My idea of uncomfortable is having one of my heroes attack another. That is how I felt when I read Daniel Pipes’s charge that Carl Gershman was among “government figures [who] wrong-headedly insist on consorting with the enemy.” Pipes is a prolific Middle East expert and indefatigable opponent of jihadism (as well as a longtime contributor to COMMENTARY) from whose writings I have profited greatly. Gershman is the president of the National Endowment for Democracy (and another valued contributor).
Pipes’s case against Gershman is that the NED supports the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and that Gershman himself spoke at its 2004 annual conference.
For all my admiration of Pipes, I think his attack on Gershman is off-base. For starters, Gershman is not a “government figure.” The NED is funded by Congress, but it is privately incorporated, and Gershman is chosen by its board of mostly private citizens, not by any branch of the government. This is not a nit, because the NED’s effectiveness depends on this modest margin of separation from the government.
More importantly, I don’t buy Pipes’s take on the CSID or his criticism of Gershman for involvement with it. I myself am a member of CSID and spoke at its 2006 conference. In addition to speaking, I attended the entire weekend. I found it an interesting mix. It included Islamists or Islamist-sympathizers who called themselves democrats. It also included liberals whose democratic credentials were not in question.
Its keynote speaker was Laith Kubha of Gershman’s NED (the same man who was for a time spokesman for the Iraqi government). His speech was remarkable. Its main theme? How Iraqis, instead of focusing on what America did wrong in Iraq, should confront what they themselves did wrong. It was certainly not what one would expect to hear at a jihadist gathering, and it went over well. I share Pipes’s suspicion of Islamists who profess democracy. But I don’t expect genuine Muslim democrats to blackball Islamists who call themselves democrats. I expect them to argue with them. Which is exactly what was going on at the CSID conference. (Not to mention that the CSID puts the likes of me on its programs.)
Pipes has argued cogently that the solution to extremist Islam is moderate Islam. (I don’t like the term “moderate Islam,” but that is for another occasion.) The CSID looked to me precisely like an arena in which “moderates” were confronting Islamists. What sense does it make to anathematize that as “consorting with the enemy?”
So, who will pay for this latest little jaunt? The U.S. Congress was gulled by the AIPAC fifth-column Bund into paying for the Lebanon war. Will ther American taxpayer be suckered into paying for this one, too?
Nice comment, Gauleiter Hartland.
Finally– Andrew Sullivan has something in common with Sarah Palin’s obstetrician: they both don’t know jack about Just War theory.
Having taught Just War theory for five years to college students and military officers, I can confidently declare that Sullivan needs to put down the keyboard for a while.
He’s making the rookie mistake of confusing “Jus ad bellum” (WHY a state goes to war) and “Jus in bello” (the just conduct DURING a war).
RISKING innocent casualties is not the same as CAUSING innocent casualties. Never has Just War theory conflated the two. Also, while going to war for deterrent purposes is probably inconsistent with Jus ad Bellum, it’s not the reason why Israel went to war– it’s a (potential, very potential) side-benefit of successful accomplishment of its primary objective: the ending of the Hamas rocket threat, however that is achieved.
I don’t know what’s worse— that I just wasted effort to criticize Sullivan, or that the Atlantic still employs him.
Answer the question, George. Or are you afraid that this time around, people might be watching a little more carefully? Hey, here’s an idea: Maybe they can pay the bill out of the $50 billion that Bernie Madoff stole and shipped to Israeli banks.
to build on #3 comment from dave: what’s particularly annoying about sullivan’s ‘analyses’ is not just his pretence of knowledge and expertise he (clearly) doesn’t possess but his intellectual cowardice in profferring his own suggestions for ‘proportionality’ or a ‘just’ response…
…mr sullivan is exceotionally generous with not just criticism but advice…it would be lovely for contentions bloggers and commenters to have something substantive from sullivan to critique instead of rhetorical questions that – as dave points out – reflects andrew’s ignorance…
sullivan’s arrogant moral preening is neither moral nor preening…and dave wastes nobody’s time calling the man on it…
Now we know beyond a doubt where the Hartscheiss rests — between its ears.
