Posted on 08/12/2003 7:06:57 PM PDT by Lorianne
When I read that Daniel Pipes had been nominated to the board of the United States Institute of Peace (a federally funded body whose members are proposed by the president and confirmed by the Senate), my first reaction was one of bafflement. Why did Pipes want the nomination? After all, USIP, a somewhat mild organization, is devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict. For Pipes, this notion is a contradiction in terms.
I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people. Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon, concerning a matter (the Israel-Palestine dispute) that actually can be settled by negotiation. And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him.
This makes him a poor if not useless ally in the wider battle. Let me give two illustrations from personal experience. One of the most frontal challenges from Islamic theocracy came in February 1989, when the Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a sentence of death upon Salman Rushdie. There then followed a long campaign by writers and scholars and diplomats, culminating in September 1998 in a formal repudiation of the fatwa by the Iranian regime. Good cause for celebration, one might think. But not to Pipes, who weighed in with a sour, sophomoric article arguing that nothing whatsoever had changed and that the Iranian authorities were as committed to Rushdie's elimination as ever. His "sources" were a few clips from the Iranian press and a few stray statements from extremists. That was five years ago. Today, Salman Rushdie lives in New York without body guards and travels freely, and there are leading Shiite voices raised in Iran in favor of the coalition's successful demolition of the Iraqi Baath Party. To put it bluntly, I suspect that Pipes is so consumed by dislike that he will not recognize good news from the Islamic world even when it arrives. And this makes him dangerous and unreliable.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
Nonsense.
I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon...
Nihilism? That's a gentle way of describing suicidal, homicidal, psychotic drooling hatred.
Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon,
That's not saying much, even Sharon doesn't seem willing to say "Jews have a right to live, and if you people carry out one more damn bombing I'm killing the lot of you."
And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him.
If he's talking about Campus Watch, all he does is quote "those who disagree with him." That's usually all it takes to show what scum they are. I guess I'll stop here. No point going on, the bias is evident.
Well, remember the source... While I sometimes respect Christopher Hitchens (I like his brother better), he's got really bad taste in the people he dislikes... Two that come to mind are Bob Hope and Mother Theresa.
Mark
I learned to trust Kit Hitchens as a man of honour on the Left during the impeachment wars. You should re-read his following sentence:
"I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire."
"Islamic nihilism" is a term for the ages, crafted by a real wordsmith.
RJayneJ - I'm nominating Christopher Hitchens for the quote of the week.
This is a gratuitous assertions, which under the rules of logic can just as gratuitously be dismissed. Unfortunately for Hitchens (my favorite socialist), his whole argument is based on this assertion.
Bovine Excrement.
From what I've read of Pipes, I'll have to agree with you on the weapon statement. We know that Kit Hitchens follows the Internet buzz, so maybe there'll be some followup. He's got some explaining to do about that Israel-Palestine dispute/negotiation thing, I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.