I’d like to express my big thanks to Neal Kozodoy, a distinguished colleague in the journalism profession– indeed, he’s the longtime editor of Commentary magazine, a key mouthpiece for the whole US neoconservative movement…. Now, it seems that Neal has been contributing considerable amounts of his intellectual property, gratis, to Just World News over the past two and a half weeks.
I am even considering preparing a little paper version of some of our exchanges here, which I can sell and send the profits to, say, the Atfaluna project in Gaza, one of my longtime favorites. (If any JWN readers want to help with this publication, let me know.)
Thank you so much for your contributions, Neal.
I guess I still have a lingering question or two. Does your Board of Trustees over there at the American Jewish Committee, which publishes your mag, realize how much time you’ve been spending– during what appears to me to have been your workdays– in composing sometimes lengthy contributions to JWN? (87 of them within the single 17-day period from March 21 through yesterday, indeed.)
Also, why did you suddenly stop contributing yesterday afternoon? Intriguingly, that seemed to happen right after I’d mentioned the possibility– in this discussion– that our frequent commenter “Neal” might indeed be Commentary’s Neal Kozodoy. Were you shy?
So anyway, Neal, come on back! But don’t be shy next time. Use your full name.
- Update Tuesday 1:05 p.m.: “Neal”, the commenter has informed me that he is not Neal Kozodoy. He writes: “For the record, I am not in any way associated with Commentary. I do not even subscribe to the magazine. I do not agree with the magazine’s editorial line either./ There are a small number of writers I have read in Commentary who, in my view, are first rate scholars.” He also writes, “I prefer to maintain my anonymity.”
So his true identity is still shrouded in mystery. That’s a pity. The discussion here is much richer, more authentic, and more constructive when commenters give us some indication of the life experience and expertise they bring to their contributions. Neal writes, “there are a few topics about which I know a great deal. One of those things is the treatment of non-Muslims in the Muslim regions. The other is Islamic theology. And I know a fair amount about the history of the Muslim regions.” But we have no means of testing these claims to expertise if we don’t know who he is.
Another magnificent ad hominem, this time about some newcomer plaguing her comments section. Watch it folks, or Helena will rat you out to your boss. Serves him right for “hogging the discourse” with all those uncomfortable opinions. Naughty Neal!
Now you can explain to us why Neal’s personal or professional life is relevant to anything he’s said here.
Vadim, Neal was the one who repeatedly claimed to be an expert. So of course such claims should be verifiable, right?
In general, though, I think our discussion here is much saner, richer, and more honest if people don’t hide behind shrouds of anonymity. I don’t. Jonathan doesn’t. Dominic doesn’t…. Many sensible commnters here don’t.
David/Davis Gelernter, anyone? Just a wild guess…
Neal was the one who repeatedly claimed to be an expert.
Agreed that anonymous experts carry little weight, but you’ve told us nothing of his expertise, only who (you guess) pays him, his supposed last name, his supposed affiliation with a Jewish group, and made some jabs at the amount of time he spends here (not as much as some, but what of it?). One bare-faced ad hominem after another. ‘Neal’ seems about as anonymous as ‘Dominic,’ ‘Christine,’ ‘Salah’, ‘John C./R’ etc. Less anonymous than ‘Sd’ ‘M. Upharsin,’ ‘Shirin,’ ‘frank al irlandi,’ and my all-time favorite: ‘observer’. Hardly anyone here uses their last name.
A friendly recommendation: perhaps you might consider registration? That would strip away everyone’s anonymity, not only that of card-carrying “Lobby”-members like our Neal. It would relieve you of banning IP’s and redacting comments, and silly detective work. Maybe it would drive away the more flagrantly disruptive, abusive, anti-semitic and arabophobic commenters. Just a thought.
My name is Dominic Tweedie and I live in Johannesburg, South Africa. You can visit my blog any time at http://domza.net/ and link from there to the web site I run, if you wish.
Now, vadim, since you have so furiously taken up the cudgels against what you call “ad hominem”, would you please like to explain what you think you are defending?
Is it that you demand some kind of right to appear here in cyberspace as a disembodied ghost? Do you deny all individual responsibility for what you write here? Is “vadim” more than a nickname? Is it an entirely false persona?
If so, why should anyone put up with it? Especially, why should anyone care about your bleats against “ad hominem”? What makes you think we are all obliged to preserve the anonymity that allows you to be as obnoxious as you like, without taking responsibility? You are childish, vadim. Life is not a game of make-believe. We owe you nothing of that nature.
I’m with Vadim on this one. It’s your blog, Helena, but I am frankly sometimes startled at your rather personal attacks* on certain posters. You really went over the top this time.
*I wish I never had to see that term “ad hominem” again
This “ad hominem” thing is just a shibboleth if you don’t give it some content, John C.
What do you think you are saying?
There is nothing of vadim here that he has not deliberately brought by himself. Nobody is saying he has bad breath or that he is ugly. We don’t know anything about that, and we don’t need to know. Nor does anyone care.
What he writes is open to criticism, same as what you write and what I write. Publish and be damned is what the Duke of Wellington said on this topic. Quite rightly. No prior restraint, but once you have put it out into the public realm it is fair game.
What you are actually advocating, John C, is absolute freedom for trolls and another standard of restraint for everybody else. That’s the trouble with irrational liberalism. It’s got no bottom. It ends up the opposite of what it pretends to be.
“you’ve told us nothing of his expertise”
Neal has revealed everything we need to know about his self-proclaimed “expertise” – its depth, its breadth, and upon what it is based.
There are many fine American Jewish organizations out there that struggle for the social good. The AJC unfortunately isn’t one of them– especially since its main magazine, Commentary, has also for many decades now been the main mouthpiece, podium, and node of organization for the country’s neoconservative movement.
Pointing out that the anonymous (and uniquely prolific) commenter “Neal” is most likely the editor of that mag is not an “ad hominem” argument in any way. Nor is it a “personal attack.” It provides aome very relevant information about this contributor and his claims to expertise, and gives us all a much richer intellectual context in which to judge his contributions.
Indeed, one could say that its a badge of a certain distinction for JWN that the editor of Commentary (no less!) has been hanging out here so much, hanging on my every word here so much… This is why I am serious about my suggestion that I might compile the comments he has so graciously contributed to JWN, and the rest of those discussions, into a hard-copy publication.
Helena,
Revealing Neal’s identity is useful in that it serves to confirm what he has already very clearly revealed about his own ideology, and his non-existent “expertise” in matters to do with Islam and Arabs.
