If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the"global war on terror," the"long war," the"global struggle against violent extremism," or even the"global struggle for security and progress."

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing"an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal,"the defeat of the global terror network" – whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that"We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a"struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as"a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms"Islamic radicalism,""militant Jihadism," and"Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about"the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as"death cult,"" cult-like,""sectarian cult," and"violent cultists."

In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari‘a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

art eckstein - 6/28/2008

Dear Readers of the future--

I answered Omar's question.

He has not tried to answer mine.

Remember, when one thinks of him, that this is a person who:

In pursuit of his conspiracy of Jews control the media theory, stated that Rupert Murdoch was a Jew--which is false.

Then resorted to saying it is an 'open question" whether Rupert Murdoch is a Jew, on the basis of this rumor being widespread on the net (i.e., on the anti-semitic websites that Omar surfs)--which is a ridiculous argument.

Also asserted that whether the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is authentic is ALSO "open to question", on the basis of this rumor being widespread on the net--ditto.

And who views intentionally murdered Israeli Jewish children and babies as "civilians" in scare-quotes, i.e., not really civilians

See his entry (#123154)
by omar ibrahim baker on May 28, 2008 at 1:12 AM.

Now, Reader of the future, you have an idea of this person.

A. M. Eckstein - 6/25/2008

I did reply: you just can't read. Israeli governments are secular.

You haven't answered my challenge.

And to boot, you disgraced yourself by asserting as a positive fact that Murdoch was a Jew, which was false, and then asserting that it's an open question whether he is a Jew, which is also false, and asserting that whether "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are authentic is also an open question, which is false again.

Again, as for any alleged "parallels" you attempt to assert between Hamas and Israel, the Hamas Charter says that the existence of Israel is an affront to Islam. I challenge you (now for the third time) to show me an Israeli Prime Minister who has said that the existence of a Palestinian state would be an affront to Judaism.

WELL?

omar ibrahim baker - 6/25/2008

I will NOT repeat the challenge. However that you, Professor Eckstein, failed to respond to challenging questions for SIX times shows every body that you DARE NOT come out publicly with your beliefs and there fore flee away from the questions.

However quite often failure to answer a certain question, as for this case, is answering it in a way.
With that I am content!

art eckstein - 6/25/2008

Similarly, Omar's defense of the Muslim totalitarianism in the Hamas Charter consists of drawing false parallels either with Israel or the U.S.

Again--ludicrous.

The Hamas Charter says that the existence of israel is an affront to Islam. Since Omar is asserting that there are parallels between the Hamas Charter and israel, I challenged him in this debate to come up with an israeli Prime Minister who has said that the existence of a Palestinian State would be an affront to Judaism.

Well, Omar--can you do this?

art eckstein - 6/25/2008

Omar is repeating a posting from above.

That is not a response to my showing that his method of argument habitually is: "I REALLY REALLY believe this is true, even though I actually have no EVIDENCE that this is true, and when asked to come up with EVIDENCE that this is true, I can't."

Case studies from the last few days:

Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. (Omar)
Whether Murdoch is Jewish is "an open question" (Omar)
Whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is authentic is an open question. (Omar)

It's ludicrous, Omar.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/25/2008

Eckstein’s Escape Gate
Whether Rupert Murdoch is or is NOT Jewish seems to have afforded the Professor an escape gate out of which he is trying to wiggle out of answering more substantial issues…..that is not consistent with how a Prof, worthy of the name, would react.
AND FOR THE SIXTH (6th) TIME:
THE CHALLENGE

“"Never the less what we gather here from the Friedman and Eckstein "show" is that:

1-Neither denied or disputed the fact that Zionism/Israel's goal is to achieve an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine. That being the Zionist mirror image of Hamas article 28.

2- The Professor failed as usual to respond to the challenge thrown at him, re article 28, namely:
"The… Professor would have the moral right to object to this Article only if he has no objection to
a- A secular Palestine or
b- A multi confessional Palestine where Jews are NOT necessarily a numerical majority
Otherwise he would be echoing Hamas with Judaism in lieu of Islam."

3-The Professor similarly failed to answer the question re Article 13, namely:
"Once again is the…Professor ready to renounce the predominant religion, Christianity, and nationalist character of the USA??"

4-Their total silence re Zionist/Jewish disproportionate influence in public media, particularly in the USA, re Article 22.
Evidently a subject they would rather NOT broach."

The Prof will find new reasons, as he always does, NOT to respond to the above, repeated for the third time, challenges which lie at the center of the conflict.
Unwillingness to respond often indicates inability to respond or,as in this case, unwillingness to unveil to the general public what he, they, would rather keep unsaid!
He will also fail to tell the general reader what HE, they, believe are the "final", ultimate?, borders of "the land of Israel".

art eckstein - 6/25/2008

Omar stated as a fact that Jews control the media, later retreating to the statement that Jews exercise disproportionate influence on the media.

I replied that the most powerful media mogul in the U.S. and Britain is Rupert Murdoch. I added that NBC is owned by General Electric (which is not Jewish), and ABC by Walt Disney (which is not Jewish).

Omar replied by stating as a FACT, and triumphantly, that Murdoch IS Jewish.

This, as I have shown, is false. It is not "an open question", as Omar now states, based on his surfing of anti-semitic web-sites. It is false . It does not matter how many anti-semites SAY it, Omar--that does NOT make it an "open question"! There is not the slightest evidence that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Period.