#1: “So, who will pay for this latest little jaunt?”
After victory, Israel should impose war reparations on Gaza.
There are natural gas deposits in Gaza’s territorial
waters, and these could be used to pay the reparations.
So could the Hamas assets frozen in many countries.
Nobody needs some formal theory to justify defending himself or to justify ending mortal threats by any effective method. If civilians in Gaza are so evil as to elect a terrorist government such as Hamas, the bad results for them and their children are their own responsibility.
#7, if the Israelis want to strip Gaza of its wealth, that’s up to them. I don’t care what they do, as long as the United States isn’t involved with it. We shouldn’t arm it, pay for it, or assist it in any way, shape, or form. The idea that we are somehow “allies” with Israel is ludicrous. Also, there should be a crackdown on the AIPAC fifth-column dual-citizen Bund of traitors, cheaters, and spies.
My pacifist-thinking self sits safely in Los Angeles but, like the Israeli’s, if my neighbor Mexico were to lob volleys of bombs at my house, at the house of my relatives and/or friends, I would take defensive action and still consider myself opposed to war but unwilling to be exploited for that belief. At some point after months of bombings, after years of attempts at negotiations one does, afterall, have to protect oneself.
Perhaps Mr. Sullivan is concerned, like so many others, that ground troops invading Gaza is part of Israel’s “disproportionate” response against Hamas. ‘Proportionality’ is always the argument made by those whose own lives are not at risk. When one’s very survival is at risk, ‘proportionality’ has no moral grounds, which Russia recently demonstrated in Georgia and the United States demonstrated at Hiroshima.
The moral? Do not threaten another’s survival, and do not whine when the defense is more ferocious than the original attack. It seems to me, the entire creation of Israel is grounded in this one moral.
Hamas and Fatah pretty much agree that Hamas has executed 35 Fatah members that they accuse of collaborating with the IDF and wounding 75 with gunshots to the legs to eliminate any attempt by them to assist the invasion. Where’s the international outrage?
for # 10 david…
with respect, your ‘pacifist-thinking’ self wouldn’t be taking ‘defensive action’ – you would be attacking the people trying to kill you…and this vilates the tenets of pacifism as espoused by gandhi and his ilk…
..your unwillingness to hold to pacifist principles in the face of a genuine threat means you are not a pacifist…this isn’t semantics…people need to be careful about the language they use precisely because their public choices and actions may betray their words and their credibility…
this is why hamas deserves to be taken seriously: hamas’s words – and deeds – all reflect its declaration that israel must be destroyed…negotiations and diplomacy with hamas leads to…what, exactly?
Even if sullivan’s ignorant and misleading question is answered at face value, plenty of Psuedostinian civilians–innocent or otherwise–can be killed collaterally under just war theory to deter the continued murder of innocent Israeli citizens.
Not that a scumbag like sullivan cares about Israeli civilians.
I thought dementia associated with his medical condition explained Sullivan’s every opinion.
Not that a scumbag like sullivan cares about Israeli civilians.
Not that a scumbag like you cares about Arab civilians.
If the United States were to lob a few rockets into Cuba just to demonstrate the fundamental weakness of that regime the world would be outraged. Or if North Korea launched a non-nuclear ICBM that hit San Francisco causing no fatalities, no one in the world would expect anything other than that the US would declare war and take out the regime. The fact that Hamas expects that it can shell Israeli towns with impunity within the court of world opinion demonstrates the extent to which Islamic fundamentalists have assumed leadership of the world revolution and the extent to which revolution (aka mass murder) still commands the heights of world culture.
John Hartland, you just wrote a few posts back that you didn’t care if Israel stripped Gaza of its wealth. I guess, by your own definition, that makes you too a scumbag.