By the way, if he actually has any actual expertise at all (other than an ability to repeat boilerplate anti-Islam polemics, make unsupported claims, and list as his sources well-known anti-Islam hacks), it is in a very different area than that he claimed for himself in his comments on JWN:
Neal Kozodoy, of New York, is the editor of Commentary Magazine. Few of the readers of that magazine are aware, however, of Kozodoy’s expertise and scholarship in Hebrew. He is the author of an important essay, ‘Reading Medieval Hebrew Love Poetry,’ published by the Association of Jewish Studies in its 1977 AJS Review, and has translated from the Hebrew Elie Wiesel’s book on Soviet Jewry, The Jews of Silence. In accepting the invitation to join the Honorary Board of the National Center for the Hebrew Language, Kozodoy writes—from both the head and the heart—’I have my misgivings about serving on boards, including honorary ones, but I’m persuaded of the importance of what you’re doing and honored to be asked.’” National Center for the Hebrew Language
Dominic the exchange of ideas has nothing to do with our individual stations in life. ‘Disembodied ghosts’ has for me no pejorative sense. Now that I know that you’re Dominic Tweedie and that you live in Johannesburg, what does it add to anything you’ve posted here? Would knowing details of my personal or professional life help you understand anything I’ve written; would it seem less obnoxious to you?
If so, why should anyone put up with it?
No one need put up with it, which is why I recommended registration. It wouldn’t get rid of me, until Helena decided to pull the plug on my user name and then I’d have to respect her decision and move along. I’m surprised you find my posts obnoxious Dominic, considering you’ve authored such unconstructive demeaning sneers as these:
I sure hope you never get your trembling finger on any nuclear button.
The descent from the sublime to the vulgar.
Your link is as phoney as can be and you are not even quoting it, you are just making the stuff up!….I think that’s a banning offence. [about my link to the Hamas covenant that you hadn’t bothered to read]
Is this how you address your students? If so I pity them. I will grant you this: at least you often base your non-abusive remarks on something other than narrow personal prejudice. Helena seems totally unable to escape hers, which is a great pity.
What he writes is open to criticism, same as what you write and what I write.
Only she isn’t criticising what he’s written or his intellectual credentials, but his –entirely assumed– ideological heritage. She’s using what she imagines are his professional and political affiliations as shorthand in order to avoid criticising what he’s written. That’s McCarthyite bigotry. It’s the same line of reasoning that reactionaries have always used against worthy political causes throughout history: poisoning the well. It’s not “fighting dirty” — it isn’t even fighting.
I don’t identify myself as I have some physical disabilities and live in a large city. Some people respond so emotionally to these issues I felt I would have to moderate my true views to speak out in an international forum and be safe.
We can all understand that those blogging from Iraq, for example, may wish to remain anonymous, yet I was still surprised to discover that Helena herself is quite open about her personal identity. I guess Charlotte inspires confidence.
I only have time for one more quick post before the library closes, but I just want to say this blog is almost like having a real home, and I sure do appreciate getting to know y’all.
Vadim, friend, I’ve criticized what Neal wrote on many of those posts where he wrote it. But since he claimed to have “expertise” on various relevant matters I thought I’d check the source and nature of that expertise.
He is a public intellectual and has a long record in the public sphere. (Like me.) Therefore if he’s been writing here behind a shroud of claimed anonymity, I find that interesting, to say the least.
He does have a track record in writing and publishing things about the modern Middle East. So making reference to his actual ideological heritage is quite legitimate.
Also, Dominic– like all others who post their URLs here, which can be clicked on and visited– is revealing a lot about himself by doing that, which can be discovered simply by clicking on and through the link provided. I really value those clickable links, which give depthh to the contributions that he and the others who do that like, for example, Brian from Alive in Baghdad make here.
Some people don’t have hone websites or home blogs to give the URLs of, and I understand that. But why didn’t Neal give us the Commentary URL there when posting his comments? Or his name… or something that would imply a readiness to share and participate here at JWN as an equal?
WW: make that CharlotteSVILLE (VA), not Charlotte (NC)…
Also, I have to say that though the pro-Israeli crowd have worked hard many times to wreck my career and besmirch my name they have never succeeded at that, and I’m blessed with a basic optimism and self-confidence that the power of reasoned argument will win out one day. So personally I see no reason to hide my identity and every reason to continue to be publicly out there.
I’m no Neal fan–I was having a not entirely friendly argument with him in a thread a few days ago. But I’m not in favor of outing people if they want to remain anonymous, unless you know they are trying to do you harm.
David/Davis Gelernter, anyone? Just a wild guess…
No Helena I don’t know who Gelertner is but I am flattered that my visceral lines could be attributed to somebody with a known name.
I truly don’t have any credentials beyond the indignation at the poison you secrete against the US, but your are welcome to keep guessing.
OK now it is time to out the real identities of never-won-a-war ex-soldier Salah, and exploding-Islam-can-do-no-wrong Shirin. Names and addresses so I can send them Christmas cards.
My sense is that this issue is being overblown. Who makes the rules in the blogosphere? This is Helena’s webblog; and she is the one who presents issues for discussion. Thus it seems to me that Helena sets the rules here, and we all agree to play by these rules as long as we maintain an interest in the issues presented for discussion.
This incident (the one that is being overblown) came about when one person, Neal, who was interested in the discussions that Helena presents began to dominate the comments section of Helena’s webblog. We all saw this happen. Neal entered this comments section and began to dominate the discourse with a presumption that he is the expert and Helena (or anyone else who might share Helena’s views) is a liar, fabricator, propagandist, and distorter of the truth.
How many other times on Helena’s webblog have we seen this happen? How many other Neals are there beyond David, Davis, Joshua, WarrenW, Vadim, JES, etc.? How many times has the comments section of this webblog been dominated by presumed experts who throw around these sorts of charges against Helena: liar, fabricator, propagandist, and distorter of the truth?
I am continually amazed that Helena has the strength, energy, resoluteness, and commitment to her values that she is able to blog daily while maintaining the degree of civility we find in this tiny space of the blogosphere. Because of this civility we all are able to share information, exchange views, argue, debate, and strongly disagree with one another.
Now if our Neal is the director of the main neo-conservative mouthpiece, “Commentary” (which we still do not know for sure), then it is a highly relevant piece of information. We all need to know that this latest “dominant expert” entrant into our discussion is none other than one of the individuals most responsible for spreading the kind of disinformation and distortion of political reality we have seen in the US since September 11, 2001. In this case, Helena is entirely correct to disclose this bit of information here on her own personal webblog.
If, on the other hand, our Neal is not the editor of “Commentary” magazine, then he could simply say so. And all of us could continue with our normal sharp exchange. No foul, no harm done. Just as there is no foul, no harm done if our Neal is the “Commentary” editor. What would be the issue? We should all welcome the views of Neal, editor of “Commentary” magazine, just as the views of anyone else are welcome on Helena’s webblog.
