History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Efraim Karsh, head of the Mediterranean Studies Program at King's College, University of London, gives Juan Cole and his blog a beat-down at The New Republic. Cole may not be an anti-Semite, but he sure hates Israel, which to my mind makes for a distinction without a difference.
Howard Kurtz does the same to Ann Coulter in The Washington Post. Coulter is a vicious and lying harpy whose intelligence, wit and humor are vastly overrated. And only because the world of punditry is filled with trolls and ogres (Bob Novak, come on down!) can she be considered all that attractive.
Rouge...nah...although there is a chick (www.bat-girl.com) that seems to like to call us the Bl--- Sox still...
White all the way...pure and sweet...
We are in agreement that Cole has an agenda. I find his blog to be very strong in many senses, but that he has an agenda that can be construed as anti-Israel is absolutely correct.
Natually, I am of the opinion that I deconstructed Karsh rather well. i am curious to see what the guys at Clio and other places thought...i have directed them over here. His claims about the extremism in Islam are blatant misrepresentations that take a small minority of extremists and try and prove a larger universal point. This is bad scholarship and blatant propagandaizing. The other examples I gave about the geographic size, the blatant misuse of history, etc, also stand up to critical analysis.
If you use your own propaganda and bulls--t to deconstruct the agenda (and bulls--t of another)...where does that get us...nowhere except to continue to try and adopt believers on either side of the aisle. Karsh does not deserve to be cited. He is just another ideological hack. If you want to say the same about Cole, that is fine...I can agree with that. But again, substituting dishonesty and propaganda in the place of honest factual scholarship...even if it is to show the agenda of another is not worthy of perusal or acknowlegement. If he were to prove that Cole has an agenda using actual facts and non-manipulated history (which he could have done and I can do in a heck of a shorter time than he) he could have done that. but he is interested in more than that...it is about spreading his bulls--t, manipulating facts, propagandizing, and spreading the Zionist doctrine. THis is as unacceptable as Cole's manipulation of certain facts to try and get his points across. i hope we can agree on that...actually I am pretty sure we can.
CP
Derek Charles Catsam -
4/20/2005
Chris --
The Sox that prevail will wear rouge, not blanc.
Sure, Karsh has an agenda. that is not a sin. But you claim that there are lots of errors in Karsh's article, and yet you do not make a compelling case that he is actually wrong on facts, which leaves us with interpretations, over which we obviously agree.
I'll agree that Karsh's piece may not be as strong on its own as i initially thjought, but i still think it points out substantial flaws in Cole's work and on his blog.
dc
chris l pettit -
4/20/2005
I think you might have missed mine though...
While he may be right about Cole, it is the method and positions he take that are absolutely incorrect. If he wants to state that Cole has an agenda and then give examples, well then I gave a very short one about his war stance that proves his point. What is more dangerous is the serious errors that he makes that I highlight. you do not point out that another has an agenda by taking highly inaccurate, biased and ideological positions! My examples do not start and end with the Inquisition, they span from the time of Mohammed to present day...Zionists and pro Israeli writers such as Harsh simply concentrate on what is the exception 95% of the time and the rule hardly ever (until resistance to colonialism and brutal Israeli action started...which is Cole's point!). What I do is actually destroy Karsh's point.
My arguments are those that effectively turn his critique into a bunch of bunk. If his point was simply that Cole has an agenda, then I agree with it. It is his blatant manipulation, ommissions and ideological falsehoods that I wanted to point out. If he thinks Cole is anti-Israel...again an ideological and biased perception depending upon what you define as Israel, a "good" position on Israel and what constitutes being "anti-Israel." Now...being totally in favor of universal human rights law and peace, I am in opposition to what you think on all three positions. Does that make me anti-Israel? Maybe according to your perception and ideological bias...but when viewed logically and objectively, since I actually treat everyone the same under human rights and international law...if you claim I am anti-Israel outside of your bias, you would look pretty silly. i am not anti or pro anyone...except pro humanity.
