And, the Arab Israeli conflict goes back to the founding of Israel and even before. There have been times when the dispute has been a real world danger - e.g. the crisis at the end of the Yom Kippur War - but that has not consistently been the case and at present it is difficult to imagine that such is now the case. It may again prove to be the case but, at present, there are certainly worse conflicts.

Regarding the question of Israel's supporters making the dispute a cause célèbre, I thought I was agreeing with you.

Regarding the Russian and Chinese massacres, I think they are appropriately counted, whether or not as disputes, as they show how dangerous the USSR and China were in those periods. Internal upheavals can, after all, lead to outward disputes.

I agree with you, however, that one cannot rely solely on numbers. But, then again, numbers are also important to understanding what is and is not dangerous. It is part of the mix.

If I have still misunderstood you, I apologize in advance. It is not on purpose.

Arnold Shcherban - 10/16/2007

We are told (by or through, a numerous number of pipes) that 9/11 terrorist attacks not just dangerous or/and horrific, but "changed the course of history"!

However, measuring by the only criterion used by Pipes &Co. - number of dead - 9/11 "conflict" is
the smallest conflict of all listed
in the article.
I wonder how pipes reconcile those
two facts and assertions.

Elliott Aron Green - 10/16/2007

Pipes and Heinsohn's point is well taken. However, I believe that the figures for genocide victims in the southern Sudan since 1956 may be double. The New Columbia Encyc [1975] gives, I believe, the number of 2.5 million deaths in the southern Sudan up to 1972, as the result of "civil war." This does not count those killed there after the "civil war" or genocide campaign resumed in 1983.

Of course, this does not detract from but rather strengthens the basic argument of Pipes & Heinsohn.

art eckstein - 10/16/2007

The oppression of Christians and the imposition of Muslim culture forms is the publicly-announced POLICY of Hamas, Omar.

Your denial of responsibility of the violence here is like your instinctive denial of the responsibillity of Hamas for the murder of the three little children of the Fatah leader back in May, as they were coming home from school--that, too, you initially preferred to blame on Mossad, rather than accept reality.

In fact, as we have seen for two years, and has been pointed out to him numerous times, Omar simply has a hard time in general in accepting uncomfortable facts--i.e., facts that undermine his rigid and endlessly-repeated ideology of hatred and victimization. He prefers to ignore them when he can, and to shamelessly deny them when he has to.

Arnold Shcherban - 10/15/2007

Mr. Friedman,
You once advised one of the participants in this very debate: Learn to read.

I don't know whether he needs that, but judging by your comments on my last message, you certainly do.
(By the way it is far from the first occasion when you argue against non-existent either in my words or in my logic statements.)

The reason is that not only your comments have hardly anything to do with the wording and clearly expressed meaning of my objections
to Pipes article, but it distorts
his main assertion, as well!

This assertion stated, in accordance with the best writing form and style, in the first sentence of the article:
<The Arab-Israeli conflict is often said, not just by extremists, to be the world's most dangerous conflict –and, accordingly, Israel is judged the world's most belligerent country.>

However, the content of the rest of the article DOES NOT attempt to prove either that it is not "the most dangerous" one, or that the extreme danger of the conflict is the reason (see "accordingly") why Israel considered the most belligerent country in the world.

You basically continue Pipes' line (sorry for unintented pun) by asking me whether I think that Arab Israeli conflict (actually you used questionable term "dispute") compares in "horror" with some of the other listed in the article.

But as far as I know English, adjectives "dangerous" and "horrific" are not synonyms, they are not even close in meaning.
Furthermore, when people say something causes "danger" they, almost invariably, refer to the potential of something bad happening, i.e. to the future, not to what has already happened, .i.e.
to the past.

To put it simple: I did not argue about the comparative "horror" or number of dead caused by any conflicts, and neither did Pipes... in his main assertion.

This was one of the reasons I called the method he used in the article "a switch". On your part (in the "reply" to my comments) it was a replacement of terms.