What is strange is the complete silence from our Neal presumed expert on all things Middle East. Does the cat have our Neal’s tongue? …………… Has the echo chamber gone silent?
The real problems found on this webblog are the regular attempts by entrants like our Neal to discredit nearly everything that Helena posts. If there is a foul and harm done, then this is it. In fact “it” is a foul occuring on a regular, daily basis.
One must surely admire Helena for her ability to keep this webblog going despite the constant fouls that occur from our Neal, David, Davis, Joshua, WarrenW, Vadim, JES, etc. When any commenter expresses admiration or appreciation for Helena’s obvious talent, Neal, David, Davis, Joshua, WarrenW, Vadim, JES, etc. immediately peg such commenter as a mere “cheerleader” for Helena, a dupe to Helena’s propaganda.
Foul, foul, foul, and more fouls. This is what the echo chamber has to offer.
Keep up the great work, Helena!
Neal, where have you gone? If you can’t engage the dueling, then keep your pen in its sheath. What’s that old saying: “if you don’t have something useful and intelligent to say … shhhhhh! Say nothing.”
If you are referring to me, I have nothing to do with Commentary. I occassionally read the online portions of it. However – and, again, I am assuming that you are referring to me -, you will note that I do not – in fact, I never did – support the Iraq war, a mainstay of those who write at Commentary.
My interests, as I have said repeatedly, is the Muslim regions as they are perceived, historically and today, by non-Muslims.
If you are referring to me, thank you for what is an underhanded form of complement.
By the way, I did not stop posting. I was away with my wife. We had a free weekend for some time away from the kids.
Now, I am back.
A couple of other points.
I think I claimed expertise on one topic, not on all topics under discussion. So, Helena, I think you greatly exagerates what I have said.
I also note that I do not think I have hogged anything. I merely do not agree with Helena’s opinion or that of quite a number of other posters on this site. So, my opinions stand out from those held by Helena and by some who make apologia for Arab imperialism.
It would seem to me that people would welcome a variety of points of view. Evidently, that bothers some people on this cite who complain about me, the length of my comments, their allegedly “Orientalist” point of view – and the person who claimed that knows not what he or she is saying -, etc., etc..
If you do not want me to post, I shall go away. So, let me know.
I hadn’t noticed any apologists for Arab imperialism here, Neal. I could play the same silly game and accuse you of support for American imperialism, since you don’t (to my knowledge) rant about the millions of people our foreign policy has put into the ground over the past few decades. You seem to have an interest in talking about the enormous atrocities that various Muslims have committed. Nothing wrong with that, but as an American I feel more responsible for the crimes my country commits.
That said, Neal, I hope you’re telling the truth about your identity. I’m on Helena’s side on substantive issues, but when it comes to “outing” people I think that’s wrong, and if she misidentified you, good.
“some who make apologia for Arab imperialism”
Arab imperialism! Now THAT’s funny – really funny!
Donald,
She has definitely incorrectly identified me. While I prefer to remain anonymous, I can safely say – beyond all doubt – that I have nothing at all to do with Commentary.
As for Arab imperialism, I should have said “Islamic imperialism.” The Islamic revival movement is, in my view, imperialistic.
I do not deny that the West, including the US, does things akin to an empire. But, we do not propose a true empire, as do the Islamists, who seek the Caliphate. And that institution, historically speaking, has involved empire and, more than that, an expansionist empire in the traditional imperialistic model. On my reading, those who side here with the Arab Islamic side support, whether or not consciously, imperialism.
Oh, I see, Neal. You were REALLY talking about those of us who make apologia for the tiny lunatic fringe among Muslims who envision recreating the Islamic empire. Yes, indeed, this site is simply swarming with apologists for the miniscule minority of Muslims who are deluded enough to want to return to the golden days of the Caliphate, and therefore your expertise (whatever it actually may be) is desperately needed here as a counterweight.
By the way, perhaps you would care to name those to whom you refer – just so we know who they are? Like Donald, I have not noticed them.
Shirin,
You.
Well, I’ve never noticed Shirin or any of the other regular posters here making any apologies for the small minority of Islamist militants who seek a return of the Caliphate by violent means.
Actually I’ve probably met a somewhat greater number of dedicated Islamists than Neal has had the chance to? And none of them that I’ve met has ever talked about restoring the Caliphate by violent means. (Many or most of them don’t actually seek the restoration of the caliphate at all.) So we do need to be careful about our categories and our analysis.
This bugaboo of an alleged desire by Islamists (of all flavors) to “restore a Caliphate-related empire” is a frenetic, fear-stoking argument used by many people who (1) want to continue to marginalize, ostracize, and attack Islamists of all kinds, though they’re quite happy to engage with peole representing openly “Christianist” or “religious Jewish” political organizations; and (2) seek actively to quash any discussion of the US and Israeli governments’ current and ongoing practices of seeking to impose their wills on foreign peoples through the application of often lethal force– practices that aim, moreover, at keeping in place the structures of repression that will continue these violent and rapacious projects on a longterm basis.
Israel is of course actually continuing to build colonies and grab land in foreign areas conquered through military means; so there, the colonialism hat fits quite neatly. The US is seeking “merely” to maintain its structures of military control and coercion in Iraq and various other spots around the world, making those spots “safe” for the depradations of US-owned corporations. So you could call that imperialism.
… So yes, to all those people out there who are working to impose colonialism or imperialism of a Muslim flavor on other peoples around the world, then I declare myself fearlessly against such a project! I am also, much more relevantly, against the actual, ongoing projects that the US and Israeli governments ARE NOW PURSUING, that use active military coercion to impose their rapacious and repressive wills on other peoples.
I guess I just have this irrational attachment to the “consent of the governed.” How terribly old-fashioned of me.
Neal, whoever you are, don’t feel you need to “respond” to this. You have already expressed yourself. Give others a turn! Hey, you might even learn something.
Also, I have to say that though the pro-Israeli crowd have worked hard many times to wreck my career and besmirch my name they have never succeeded at that….
Sure!
I must say the the initial post and premise of this thread is particularly pathetic.
JES,
I think Helena flatters herself to think that a well known magazine would care less what she thinks. I also take it as a compliment that she thinks I have sufficient skills to be an editor at a major magazine.
As for Helena’s most recent post, she has very, very good reason not to want me to reply. I shall only note that she puts words into my mouth which were not there.
Neal, JES, Vadim, WarrenW, Joshua, Davis, David, etc.
Welcome back to the Echo Chamber, especially our Neal Not Associated With Commentary Magazine’s Support For The Invasion Of Iraq.
Neal, good to have you among us again. Hope you had a relaxing and enjoyable weekend with your wife away from the kids. How nice! Did you leave the dog at the kennel?