Now, your point about being succinct...very good...i ahve lectures to do and articles to write, but when someone as biased and ideologically craven as Karsh comes along...and is cited by someone I see as a quality scholar...one needs to take his arguments to the ground and smash them with a sledgehammer.
i know we disagree on the issue and you are blinded by your ideology, and think I am blinded by mine (how universality, equality, human rights and peace can be bad I don't know, but you are entilted to your belief), so I will just leave it at that...
brevity is the soul of wit I believe
and the White Sox still have the best record in the AL...nyah nyah...hahahaha
CP
Derek Charles Catsam -
4/20/2005
Chris --
That's almost 3000 words devoted to an article the point of which i think you missed. Yes, his invocation of Englansd's geographic size was dumb. No, he did not provide a comprehensive history of the Middle east from the Stone Ages to today, an ommission that makes up most of your criticisms. Yet in the end, your criticisms are the same old canards tied more in to your world view than into actual flaws in the arguments he makes against Cole. If one does not believe that US foreign policy is solely self-serving (by which i mean if you have an even vaguely more sophisticated view of foreign policy than tirade 101) then much of your argument falls apart. And if your argument that jews have been accepted in the Middle east comes from . . . the Inquisition, then you effectively prove karsh's point.
Interestingly enough, i have a conference paper proposal for a meeting in warsaw this summer that i hope tojump over to during my time in England, and their desired paper length is almost exactly as long as the sum word count of your posts. Succinctness is more of a virtue than you want to acknowledge, Chris!
dc
chris l pettit -
4/19/2005
"Cole glibly claims, "[T]o any extent that contemporary Muslims have a problem with Jews, it is largely driven by what they see as injustices done by Zionists to the Palestinians." Such ahistorical analysis ignores a deep anti-Jewish bigotry that dates to Islam's earliest days and reflects the prophet Muhammad's outrage over the rejection of his religious message by the contemporary Jewish community."
huh? Does Karsh totally neglect the fact that the Muslims were the ONLY group to welcome the Jews with open arms when they were being persecuted throughout Europe in the time of the Inquisition? To represent that the Muslims were always persecuting the Jews is completely false...blatant representation and possibly lies if he knows the history as much as he claims to. The blatant manipulation of the Mohammed story is a dead giveaway as well. Funny how it was the Jews who actually attacked Mohammed and his people after they started spreading the message, which lead to some of the later chapters of the Qu'ran being written in the form they were (I have degrees in comparative religion as well). Even with this animosity, one can find periods that last centuries in which Jews and Muslims lived quite peaceably in the Middle East without incident (except maybe from those usual extremists that exist in every time period). Cole seems to identify a new type of conflict and terrorism that stems from colonial oppression and the influx of Zionist Jews from Europe (which is most of those who now are the main agitators for the Zionist casue). I don't see how one can argue this point. It is undeniable that the majority of Jewish settlers in what is now Israel have their roots in Europe...so the ancient Jews that karsh tries to bring into the discussion play only a minor role in this story. A different sort of violence started to play out when the whole colonialist and then Zionist crusade was instigated. Maybe some of the themes touched on earlier extremist problems, but the historical circumstances were quite different. Karsh notes that the Protocols have been a staple since the early 20th century...well imagine that!! The height of the age of empire...when Britain and other nations were already encroaching on the territory of the Ottoman Empire...i bet you can find a lot of anti-Christian narrative as well. I know you can find a ton of prejudicial anti-Muslim narrative in the British press at the time...I have looked at it. it seems like self interested politically expedient propaganda to me...anyone seen the anti-Japanese and German propaganda in Looney Toons from the pre-WWII era? how about Dr. Seuss' writings? Cultural conflict brings out stereotypes and bigotry.
Karsh is simply not credible in this article.
CP
chris l pettit -
4/19/2005
If i am going to do this, I might as well shred the guy...
"Yet it is the inculcation of this misguided dogma in generations of students that prevented the anticipation of the September 11 attacks and has subsequently held back a correct prognosis of their root causes. Blaming the victim for its misfortune, most Arabists portray September 11 as a response to an arrogant and self-serving U.S. foreign policy by a fringe extremist group whose violent interpretation of Islam has little to do with the actual spirit and teachings of this religion. Ignoring centuries of Islamic jihads against those deemed infidels and the deeply illiberal elements of Islam, Cole claims, "Radical Islamism was first provoked to terrorism in Egypt precisely by the arrogance of British power there, beginning a genealogy of violence that leads through Ayman al-Zawahiri directly to September 11, 2001." Were U.S. policy to become more attuned to Muslim sensibilities, Cole and his fellow Arabists imply, Islamic militants would be discredited and the ticking bomb, so to speak, would be defused."