Omar cannot escape the fact that he stated that Murdoch was a Jew as a fact, in trying to debate with me about Jewish influence in the media. But worse--he cannot escape the fact that in his thinking, just because a lot of anti-semitic websites SAY Murdoch is Jewish makes this "an open question"!

Omar--historians deal in EVIDENCE. Saying that you REALLY REALLY think something is so, or that a lot of other ignorant people REALLY REALLY think this is so is...not EVIDENCE. You have GOT to learn this.

But this ludicrousness about Murdoch is not simply a mis-step by Omar. It is an example of Omar's general "method" of arguing, as he himself laid it out for us on the issue of disproportionate Jewish influence in the media. He stated this accusation as a fact; I asked him to prove this accusation with EVIDENCE. And here is his response:

Omar (#124187, June 24, at 1:50 p.m.:

:”I believe it is substantially a correct statement although without figures it is difficult to support.”

Translation: I made this accusation without any real evidence. My "evidence" now is that I REALLY REALLY believe this is true, even though, when asked to provide evidence, I actually don't have any.

Omar, that is a ludicrous response. It is not intellectually viable.

The Murdoch case shows Omar and his method working in the same way. Omar stated to us as a fact that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. There is not the slightest EVIDENCE that Murdoch is Jewish--none.

Now Omar's position is that it is "an open question" because many people believe it. But the only places where the "Murdoch is Jewish" thesis is advocated is on many anti-semitic websites, including but not limited to the notorious David Irving. Yet that seems enough "evidence" for Omar to say it is an open question.

Now, that's TWO examples of Omar's intellect and method. And here's a third--again, just from a few day ago:

When castigated over the fact that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion appears in the Hamas Charter as a FACT, when it was long ago exposed as a Tsarist anti-semitic fraud, Omar's response was that the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion too is an open question because many people (i.e., fanatical anti-semites) believe in it.

Omar now stands exposed, as so often before. He has an epistemological dysfunction. He clearly has no idea what evidence IS.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/25/2008

Eckstein’s Escape Gate
Whether Rupert Murdoch is or is NOT Jewish seems to have afforded the Professor an escape gate out of which he is trying to wiggle out of answering more substantial issues…..that is not consistent with how a Prof, worthy of the name, would react.

Rupert Murdoch may or may NOT be Jewish; that seems to be an open issue.
Irving is hardly the only source to allege that.
Search the web for "Is Rupert Murdoch Jewish ?" and the flood gates will open with innumerable entries.
It does seem to be an uncertified allegation.
His mother's Jewish roots seem to be much less disputable which would, if indisputably confirmed, make him Jewish according to Jewish tradition of faith through mother's blood!

However it IS very interesting to note that that was the only point the Prof chose to respond to while totally neglecting the much weightier issues of (posted here for the fifth time ( 5th) time:

THE CHALLENGE

“"Never the less what we gather here from the Friedman and Eckstein "show" is that:

1-Neither denied or disputed the fact that Zionism/Israel's goal is to achieve an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine. That being the Zionist mirror image of Hamas article 28.

2- The Professor failed as usual to respond to the challenge thrown at him, re article 28, namely:
"The… Professor would have the moral right to object to this Article only if he has no objection to
a- A secular Palestine or
b- A multi confessional Palestine where Jews are NOT necessarily a numerical majority
Otherwise he would be echoing Hamas with Judaism in lieu of Islam."

3-The Professor similarly failed to answer the question re Article 13, namely:
"Once again is the…Professor ready to renounce the predominant religion, Christianity, and nationalist character of the USA??"

4-Their total silence re Zionist/Jewish disproportionate influence in public media, particularly in the USA, re Article 22.
Evidently a subject they would rather NOT broach."

The Prof will find new reasons, as he always does, NOT to respond to the above, repeated for the third time, challenges which lie at the center of the conflict.
Unwillingness to respond often indicates inability to respond or,as in this case, unwillingness to unveil to the general public what he, they, would rather keep unsaid!
He will also fail to tell the general reader what HE, they, believe are the "final", ultimate?, borders of "the land of Israel".

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

Poll: 77% of Israeli Arabs would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world


A recent opinion poll conducted by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that 77 percent of Israeli Arabs would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world.

The survey of 1,721 Israelis, both Arab and Jewish, also showed that 73 percent of the Jews and 94 percent of the Arabs want Israel to "be a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities."

In the poll, 68% of Israeli Jews favored learning Arabic in order to foster coexistence with fellow citizens.

In the poll, 70% of Arab Israelis favored participation in (Israeli) national service by Arab Israelis.

The Kennedy School said in a statement that the poll produced a number of results it termed surprising, pointing to a higher level of co-existence than might have been anticipated.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

IF Caroline Jemima Sherson (1810-1878) was Jewish, she is Rupert Murdoch's great-grandmother, and his only Jewish relative; the seven other great-grandparents were Protestants, and in any case Caroline's children, including Marie Grace de Lancey Forth, were raised Christians. IF Caroline Sherson is Jewish, this makes Rupert ineligible under the Israeli law of return, which requires at least one grandparent (as do similar laws in, e.g. Norway and Ireland): he wouldn't be Jewish enough.

BUT the only evidence that Caroline Jemima Sherson was Jewish is the last name, which might be Jewish. And we find a Caroline Jemima Sherson, b. 9 March 1810 evidently baptized 28 Dec. 1810 at St Marylebone, Middx [International Geneological indexI]

So: maybe Caroline was NOT Jewish at all.
So does Rupert have ANY Jewish relatives at all?