It would be good if you could honestly consider what Helena, Shirin, and Donald Johnson have to say above. You effectively reveal your absurd narrow agenda here on JWN when you set up this bogey of fringe Islamists plotting to “restore the Caliphate o’er the entire world.” And all of us on this web-site are somehow supposed to be dupes to that “new totalitarian master-plan” !?!?!?! What a joke!
None of us have ever expressed support for an Islamist Caliphate. And the fact that you don’t recognize the standard democratic dynamics of movements in the muslim world that are mobilizing to better represent the public interest just shows how misinformed you really are about the entire Middle East region.
The majority of Islamist movements in the muslim world today are well-versed in and supportive of democratic theories. And they reject the traditional institution of the Caliphate. It is only a fringe group of radicals that use this language of the “Caliphate” and hold to such traditional political philosophies.
We understand (and have long understood) that you are narrowly interested in how non-muslims “perceive” the muslim world, as you yourself claim. And since you are welcome on this website, you will no doubt keep us all well-informed about your views of these non-muslim perceptions/biases, since this is your goal. This is what your Echo Chamber is all about, perpetuating historic stereotypes and irrational fears about the “muslim world,” thus driving the post-Cold War clash of civilizations that is good for business in certain sectors of the economy.
As we all await your future anonymous contributions about the non-muslim perception/bias of the muslim world — contributions that will assuredly come in large doses, we of course will remain objective about these contributions, since we know nothing about your dubious qualifications to pass judgment on “non-muslim perceptions/biases”…and more importantly, we question how relevant those perceptions/biases are for 21st century world politics.
This objectivity and the search for verifiable truth is, after all, the purpose of wise, intelligent, and reasoned discourse. And we reject the way your Echo Chamber chooses to reduce any discussion of issues here on Helena’s webblog to a muslim vs. non-muslim dichotomy.
Since there is very little chance that you will consider this point I am making, just like you will not consider the points that Helena, Shirin, and Donald Johnson made above, we expect that this trifle dueling with you will continue, so that others can read Helena’s main postings and become better informed about the nature of politics around the world.
Nonetheless…welcome back!
So you could call that imperialism.
You could? Following whose definition? Imperialism isn’t defined by military coercion, and there’s no evidence that US “corporate interests” (which are wide ranging and often contradictory!) are served by any US policy in the mideast, especially those regarding Israel. And other characteristics of empire (monopoly control of colonial markets, US colonist-settlers) don’t apply at all.
their rapacious and repressive wills
More hate speech. Can entire peoples even be said to have ‘rapacious and repressive wills?’ If it means anything at all, it’s a bigoted generalisation.
Sd,
Show me that Islamists mostly favor democracy. It is my distinct impression that Islamists are more interested in the theocratic than the democratic. But, I am open to learn from you. So enlighten me with facts, not your interpretation of them. Who knows, maybe you will convince me.
I don’t think the idea that Islamists have imperial ambitions produces a very interesting discussion. I shall put it no stronger than that. The relationship between Islamists, broadly defined, and democracy, is a great deal more interesting. Clearly Islamist groups in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria, Iraq and Palestine have demonstrated that they are interested in democracy. The question of Turkey I will leave to one side for now, even though I think that Erdogan is fully committed to democracy, because the political dynamics of Turkey seem so very different from those of the Arab countries I have mentioned. (It should also be remembered that these Arab countries also differ signfiicantly from one another, and that no Islamist movement is identical with any other). In these countries political parties or movements usually understood as Islamists have made use of sometimes very limited democratic structures (such as the professional associations in Egypt) and broader national democratic processes so that their grass-roots constituency has gained increasing representation. In general Islamists seem to favour democratic processes in political situations where the governments they oppose are at best reluctant democrats. One might say that they are democrats because they believe democracy works for them, that it is in their best interests, and this may be true. This is not by any means the same thing as Djerejian’s idea of ‘one man, one vote, one time’, in which Islamist wolves pose as democratic sheep in order to win power, and bare their authoritarian teeth once in power. It is to observe that there is a genuine reciprocity between practical engagement with democratic processes and support for such processes. Thus, if Islamists see democracy as a way of promoting what they believe in they are not going to support it in a merely opportunistic way, but engage with it pragmatically and genuinely. In engaging thus they commit themselves more and more fully to the practice of representation, accountability, pluralism. If they were not democrats going in, there is a process of becoming-democratic in the act of practising democracy. If I were a democrat I would welcome such developments. I might still want to vote for someone else, of course, but that is another matter.
Anyway, this is off-topic, in a sense, but perhaps it is a good thing we move beyond the initial topic of Neal’s identity, and get back to thinking through some real problems, such as the possibility that Islamists might be in the process of developing a new inflection of democratic politics – one with which Western secularists like myself might find much to argue, but which might nonetheless offer significant advances for the people of the region, in terms of economic and social justice.
Nicholas Ridout,
Well, you can count me of the school which does not think that the connection of Islamists to democracy is anything more than a short term tactic used to gain power.
I would, in fact, still like to address the imperialism issue because I think it very important.
The reason for noting such point is, at least in my thinking, to make clear that the Muslim regions are not merely reactive. Which is to say, people in that part of the world have their own ideas and goals and we should understand them in order to avoid misunderstandings. And, a good portion of thinking can rightly be considered imperialistic.
Now, Helena would have it that she knows Islamists and the people of the region – first hand, evidently -. She thinks I have it all wrong. Maybe I do.
On the other hand, I do not think you can judge a region by the sort of in-person knowledge upon which she relies for her opinion. In fact, that is the exactly wrong way to investigate the matter. That sort of approach always leads to a discovery of friendly people. People came back from the USSR and found happy, content people. But, the truth was not that simple but the sort of world-traveler approach skews opinion in a manner which misleads – misleading even the observer herself -.
Now, the talk in the air in that part of the world is rather imperial. That could be heard in the words of President Ahmadinejad just as it was heard (a bit away from the Middle East) in the words of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (of Malaysia). And such can be heard from people in HAMAS (e.g. regarding reconquering Spain).
Helena:So you could call that imperialism.
Vadim:You could? Following whose definition? Imperialism isn’t defined by military coercion, and there’s no evidence that US “corporate interests” (which are wide ranging and often contradictory!) are served by any US policy in the mideast, especially those regarding Israel. And other characteristics of empire (monopoly control of colonial markets, US colonist-settlers) don’t apply at all.
Well, its a somewhat free country, still. You can call things anything you like. Plenty of people call such behavior imperialism (or neo- or whatever). A good recent book analyzing such US behavior in that way is Chalmers Johnson’s Sorrows of Empire. Definitions follow usage, not the other way around. The general corporate interest of course is ill served by US policy in the Mideast (or anywhere else, including the US) – but plenty of particular corporations’ interests are. This is characteristic of a polity and empire in decay.
their rapacious and repressive wills
More hate speech. Can entire peoples even be said to have ‘rapacious and repressive wills?’ If it means anything at all, it’s a bigoted generalisation.
