Peterson, Harris, etc....

[Mciahel Goodman]

I really like this article, which is in part a response to Greenwald - https://samharris.org/islam-and-the-misuses-of-ecstasy/

Good article, though I've hated Greenwald for some time now so maybe predisposed to liking this.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Is his perspective on religion really that unique? What makes it stand apart from Hitchens' or Dawkins' or whoever. Atheism plus what.

Nothing IMO.

Hitchens in fact was probably the worst of this lot. His biases, lack of knowledge and lack of critical thinking led him to sound like a drunk white nationalist in regards to his cheering for the Iraq war. He was a bit of a pretentious bully while his views on religion turned into blind hatred which is a horrible combination. He always seemed to be trying too hard to just insult religion to make his edgy reputation as a public intellectual. He was always a bit cringey imo

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Hitchens in fact was probably the worst of this lot. His biases, lack of knowledge and lack of critical thinking led him to sound like a drunk white nationalist in regards to his cheering for the Iraq war.

Shame, because he was entirely correct in assessment of the first Iraq War. It remains one of the worst transformations in the ideas of any public commentator I can remember. I despised him in the end.

 

[Raoul]

Hitchens' illness and death rehabilitated his image somewhat. He was being ridiculed quite heavily for his stance on Iraq and his sudden support and later apologism for US intervention/regime change, something he had quite brilliantly spoken out against historically including a superb book documenting the war crimes and disgusting policies of Kissinger/Nixon. I honestly think the man just became cynical as he got older - Everything about him declined. Not just his views but his demeanour and attitude - He was so composed in his youth similar to Harris whereas he was often just straight unmannerly in his latter days, especially with live audiences who didn't hang on his every word. Sad because his political and social commentary from the 80's/90's is probably as good as it gets, especially for leftists.

Hitchens' view on the Iraq War was heavily informed by his friendship with various Kurdish leaders, particularly Jalal Talabani who he visited in Sulaymaniyah and wrote about in various articles. He even took his son to Kurdistan during the Iraq War at one point. I found out from a mutual friend that this was the primary reason for his (seemingly odd) position on the war.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Shame, because he was entirely correct in assessment of the first Iraq War. It remains one of the worst transformations in the ideas of any public commentator I can remember. I despised him in the end.

Ah, I was never aware of him at that time. I became aware of him in the mid-late 1990s with his literary reviews for The Atlantic. He always struck me as a bit of a one-note band where everything seemed to follow from his hatred of religion as a concept. I'll have to check out some of his earlier writings.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Ah, I was never aware of him at that time. I became aware of him in the mid-late 1990s with his literary reviews for The Atlantic. He always struck me as a bit of a one-note band where everything seemed to follow from his hatred of religion as a concept. I'll have to check out some of his earlier writings.

Someone says "young Hitchens argues with old Hithcens". It really is uncanny.

Worth a watch, two very competent debaters at a time when debates were carried out intelligently and at length. Even the guy representing the "right" is likeable compared to the types you see today. He's intelligent and arguably even wins, though I disagree with his position.

 

[Synco]

Perhaps, but the point that I find ridiculous is that prior events (Holocaust) can be used to justify the otherwise unjustifiable (the creation of the Israeli state, though not the continued existence of that state, which to me is valid).

But the Holocaust has happened, so what does it matter what would be justifiable otherwise (i.e. if it hadn't happened)?

Especially since the Holocaust (and the accompanying treatment of Jews by Non-Germans, and the rejection of Jewish refugees all over the world) proved the main standpoint of earlier Zionism in the most horrible way: that the only authority Jews can depend on is, ultimately, a Jewish state. That standpoint may have been debatable prior to Nazi Germany (and was hotly debated among Jews, liberals, communists, etc.). But history has retrospectively proven that it was justified all the time.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

But the Holocaust has happened, so what does it matter what would be justifiable otherwise (i.e. if it hadn't happened)?

Especially since the Holocaust (and the accompanying treatment of Jews by Non-Germans, and the rejection of Jewish refugees all over the world) proved the main standpoint of earlier Zionism in the most horrible way: that the only authority Jews can depend on is, ultimately, a Jewish state. That standpoint may have been debatable prior to Nazi Germany (and was hotly debated among Jews, liberals, communists, etc.). But history has retrospectively proven that it was justified all the time.

It would be justifiable if you didn't displace so many Arabs in the process, which is what happened. That amounts to international theft. It isn't entirely the fault of Israelis as they needed the rubber stamp from certain other super powers (British Empire paved the way, the US cemented the deal). The way that state came about was not justifiable against the standard of any reasonable logic (one that holds Arabs also have human rights).