Anti-semites go back to Rupert Greene, Rupert's mother Elizabeth's father--evidently because Greene MIGHT be a Jewish name. But Elizabeth Joy Greene went to Christian schools and married Rupert's father in 1926 at age 19 in a Presbyterian ceremony.

In conclusion, the likelhood is that Rupert Murdoch has no Jewish blood at all. If it is Caroline Sherson, that is one great-grandparent out of eight, and it is not clear at all that she was Jewish.

This is probably all an anti-semitic fantasy that Omar has tapped into.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

Correction:

Rupert's maternal grandmother (i.e., the mother of his mother) was Marie Grace de Lancey Forth. Marie Grace's MOTHER (but not her father), Caroline Jemima Sherson, was evidently Jewish. But as Marie Grace's name indicates, SHE was certainly now raised as a Jew!

Conclusion: Omar's been surfing too many anti-semitic websites again.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

Rupert Murdoch's mother is also an alumna of Braemar College (originally Clyde's Grammar School in Woodend (suburb of Melbourne), another Anglican foundation. Nowadays it is a non-denominational Christian community school Mrs. Murdoch is a generous benefactor of the school.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

Murdoch's mother has been such an important contributor to this Anglican cathedral in Melbourne, that a portrait bust of her adorns one of its spires.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

The way I read it, one of Rupert Murdoch's four grandparents (his mother's mother) was probably Jewish; the other three grandparents were certainly Protestants, and so were his parents. Elizabeth Greene Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's mother, went to St. Cartherine's School in a suburb of Melbourne, which at the time she attended it was an Anglican (Protestant) institution, founded by the Anglican archbishop of Australia.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

Also: Murdoch has been married three times; none of the wives were Jewish.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

Omar states as a fact that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish.

This is not a fact.

Murdoch's father was certainly a Protestant, his mother may or may not have been Jewish (there is controversy over this). Murdoch gave $10 million to build a Catholic Church in Los Angeles and is a Papal Knight but he also attends services at the conservative Protestant megachurch of Rick Warren. There's no evidence he was raised as a Jew, even if his mother was Jewish which--to repeat-- is not clear. His father was a far larger influence on him than his mother, in any case.

Omar is getting this stuff from anti-semitic websites, including David Irving.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/24/2008

It is an interesting exercise to follow the way the Professor's mind works ...particularly when he ”extrapolates,” to his heart's content, the words of others.

By "extrapolate” I mean imbue the words of others by what he would have been happy for them to have said.
Witness how my words were transmuted by Eckstein’s extrapolation:

- My words"***** Re media: many others than Hamas have made exactly the same allegation .Hamas is neither the first nor the last to draw attention to Jewish disproportionate influence in mainly Western and more particularly US media.
I believe it is substantially a correct statement although without figures it is difficult to support.
The thing to note here is that the term used by Hamas is “take over control” not take over the” ownership” !
However it is a fact that Rupert Murdoch, the global media mogul who took over recently the Wall Street Journal , is a Jew ; so are the founders and present owners of the august New York times .*****"

The Prof's extrapolation is:
-"Regarding Omar's previous paranoid accusation of Jewish control of the media, I certainly did answer that by pointing out that the most powerful media mogul in the U.S. and Britain is...Rupert Murdoch. "

The question IS:
Wherever did I mention “control of the media“ in my above statement ??
“disproportionate influence” is NOT synonymous to “control”; unless , of course, in his rush to put words into other people’s mouth it is for him.

It is equally interesting to note the way he, and his mind, works when he attributes things, not only unsaid, but rejected a priori.
Note
–Eckstein:” a. PROVE IT, Omar” (re “disproportionate influence” )
Whereas my words were plain enough:
-Omar:” I believe it is substantially a correct statement although without figures it is difficult to support.”
With a typical Don Quixotic turn of mind (?) he throws a challenge, childishly hoping to “score a point”, where none is appropriate since I was categorical about it from the beginning:
-Omar:” although without figures it is difficult to support.”

The real tragedy here is that he is a Professor that is in charge of “educating” university students.
If in public, on a public forum, he behaves this way how does he behave in class where the respect,attention, credibility and receptivity due a Professor worthy of the title rightly pervade??

Seemingly he does NOT belong in that category at all!
(I do pity his students.)

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

1. Correction: the last paragraph should read:

"But I'll tell you what: find me an Israeli prime minister who says that the existence of a Palestinian state would be an affront to Judaism--as the Hamas Charter says that the existence of israel is an affront to Islam--and I will admit that that P.M. is AS BAD AS HAMAS. But, Omar...you can't find one.

2. Comment:

I can't imagine how Omar is going to PROVE his vague charge of "disproportionate Jewish influence" in the media. It's totally vague to begin with. But, for instance:

(a) NBC is owned by General Electric, which is not a Jewish corporation, while

(b) ABC is owned by Walt Disney, again, not a Jewish corporation (indeed, a it's a corporation that promoted the ex-Nazi Werner von Braun into a national American hero).

Anyway, Omar: you've made accusations. PROVE them.

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

1. Regarding Omar's previous paranoid accusation of Jewish control of the media, I certainly did answer that by pointing out that the most powerful media mogul in the U.S. and Britain is...Rupert Murdoch.