<As for Jews making a big deal about Israel> I was not talking about Jews or some other particular ethnic group, but about carriers of a mainstream (in Israel and in the West) ideological culture - Jews and non-Jews (with Pipes, being one of them) - who made Israeli-Arab conflict a "big deal" in the European and American opinion.
I emphasized the latter fact, since this is one of the cases when thiefs cry: "Hold the thiefs!", so say.

Thus, again, your objection/comment in this particular regard is directed to the wrong address.

Further, I did not object to counting
the horrors caused by Stalin or Mao
regimes! Where did you read this out from in my objections?
What I said (though I really sick and tired of explaining myself in response to your continuous attempts to distort the letter and spirit of my comments) was: first, that Stalin and Mao regimes' mass repressions (even if it is eligible to call them "conflicts", which by their intent and character they weren't) are too different type of "conflicts" than the conflict under the radar to compare;
second, the comparison of the "dangers" (recall the main authors' assertion) of the conflicts, or even a comparison in general sense, based just on the number of the dead has been recognized by the overwhelming majority of specialists in world conflicts as methodically wrong for long time by now.

Thus, if you feel like arguing with what I really wrote you are welcome.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/15/2007

An interesting article by Robert Spencer. Omar won't like the source--but does he dispute the FACTS?

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/11/2007

Last Saturday, Palestinian Christian RAMI AYYAD was abducted and murdered. His body was found the next day. Six months ago, a bomb destroyed Ayyad’s Christian bookstore, the Holy Bible Society in Gaza City.

No group claimed responsibility for the murder of Ayyad, but the bombing of his bookstore was consistent with the pattern of bombings carried out by a jihadist group calling itself “The Righteous Swords of Islam.”

Ayyad’s death comes at a time when the position of Christians in the Palestinian Authority is more precarious than ever. Dr. Justus Weiner of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs said in July that “for a number of years now, this minority community [of Christians] has been in dire need of assistance. Palestinian Christians are unable to practice their religion in freedom and in peace. Most in danger are Arab Christians. And most in danger among Arab Christians are those who have converted from Islam. They are often left defenseless against cruelty from Muslim fundamentalists.”

This cruelty is often hallowed by the sanction of Islamic law. Sheikh Abu Saqer of the jihadist group Jihadia Salafiya announced last June: “I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza.” This would mean that, in accord with ancient provisions of Islamic Sharia law, Christians could practice their religion, but only if they did so inconspicuously: “Jihadia Salafiya and other Islamic movements will ensure Christian schools and institutions show publicly what they are teaching to be sure they are not carrying out missionary activity. No more alcohol on the streets. All women, including non-Muslims, need to understand they must be covered at all times while in public.” Hamas even intends to reinstitute the jizya, the special tax mandated by the Qur’an (9:29) for Jews and Christians, but from which Muslims are exempt from paying.

Christians are accordingly streaming out of Palestinian Authority-controlled areas – including some of the holiest sites in Christendom. Christians comprised 85 percent of the population of Bethlehem in 1948; by 2006 their numbers had dwindled to twelve percent, and a large mosque has been built on one side of Manger Square, right across from the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Muslim thugs beat a Christian cab driver in Bethlehem, George Rabie, just for displaying a crucifix in his cab. Rabie noted: “Every day, I experience discrimination….Many extremists from the villages are coming into Bethlehem.” Sometimes this discrimination turns lethal: several years ago, Muslims shot dead two Christian women for not wearing the Islamic veil. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility and explained: “We wanted to clean the Palestinian house of prostitutes.”

N. Friedman - 10/15/2007

Omar,

In Pakistan, Islamists seek to destroy India. They say so openly. They indicate that the Kashmir fight is intended to drive a wedge in India which will cause all the states to seek independence, after which Muslims, via Pakistan, could conquer the region.

In Europe, Islamists proclaim openly that they intend to conquer Europe. They expect to do so by means of immigration, high birth rates and pressure tactics, including violence.

In the US, documents have been discovered in Islamist organizations setting forth how they will conquer the US.