 

[Synco]

It would be justifiable if you didn't displace so many Arabs in the process, which is what happened. That amounts to international theft. It isn't entirely the fault of Israelis as they needed the rubber stamp from certain other super powers (British Empire paved the way, the US cemented the deal). The way that state came about was not justifiable against the standard of any reasonable logic (one that holds Arabs also have human rights).

This will go way off topic, so I'll try to keep it brief.

As far as I'm aware of the conflict's history, you are reducing a much more complicated issue to a entirely one-sided narrative (along the lines of the mainstream Arab one). It withholds the choices Arab actors have made which contributed to the escalation of 1947/48.

 

[Irish Jet]

Hitchens' view on the Iraq War was heavily informed by his friendship with various Kurdish leaders, particularly Jalal Talabani who he visited in Sulaymaniyah and wrote about in various articles. He even took his son to Kurdistan during the Iraq War at one point. I found out from a mutual friend that this was the primary reason for his (seemingly odd) position on the war.

I know, actually meant to mention that - He was often wearing a Kurdistan badge. His bias didn't do his arguments any favours though. Would actually be very interesting to hear is commentary on what's happening the Kurds right now in Syria. I imagine he would not be impressed. He would despise Trump.

Someone says "young Hitchens argues with old Hithcens". It really is uncanny.

Worth a watch, two very competent debaters at a time when debates were carried out intelligently and at length. Even the guy representing the "right" is likeable compared to the types you see today. He's intelligent and arguably even wins, though I disagree with his position.

I had actually been watching a few of these videos of late and it's fecking staggering the decline in political discourse over the decades.

 

[Raoul]

This will go way off topic, so I'll try to keep it brief.

As far as I'm aware of the conflict's history, you are reducing a much more complicated issue to a entirely one-sided narrative (along the lines of the mainstream Arab one). It withholds the choices Arab actors have made which contributed to the escalation of 1947/48.

Don't worry about veering off topic. The Shapiro strain has worn out at this point so we may change the thread title to something broader in a bit.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

It withholds the choices Arab actors have made which contributed to the escalation of 1947/48.

It does paint it as slightly one sided but that's because in terms of the balance of power it was very one sided. The Arabs had a choice which amounted to no choice. Accept a state that was unacceptable to them or else be condemned to live on the margins. The major powers of the day were all on the side of the Israelis, which is why the argument appears so one sided.

 

[Synco]

It does paint it as slightly one sided but that's because in terms of the balance of power it was very one sided. The Arabs had a choice which amounted to no choice. Accept a state that was unacceptable to them or else be condemned to live on the margins. The major powers of the day were all on the side of the Israelis, which is why the argument appears so one sided.

Well, that's the most general underlying choice I was talking about. It is still the choice they have today, so in some very basic ways little has changed in 70 years (or 100, if you want to include the interwar period and figures like Amin al-Husseini).

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Well, that's the most general underlying choice I was talking about. It is still the choice they have today, so in some very basic ways little has changed in 70 years (or 100, if you want to include the interwar period and figures like Amin al-Husseini).

Yes, you have to go back 100 years (or more, to the start of Zionism) to obtain the broadest context. But, if we agree on the main point, that the Arabs had a choice to accept mass Jewish migration and an eventual Jewish state, a choice which isn't really a choice to any sovereign state past or present, but rather an order to be carried out or suffer the consequences, then I think the justness of the Israel's creation is squarely resolved as unjust.

That doesn't hold for modern Israel as to condemn millions comprised of subsequent generations to an exodus comparable to that of the Arabs in the 40s would be just as unpalatable. As such, a two state solution or a single state secular nation are the only possible options. The two state solution won't happen because Israel won't allow Jerusalem to be the capital of any Arab state (illegal state sanctioned settlements have also ensured the impossibility of returning to pre-1967 borders). Which means that the Palestinians must accept what they currently have (presumably with reunification between the West Bank and Gaza, though how that occurs on a political level is hard to see considering the internal dissents between the PLO and Hamas).

 

[Synco]

Yes, you have to go back 100 years (or more, to the start of Zionism) to obtain the broadest context. But, if we agree on the main point, that the Arabs had a choice to accept mass Jewish migration and an eventual Jewish state, a choice which isn't really a choice to any sovereign state past or present, but rather an order to be carried out or suffer the consequences, then I think the justness of the Israel's creation is squarely resolved as unjust.

No, we don't agree here, in several ways.

Jewish mass immigration (beyond the scale of early Zionism) was simply a fact by that time, and probably an inevitability since Hitler. Not "accepting" it (which you seem to root for) was nothing but a commitment to large-scale violence, because it meant the forceful removal of the immigrants. So to turn your question upside-down: what choice did the Jews actually have?