So now he's reduced the accusation somewhat, by talking about "disproportional Jewish influence" in the media.

a. PROVE IT, Omar.
b. And if your "proof" is that there's favorable U.S. media treatment of israel, you MUST consider other factors behind this besides a Jewish plot--such as the absolutely vile behavior of the Palestinians, the fact that Israel is a capitalist democracy, and the fact that the U.S. has suffered a terrorist attack against civilians, on a far larger scale, but from the same people and the same motives, as the Israelis suffer.
c. In any case, you've made an accusation--PROVE IT.

2. Israel is not Iran, and is not run by Mullahs, Omar. Though there are religioius parties, the ruling political coalition is--and always has been--secular. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. So the vile religious bigotry of Hamas--a fanatical religious movement with guns--has no parallel in Israel.

But I'll tell you what: find me an Israeli prime minister who says that the existence of a Palestinian state would be an affront to Judaism--as the Hamas Charter says that the existence of israel is an affront to Hamas--and I will admit that that P.M. is AS BAD AS HAMAS. But, Omar...you can't find one.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/24/2008

Just as expected and foretold...any thing but answer questions that I repost for the fourth (4th) time:


"Never the less what we gather here from the Friedman and Eckstein "show" is that:

1-Neither denied or disputed the fact that Zionism/Israel's goal is to achieve an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine. That being the Zionist mirror image of Hamas article 28.

2- The Professor failed as usual to respond to the challenge thrown at him, re article 28, namely:
"The… Professor would have the moral right to object to this Article only if he has no objection to
a- A secular Palestine or
b- A multi confessional Palestine where Jews are NOT necessarily a numerical majority
Otherwise he would be echoing Hamas with Judaism in lieu of Islam."

3-The Professor similarly failed to answer the question re Article 13, namely:
"Once again is the…Professor ready to renounce the predominant religion, Christianity, and nationalist character of the USA??"

4-Their total silence re Zionist/Jewish disproportionate influence in public media, particularly in the USA, re Article 22.
Evidently a subject they would rather NOT broach."

The Prof will find new reasons, as he always does, NOT to repond to the above, repeated for the third time, challenges which lie at the center of the conflict.
Unwillingness to respond often indicates inability to respond or,as in this case, unwillingness to unveil to the general public what he, they, would rather keep unsaid!
He will also fail to tell the general reader what HE, they, believe are the "final", ultimate?, borders of "the land of Israel".

art eckstein - 6/24/2008

The Hamas Charter sees the existence of Israel as an afront to Islam. This is a RELIGIOUS statement, and on the basis of that religious statement one sees the launching of genocidal attacks on men, women and children which are celebrated in Gaza and the West Bank. CELEBRATED.

Nothing like this--NOTHING--exists in the West. Omar's attempt to create "parallels" are ludicrous.

This is not all Islam is, or once was, but such behavior is barbarism.

The best seller lists in the PA have for years included Mein Kampf, by Hitler, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion near the top. PA media celebrate the naming of children "HITLER".
A Palestinian university (Bir Zeit) put up a mock-up of a pizzeria where Jewish women and children were intentionally blown to bits--to celebrate the event.

Nothing like this sort of barbarism goes on anywhere else in the world.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/24/2008

"Never the less what we gather here from the Friedman and Eckstein "show" is that:

1-Neither denied or disputed the fact that Zionism/Israel's goal is to achieve an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine. That being the Zionist mirror image of Hamas article 28.

2- The Professor failed as usual to respond to the challenge thrown at him, re article 28, namely:
"The… Professor would have the moral right to object to this Article only if he has no objection to
a- A secular Palestine or
b- A multi confessional Palestine where Jews are NOT necessarily a numerical majority
Otherwise he would be echoing Hamas with Judaism in lieu of Islam."

3-The Professor similarly failed to answer the question re Article 13, namely:
"Once again is the…Professor ready to renounce the predominant religion, Christianity, and nationalist character of the USA??"

4-Their total silence re Zionist/Jewish disproportionate influence in public media, particularly in the USA, re Article 22.
Evidently a subject they would rather NOT broach."

The Prof will find new reasons, as he always does, NOT to repond to the above, repeated for the third time, challenges which lie at the center of the conflict.
Unwillingness to respond often indicates inability to respond or,as in this case, unwillingness to unveil to the general public what he, they, would rather keep unsaid!
He will also fail to tell the general reader what HE, they, believe are the "final", ultimate?, borders of "the land of Israel".

N. Friedman - 6/23/2008

Mr. Butler,

Well, the dispute that exists involves a substantial group of Muslims who claim, inter alia, that "Crusaders and Zionists" have conspired to destroy Islam. They argue that by means of violence or otherwise, it may be possible to overthrow "Muslim" governments deemed, in these fanatics' idealizing minds, to be akin to the Jahillya era (i.e. an uncivilized era that existed before the advent of Islam).

Some of the fanatics say that to advance that cause, it is necessary to drive all Western influences out of the Muslim regions that seduce Muslims from their true faith as well as to drive all Western political and military power away. Such fanatics aim to reestablish the Caliphate, which had been eliminated by Attaturk. The Caliphate could then restore Muslim power so that Muslims could, in the thinking of the fanatics, resume efforts to bring Muslim governance to the entire world, in according with the millennial hope advocated by Islamic theology and law.

These same fanatics desire to kill infidel and, given their substantial use of the takfiri doctrine (i.e. the doctrine that some Muslims have effectively ceased being Muslim due to their lapse in practice and/or belief), evidently also Muslims whom such religious fanatics deem to be insufficiently Muslim.