Perhaps one shouldn’t say “entire peoples” have “rapacious and repressive wills.” But then again, Helena didn’t. In that sentence it was “the US and Israeli governments” that had “rapacious and repressive wills.”
…the words of President Ahmadinejad just as it was heard (a bit away from the Middle East) in the words of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (of Malaysia). And such can be heard from people in HAMAS (e.g. regarding reconquering Spain).
Neal-
The chances that you, with your “non-muslim outsider perspective” on the muslim world could be right on this subject are slim.
But you are correct, there orignally did exist some small chance for you to take a stab at making an intelligent remark on the subject. And then again there was always the far bigger chance that you would end up speaking from the other end of your ingestion/digestion system and be so completely wrong that you look like an idiot.
You want to learn something from me? Sorry, my classes on politics in the muslim world are all full this semester, but there are lots of good books for you to read on the subject. Nick was pointing you in one good possible direction. You could go to your public library and check out any book on modern Turkish politics and see how Islamists have evolved in that country.
The important thing to keep in mind is that there is no one Islamist movement, or one over-riding commitment among Islamists, such as you ridiculously suggested with the Caliphate idea. If you study muslim groups, organizations, parties, etc. in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, etc., and better yet if you would travel to these countries like Helena does in order to interview the people who are informed, have influence, and know what they are talking about, then you will find that there is actually a great variety of so-called Islamists, and they do not operate with “minders” as did the old Soviet system.
When you make statements like this, and when you continue to attack Helena’s qualifications, you simply show how misinformed you are. Take Nick’s advice. Give up this “Islamic imperailist” witchhunt, take 6-12 months to do some reading, and then maybe think about returning to JWN.
The new Red-Menace? — totalitarian imperialism among muslims seeking greater democratic representation. It is amazing, but you and the Echo Chamber really are like that bunch of reactionaries in the 1930s and 1940s who blasted FDR’s New Deal as Soviet-inspired communism in America. And all they did was pave the way for McCarthy in the 1950s.
Sd,
Where did I attack Helena’s qualifications? I challenged her approach, not her qualifications. Do you understand the difference?
Now, I really do not like being insulted.
Regarding the Caliphate, I find it unimaginable that there are Sunni Muslims who do not, at least in theory, believe in the restoration of the Caliphate. As for Islamists, I cannot imagine any large number of them rejecting the idea of a Caliphate.
As for the striving of Islamists for democracy – as in majority rule but with limited government protecting the rights of the losing group -, I do not believe such to be remotely correct. In fact, I believe the claim is mere propaganda.
In that sentence it was “the US and Israeli governments” that had “rapacious and repressive wills.”
point taken. Though I wish the rest of Helena’s readership were so fastidious.
The general corporate interest of course is ill served by US policy in the Mideast (or anywhere else, including the US) – but plenty of particular corporations’ interests are. This is characteristic of a polity and empire in decay.
That “particular corporate interests are served by US foreign policy” is totally unfalsifiable. Others [oil interests, chiefly] would be served by a more isolationist foreign policy.
Anyhoo, I wonder if Helena will get around to printing an ‘Emily Litella’-esque retraction, or even an apology to either Neal, for her presumptuous post?
vadim,
It is not for lack of making such a request.
Dear Helena,
For the record, I am not in any way associated with Commentary. I do not even subscribe to the magazine. I do not agree with the magazine’s editorial line either.
There are a small number of writers I have read in Commentary who, in my view, are first rate scholars. The names Ephraim Karsh and Walter Lacquer come to mind. They have made serious scholarly contributions and deserve great respect for that.
While Mr. Podhoretz of Commentary is clearly very brilliant, I associate him with eliminating much of the diversity of opinion which was, back in the 1960’s, the norm at Commentary. And more recently, he advocated for a war which is, I think, a folly. So, you have me all wrong. I am not a neo-conservative. I am not even a conservative.
I certainly have not attempted to hijack your website. I do not understand why you have selected me, given all of the garbage which appears in the comments section on your site – as on most other blogs -, for special treatment.
Now, I do have expertise in my small area. I do not claim to be the world’s expert on anything. On the other hand, there are a few topics about which I know a great deal. One of those things is the treatment of non-Muslims in the Muslim regions. The other is Islamic theology. And I know a fair amount about the history of the Muslim regions.
Lastly, I prefer to maintain my anonymity. It was, in my very humble opinion, not your shining hour when you decided to “out” – in this case, incorrectly “out” – me. I would, with that in mind, appreciate a retraction as I do not much want to be associated in any way with the Commentary crowd.
Neal
Geez, you would think that Helena would at least have the decency to put an “Update” on this entry acknowledging that her identification was completely unfounded and off the mark, if not an actual apology.
“Show me that Islamists mostly favor democracy.”
Neal, where have you been? How did you manage to miss the fact that it is “Islamists'” enthusiastic – and very successful – participation in all kinds of democratic (and “democratic” – e.g. Iraq) processes that has so many pairs undies in such a major bunch among those hypocrites who have bleated the longest and loudest about “spreading democracy” in the Middle East. It is the enthusiastic and successful participation in democracy of so many “Islamists” that suddenly has the hypocritical “purveyors of democracy” refusing to accept the results of the democratic process, and even punishing the voters for making free democratic choices.
“It is my distinct impression that Islamists are more interested in the theocratic than the democratic.”
Your impression? You don’t know for a fact? What about all that expertise you went on and on about? I thought everything coming from you had its basis in solid, in depth knowledge, and yet now the best you can come up with is an impression?
On the other hand, come to think of it, you have never really made it clear exactly in what you were an expert. Last week you strongly implied that you were an expert on Islamic history and jurisprudence – something you were very clear that the rest of us, especially me, know nothing abou – and yet today you state that your “interests…is the Muslim regions as they are perceived, historically and today, by non-Muslims.” Grammar errors aside, it seems your previously self-proclaimed “expertise” in Islamic matters has suddenly been reduced to mere “interests” in non-Muslim perceptions.
“But, I am open to learn from you.”
Obviously you are not open to learn from anyone since you clearly know everything you want to know.
Shirin,
You say Islamists participate in democracy. In fact, they participate enthusiastically – on your theory. That is a different thing from saying that Islamists favor democracy. By way of simple example, Hitler and the Nazis participated in elections. In fact, they were rather enthusiastic. They, however, had no use for democracy and, once in power, undermined it.
Do you see my point? If not, consider that participation in democracy is not evidence of support of democracy. And that is true even if the participation is enthusiastic.