Another point: The sovereign state you base your assumptions on didn't exist - every post-Mandatory sovereignity was yet to be established. So a lot of things were possible, theoretically at least. And in my eyes, bearing in mind the reality of the mid- to late-40s, it was some kind of partition that was the only sensible choice all along. Everything else meant war, which the Arab League opted for, and which (this doesn't get enough attention) with all its bloodshed and supposed heroism lead to the same result anyway: A Jewish state.

I also reject your assumption of "no choice". Starting a war is always a choice, no matter how justified one deems it to be.

----

Now, I'm not saying a non-bloody compromise was actually still possible at that historical point. But since it's futile to discuss history as if it hadn't already happened, we are, at heart, talking morality here: And my morality says it is better to find some uncomfortable compromise between two large groups with contradicting but in itself justified claims, than to fight it out to the death.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Jewish mass immigration (beyond the scale of early Zionism) was simply a fact by that time, and probably an inevitability since Hitler.

It was an inevitability since 1917 and perhaps before, but it didn't have to be Palestine (Kenya, South Africa and Madagascar amongst others had been touted).

So to turn your question upside-down: what choice did the Jews actually have?

Not a lot, but slightly more pre-Hitler and definitely more post-Hitler/Holocaust when all the world powers were in agreement. By 1947 the Jewish guerilla warfare against the British in Palestine was somwhat effective in that it forced a weakened British Empire to move to the negotiating table (the UN) in order to resolve the issue. The death nail in the Empire's coffin (way before Suez). Both the US and the Soviets supported a Jewish state in Palestine and so the Jewish population had more political power on their side than the Arabs.

Another point: The sovereign state you base your assumptions on didn't exist - every post-Mandatory sovereignity was yet to be established. So a lot of things were possible, theoretically at least. And in my eyes, bearing in mind the reality of the mid- to late-40s, it was some kind of partition that was the only sensible choice all along. Everything else meant war, which the Arab League opted for, and which (this doesn't get enough attention) in all it's supposed heroism lead to the same result anyway: A Jewish state.

It was sovereign in the sense that it was predominately Arab, if under the yoke of British rule. By which I mean, there was a state called Palestine before the creation of Israel that was overwhelmingly Arab in composition. I have some old maps where I see "Palestine" clearly demarcated and "Israel" non-existent. This is what I refer to; not necessarily a centralized authority which wasn't feasible within the framework of Empire which denied devolution to any significant degree.

I also reject your assumption of "no choice". Starting a war is always a choice, no matter how justified one deems it to be.

I mean "no choice" in the respect that Palestine was chosen as the destination for Israel without the consent of Arabs who lived in Palestine (against reassurances given to those Arabs by the very people who would later sanction the Israeli state's creation). Arab/Palestinians didn't decide to allow hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to emigrate to Palestine. They weren't consulted because their opinions weren't deemed relevant.

Now, I'm not saying a non-bloody compromise was actually still possible at that historical point. But since it's futile to discuss history as if it hadn't already happened, we are, at heart, talking morality here: And my morality says it is better to find some uncomfortable compromise between two large groups with contradicting, but in itself justified claims, than to fight it out to the death.

It may be better but it wasn't feasible. The British had long understood what a Jewish homeland in Palestine would mean (civil war). It wasn't something that couldn't be predicted, it was well known that it would happen. No state (or call it a body of people incorporated under the umbrella of an Empire within a state) can absorb immigration at those levels without cultural issues arising (even if both peoples were agreed on religious matters, which as we know wasn't and isn't the case).

I can justify Israel's existence, but only because it exists, has for seven decades, and so must continue to do so. Yet, I can't justify its creation because to me it wasn't in any moral sense justifiable.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Spoiler

I am not saying that terrorism is a rational response in a long-running west v Islam war. I am saying that when looking for the causes of Muslim violence today, no factor looms as large as the political havoc in ME countries, which is very heavily a result of outside (earlier European, now mostly American) influence, the failure of secular governance to deliver good living standards, and stuff I'm going to file away as etc.

Imagine saying "WW1 happened because someone murdered a prince" - you are ignoring the years of military buildup, pacts, the smaller wars leading up to it. Similarly, it is a fairly mainstream position that the Treaty of Versailles was a major factor in the rise of Hitler. Now, just like China in your Uighurs example, the USSR wasn't involved in Versailles negotiations and had concluded a separate, losing peace with Germany. But the same USSR was a target of Hitler's war. This one fact does not mean that you can ignore the role of the treaty when analysing WW2. Similarly, ignoring western intervention, which, I will repeat again - has been pervasive for two centuries - will lead to shoddy analysis. It is the kind of analysis that says, let's impose yet another Treaty of Versailles on defeated Germany, since this young German nation has an irrepressible tendency to wage total war and must be crushed again and again until it stops. This analysis believes that the text of the religion is the fuel driving conflict, thus that conflict cannot end until the text is erased from history, which means effectively its followers must be erased from existence.