So, it would seem to me that a pretty good name for the war would be the Islamist war, to distinguish this religious war from the wars of religion that occurred in an earlier age in Europe.

art eckstein - 6/23/2008

1. That I don't bother to answer *all* of Omar's ignorant or fanatical arguments does not mean that I agree with those I don't bother to respond to. He's tried this rhetorical trick with N. Friedman, too. It's ludicrous, as Friedman pointed out forcefully to him.

But it is, once more, sadly illuminating that Omar still cannot absorb this basic point of logic, and tries it again here.

2. I have amply demonstrated that the instances of reciprocal hostility between Islam and Christianity (and vice versa) were far more violent and indeed continuously lethal than any conflicts between Judaism and Islam.

3. Note that Omar is obsessed with "Magic Jews" who control the world, including the media (but they are also the conspirators behind every war, according to Hamas) This ideology of the "Magic Jew"--magically powerful-- entered the Muslim culture via Nazism. That's a historical fact, Omar is an example of it, and the Nazi sources of this "modern" Muslim anti-semitism (as opposed to traditional Muslim contempt--not fear and hatred--of Jews) have been pointed out to Omar several times, with several scholarly works urged upon him to read. He clearly has not done so. He prefers to remain ignorant--including about the origins of his own ideology.

The most powerful single media mogul in the U.S. and Britain is Rupert Murdoch. Oh--well, perhaps he's a PUPPET of the Jews, Omar?

Like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, who were the decision-makers who brought us Iraq, are *puppets* of Jews at the second or third level of the State Dept and Defense bureaucracies?

Again, it's ludicrous.

3. He reasserts that the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is "an open issue". What more need one say? Omar is someone willing to believe in a proven fraud in order to bolster his fanasies about "Magic Jews", and thus he justifies the Protocols of the Elders of Zion appearing in the Hamas Charter. Again--it's ludicrous. But, sadly, illuminating.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/23/2008

Hurling insults is no substitute for a response to a point by point "comments" on some articles in Hamas Charter.

Evidently it does release some of the pressure felt at the inability to respond intelligently and civilly by those who hurl them and afford them the opportunity to vent their anger and frustration .
But that is subjective to both Friedman and Eckstein and should have been kept at "home".
On a public forum the general reader is entitled to something else than hurling insults.

Never the less what we gather here from the Friedman and Eckstein "show" is that:

1-Neither denied or disputed the fact that Zionism/Israel's goal is to achieve an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine. That being the Zionist mirror image of Hamas article 28.

2- The Professor failed as usual to respond to the challenge thrown at him, re article 28, namely:
"The… Professor would have the moral right to object to this Article only if he has no objection to
a- A secular Palestine or
b- A multi confessional Palestine where Jews are NOT necessarily a numerical majority
Otherwise he would be echoing Hamas with Judaism in lieu of Islam."

3-The Professor similarly failed to answer the question re Article 13, namely:
"Once again is the…Professor ready to renounce the predominant religion, Christianity, and nationalist character of the USA??"

4-Their total silence re Zionist/Jewish disproportionate influence in public media, particularly in the USA, re Article 22.
Evidently a subject they would rather NOT broach.

5-Their total silence re the definition, or their own definition, of the prospective "final" delineation of the "land of Israel"!
A point deliberately left open and undefined, by Israel and its avid supporters, to allow for any potent ional future incursions and extensions.

6-That the only point made that they specifically broached related to the issue of the Protocols!
Seemingly they deem their response to it as having good “marketing” prospects.
However, whether they like it or NOT, this point is still, for many all over the world, an "open" issue with diverse and often contradictory opinions.
Once again I believe that, despite Friedman's feeble attempt at an explanation, the way they react to any mention of it is suspicious and thought provoking.

7-Once again here we have the Professor reverting to his usual style of extrapolating the words of others up to the point of distorting the original meaning and falsifying the words of others.
Witness that that my phrase:
"However it is a historical fact that a strong feeling of reciprocated enmity existed between Moslems and Jews since the advent of Islam with no parallel between Islam and Christianity."
was transmuted into:
" Omar, in his ignorance, thinks there was no hostility in the Middle Ages between Christianity and Islam, and only Judaism and Islam have had problems. ALL the territory *militarily conquered by the Muslims* from Morroco through Egypt, up through Syria, and as far as Istanbul, was Christian at one time: I'd say that was pretty violent as a relationship. the social pressures of being dhimmis eventually led to conversion of the Christian population to Islam, conversion which can be considered forced. "
(Could this be attributed to the Professor's ignorance of the meaning of the term "parallel" ?? Or to general comprehension disability??)

8-However the more one looks at it the conclusion that imposes itself IS that:
Hamas , being the nemesis of Zionism and the inevitable reaction to it, is an exact mirror image of Zionism , without the racism and the crimes of course.

It is no coincidence that: "It is note worthy that Hamas, the nemesis of Zionism, is only echoeing the claim of a "divinely Promised Land" with its reference to "Allah's Promise." and that:
"The crucial point here is that, more than any other factor, Zionism and Israel DID reactivate that historical hostility and carried it to an epoch making phase with their aggressive and racist project to colonize and Zionise/Judazise Palestine "

To cap it all; hurling insults, possibly a self administered remedy to sickly souls, is no substitute to the civil response owed to the general reader on a public forum.

james joseph butler - 6/22/2008

First of all Pipes is more than a little wrong when he talks about W's "narrower goal", fact is, W, the white hatted Sheriff of the World, promised on 9/16/01 that he and his administration would "defeat all evil doers". Right on W!