Lets look at this logic in reverse...I guess since the US is being claimed as a "Christian" nation, we can then blame US state terrorism on the fringe extremist elements of Christianity, and then impute these traits on the entirety of the US? THis is what Karsh does when he talks of the extremist elements of Islam and then identifies them with the countries in question. We want to talk about bigotry and intolerance...this is it at its best. Are there extermists? Absolutely in every faith. Our president can be seen as one. On top of that, extremists do not exist only in religion...there are secular extremists, "Free market" extremists, all kinds of extremists. one cannot then claim that states favor terrorism because there are extremists in their midst. if there is proof of state complicity, such as with lybia and the Lockerbie bombing, so be it...but we can find many instances of US complicity in terror attacks as well (Nicaragua anyone? how about Chile? Iran? Iraq? Israel?). Blame the victim? The US may have been "victimised" but the table had been set for the dinner party. The stance Karsh takes is similar to the apologists that claim the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the blockade of Japan and the fact that the government was given a choice to let the people starce, become a US puppet and bow before it, or attack. Heck, Yamamoto knew the war could not be won...but felt he had no choice. If certain people in the Middle East (particularly if they are extremist) feel downtrodden and oppressed (and have legitimate reasons for feeling this way)...they might be given reason to attack. This does not justify it, which is why it is still a crime and the US is still a victim, but Karsh's position is simply untenable. The US foreign policy is self serving and arrogant. This can be shown conclusively from US action in countless different circumstances. Engaging in another silliness of Karsh's...well, if we trace centuries of extremism in Islam and say it is inherent, then we can trace centuries of US extremism and atrocities (the slaughter of Native Americans, the slaughter of Spanish and Cubans, the slaughter of Philippinos, the persecution of immigrants and Jews for a time, etc) and claim that the current barbarism and atrocities commited by the US are simply a product of centuries of violence and bigotry. Does everyone now see how silly this logic is? It amounts to extreme prejudice bordering on bigotry. That Cole identifies modern islamic terrorism with Egypt may be problematic, and he may have an axe to grind...but Karsh's ideas are equally problematic. it will depend on how cole is defining modern terrorism and how he ideologically draws his distinctions. If he is drawing the line and stating that terrorism that resulted from colonialism is somehow different than terrorism prior to colonialism, he should define it and make his case. but Karsh does nothing to actually refute this and sustain his argument that the terrorism has been the same throughout time...a very dubious contention, as the laws of causality dictate that in different circumstances, different occurrences will provoke different responses.
I also love how he states what Cole "implies." now if Coule does not come right out and say things, Karsh can now read his mind and see what he is implying? This is ridiculous. What is happening is karsh is interpreting Cole under his own ideological stance. Karsh interprets that Cole is implying such a stance because it fits Karsh's worldview and allows him to refute what he sees as a flawed point. if Karsh can prove that this is what Cole thinks, then he can critique it. But to be honest, to imply that if the US started placating Muslim sensibilities the extremists would stop would be a ludicrous stance. The GOP has not stopped its attack on the judiciary even though it is mostly conservative, highly politicized and ideological, and one of the most backwards in the international community. Extremists are what they are because they are not reasonable and unable to see beyond their blind faith...look at the settlers in Gaza and the West Bank and the President of the US and his cronies. What I would imply if I were Cole is that if the US ceased its oppressive and self serving foreign policy, and looked to be a member of an equal international community based on human rights, peace and cooperation (what the UN was supposed to be...or at least what the charter says) then it could expect cooperation from many of the Islamic states and those states run by tyrants who run afoul of international law and human rights could be dealt with on a plane that actually includes credibility, something the US does not have right now. Of course the US would have to rein in Israel and get all the settlements out of the West Bank and get back to the 1967 borders and create a viable Palestinian state, but that is unlikely to happen...because of all the problems caused when the area was a British protectorate that continue to today...so Cole's argument again makes sense. Terrorists could then be dealt with as international criminals and extremists (which they are)instead of imputing their guilt on states simply because we feel like it..or there is a tenuous connection (which in Iraq there was not).