Mr. Hartland:
In my view, the Israelis are our allies. I have no doubt that they are providing us with useful intelligence re the Islamo-fascist terrorists. That’s the war we face today, and so they are an important ally, for now and for the future.
Moreover, by your apparent standard, we have no all allies, other than Britain, Australia and many of the former Eastern Bloc countries. After all, France hasn’t done anything for us since the Revolution. We rescued them, needlessly, when they insisted on the bloodbath of WW I. And we rescued them again, when they chickened out of WW II. In any event, it and the rest of Western Europe will soon be Muslimized satellites of the Islamo-fascist movement, so it’s best that we not bank on any help from that quarter.
On the question of paying for the Israeli military hardware: I say, let’s give them more money. At least they’re willing to use it against terrorists. Moreover, as one who will have to pay thousands of tax dollars for Obama’s mindless nouveau Depression WPA, I’d much prefer my tax dollars to be spent on people who still have the courage to fight.
the Islamo-fascist terrorists
You watch too much O’Leilly.
Moreover, by your apparent standard, we have no all allies, other than Britain, Australia and many of the former Eastern Bloc countries.
NATO, Canada, Australia. That’s about it. Not Israel, though. Not a country run by racist Russian mobster spies and crooks.
John Reichland,
Hamas is comprised of Arab civilians–civilians who deliberatlely target innocent Israelis. Why do you care about them? Hamas and the scumbags who elected them to run their phony countrty are responsible for any Arab civilians killed by the IDF. Nobody forces Arab civilians to live in the area of Gaza that Hamas uses for a rocket launching ground against innocent Israelis. They live there because they agree with Hamas’ terrorism. That’s what they elected them to do.
That’s why I don’t care about Arab civilians in the war zone Hamas gleefully created, you anti-Semitic lunatic.
Sounds like UeberHauptFuhrer Hartland knows more about Madoff than the Feds do. I wonder if this neo-Nazi would like to have rockets lobbed into his zip code every day without occasionally whining or emitting a hateful emission against those humanist Hamas humanitarians who want to circumcize JH and any offspring he might have—by force…! Even the Jews he seems to hate don’t want to convert by force.
#19, GirdYourLoins: “In my view, the Israelis are our allies. I have no doubt that they are providing us with useful intelligence re the Islamo-fascist terrorists. “
Certainly; also, they are testing our weapons, and often improving them;
also, their presence makes Arab states turn to us, asking us
to use our influence. We have an Israeli card to play with them.
Also, from time to time, Israel conducts military
operations that vitally benefit our security: e.g.,
destroying the Osirak reactor in 1981;
demolishing the Syrian-North Korean nuclear facilities in 2007.
In a nutshell, Israel is our reliable ally because
her enemies are our enemies.
It was true of the late USSR and its proxies in the area; and it
is true of Iran and its proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Iran’s hostility to Israel is secondary to Iran’s hostility to us;
Iran’s constant policy is “Death to America“,
because we (not Israel) are, to Iran, The Great Satan.
When the Iranian parliament voted to launch the nuclear enrichment
program – that was to the chants of
“Death to America“.
I just enjoy the frustration that the anti-Israel crowd is feeling right now.
I hope that Israel crushes Hamas with extreme prejudice. I hope that Israel gives the Palestinians another “Nakba” to remember. I couldn’t care less about the civilians right now. They voted for Hamas, as noted by so many idiots on the other side, so they get what they voted for – again, just like Germans got when we bombed them in World War II. Too bad, good riddance, and I really couldn’t care less until the fighting stops, they’ve lost, and they have given unconditional surrender. We demanded that of Germany and Japan (and Italy), and I don’t see why Israel doesn’t have the same right to demand it of the Palestinians and any other enemy Israel has.