Regarding Pipes innovative idea of replacing the absurd WAR ON TERROR with the equally wrong headed and more damaging to America's interests, WAR ON ISLAMISM; I know Pipes is writing this for an Israeli audience but the idea of refining the search for the bad guys and coming up with a label unequivocally tied to Islam is nuts. Perhaps Pipes is a closeted goy secretly hoping to fulfill the good Rev. Hagee's rapture dreams.

art eckstein - 6/22/2008

Omar reveals himself once again:

He does believe that the existence of Israel is an afront to Islam.

He does believe that the Jews have been involved in world-wide conspiracies to start wars.

He tends to believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a real document, because it fits his paranoid world-view, though scholars proved it a fraud almost a century ago.

Omar, in his ignorance, thinks there was no hostility in the Middle Ages between Christianity and Islam, and only Judaism and Islam have had problems. ALL the territory *militarily conquered by the Muslims* from Morroco through Egypt, up through Syria, and as far as Istanbul, was Christian at one time: I'd say that was pretty violent as a relationship. the social pressures of being dhimmis eventually led to conversion of the Christian population to Islam, conversion which can be considered forced.

(One could also talk about the mass kidnapping of tens of thousands of Christian youth by the Mulsim Ottomans and the forcible conversion of these kidnappees to Islam to be Janisaries--you know, that doesn't sound like a very friendly relationship to me.)

etc., etc., etc.

But as with Omar's previous revelation to us in May that he considers murdered Israeli Jewish women, children and even babies only "civilians' in scare quotes and not real civilians, the posting by Omar above is...illuminating. In a gruesome fashion.

N. Friedman - 6/22/2008

Omar,

I am not going to address the majority of your rant.

Instead, I think you might want to understand - actually, since you seem to prefer ignorance and only to care about propaganda, as my years of reading your rants suggest, at least to me, is your MO - the reason that the Protocols raises issues for people is that very large numbers of people died, in not a small part, as a result of the dissemination of that forgery.

In fact, that forgery was a mainstay of Nazi ideology, used to justify and to foment unspeakable horrors committed by the Nazis. Seeing the same document crop up as a mainstay of Islamist ideology raises people's spine. It suggest a movement of barbarism, with roots in Nazism.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/22/2008

The Hamas Charter:

Article 28: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims," Article 28 of the charter says. It desires "to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion."

*****True enough Palestine, in modern times, being historically and intrinsically Arab and predominantly Moslem the Zionist/Jewish goal of an exclusively or predominantly Jewish Palestine would endanger Islam by threatening to replace it with Judaism as the predominant religion.
Zionism and Zionists in general were very clear and unequivocal about it, still are.
Chaim Wiesman is on the record declaring at Versailles :”We want a state in Palestine as Jewish as France is French”!
Recently, possibly as a prologue to a new ethnic cleansing campaign of Palestinian Arabs, both Moslem and Christian, the new motto, the battle cry, is the “Jewish identity “ of the Zionist colony in Palestine: Israel.
IT, Article 28, is a true and correct factual statement both historically and contemporarily!
The… Professor would have the moral right to object to this Article only if he has no objection to
a- A secular Palestine or
b- A multi confessional Palestine where Jews are NOT necessarily a numerical majority
Otherwise he would be echoing Hamas with Judaism in lieu of Islam.*****

Similar in religious ideology is Article 13: "Renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad.”

*****Equally factually, rationally and politically correct. The correctness of the statement is perceived if you paraphrase it to read:
” Renouncing any part of the Unites States ,to say North Koreans or Pakistanis ,means renouncing part of the religion , the nationalism of the American Nationalist Movement …..etc”
Once again is the…Professor ready to renounce the predominant religion, Christianity, and nationalist character of the USA??******

Article 22: Jews amassed wealth that permitted them to "take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French AND the Communist Revolutions.” Hamas declares that "there was no war that broke out ANYWHERE without their fingerprints on it." (Article 22).

***** Re media: many others than Hamas have made exactly the same allegation .Hamas is neither the first nor the last to draw attention to Jewish disproportionate influence in mainly Western and more particularly US media.
I believe it is substantially a correct statement although without figures it is difficult to support.
The thing to note here is that the term used by Hamas is “take over control” not take over the” ownership” !
However it is a fact that Rupert Murdoch, the global media mogul who took over recently the Wall Street Journal , is a Jew ; so are the founders and present owners of the august New York times .*****


Article 32: According to Hamas, "Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

******Historically and presently a very precise and correct statement.
Historically the “land of Israel” has been defined by diverse Zionists to include
a- all of historical Palestine
b- All of historical Palestine plus Trans Jordan, by others
c- From the Nile to the Euphrates by a third group and
d- To extend all over the Middle East from, and including parts, of Southern Turkey down to , and a part of, the Arabian peninsula.
More recently Israel have annexed, de facto and de jure, all of historical Palestine , is covetously eying the Syrian Golan and did covet but failed to obtain Egyptian Taba and in the recent past, laid claims to parts of Southern Lebanon.

The pertinent point to note here is that Israel, until this very day, refuses to delineate, or officially proclaim, what it wants to be its final borders! *****

[The "Protocols", so prominent in the Hamas Charter, are--as is well known--a fraud concocted a century ago by the Tsarist secret police. A display of them graced the grand opening of the new Library at Alexandria a couple of years ago. The Greek intellectuals who founded the Library 2,300 years ago would weep.]