And, in your beloved Palestine, Hamas has issued materials related to reconquering Spain.

Yes, Fatah is what this is all about. And, it is not just about Palestine.

Joseph Mutik - 10/15/2007

Sorry!

Joseph Mutik - 10/15/2007

Anyway thank you for pointing out how vibrant is the Israeli democracy.

N. Friedman - 10/15/2007

Omar,

No doubt fatah goes beyond Israel. But, it does include Israel.

N. Friedman - 10/15/2007

Arnold,

Do you really think that Arab Israeli dispute compares, in terms of its horror, with the disputes that have occurred in and/or related to the Congo, Sudan, Kashmir or Bosnia? If so, in what way?

As for Jews making a big deal about Israel, that is true. And, to that extent they do bear some responsibility for blowing out of proportion a local conflict of limited horrors. The same, I might add, for the Arab side.

I tend to think you have a point in saying that democracies have started their share of wars.

On the other hand, your objection to counting the horrors that occurred under Stalin or Mao is, I think, unfair. Tens of millions of people killed for being objective enemies of the state or in cultural revolutions. The gist is essentially the same nonsense that now pervade the Muslim regions and their invocation of takfiri ideology.

It seems to me that it is valid to point out where, on the scale of troubled places, Israel fits in. And, that properly includes places like the USSR and China. One might take these states into account regarding how they deal with those on the outs so far as the country's ruling ideology is concerned or regarding wars that have occurred, since the Arab Israeli dispute has included both - and on both sides of the dispute.

art eckstein - 10/15/2007

Advertisement in the The York Review of Books, for a book we all (and especially Omar) will need to read:

Matthias Kuntzel, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11.

Kuntzel traces the history and centriality of the antisemitism that runs rampant in Islamist politics today to its origins in Nazi ideology.

art eckstein - 10/14/2007

1. This is a book critical of Israeli policy by two israeli leftists. So they are not exactly unbiased. In any case, there will be a chance for peace only when we have more books by Palestinians critical of the central Palestinian racist and genocide policies, the training of little children to be suicide bombers, the intentional attacks on civilians riding busses, on old people at religious celebrations, on discoteques. Given the conversion of much of Palestinian society into a Muslim death-cult (incluidng the persecution not only of gays but of Christians), we will be waiting a long time for such self-criticism. It was the conversion of much of Palestinian culture into a racist and genocidal death cult that feasted on and gloried in the killing of all Jews, any Jews, or even people who just looked like Jews (as in the Khoury case) that destroyed the israel left which the two authors represent. For this, the Palestinians have only themselves to blame.

2, As I have made clear, the refugee experience was a common one inflicted on millions and millions of people in the chaotic decade of 1945-1955, and more Jews suffered than Palestinians. Indeed the fact is that the *majority* of Israelis are descended *not" from refugees from Europe and the Holocaus (i.e., are "European colonists"), but the *majority" are refugees from the Middle East, forced out between 1948 and 1960, their lands and property seized by Arabs, and currently being enjoyed by some Arab. Moreover, we do not find that the normal response to such terrible traumas--terrible traumas which the Palestinians were *not* NOT unique in experiencing-- is terrorism: no Jews are blowing up school buses full of children in Baghdad, no Germans are blowing up discos in Danzig, no Hindus are gleefully blowing up imams or childen in Islamabad or Karachi. Omar has in fact admitted that such ultraviolent, genocidal, racist and death-cult terrorism behavior is not a widespread or natural response to the refugee trauma. He has admitted that the terrorist response appears restricted to the Palestinians, and has declared (this in the summer of 2006) that the difference is because the Palestinians are "more noble" than other peoples.

3. Here is the severe critique of the book that appears in the very Times review which Omar gleefully posted, a critique which, as it happens, makes many of the same points I have consistently made, the points that Omar either denies or which drivs him to fury:

"It is also curious, especially considering the authors’ leftist perspective, that the Palestinians barely feature in their book, other than as passive victims of rapacious Zionist settlers and expansionist Israeli governments. The Palestinians have been greatly wronged, but they have also had choices available to them and too often chose badly. Land grab aside, the security fence was built after a spate of barbarous suicide bombings and continues to prevent further attacks. When Yassir Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000 he turned down what was probably the best chance of meaningful statehood."