DC...the more I rip this guy to shreds, the more I worry that you find him the slightest bit credible...
CP
chris l pettit -
4/19/2005
I wonder how much study he has done in the very area of study that he criticizes Cole for? His article is rather chock full of problems...
For instance...
"Among the Arabist orthodoxies to which Cole subscribes is the view that external powers are responsible for the Middle East's endemic malaise. The West is blamed for (allegedly) carving the defunct Ottoman Empire into artificial entities, in accordance with its imperial interests and with complete disregard for the yearning of the indigenous peoples for political unity. Many of the problems of contemporary Arab societies are also ascribed to the legacy of Western colonialism. For instance, in an article titled "why we can blame 20th century imperialism for many of our 21st century problems," Cole identified "the dead hand of Western European colonialism" behind some of the Middle East's major conflicts. "Imperialism depended on dominating, humiliating and exploiting others, and on drawing artificial boundaries for European strategic purposes," he argues, adding elsewhere that "the Middle East suffers from having small countries imposed by Western colonialism." These standard assertions not only ignore the active role played by local leaders in the reshaping of their region after World War I, they also overlook the fact that many Middle Eastern countries (Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, to mention but a few) are substantially larger than the country that is often held culpable for their ills: Great Britain."
First off...what the heck does the geographical or even pure population size of a country have to do with who has control over it. last I heard, the British had an empire where the sun never set? Didn't they rule India with an iron fist for how many years? This last sentence left me simply incredulous. Secondly...lets look at the best source for international and British policy on the matter...League of Nations and UN documentation. When we look at the treaties signed in France and Turkey following the war, we do see the beginnings of a grab for the land in the Middle East, and in the LoN and UN documents, one finds the partitioning of the Middle East into several protectorates (the LoN term, the partitioning of the Middle East actually led to the setting up of the current trusteeship system currently in place at the UN) What the yearnings of the people of the area were...was largely ignored. If one studies the communications from the different Allied governments and within the LoN documents, the "will of the people" was not discussed...stability was (and the belief that foreign forces were needed to control the various artificial entities until they were ready for statehood...including Palestine I might add). Imperialism and control of resources is clearly mentioned as well. I wonder what Karsh's sources are, and why they seem to go against most of what is available from the governments and international documents of the time. How does he explain away the Balfour Declaration? The fact that the UN found that the British had failed in its protectorate mandate and the order given for the British to correct its mistakes (that were identified with imperial ambitions)? What about the fact that it is clearly established in British history that one of the main colonial tactics that they used was to set different types of indigenous groups against each other in an effort to solidify their power (the ongoing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is a great example of just what Karsh claims is one of Cole's mistakes...the inequalities and cultural animosities that exist to this day can be easily traced solely to the policies of the British colonialists...i should know, I wrote a book on it).
Now...in terms of overlooking the local factors, he may have a little point, but only because I think he misinterprets Cole. my interpretation would be that local policies came about in large part in response to the situations that were being imposed by the Western influences. It is not denying that there were local influences, but rather that one must examine what shaped and affected these influences, where one finds a great deal of evidence that the oppressive nature of the UK regime (along with others) combined with progressively radical interpretations of Islamic doctrine to bring about an unstable political environment. So Cole is right in saying that the imperialism played a large role...and that its effects are still being felt.
This is just the first in a series of major holes in Karsh. Now...I am not a big fan of Cole due to his support for both wars...which were both illegal and contrary to international law. That he supported them puts me in agreement with those who think that he has an axe to grind. he is clearly not doing this in the interest of international human rights and the international community...if he was he would recognise the illegality and blatant violations by the US and be in opposition. That being said, the accusations made by Karsh are, for the most part, highly ideological and mostly rather false.
Sorry Rich, but I have to use this example...Karsh's comment about the size of the countries was even more audacious than Rich pulling the Coulter line about the rise in gas prices out on me the other day. Rich admitted his shame...I doubt Karsh would be as honorable.
If you would like more of the problems, i am glad to articulate them...just wanted to keep this relatively short.
