Dear All,

Usually I send you Josh’s publications but this article about Josh, in which he is accused of being an Islamist, is so amusing that we decided to send it out just for fun! Enjoy: http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=aei61907.htm.

Ovyessi falsely claimed that Muravchik had been referred to an Islamist by the in the piece. In fact the authors criticised Muravchik and his AEI colleague Christina Hoff Sommers, for supporting Islamists and legitimizing the CSID by speaking at their conferences.

In an article yesterday titled “The Walter Duranty of Saudi Arabia” subtitled “Commentary’s Clueness love letter to the Saudis” Stephen Sulayman Schwartz accused Muravchik of being a “useful idiot” based on his account of his trip to Saudi Arabia which he pretentiously titled “My Saudi Sojourn”. http://www.jewcy.com/feature/2007-06-25/the_walter_duranty_of_arabia

Schwartz writes:

“…Muravchik’s experiences seem to have left him in doubt as to whether Wahhabi Islam—the official Saudi creed that is the most extreme, radical, and violent form of Islam—exists at all. This is revealed in the first of his few references to radical Islam, where he informs us that “Not all Saudis are salafis, as Muslim puritans are known. (We often call them Wahhabis.)” Seldom has so much regime boilerplate been packed into a single sentence.

The Wahhabi media enterprise Al-Sahat used the occasion of his Commentary piece to attack Muravchik and reaffirm its hostility toward Israel and Zionism.

Pity Commentary and Joshua Muravchik, both of whom must be pining for the 1930s. Back then, at least totalitarians flattered the useful idiots who serviced them.

Hopefully Golnar Oyvessi’s next mailing from the American Enterprise Institute think tank to her mentors list of subscribers will be more factually accurate then previous one and bear the subject line;

“News Flash:Joshua Muravchik called a useful idiot and more…”

What is the best way to deal with extremists? Do you try to include them in a big tent, legitimizing them to one degree or another; or you could say that this “controls” them to one degree or another instead of having them running around unchecked. Or do you exclude them, and also give those who run an organization the power to say “you can not be a member because you have suspect ties and beliefs”, obviously a powerful and very political decision which in a way makes the organization look “extremist”.

I don’t know which way I would come out, however there aren’t very many organizations that appear to exclude people for such reasons.

CSID board member Taher Jaber al -Alwani was named on the Operation Greenquest indictment and in the court papers in the case of Sami Al Arian and his associates.
One of Muravchik’s fellow speakers at the 2006 conference was Imad - Ad- Dean Ahmad the head of the “Minaret of Freedom Institute”. In 2001 Ad Dean Ahmad attended a terrorist summit in Beirut together with representatives of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. http://www.minaret.org/beirutconference.htm

It is intellectually dishonest for Muravchik to attempt to justify his and Gershman’s involvement with an organisation whose members have documented ties to terrorism on the grounds that some of the participants are people “the likes” of them. This claim grants legitimacy to the organisation and Islamists like Kamran Bokhari, Taher Jabar al -Alwani and Imad -ad- Dean Ahmad who have also been welcomed into the CSID fold.

Muravchik concludes his piece by asking “What sense does it make to anathematize them (the CSID) as consorting with the enemy?”

Instead of blaming Dr.Pipes for exposing the CSID Joshua Muravchik and Carl Gershman would be better served asking themselves why they are aiding and abetting the enemy and betraying the values they claim to represent.

Beila Rabinowitz