***** The issue of the Protocols, whose authenticity is disputed, is NOT unique to Hamas.
However it is note worthy that the mere mention of the Protocols elicits a very nervous general reaction which could mean touching on a raw nerve which it , rationally, should NOT if it were a complete forgery.
(The Koran was forged and no body, except the specialists, cared!)****

Article 7: the genocidal logic of Hamas' foundational document is explicit: "Hamas has been looking forward to [implementing] Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! (This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree).”

******This is based on a “hadith” whose authenticity I can neither support nor deny; being beyond my limited religious expertise.
However it is a historical fact that a strong feeling of reciprocated enmity existed between Moslems and Jews since the advent of Islam with no parallel between Islam and Christianity.
It is note worthy that Hamas, the nemesis of Zionism, is only echoeing the claim of a "divinely Promised Land" with its reference to "Allah's Promise."

The crucial point here is that, more than any other factor, Zionism and Israel DID reactivate that historical hostility and carried it to an epoch making phase with their aggressive and racist project to colonize and Zionise/Judazise Palestine .*****


(NB: I commented on the Hamas articles as presented by the …Professor. I did not check its accuracy by referring to the Arab original although it is not beyond him or his to produce a deliberately contorted, or careless, translation of the original.)

art eckstein - 6/21/2008

Mr. S, any analysis has to accept that the following aspects of really existing Palestinian-Islamic ideology really exist.

In addition, your analysis (in which Palestinians are blameless victims of western imperialism) has to offer an explanation for the existence of and indeed widespread support for this genocidal ideology (one, I suppose, different from the obvious source: a radical, violent, totalitarian version of islam itself):

The Hamas Charter:

Article 28: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims," Article 28 of the charter says. It desires "to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion."

Similar in religious ideology is Article 13: "Renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad.”

Article 22: Jews amassed wealth that permitted them to "take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French AND the Communist Revolutions.” Hamas declares that "there was no war that broke out ANYWHERE without their fingerprints on it." (Article 22)


Article 32: According to Hamas, "Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

[The "Protocols", so prominent in the Hamas Charter, are--as is well known--a fraud concocted a century ago by the Tsarist secret police. A display of them graced the grand opening of the new Library at Alexandria a couple of years ago. The Greek intellectuals who founded the Library 2,300 years ago would weep.]

Article 7: the genocidal logic of Hamas' foundational document is explicit: "Hamas has been looking forward to [implementing] Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! (This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree).”

As Daniel Goldhagen concludes: As a lifelong student of Nazism and its radical murderousness, he has always been extremely reluctant to use the epithet "Nazi" for other reprehensible, anti-Semitic or genocidal movements. But “whatever the other differences, the anti-Semitism and the murderous logic that form the principal content and rhetorical structure and substructure of this charter and this political party are unmistakably Nazi-like with regard to Jews.”

THAT, Mr. S, is the harsh reality—a harsh reality you refuse to face. I've given you some *facts". Let's see you respond.

Arnold Shcherban - 6/21/2008

Pipes has always been Right, but now he is right... for once: the enemy (of people's wellbeing, real democracy, and peace) really has a name - and has been having for many decades - it is US/UK global imperialistic designs.

art eckstein - 6/21/2008

In contrast to Omar fact-less spews of venom, here's an important and fact-filled article about the Hamas Charter. Read the quotations from that Charter, and its statements about Islam, and weep at the barbarism:

A manifesto for murder
By Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Los Angeles Times
February 5, 2006


MUCH HAS been said about the Hamas charter's call for the destruction of Israel and the need for Hamas to renounce this goal as the condition for being granted international legitimacy, economic aid and diplomatic recognition.

But an examination of the charter (available at http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html ) reveals that Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, is not just dedicated (however wrongly or murderously) to the destruction of Israel. It shows Hamas to be governed by a Nazi-like genocidal orientation to Jews in general.

It would be no surprise if a self-styled Palestinian liberation movement depicted Israel in unflattering or even (if we indulge the movement some license to exaggerate) venomous terms. Yet Hamas' 9,000-word charter of 1988, repeatedly reconfirmed by its leaders, pits Jews, Israelis and Zionists (used pretty much interchangeably in the charter) in Manichaean conflict, not just with Palestinians, but with Islam, which to Hamas is synonymous with all goodness.

"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims," Article 28 of the charter says. This otherwise stunning statement is not surprising, given that Hamas describes Jews and Israel as a cosmic evil. Almost mimicking Nazi textbooks, Hamas contends that Zionism does "not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires." And what are those desires? "To demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion." (Article 28)

Hamas sees Jews as extremely malevolent and also extremely powerful, capable of achieving their desires. In a hallucinatory anti-Semitic passage recalling the most extreme Nazi ideologues, the charter asserts that the Jews amassed wealth that permitted them to "take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French AND the Communist Revolutions." (Article 22)

Pursuing this hallucinatory reverie (among the clandestine organizations the Jews allegedly use to take over the world, "Rotary Clubs" are highlighted), Hamas' charter then describes Jewish power and malevolence as still more sinister: The Jews "used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein…. They stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate …. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state."

As if this wild, anti-Semitic litany, which includes Jews establishing the United Nations as part of their plan for world domination, is insufficient, Hamas declares that "there was no war that broke out ANYWHERE without their fingerprints on it." (Article 22)

With how much power will the Jews be satisfied? According to Hamas, "Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (Article 32).

[The "Protocols", so prominent in the Hamas Charter, are--as is well known--a fraud concocted a century ago by the Tsarist secret police. A display of them graced the grand opening of the new Library at Alexandria a couple of years ago. The Greek intellectuals who founded the Library 2,300 years ago would weep.]