As for the rest of your post, I am rather tired of your insults.
“I do have expertise in my small area.”
And what area is that, exactly? Not Islamic history and jurisprudence as you have previously implied. Not, apparently, anything to do with actual facts and realities of Islam and Muslims, but apparently, according to your most recent claims, non-Muslims’ perceptions? And how, exactly, does this expertise in perceptions qualify you to make the kinds of sweeping judgments you make about Islam and Muslims and “Muslim regions”?
“…there are a few topics about which I know a great deal. One of those things is the treatment of non-Muslims in the Muslim regions.”
Based on the views you have expressed here, one can only conclude that you do not have a remotely complete knowledge of this topic. Based on the uniformly negative, completely unnuanced, and sometimes distorted nature of your comments on this subject, and your strong negative reaction to any attempt to balance your completely unbalanced comments, it appears clear that you are in possession of carefully selected – and in some cases badly distorted – bits of historical and contemporary information, leaving many large and very significant holes in your knowledge.
“The other is Islamic theology.”
You haven’t shown that here at all. On the contrary. (See paragraph above)
“And I know a fair amount about the history of the Muslim regions.”
Again, what you seem to “know” appears carefully selected to fit a particular negative view of Islam.
Your problem in this particular venue, Neal, is that you are in the company of people who actually do know a great deal about these subjects, some by virtue of genuine academic expertise, and others by life experience, still others by a combination of both. Your “expertise”, derived from reading anti-Islam polemicists such as disaffected ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq, and apparently carefully selected readings Patricia Crone (who may or may not be an unbiased source to begin with) simply does not impress anyone who has a complete and well-rounded understanding of the topic.
“You say Islamists participate in democracy.”
Don’t take MY word for it, Neal. Just open your eyes and you will see. Muslims participate in democracy all over the world in fact.
“In fact, they participate enthusiastically – on your theory.”
This is not my theory, Neal, it is a clear fact that anyone can perceive who simply opens his eyes and mind and looks.
“That is a different thing from saying that Islamists favor democracy.”
The evidence indicates that far more Islamists are participating in democracy than are attempting to recreate the Caliphate by violence or any other means. Further evidence indicates that a great many more Islamists would gladly participate in democracy given the opportunity. Based on the evidence, then, Islamists by and large favour democracy over attempting to recreate the Caliphate by violence or any other means.
“By way of simple example, Hitler and the Nazis participated in elections. In fact, they were rather enthusiastic. They, however, had no use for democracy and, once in power, undermined it.”
And now you not only hang yourself, you even provide your own rope! Well done, Neal!
“Do you see my point?”
Oh, you have made your point very clear indeed, Neal. You always do.
“If not, consider that participation in democracy is not evidence of support of democracy. And that is true even if the participation is enthusiastic.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. However, the choice to participate in democracy rather than to recreate the Caliphate by violent force certainly is evidence that those who make that choice favour democracy.
“As for the rest of your post, I am rather tired of your insults.”
Don’t be so thin skinned, Neal. I am merely pointing out the obvious about the views you express here. If you find that insulting, perhaps you should reconsider your views. Skipping over my posts is an option, too, of course.
Shirin,
You have no remote view of what I think about Islam, about Muslims or anything else. It might occur to you that I would not spend years studying something for which I lacked admiration. Evidently not.
Admiring something is not the same as whitewashing it. The fact is that Islam, like Judaism and like (most especially) Christianity, like Hinduism, etc., is not all peace and good feelings. And honest people, while admiring the admirable, also examine that which is not so admirable. And Islam has its share of the not so admirable. As an example, quoting probably the most famous Islamist of all time, Ignaz Goldhizer (d. 1921 – and he was the first non-Muslim invited to study at Al-Azhar University and he was known to pray with Muslims) wrote:
Famed Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) explains the same point this way:
I think a person can properly label the above understanding of life’s communal mission as “heroic.” And, it is indeed heroic, as the historical record shows, from the Muslim perspective. But that mission is, from the point of view of non-Muslims, dreadful and unfortunate, especially today where the communal mission has been revived among many, many Muslims.
Now, you have spent your time calling me names and attempting to label me. That is your privilege. It is my privilege to note to you that you can learn things from people who disagree with you such that I think your notion – refusing any information from “Orientalists,” etc. – is the embodiment of demagogic ignorance. As Nietzsche observes:
Your approach, by contrast, is to find orthodox views which satisfy your belief in what is not so.
There is a typo above. Ignaz Goldhizer was an Islamicist, not an Islamist.
Neal, if what you consistently post here is any indication of what you think of Islam and Muslims, then indeed we all have a very clear idea of what you think about it, and admiration it is not. If your posts here are not a fair representation of what you think about Islam and Muslims, then I suggest you are doing yourelf no favour.
Shirin,
Yes. I think that Jihad fi sabil Allah is a major part of Islam as it has been understood through the ages. But, I also think that the religion is rather heroic and lyrical – which, to me, are very good things, existentially considered -. As the Hadith goes, Paradise is under the shade of swords. And as the Hadith goes, Islam has no asceticism; the asceticism of Islam is the Holy War.
Now, for what it is worth, I think Islam is rather more admirable than Christianity which is, to me, morose and saccharine while Islam is rather similar to Biblical – as opposed to Classical – Judaism, which is also rather heroic and rather lyrical. But note: I am not religious so I do not see Islam or any other religion as being anything other than myths. As myths go, Islam is among the most fascinating.
Consider, the issue I have with Islam today is that there are large numbers of people of Muslim faith who would still use Islam as the model for all of society and as a blueprint for world conquest. I think that point deserves discussion as it is, for non-Muslims, not a good thing. It is, from the point of view of non-Muslims, imperialism, pure and simple. “Fatah” – a religious term which is the worldly manifestation of Jihad – means “opening,” as in to conquer and colonize. I might add, if, in the name of their religions, Christians or Jews or Hindus did the same as today’s Jihadists, I think it would be bad as well.
I might also add that it is not any better to do such things for non-religious reasons. But, those who act in the name of religion tend to be the most vicious and single-minded. That makes today’s Jihadists very, very dangerous. And that is why it is important to understand them and what they believe, rather than, as you do, provide apologetic suggestions that obscure what Jihadism is mainly about.
“I think that Jihad fi sabil Allah is a major part of Islam as it has been understood through the ages.”
And now you have shown that you can throw around a term or two without having any idea what they actually mean. Congratulations!
Shirin,
Mister wise: Jihad in the path of Allah.
Neal, I am really impressed that you managed to find out the literal meaning of three of the four words in that phrase. You still have no idea what it means though.
A couple of quick points.