That’s the way a REAL war is fought: to the finish. And all these screams about Palestinian suffering should fall on deaf ears. The day “Palestine” as it exists is crushed is the day the Palestinian “people” can start rebuilding like civilized people. Anything else will encourage their barbarism for a lot longer and will eventually only do them more damage.
Do I recall correctly that just war theory as it is usually understood grows out of the tradition of Christian natural law, perhaps with an assist from the Romans? If so, would there be a distinct Jewish just war theory? More broadly, if my history is correct, would following just war theory run contrary to the establishment clause?
The most remarkable thing about this series of comments is the clear evidence that persons with measurable IQ actually spend time reading Andrew Sullivan. Why do they do that?
Richard S., under our Constitution, people can advocate any policies and win acceptance for them, whether the policy originates in religious or not. The government cannot decree a religion, but it can adopt public policies advocated by a religion. If it couldn’t there would hardly be any policies it could adopt at all.
I’m no expert in Jewish just war theory, but the Bible is very clear not only that someone attacked has the right of self defense, but also that someone who witnesses an attach has an obligation to intervene withforce against the attacker.
I’m afraid that joebek is only too aware of the larger situation. The Arab war against the Jews is now a fact on the ground accepted as “normal” across a wide spectrum of public opinion.
The fact that Sullivan is heading for the exits on his prior position on Israel-Palestine is no surprise. It’s not that Sullivan is getting to be more of a lefty – Andrew’s never had any guiding principle other than whatever happens to inflame his passions at a given moment. Remember, this is a blogger who once compared George W. Bush to Frodo Baggins. For the past year he’s been passionate about Barry-O; the Gaza crisis has flamed up right as Andrew’s current passion is about to take office, thus interfering with The Ascension, and so he’s going to start taking sides against Israel. Sullivan will attack anyone and anything whom he views as a threat to The Age of Obama, until Obama angers him over some trivial matter.
humanist Hamas humanitarians who want to circumcize JH and any offspring he might have—by force…!
It’s a local conflict over there. If and when the Muslims try to convert me by force, I’ll be happy to deal with it. Until then, no need to fight someone else’s tribal war.
#30: “It’s a local conflict over there. [...] no need to fight someone else’s tribal war.”
Nobody suggests we should fight it. This is not an issue. The
current issue is: should we intervene in it (through the UN) to save
the aggressor from defeat. By your logic,
we should not, this being a local conflict of no concern to us.
I also believe that we should not, though for different reasons.
should we intervene in it (through the UN) to save the aggressor from defeat. By your logic,
we should not, this being a local conflict of no concern to us
What part of “neutral” don’t you understand? How much clearer can it be? The U.S. should stay out of the Israel-Arab tribal genocide. We should not be funding or supplying anyone there, and the idea that we are “allies” with Israel should be treated as the joke that it is. The AIPAC Bund should be investigated and shut down, along with the Islamic “charities.” Israeli spies should be expelled and/or jailed, depending on the circumstances, and Americans who collaborate with them should be punished to the full extent.
Yes, I know, Mr Hartland, no one but Mayflower descendants should be allowed in this country to have political views because their true loyalties are to their countries of origin. America First, dammit, and let’s disable all those messy immigrants – the Greeks, the Arabs, the Jews, the Mexicans, the Cubans – they’re all a bunch of fifth column Bunds who’ll advocate their own ethnic interest at the expense of true American interests. And we know what those true American interests are, aren’t they? They are what John Hartland thinks they are, and they most assuredly don’t include treating anyone with a different ethnic background than Mr Hartland as an equal citizen with a valid point of view.
Hartland, why don’t you go crawl back into the bigoted hole you climbed out of, you racist slime.
Actually, Just War Theory does not apply in the case of Gaza. This is because the Gaza Strip, like the West Bank, is ALREADY occupied territory. The Isralies never ended the occupation of Gaza- they merely removed some settlements (which are always illegal under international law in any case). The Israelis control the air space over Gaza, they control access to the coast and they have final say over who and what goes into and out of the Gaza Stip via the Egyptian border. There is no state in Gaza, and neither the Israelis nor the leadership of Hamas nor any state on earth has ever declared that there is a state in Gaza.