Faced with this demonic enemy, Hamas is determined to rouse the Islamic world to act in the only manner adequate to the danger. Negotiation, compromise, any permanent modus vivendi with Israel and Jews (Jews' very existence in Israel is deemed an affront against Islam), is not thinkable. Jihad and destruction is. Proclaiming every inch of Palestine, including all of Israel, to be Palestinian and Islamic, and in accord with its demonic view of Jews, the charter declares, "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement."

Why? Because "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad." (Article 13)

So what is left for Hamas and all Muslims to do? Despite Hamas' pro-forma statement that "humane" Hamas will tolerate Jews and Christians only under the impossible condition that they live under Islamic fundamentalist domination (Article 31), the genocidal logic of Hamas' foundational document is explicit: "Hamas has been looking forward to [implementing] Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree." (Article 7)

This is no selective reading of Hamas' charter, as the extensive quotations indicate. The charter's almost classically Nazi accounts of Jews and its annihilative reveries form the core of Hamas' uncompromising and divinely ordained canonical version of the Declaration of Independence.

As a lifelong student of Nazism and its radical murderousness, I have always been extremely reluctant to use the epithet "Nazi" for other reprehensible, anti-Semitic or genocidal movements. Whatever the other differences, the anti-Semitism and the murderous logic that form the principal content and rhetorical structure and substructure of this charter and this political party are unmistakably Nazi-like with regard to Jews.

Imagine if a territory or country next to the United States, Germany, France or Britain were governed by a political party that had repeatedly terrorized and murdered citizens of its neighbor, and had issued a governing charter about Americans, Germans, French or Britons that described the people of that country as Hamas describes Jews — calling not only for that country's destruction but also for the mass murder of its people.

Would people in that country accept the threatening political party as a fit partner in peace? Would people say that a political party harboring such profoundly irrational beliefs, fomenting such uncompromising hatred and speaking the language of mass murder should receive international aid that could only further its hold on power and facilitate its murderous intentions?

Hamas' charter should not be dismissed as just words, and all that it contains would not be nullified even if Hamas, under pressure, renounced its goal to destroy Israel. (So far, Hamas has adamantly defended its genocidal charter.)

Seldom in the modern world has a political party enshrined such hallucinatory hatred and overt murderousness against another people in its constitution, and more seldom still has such a party taken power. The Nazi Party Program of 1920 also contained much anti-Semitism, but compared to Hamas' charter, its demonology and prescriptions were tame. Given the extreme political costs of such speech, governments, political parties and political leaders rarely speak the language of annihilation openly. So when they do, we should take them at their word. The last 100 years have shown that those expressing murderous dreams, like Hitler, mean it.

DANIEL JONAH GOLDHAGEN is the author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.

art eckstein - 6/21/2008

Dear N.F.--

I wouldn't count on Randll doing any of your suggested reading, though the books you suggest are both scholarly and reasonable. He wouldn't want to disturb his mindset, you know, with facts that don't fit it too well.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/21/2008

D. Pipes is understandably unhappy that the West and the USA in particular does NOT define clearly, irrevocably and unmistakably the "enemy"!
That they still shy away from calling it by its “proper name” puzzles him and evokes his wrath at an “ungrateful” West...since he and his did show them the way.

That some in the West, though perceptibly diminishing in numbers and influence, would rather reserve some lee way for possible future developments is his real worry and major concern.

Why still hesitate after he, his and Israel come out with it...why the West fails to follow ...why still harbour the “awfull” thought that in politics there are no eternal friends and no eternal enemies but eternal interests is totally unacceptable , though understandable, to him and his!

He and his have propelled their conflict into the totally irreconcilable stage; that the West should, despite his and his best efforts, fail to join them and follow suit invokes not only his worry but his wrath!

Should the West ever consider , for whatever reason(s), not abiding by his and his definition of the conflict and revert to anything BUT total identification of the West’s interests with Israel’s that would proclaim not only the failure of Israeli/Zionist strategy but the starting of the demise of Israel !

The west should, according to Pipes and Co, follow in Israel’s footsteps and announce, once and for all, clearly, unmistakably and irrevocably that ISLAM is the enemy; just as the Zionist movement and Israel did!

That and only that will appease Pipes & Co.

N. Friedman - 6/21/2008

Randll,

Then again, Randll, it may well be that the issues in the Muslim regions long pre-date Western intervention. In fact, in all likelihood, it was failings in the Muslim regions which caused Western countries to overcome Muslim imperialism. You might, in this regard, read Bernard Lewis' seminal work, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, and Ephraim Karsh's interesting work, Islamic Imperialism : A History. Recalling just how imperialistic the Muslim regions have traditionally been and the complete failure of such regions to adopt patterns of thinking that would have protected themselves and, perhaps, have kept their imperialism going, might make you think again about your theory.

Randll Reese Besch - 6/20/2008

When the USA goes imperialist on them they take their guns and their Koran's and move to defend their land. Attacks and occupation brings it out in people. We are the enemy that supports the terrorism we fight to claim the right to power over all. Stop that then starve the smaller beast of radical Islam. If we attacked and occupied Isreal it would be radical jews or in India it would be radical Hindus. Such actions create the very problem they say they are against. Considering Bush/Cheney's actions perhaps they want this never ending GWOT. They must have enemies to defeat and yet are never defeated to carry on to get all they want. Logical no?