I see that “Neal” avers strongly that he is not Neal Kozodoy. Fair enough. Neal, could you contact me privately with verifiable information about who you are, which I undertake not to share, publish, or distribute in any way.
Once you have done that and I have verified the information provided I will be more than happy to provide a public correction of the main post here and, if you desire it, also a public apology.
Otherwise, the uncertainty regarding your identity will remain.
Regarding your claim to expertise re the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states, the only individual I could find in a Google searth using the specific terms of “treatment of non-Muslims” and “Neal” was a decidedly Islamophobic radio talk show host called Neal Boortz. Are you he?
Of course it’s possible that your name isn’t Neal at all…
Regarding my methodology, as a journalist and researcher of >30 years experience I have developed a number of different means of enquiry that work best when the largest possible combination of them is used together. Of course I don’t “just” go to Gaza and talk all dewy-eyed to Hamas people. I talk to their bitter opponents as well. I do documentary research. I do background social-science research. I talk with experts.
But still, I think that talking to the people concerned themselves is, wherever it’s possible, an extremely important element of any such enquiry. I’m mystified by how the critics here would prefer that such enquiries be conducted. Should reporters never seek to interview the people with whose actions or words we happen to strongly disagree… and never seek to probe the thinking, fears, and aspirations behind their policies?
I don’t see any need to defend my methodology. My work stands for itself. If people don’t see any value in it, they don’t need to come to JWN and interrupt with their repetitive and often pointedly hostile cavilling and time-wasting the substantive discussions that do, thank God, go on on the Comments boards here. The rest of the blogosphere is open for these folks to express their views however they please. Ain’t cyberspace a wonderful thing!
Helena,
I sent you an email, as you know full well. I have, as I said, no desire to reveal my personal information and such information is none of your business in any event. However, you can be assured that I have exactly nothing at all to do with Commentary. You are free to ask Commentary if or Mr. Kozodoy if you do not believe me. If that does not do for you, tough luck. Your demand and conditions are entirely unreasonable.
For the record, I have never even heard of Neal Boortz. And I am not an Islamophobe or anything of the sort. You are free to ask Mr. Boortz, whoever he is, if you do not believe me. If that does not do for you, again: tough luck. Your demand and conditions are entirely unreasonable.
Your methodology, as I see it, is rather similar to that used by people who visited the USSR and found it to be an attractive country with people thrilled with their lives.
When I was a bit younger, family friends of mine, working for a not to be named major municipality, were sent to the USSR to study the subways in order to improve things in their city. Such friends, who were rather sophisticated observers, fluent in Russian and Ukrainian and well read on the USSR and Russian history, came back with stories of how wonderful the USSR was. And, in fact, they were regular visitors and so their knowledge was akin to that which you rely upon. In any event, one day – 20 years later -, one of her relatives took them into an alleyway and told them that what they thought – even what the relatives had said previously – was entirely untrue.
I also note that the same for people who visited Nazi Germany before WWII. People came home, noting the improvements brought by the Nazis and the view that the Nazis were about peace. Again, such people were deceived, largely because that methodology is inherently difficult and thus more likely to mislead than to be very full of insight.
The issue, in my humble opinion, is that a person who can leave a place never really understands it the way a person who lives there as a native. So, I trust your observations. I just do not think they provide real insight. The insight comes from what appears in black and white and in speeches, etc. Such things ultimately move history along, not the day to day examination which shows – as in every country on Earth – that people are people. And, based on what you write, you basically see life in its everyday context which does not tell you what people think deep down.
I reiterate that you should correct your post to note that I am not Mr. Kozodoy. Having said untrue things about me, that is the least I am due.
Helena,
Here is a point of law for you that might protect you in some future situation. The person making accusations has the burden to make a reasonable inquiry before printing. The person defamed does not need to prove his or her innocence.
In my view, what you have done is morally offensive. It is really morally wrong to demand that I prove who I am as a condition for you to do the right thing, namely, remove a false accusation about me which, as is now self-evident, you did not bother to investigate in the first place. Shame on you!!!
Neal,
This reminds me of the story of Lion Feuschtwanger, who visited the Soviet Union in 1938, at the height of the purges. After a one-on-one with Stalin, Feuschtwanger came away believing that the USSR was a worker’s paradise, and that’s the story he took back and disseminated throughout the world. What was the term that Lenin used for such “useful” people? I’m sure Dominic can tell us.
By the way, you are quite correct that Helena has said untrue things about you that need to be corrected. She has also said untrue things about Neal Kozodoy and Commentary magazine.
Gee, Neal, you are really big on making implicit legal threats, aren’t you? I’ll bet Helena is just as scared as I am.
Shirin,
I made no threat. I was making a suggestion how Helena might wish to behave towards people, going forward. And, I was pointing out that she is behaving immorally.
Helena,
You have finally done the decent thing and printed a retraction – albeit a self-indulgent one -. Next time, send me an email if you have a question. And check the facts before you post. Such an approach tends to lower the amount of money you must pay to lawyers.
i’m reluctant to jump into a somewhat silly thread, but neal’s comment was actually interesting:
Regarding the Caliphate, I find it unimaginable that there are Sunni Muslims who do not, at least in theory, believe in the restoration of the Caliphate. As for Islamists, I cannot imagine any large number of them rejecting the idea of a Caliphate.
this seems fairly typical of the current strain of anti-muslim polemic in the u.s., which is a central part of the current rise in anti-arab racism, general xenophobia, and of course the thin streak of popular support for the present government’s imperial ambitions.
but it’s interesting.
because it reveals an inability to imagine that any culture or worldview can contain anything but the most extreme version, or ultimate logical extension, of the most ‘orthodox’ (i.e. right-wing) form of its written doctrine. or that any human participant in a culture or worldview can believe in anything but the most extreme &c.
by that logic, no catholic exists who does not “at least in theory” believe in papal control of the whole world (under the doctrine of st. peter’s two keys); no jew who is not a gush emunimnik or kahanist; no anti-capitalist who is not a stalinist; no u.s. citizen with a critique of ‘manifest destiny’; and no evangelical protestant who doubts the divine inspiration of george w. bush.
bishop berkley’s refutation applies to all of these, of course, as it does to neal’s limited imagination. i won’t kick the boulders for you, but remember that it only takes one counterexample to disprove this kind of argument.
but it’s interesting.
an inability to distinguish between crisp, precise words on a page and actual living humans with all their messy messy complexities.
“you’re an X – and Xs believe Y – you can’t possibly believe Z, much less not-Y”
it’s the quintessential bureaucratic syndrome. i think hannah arendt had something to say about it once.