Now, I don't believe that the Quranic texts are the fundamental cause of violence in the ME today. I believe that political violence is caused by resource conflict and political instability. Let us take Enlightenment Europe as the example. This is all stuff I'm remembering vaguely from 12 years ago, so I might get a few details wrong but: Enlightenment rationality spread across Europe in the 19th century. Yet there were numerous wars throughout the continent. Napolean tried to conquer the whole place. There were repeated attempted revolutions in France. Tsarist Russia tried repeatedly to subdue its western neighbours. Austria-Hungary successfully dominated surrounding populations and territory. The Italians began to unify violently. The Germans likewise, and then were in immediate conflict with France leading to repeated wars. All this while, the same countries were fighting expansionary wars throughout the whole world, looking for new raw materials and markets for their factory commodities. All these countries were dominated politically by Christianity or the new rationalism. Other than Christianity as a pretext for colonial expansion, I don't think the Bible, or most Enlightenment texts, can be seen as the root source of these conflicts, even if t was used as the pretext for some of them.
These conflicts exploded in 1914 and then 1939, leading to by far the most destructive wars in history. Since 1945, Europe was divided into 2 strong political formations. The moment one of them collapsed, the Balkan states immediately started a massive war on ethnic and religious lines. Again, it was the political instability and resource conflict rather than tribal/ethnic impulse or the religious texts (which always existed!) creating the conditions for war.
Where I think religion matters is the *form* of the war and in the case of the ME, creating a shared idea of siege among Muslims.

I think your example of Shia-Sunni conflict illustrates my point perfectly, actually. You cannot get a clearer example of a war fought over a textual issue. Yet the conflict lay dormant for decades in the 20th c. It exploded into life in the 80s. What happened then? The USSR invaded Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia started spreading its version of Islam, the US supported this as the opposition to communism, and the Iranian revolution replaced the US-backed unpopular autocrat with a Shia theocracy. With the politics having changed, this ostensibly textual war restarted in earnest.

@Mockney @Pogue Mahone
So, this is why I think it's necessary to object to Harris. I am an atheist and I think the world would be (somewhat) better if humans had never invented gods. I think the repression of women and homosexuals in Islam is a travesty.
But Harris' analysis is very inadequate. When Harris talks about the civilised rational west and Muslims who don't value their lives, he is tapping into a discredited strain of thinking. A plurality of the world's population sees the US as the primary threat to world peace. Outside 9/11 and Israel, there has been no major attack by any organised group or country from the Muslim world on the west, while going the other direction you see multiple coups, indiscriminate aerial bombing, huge weapons supply to autocratic regimes, and multiple wars of aggression -- the supreme international crime. To make Islam the #1 modern threat to world peace means ignoring the massive modern (post-WW2) death tolls from western wars (millions more than the Jihadi groups can claim).

Top post.

 

[Synco]

It was an inevitability since 1917 and perhaps before, but it didn't have to be Palestine (Kenya, South Africa and Madagascar amongst others had been touted).

But in the end, the general constellation wouldn't have been that different in those other countries, or am I wrong?

Not a lot, but slightly more pre-Hitler and definitely more post-Hitler/Holocaust when all the world powers were in agreement. By 1947 the Jewish guerilla warfare against the British in Palestine was somwhat effective in that it forced a weakened British Empire to move to the negotiating table (the UN) in order to resolve the issue. The death nail in the Empire's coffin (way before Suez). Both the US and the Soviets supported a Jewish state in Palestine and so the Jewish population had more political power on their side than the Arabs.

Again, looking at the Arab standpoint: what were the choices of the existing Jewish population and immigrants in the mid-/late-40s under those premises? I can only make out two:

1. Non-bloody: leave again, to the places a lot of them had every reason to flee. (This outcome is something you have avoided to address so far.)
2. Bloody: Fight the Arab armed forces who'll try their best to expel (or kill) them.

Or did I miss a loop hole?

It was sovereign in the sense that it was predominately Arab, if under the yoke of British rule. By which I mean, there was a state called Palestine before the creation of Israel that was overwhelmingly Arab in composition. I have some old maps where I see "Palestine" clearly demarcated and "Israel" non-existent. This is what I refer to; not necessarily a centralized authority which wasn't feasible within the framework of Empire which denied devolution to any significant degree.