Thus, Just War Theory does not apply. What does apply is Israel’s obligation to guarantee the basic needs and necessities of the people under occupation. The Isralies may chase after and even kill guerrilla combatants, but they have an obligation to ensure the basic safety of the occupied people. In short, they have an obligation to engage in activities we associate with the police. I understand that this is tough to do when there’s an entity like Hamas about but this is just one more reason why it is in Israel’s interests to end the occupation over Gaza and the West Bank and establish a Palestinian state.
“And when I read Michael Goldfarb [on the Israel-Gaza conflict], I become more and more aware of just how disgusting the McCain campaign was; and how lucky we are to have removed these thugs from office.”
Andrew “The Sarah Palin Vagina Monologues” Sullivan
This is what apparently set Sully off:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/a_supposed_serious_person.asp
What has happened to Sullivan? He just cannot let it go can he? Still going on and on about McCain and Palin. Still ignoring the fact that Hamas started this by lobbing missiles against Israel. McCain is evil now because he picked Sarah Palin and was dishonest in telling the truth about Obama’s strange pals. When the One disappoints him, will Sully go completely insane? Nope, he will just create a double standard. This is not madness but dishonesty.
‘Just-war theory’ is a noble concept, but when noble theories and flesh-and-blood survival necessity compete, the latter needs to win, at least for non-suicidal nations. I’m glad Israel is doing what is needed to maintain its security.
I think all this talk about defending oneself and just war is fine, but it’s utter hypocrisy to claim it as moral for Israelis and immoral for Palestinians. If you think the IDF is justified in dropping bombs to stop the rockets then Hamas is justified in launching the rockets to end the occupation/blockade. And if you think Gazan civillians are unfortunate collateral damage I can only wonder how Israeli citizens caught by bombs are any different?
And if you actually do think it’s OK when one side does it and not the other then you are a bigot or a monster, depending on what you do. The saddest thing in the world to me is that Jews haven’t learned that folly from the Holocaust.
And if you actually do think it’s OK when one side does it and not the other then you are a bigot or a monster, depending on what you do. The saddest thing in the world to me is that Jews haven’t learned that folly from the Holocaust.
It’s the classic “Abused Child Syndrome” at work.
America First, dammit, and let’s disable all those messy immigrants – the Greeks, the Arabs, the Jews, the Mexicans, the Cubans – they’re all a bunch of fifth column Bunds who’ll advocate their own ethnic interest at the expense of true American interests.
I don’t see any of those other groups selling out American interests for those of a foreign power. Oh, and I don’t accuse “Jews” of doing so, either. AIPAC doesn’t represent most Jews, any more than the German American Bund represented most German Americans. The AIPAC Bund does represent their traitor Commentary neocon crowd, but you’re a minority among Jews.
The USA is Israel’s ally. Not the other way around, as is commonly presented. Period. It’s simplistic to think that because, on occasion, that Israeli interests and US align that the wars and conflicts they fight are ours also. Not so. Our tax dollars provide the equivalent of upwards of 14K per year per citizen to Israel, and far from making Israel any safer, make it’s leaders more reckless. Witness the Lebanon war of 2006. Nothing but nothing was gained by Israel, only the deliberate destruction of much of the first country that should’ve been the first to have a peace treaty w/Israel. The Israelis have consistently demonstrated either a lack of understanding with respect to US law, both producing under license, US technologies and violating US export controls in selling American technology, for example to China for profit, while it’s apparently illegal under US law to produce detailed satellite images of Israel…the tail is wagging the dog. Moreover the fighting today is local. It’s not “the Arabs” but the Palestinians in Gaza, (I haven’t seen the Yemenis or Omanis in the fray)- folks that the Israelis ought to be figuring out how to live with, as they’re not going anywhere.
test