Neal, I think your advice regarding “outing” is good. Helena, it’s your blog and if you find Neal to be a pain, you have every right to ban him or limit his posting (by deletion or whatever). But trying to “out” people is, I think, generally regarded as not kosher in most parts of the blogosphere, or that’s my understanding. And anyway, unless Neal is doing you some actual harm, I don’t think you have the moral right to do more than simply ban him. His expertise or lack thereof will have to be judged on what he says here.
Neal, I think your Soviet/Stalin comparisons are over the top. My impression is that people who went to the USSR and came away convinced it was a worker’s paradise were people who wanted very strongly to believe that communism was working. That’s a well-known phenomenon–people believing what they want to believe. It doesn’t really apply to social scientists trying to understand another culture. I don’t think Helena has some deep desire to impose a Hamas-style society on the US.
But anyway, things like this have to be established on a case-by-case basis. It was possible to know that the leftists of the 30’s were blind to the reality of Stalinism because we had plenty of independent evidence about how bad Stalinism was and we know that people in totalitarian societies often lie to visitors as a matter of self-protection. But I find it a little hard to believe that every Arab Helena has talked to has lied to her about his or her deepest beliefs and you have to supply evidence of this if you want this argument to be taken seriously. I think it is safe to say that you can’t.
rozele,
My comments were based on theology. If you ask me about believing Jews and the comment “Next year in Jerusalem” – which is theologically important -, I would tell you that it is difficult to imagine a devout Orthodox Jew who does not have to engage that comment. The same with devout Muslims and the Caliphate. It is important to the faith as it derives from the notion of the imamism, which goes back to the very origins of the faith – with the four rightly guided Caliphs.
You have the right to call it a prejudice. However, I note that it is a view also held by Muslims scholars so I am not alone in my prejudice.
Donald,
You write: “But I find it a little hard to believe that every Arab Helena has talked to has lied to her about his or her deepest beliefs and you have to supply evidence of this if you want this argument to be taken seriously. I think it is safe to say that you can’t.”
My impression – and maybe I am wrong – is that Helena views the Muslim Arab regions as did my friends who visited the USSR. They saw what they wanted to see, not the reality.
I was in Russia with my wife in 2004. She is fluent in Russian – having been born in Kiev – and understands the culture rather better than I could ever do. I came away with the impression of a country improving and with considerable tolerance. My wife saw the matter rather more clearly than I, saying there was a facade of normalcy created for foreigners. Now I hear, listening to NPR, that intolerance is on the rise, with skinheads and everything and remarkable intolerance.
As for your suggestion that I be banned: I have done nothing for which I might be banned other than to disagree with our esteemed hostess. If that get a person banned, it says quite a bit about the person doing the banning.
Oh, right, Neal! My mistake! Your “suggestion” was not a thinly veiled threat.
And you are not a classic Islamophobe, either.
Shirin,
Calling people names is a rather morally offensive thing to do. I have said nothing which any honest person could consider anti-Muslim.
I agree with Neal that he has done nothing for which to be banned. His odious views, pretence at expertise, and the pretentiously self righteous way in which he expresses them do not constitute a banning offence.
Neal,
You and the rest of the Echo Chamber here have way too much time on your hands, and this makes you the equivalent of institutional antagonists determined to shut down open discourse of vital issues.
This shows from your collective tendencies to overtake the comments section of this webblog. And your comments are off-topic, misinformed distractions.
You want to reduce everything on this website to a muslim vs. non-muslim clash, and that is your right if you keep your comments limited on any open blog. Don’t dominate with your “pet peeve” that is not a reflection of reality.
We know there are lots of Neals out there wanting to push a muslim vs. non-muslim agenda. But your Echo Chamber comparison between Islamists and Soviet era communists (and by connection your critique of Helena’s talent as a journalist who is able to investigate issues in the arab-muslim world without returning to America as some “dupe” –which by the way is an attack on her “approach” as well as her “qualifications” to speak and write about an issue, since the use of the term “qualification” is not limited to a diploma you hang on the wall) is simply stupid.
One point for illustration: Islamists are the opposition in most Arab Muslim countries; they are often the front pushing for greater democratic rights against an often narrowly based, corrupt authoritarian regime; thus when neo-cons come along with stupid ideas like “let’s invade the region and ignite the call for democratic elections throughout the muslim world,” they are likely to set in motion a process that leads to the election of Islamist oriented parties. If you want to deal with the issue of democratic outcomes in the muslim world, that is what you have to face. Hamas gets elected in the West Bank and Gaza because a majority of people in the occupied territories are fed up with Israeli domination.
How does this like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia except for some narrow-minded idiot who pushes the kind of thinking one finds in Commentary magazine or on right-wing hate speech talk radio.
This is an open webblog for commenters and respondents, but if you continue acting the way you are acting then it would not surprise me if Helena pulls your plug, and deservedly so.
I wasn’t recommending one way or the other about the banning, Neal, just saying that’s the option that other bloggers use when a commenter really gets on their nerves. In my experience, though, it’s generally accepted that a blogger can ban a person for whatever reason they choose, though if they start banning people just for firmly disagreeing they look bad. I was banned once at a well-known lefty blog for violating Godwin’s Law and being ugly to the proprietor. I was to his left, btw, and was attacking him from his left rather harshly. But I only did this twice and was banned. No complaints. He had that right. Besides, I was being a bit of a jerk.
Sd,
Thank you for your kind advice. My suggestion is that you read what I write so that you do not continue to make a fool of yourself.
You will note that I have not suggested any wars. I opposed – from before it began – the war in Iraq. I am not a neo-con or even a conservative.
In any event, I have taken the time and effort – many, many years of study – to learn about Islam and its history. From my study, I have reached certain conclusions. Evidently, they are conclusions you do not want me to post so you claim foul. But note: quite a number of renowned historians agree with my analysis of Islam and of the Islamists. So, I do not think my views are beyond the pale. They just differ from those you hold.
By contrast, your argument that Islamists desire to create democracies is rather unlikely. It reminds me of John Esposito’s theory – the one he held before 9/11 – that the Islamists posed no serious danger at all.
I think that what can be said is that Islamists oppose existing regimes and believe they would be more rightly guided than those who rule now. That, however, does not mean they plan to give up power once they have it.
Now, the reason people mention the Nazis when they think about HAMAS is that HAMAS actually employs Nazi rhetoric in the HAMAS covenant. Must I post the more disgusting portions of the group’s covenant? If you persist, I shall and make a fool of you.
Donald,
Thanks.
Neal, I think you have earned some kind of lifetime achievement award here at JWN. 69 posts and counting on the topic of – YOU.
Congratulations!!
John C.,
In this case, you may thank Helena who decided to make me the topic of the day.
Neal,
No, “thank you,” our Neal. Welcome as a member of that little Echo Chamber that inhabits this webblog.
Sd,
Well, I gather you agree with my assertions about the genocidal HAMAS movement.