Then we have a different concept of sovereignity. Which is crucial, because we are either talking about a largely developed society that exists under an alien umbrella (which you assume is true), or a more fluid situation of societal change (which I think was the case).

The first version leaves considerably less room for different solutions. I'm not pretending I can answer this conclusively, but I mistrust that version.

I mean "no choice" in the respect that Palestine was chosen as the destination for Israel without the consent of Arabs who lived in Palestine (against reassurances given to those Arabs by the very people who would later sanction the Israeli state's creation). Arab/Palestinians didn't decide to allow hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to emigrate to Palestine. They weren't consulted because their opinions weren't deemed relevant.

You used "no choice" differently before, in my eyes. But anyway, they obviously had another choice, which was going to war, which is what they did. And as far as I know, the Arabs were quite confident to crush the Jewish resistance.

A good question concerning your last two sentences is: Was there any disregarded *significant* openness on the Arab side to negotiate at some point? (I'm not that deep into this issue.) The answer would perhaps be important for my views on the issue.

It may be better but it wasn't feasible. The British had long understood what a Jewish homeland in Palestine would mean (civil war). It wasn't something that couldn't be predicted, it was well known that it would happen. No state (or call it a body of people incorporated under the umbrella of an Empire within a state) can absolve immigration at those levels without cultural issues arising (even if both peoples were agreed on religious matters, which as we know wasn't and isn't the case).

As I already implied: this is probably true - but we aren't talking analytically here. If we did, my point would be: Considering the dynamics leading up to 1948, the war probably was unavoidable, so it had to happen. Tautology, end of. Especially since it already did happen that way.

But imo we are actually talking on a moral, normative level instead: "What would I do, if I was in xy's shoes? What would be justified?" That kind of discussion is speculative and somewhat detached from the historical facts that are now cast in stone. So from this viewpoint the Arab refusal of any kind of partition can indeed be questioned, and alternatives can be pondered, even if it was historically unrealistic for them to become the dominant policy.

----

As a closing word, I have to get up in 1,5 hours:

I don't think you're entirely wrong on some points, but my main issue is still the same: You're firmly set on the Arab narrative, and actively avoid contemplating anything from a historical Jewish/Zionist standpoint. The latter are appearing exclusively as a faceless threat in your version of events, not as people facing existential threats and having pressing needs themselves. I think your standpoint (like the classic Arab-nationalist one it's derived from) only works because of that categorical omission.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

The latter are appearing exclusively as a faceless threat in your version of events, not as people facing existential threats and having pressing needs themselves

This isn't true. I don't view Jewish people as faceless, or as threats, but nor am I taking an Arab narrative when I say that the founding of Israel was at odds with basic moral notions of fairness. In 1920 there were roughly 700,000 people living in Palestine, out of which 15,000 were Jewish. Twenty-eight years later that number was about two million and the split between Arab and Jew was roughly 70/30 (obviously there were areas which were predominantly Jewish and vice versa). The point is that the influx of Jewish people to Palestine started in the nineteenth century. There were about a hundred, or a few hundred/perhaps a thousand or so Jewish people in Palestine prior to 1850. This increased due to persecution in Russia to the number recorded in the official census of 1920. So then, looking at the state of Israel from an historical perspective, it's quite obviously factual to note that the Jewish character of that state which is stressed continuously (it's that which makes it legitimate these days) is one which never in fact existed prior to the middle of the twentieth century.

When you arrive at 1948 there's a civil war happening, the result of a UN mandate which partitioned Palestine in similar fashion to the British partition of India in 1947. Except the Muslim community in what we today recognise as Pakistan had existed for a very long time and so that is where similarities end. What I mean is, in two decades the number of Jewish people living in Palestine grew from 15,000 to around about 600,000. This as you can more or less guess was the result of mass migration due to World War Two, but also due to the British Empire having settled on Palestine (in principal, going back to the Balfour Declaration) as a place for a Jewish homeland. The difference between Pakistan/India and Palestine/Israel is that Islam had existed in India for centuries. Even today about 15% of India's population claim Islam as their religion. Whether you agree with the partition or not, the fact is that there was an historical difference in religious opinion and many many millions of Muslims lived in India (and what is now Pakistan). In Palestine, some estimates (as stated above) put the Jewish population at about 1% before the 20th century. The exponential growth rate (in what is essentially two decades and extraneous) is the key point when people argue about legitimacy. Trying to think of an analogy... 35 million Polish people would have to emigrate to the UK over the next 15 years and declare part of it to be Polish (not a great analogy but the figures are about right). That movement would have the same levels of legitimacy as the founding of the Israeli state wherein a Jewish state came to exist as a result of exponential growth in Jewish residents due to persecution, but also factors independent of persecution (or rather pre-War/Holocaust ideas; Zionism had been established several decades before Hitler existed as a public figure, though you could argue that its existence was sown from the seeds of persecution in one form or another throughout the ages).