Exactly. Omar, too, sees the Palestinians merely as passive victims and refuses to see, or discuss, how the Palestinians own horrid judgment and barbaric actions have contributed mightily to the present impass.

Arnold Shcherban - 10/14/2007

Quote: "...well-known pattern that liberal democracies do not aggress..."

Obviously taken as an axiom by Pipes, but the real, i.e. historical "pattern" shown by some liberal democracies, say, US, UK, and Israel (clearly, and again axiomatically, taken by the authors as such democracies) is agression (along with other patterns), though
it is also obvious that Pipes&Co. use
a definition of agression applicable exclusively to those democracies' real and invented enemies.
The historical examples are well-known to list here.

Furthermore, the half, if not the better part of the feeling of extreme danger caused by the conflict in question was instilled and propagated, through all means known to mankind, for decades by the very folks who blame others now (as well, as in the past) for just that sin: extra fixation on Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict and on Palestinian/Arab terrorism against Israel as the potential threat to all
Western civilization.
Any, even half-honest, consumer of world news and political information cannot help admitting the thruth of the last statement.

Further, the evaluation method used by the authors of the article, i.e. measuring a danger associated with a conflict (or conflict itself) in just one parameter or variable - the number of victims(dead human beings, in particular) is highly questionable, if not outright wrong, as many specialists in world conflicts have emphasized for a long time in their articles and debates which had nothing to do with Israeli-Palestinian/Arab one, specifically.

The list of "conflicts" compiled by the authors is even more questionable. Were mass repressions by Stalin's and Mao's regimes conflicts, in the sense the overwhelming majority of lay people and experts understand the Arab-Palestinian/Arab one, or in sense many wars figured there are interpreted?
The answer is definitive "no".

That's far from all objections that
could be expressed against the article and its clear intent, but I'm
tired staring at the monitor.

N. Friedman - 10/14/2007

Professor,

In this case, Omar has accurately presented the Hamas view of the world, namely, no negotiations, no compromise, no settlement, no peace; only violent struggle in the path of the almighty - jihad fi sabel Allah - for purposes of conquest - fatah. That is all he understands. That is all he evidently can understand.

art eckstein - 10/14/2007

Mr. Friedman. and Mr. Mutik--Both of you underline important FACTS for our readers.

But we cannot expect Omar to respond to inconvenient FACTS. The concept is beyond him.

On the other hand, one of the important points that emerges from Omar's otherwise incoherent posting above is that he is, precisely, an example of someone who will never engage in negotiations, only violence.

And note the triumphant tone of that call to violence:

"'IT is utterly hopeless and completely USELESS to have any dialogue with the Zionist movement and Israel.'
The Arabs and Moslems did substantially reach that conclusion irrespective of what some of their states do and believe in.

The only remaining option for the Arab and Moslem world is to settle this conflict with anything BUT words; that is anything EXCEPT dialogue.

That OPTION is being increasingly adopted by them."


Omar has posted many irrational, false and disgusting items on Hnn. This is among the worst.

Has it occurred to any of us that perhaps Omar is in fact a plant by MOSSAD, to make Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims generally look really really really bad?

Joseph Mutik - 10/13/2007

The number of Palestinians killed by Arabs is many times higher than those killed by Israelis.
A classic example is "Black September" (September 1970) when Jordanian army killed thousands of Palestinians. The conservative estimate is 8000 but Palestinian sources put the number at 20000.

N. Friedman - 10/13/2007

Omar,

You have not understood what Pipes has stated. What he said is that in sixty years of fighting, the total number of Arab and Jewish deaths has not been, by world standards, that high. Which is to say, the Arab Israeli dispute can not be considered among the worst. It is not.

The Arab Israeli dispute is a tiff that your side refuses to resolve by compromise - the only basis on which any dispute can be resolved.