December 31, 2003
WE ARE EXTREMISTS, GET OVER IT:
How three threats interlock: A mission for moderates (Amin Saikal, December 29, 2003, IHT)
Three minority extremist groups - the militant fundamentalist Islamists exemplified at the far edge by Al Qaeda, certain activist elements among America's reborn Christians and neoconservatives, and the most inflexible hard-line Zionists from Israel - have emerged as dangerously destabilizing actors in world politics. Working perversely to reinforce each other's ideological excesses, they have managed to drown out mainstream voices from all sides. Each has the aim of changing the world according to its own individual vision. [...]On another side are groups of internationalist activists among American fundamentalist Christians and neoconservatives who have found it opportune since Sept. 11, 2001, to pursue their agendas more aggressively. They wish to reshape the Middle East and defiant political Islam according to their ideological and geopolitical preferences.
The extremists of these groups seek to "civilize" or "democratize" the Arab world in particular, and the Muslim world in general, in their own images, and they have particular influence through key appointees in the Bush administration. The fact that democracy can neither be imposed nor be expected to mushroom overnight does not appear to resonate with them. [...]
It takes a few to make war but many to make peace. In pursuit of peace, not only should Al Qaeda and its associates be marginalized, but the radical international agendas of some reborn Christians, neoconservatives and hard-line Zionists should be completely discredited. Doing away with one and not the others is not an option for our future.
This was roughly the thesis of Karen Armstrong's heinous book--Battle for God--that (I'm not kidding) the televangelist scandals and Oklahoma City can be equated to the terrorism of radical Islam. Mr. Saikal carries this idiocy even further in equating the American (for the fundamentalist Christians and neocons of his rhetoric are in fact the majority of the American people, not a radical minority) desire to bring peace, freedom, and economic development to the Islamic world with al Qaeda's nihilism and totalitarianism. It is obviously culturally insensitive of us to think this way, but it seems certain that the overwhelming majority of us would consider anyone and idiot who uses scare quotes around the words "civilize" and "democratize". The future is one of civilization, in the very much Western sense of that word, and of liberal democracy and to seek to discredit them is to place oneself in opposition to America and Americanism. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 31, 2003 4:59 PM
People of faith are just beginning to see dimly how a general anti-religious animus is replacing specific bigotries like anti-Semitism. An attack that would be beyond the pale if directed at any one faith is perfectly acceptable if directed at them all. France's attempt to ban Muslim headscarves, which should cause the whole nation to revolt in rage, is ok because (and only because) Jewish and Christian symbols are being banned too. That the same result ensues in apparently irrelevant.
I first came across the chilling implications of this a few years ago in a bitter custody fight. My client was an Orthodox Jew whose estranged wife refused to observe any longer, and one of the issues was whether mine could have access on the Sabbath and High Holidays. In the end, the judge ruled no and gave a spirited lecture on the joys of pluralism and the glories of the Charter of Rights and its trumping of faith.
My client suspected anti-Semitism and I will go to my grave unsure. But the practical effect was that the judgment was unchallengable and appeal proof. There are lots of Jewish and Chrsitian organizations ready to jump in to defend against old style targetted bigotry, but no one is set up to fight for faith in general.
One sees this problem being addressed more and more by some religious leaders at the intellectual level, but there is still a long way to go.
Posted by: Peter B at January 1, 2004 7:38 AMThat Al Qaida "should be marginalized" is a rather curious way to describe dealing with a murderous and suicidal terror organization whose goal is to destroy the west.
Moreover, that Al Qaida's foibles are more than throughly offset by the pursuits of that fiendish combination of "reborn Christians, neoconservatives and hard-line Zionists" should shed some light on this particular scribbler's convictions. A lovely balance. A fearful symmetry. Extremists all around.
And indeed, just as one might worry about Al Qaida threats to vaporize American cities, one should be similarly vigilant regarding the born-again-Christian/neocon/Zionist triumvirate's---that axis of evil's---unspeakably reprehensible crusade to "'civilize' or 'democratize' the Arab world in particular."
Watch out. People's live might just improve. But at what awful cost!
(Where does the NYT/IHT find these jokers....)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 1, 2004 8:07 AMYour review had an extensive quote from the book, but no analysis. Why the D+?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 1, 2004 3:17 PMI haven't written the review yet--just wanted to point to links about it.
Posted by: oj at January 1, 2004 3:22 PMPeter --
In the states, that sort of thing is the reason we have this odd political alliance between fundamentalist and evengelical Christians and orthodox (and some unorthodox) Jews.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 1, 2004 6:26 PMDavid:
Starting here too, hesitantly. Inspiring and also great fodder for stand-up comics. :-)
Posted by: Peter B at January 1, 2004 9:07 PM