That's why I can't credit the state of Israel with any form of moral right in its establishment, because it is, when all is said and done, essentially a state founded upon the usurpation of land previously inhabited by Arabs. However I do maintain that it has a right to exist as it does exist and any sentiment contrary to that would represent outlier opinion. Forcing the same type of exodus onto generations who have known nothing but an Israeli state would be very similar to that experienced by the million or so Arabs forced to flee their homes post-1948.

It is also why Harris is entirely wrong in his assessment. Religion is irrelevant in the matter.



Hitchens always remained consistent on Palestine/Israel, at least.

 

[Synco]

I don't view Jewish people as faceless, or as threats, but nor am I taking an Arab narrative when I say that the founding of Israel was at odds with basic moral notions of fairness.

Well, this last post is the first one in which you at least briefly mention the main reasons why Jews emigrated to Palestine (apart from a short, purely dismissive remark in post #605). And only after I have kind of forced you to do so by pointing out the omission.

Prior, the Zionist Jews only appeared in the role of foreign intruders in your posts, apparently without any personal or collective reasons worth mentioning.* This has been a remarkable blank space in your portrayal of events (why should they bother to migrate at all, then?), and it's usually like that in anti-Zionist depictions of Zionism.

Even now these reasons are only mentioned in a merely protocolar way, without any further consequence for your discussion of the moral questions involved. Hence my impression that you're not actually interested in those reasons. Or rather: that you're interested in not having to take them into account. They mess up the narrative of a clear-cut moral situation of unblemished good vs. total injustice, which anti-Zionism is based on and depends on.

I don't think it can be denied that you view this issue from the Arab perspective only - which always suffered from the same problem in its understanding of the situation. And to the disadvantage of the Arabs as well, it has to be said.

-----------

As for the rest of the post: You base moral legitimacy here solely on the question of historical duration of residence. I say this doesn't hold up as the sole criterion when it comes to people migrating in large numbers because of lethal persecution, let alone genocide.



*That's what I meant with "faceless threat" - not that you'd "view Jewish people as faceless" (what would that even mean?).

 

[redman5]

I am not saying that terrorism is a rational response in a long-running west v Islam war. I am saying that when looking for the causes of Muslim violence today, no factor looms as large as the political havoc in ME countries, which is very heavily a result of outside (earlier European, now mostly American) influence, the failure of secular governance to deliver good living standards, and stuff I'm going to file away as etc.

Imagine saying "WW1 happened because someone murdered a prince" - you are ignoring the years of military buildup, pacts, the smaller wars leading up to it. Similarly, it is a fairly mainstream position that the Treaty of Versailles was a major factor in the rise of Hitler. Now, just like China in your Uighurs example, the USSR wasn't involved in Versailles negotiations and had concluded a separate, losing peace with Germany. But the same USSR was a target of Hitler's war. This one fact does not mean that you can ignore the role of the treaty when analysing WW2. Similarly, ignoring western intervention, which, I will repeat again - has been pervasive for two centuries - will lead to shoddy analysis. It is the kind of analysis that says, let's impose yet another Treaty of Versailles on defeated Germany, since this young German nation has an irrepressible tendency to wage total war and must be crushed again and again until it stops. This analysis believes that the text of the religion is the fuel driving conflict, thus that conflict cannot end until the text is erased from history, which means effectively its followers must be erased from existence.

Now, I don't believe that the Quranic texts are the fundamental cause of violence in the ME today. I believe that political violence is caused by resource conflict and political instability. Let us take Enlightenment Europe as the example. This is all stuff I'm remembering vaguely from 12 years ago, so I might get a few details wrong but: Enlightenment rationality spread across Europe in the 19th century. Yet there were numerous wars throughout the continent. Napolean tried to conquer the whole place. There were repeated attempted revolutions in France. Tsarist Russia tried repeatedly to subdue its western neighbours. Austria-Hungary successfully dominated surrounding populations and territory. The Italians began to unify violently. The Germans likewise, and then were in immediate conflict with France leading to repeated wars. All this while, the same countries were fighting expansionary wars throughout the whole world, looking for new raw materials and markets for their factory commodities. All these countries were dominated politically by Christianity or the new rationalism. Other than Christianity as a pretext for colonial expansion, I don't think the Bible, or most Enlightenment texts, can be seen as the root source of these conflicts, even if t was used as the pretext for some of them.
These conflicts exploded in 1914 and then 1939, leading to by far the most destructive wars in history. Since 1945, Europe was divided into 2 strong political formations. The moment one of them collapsed, the Balkan states immediately started a massive war on ethnic and religious lines. Again, it was the political instability and resource conflict rather than tribal/ethnic impulse or the religious texts (which always existed!) creating the conditions for war.
Where I think religion matters is the *form* of the war and in the case of the ME, creating a shared idea of siege among Muslims.

I think your example of Shia-Sunni conflict illustrates my point perfectly, actually. You cannot get a clearer example of a war fought over a textual issue. Yet the conflict lay dormant for decades in the 20th c. It exploded into life in the 80s. What happened then? The USSR invaded Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia started spreading its version of Islam, the US supported this as the opposition to communism, and the Iranian revolution replaced the US-backed unpopular autocrat with a Shia theocracy. With the politics having changed, this ostensibly textual war restarted in earnest.

@Mockney @Pogue Mahone
So, this is why I think it's necessary to object to Harris. I am an atheist and I think the world would be (somewhat) better if humans had never invented gods. I think the repression of women and homosexuals in Islam is a travesty.
But Harris' analysis is very inadequate. When Harris talks about the civilised rational west and Muslims who don't value their lives, he is tapping into a discredited strain of thinking. A plurality of the world's population sees the US as the primary threat to world peace. Outside 9/11 and Israel, there has been no major attack by any organised group or country from the Muslim world on the west, while going the other direction you see multiple coups, indiscriminate aerial bombing, huge weapons supply to autocratic regimes, and multiple wars of aggression -- the supreme international crime. To make Islam the #1 modern threat to world peace means ignoring the massive modern (post-WW2) death tolls from western wars (millions more than the Jihadi groups can claim).

I don't deny the existence of the complexities with regards to what we've witnessed over recent decades regarding Islamic terrorism. The Royal Saudi prince visiting America recently admitted that Saudi Arabia called upon Wahhabism to combat the threat from the Soviet Union. By doing this they brought religion into the conflict, & as such, the world in general has paid the price ever since. Lets not kid ourselves though that the people of the middle east had led a peaceful, harmonious life prior to any western aggressions. The long standing Muslim hatred of Jews clearly highlights that the propensity for religious antipathy & violence has always been there. Those ripples of hatred have simply spread out even further now.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentar...y-Middle-East-Muslims-are-taught-to-hate-Jews

 

[Silva]

I don't deny the existence of the complexities with regards to what we've witnessed over recent decades regarding Islamic terrorism. The Royal Saudi prince visiting America recently admitted that Saudi Arabia called upon Wahhabism to combat the threat from the Soviet Union. By doing this they brought religion into the conflict, & as such, the world in general has paid the price ever since.

I'm sure berba will thank you for proving his point.

 

[Synco]

I don't deny the existence of the complexities with regards to what we've witnessed over recent decades regarding Islamic terrorism. The Royal Saudi prince visiting America recently admitted that Saudi Arabia called upon Wahhabism to combat the threat from the Soviet Union. By doing this they brought religion into the conflict, & as such, the world in general has paid the price ever since. Lets not kid ourselves though that the people of the middle east had led a peaceful, harmonious life prior to any western aggressions. The long standing Muslim hatred of Jews clearly highlights that the propensity for religious antipathy & violence has always been there. Those ripples of hatred have simply spread out even further now.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentar...y-Middle-East-Muslims-are-taught-to-hate-Jews

Just a (long) side note, but I think this is important for many Caf discussion:

I don't think it can be said Saudi-Arabia brought religion into this conflict. Religion was at the base of this conflict ever since modernity began to overwhelm the Islamic world, first in the form of European imperialism and later homegrown modernist politics. (That said, I generally agree with @berbatrick that the often-seen fixation on ideology as the root cause of these conflicts is misleading.)

The opposition against socialism and communism, secularism, women's liberation, Western lifestyles etc. was always an Islamic one. It's just that those parts of society were on the defensive until the 1970s, and since then increasingly gained strength and power. So in my eyes rather a shift in balance than something entirely new brought in by the Saudis.

An example I'm halfway familiar with is Afghanistan, where the struggle between modernism and Islamic conservatism was a constant ebb & flow since the 19th century. Modernism gained the upper hand in a long process, but in the end political Islam overtook it. (I guess this general development is true for most parts of the Islamic world.) The Saudis were only involved in the latter stages of that struggle - the part you referred to -, and even then a lot of it was down to influencing and mobilizing the vast Islamic-reactionary potential that existed in Afghanistan and Pakistan anyway.

No doubt Saudi Arabia has been an absolute key player in the rise of Islamism and the transformation from Islamic conservatism to modern political Islam. Still, the Muslim Brotherhood and Khomeini's Islamic Revolution are often forgotten here, perhaps others I'm not aware of too. To me, there's some overrating going on recently regarding the KSA's role in the rise of political Islam over the last 4-5 decades or so. They played a massive part in how it came about, but it was probably bound to happen in any case.

 

[Silva]

The opposition against socialism and communism, secularism, women's liberation, Western lifestyles etc. was always an Islamic one.

You've just described the republican party.

 

[Synco]

You've just described the republican party.

Yup, but what does this have to do with this particular discussion?

 

[Silva]

Yup, but what does this have to do with this particular discussion?

How can something that is dominant in the biggest, most influential western country have always been an Islamic ideology?

 

[Synco]

How can something that is dominant in the biggest, most influential western country have always been an Islamic ideology?

Ah, that's a misunderstanding then.

I didn't mean the opposition to xyz worldwide, but specifically inside Islamic countries. Because that's what @redman5's statement was referring to.

 

[entropy]

This is a great thread about Harris and his Islamaphobic perspective. Something his followers are slowly beginning to realize now that he is more mainstream.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Minimalist]

Chomsky’s email exchange with Harris (in my opinion) showed how the latter overestimates his own wisdom on these matters. The fact he published it on his website initially thinking it showed Chomsky looking daft made him go down in my estimate.

Don’t mind him in general I must admit. His fanboys (as usual) are worse.

 

[entropy]

Yeah, the problem is his followers. They can get nutty really quick.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I don't think it can be denied that you view this issue from the Arab perspective only

It can, because I don't.

 

[Synco]

It can, because I don't.

Well, I tried to demonstrate why I think you do, but that dispute went on long enough.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Well, I tried to demonstrate why I think you do, but that dispute went on long enough.

Agreed.

 

[psychdelicblues]

Chomsky’s email exchange with Harris (in my opinion) showed how the latter overestimates his own wisdom on these matters. The fact he published it on his website initially thinking it showed Chomsky looking daft made him go down in my estimate.

Don’t mind him in general I must admit. His fanboys (as usual) are worse.

He's recently, appeared to come off the worse again in a email exchange with Vox's Ezra Klein in response to a Harris podcast interview he did with Charles Murray (Bell Curve).

Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.

Day later.........

Judging from the response to this post on social media, my decision to publish these emails appears to have backfired. I was relying on readers to follow the plot and notice Ezra’s evasiveness and gaslighting (e.g. his denial of misrepresentations and slurs that are in the very article he published). Many people seem to have judged from his politeness that Ezra was the one behaving honestly and ethically. This is frustrating, to say the least.

Many readers seem mystified by the anger I expressed in this email exchange. Why care so much about “criticism” or even “insults”?........

https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

He's recently, appeared to come off the worse again in a email exchange with Vox's Ezra Klein in response to a Harris podcast interview he did with Charles Murray (Bell Curve).





Day later.........



https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/

More than anything, Harris seems overly concerned with popularity and what people think of him. Publishes an email correspondence where people judge him to be the idiot of the two, then writes notes online pleading with people to understand that they're wrong.

A bit self-absorbed.

 

[Raoul]

This is a great thread about Harris and his Islamaphobic perspective. Something his followers are slowly beginning to realize now that he is more mainstream.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

These guys don't get it. There is nuance in terms of being able to criticize religious ideas that is 180 degrees the opposite from hating the adherents.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Minimalist]

He's recently, appeared to come off the worse again in a email exchange with Vox's Ezra Klein in response to a Harris podcast interview he did with Charles Murray (Bell Curve).





Day later.........



https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/

Jesus that reads very immaturely.

 

[entropy]

These guys don't get it. There is nuance in terms of being able to criticize religious ideas that is 180 degrees the opposite from hating the adherents.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

yes. this is exactly how nutty his followers are. Instead of acknowledging his views for what they are, Islamaphobic, they post cringeworthy shit like this.

 

[Kag]

I find the almost ****-like fascination people have with these halfwits very strange.

It's quite a skill what they do, in fairness. Making a living out of pedalling grand, scandalous debate in the most arrogant and pompous manner possible.

They'd be better served by pissing off into silence and getting a real job.

 

[Raoul]

yes. this is exactly how nutty his followers are. Instead of acknowledging his views for what they are, Islamaphobic, they post cringeworthy shit like this.

I was arguing against Fisher's thread in general. Criticizing religion is no way Islamophobic, especially when Harris has written more about problems with Christianity than Islam. This entire "you are Islamophobic if you criticize my religion" strain is little more than a way to shut down debate by those unable to defend their own views.