Bartlett, Armstrong, and me, on the Middle East

The Bartlett Diaries - Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Us - updates

Senator Andrew Bartlett seems a nice enough guy, in a semi-depressed, lefty high school teacher-ish sort of way. His post (above) about the Middle East crisis seems to mark out nicely the sort of wishy washy paralysis that his line of thinking lends itself to:

The way the so-called "‘war on terror"’ is portrayed and prosecuted includes a very strong inference that it is a battle between militant Islam and the West – in crude but none the less reasonably valid terms, "‘them"’ and "‘us’". I don'’t accept the view that this is a struggle between Islam and the West, but unfortunately, the more it is portrayed this way by western leaders and commentators, the more this perception can become a reality...

He goes on to cite (with approval) the recent Karen Armstrong article in The Guardian. I have just read the article, which was referred to in the essay I recommended in Saturday's post.

The more I read of Armstrong's take on Islam, the more suspicious I become of the validity of her views. Of course, I should actually read her books and some detailed criticism of her work, but I am just reporting a strong suspicion here. [I have started reading some internet criticism of her; it seems there is plenty of it about, but the search for what some authoritative historians say about it continues.]

As for what Armstrong thinks of the current crisis, she says:

Doubtless with this anniversary in mind [the London bombings], the prime minister has complained that British Muslims are not doing enough to deal with the extremists. The "moderate" Muslims, he said testily, must confront the Islamists; they cannot condemn their methods while tacitly condoning their anger. The extremists' anti-western views are wrong, and mainstream Muslims must tell them that violent jihad "is not the religion of Islam".

This regrettable step will put yet more pressure on a community already under strain. It ignores the fact that the chief problem for most Muslims is not "the west" per se, but the suffering of Muslims in Guant¡namo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Palestine. Many Britons share this dismay, but the strong emphasis placed by Islam upon justice and community solidarity makes this a religious issue for Muslims. When they see their brothers and sisters systematically oppressed and humiliated, some feel as wounded as a Christian who sees the Bible spat upon or the eucharistic host violated.

She states that radical Islamists hate moderate Islamists just as much, if not more, than the West.

I find it rather extraordinary that a call for moderate Islamists to do more to reject the extremists in their midst can be called "regrettable". My take on her examples:

Guantanamo: while some innocents caught up in this, most had (presumably) at least had some connection to the actual militant combatants. If these people despise moderate Muslims, as Armstrong complains, why is their detention such a problem for the moderates?
Abu Graib: very bad behaviour dealt with when revealed. The rule of law and taking responsibility for what your own military does seems to be the lesson that moderates should be told to take from this.
Iraq: surely everyone now sees this as mainly between the branches of Islam. That a framework for a modern and fairer style of government has been set up by the West, and apparently endorsed by the high voter turnout, seems beyond dispute. Does Armstrong think there is any point at which the West can stop being blamed for the inability of conflicting sects to make a government work?
Palestine: an ongoing sore that the militants recently chose to inflame.

Surely the main problem with Armstrong's comments are that they indicate complete sympathy towards the unfortunate tendency of many Muslims to prefer the mantle of victimhood, and to avoid responsibility for ongoing conflict by its radical elements, or to take opportunities as they present themselves and make them work. That is what will hurt much more than a call for moderates to be involved in attempts to de-radicalise their militants. (Who, after all, are clearly in the midst of many Western muslim communities, not isolated from them.)

Back to Bartlett's post:

The trouble with governments trying to insist that we are at war with so-called Islamist terrorists is that the paradigm of war virtually forces people onto one side or another, as the middle ground tends to get blasted away by both extremes.

In what respect are they "so called" terrorists, Andrew?

Perhaps I am being a little mean here; I actually did have some earlier reservations about the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" when Bush first invoked it. I have a preference for keeping the term "war" for the traditional sense of armed conflict between nation states. Using it loosely does encourage ideas such as the application of the Geneva Conventions in circumstances where the "combatants" use techniques which invalidate the right to protection under those treaties. The Supreme Court's recent majority ruling may in fact appear more reasonable to people than it should because of the use of the phrase.

However, the state of the world since 9/11 has caused my initial doubt about the use of the term to evaporate.

The advantage of the term is that it reflects the seriousness of the issue and it is, after all, consistent with the terminology that mad Islamists use themselves.

That the Left can still find an issue with it indicates a lack of willingness to call a spade a spade, and revives the spectre of political correctness with its rparalysisparaylsis on certain issues from the 1980's and 1990's. It does not help them politically regain power.

Having said that, there naturally may come a point at which the conduct of the campaign by the Israelis may become indisputably morally wrong and/or counterproductive to their long term interests. It is just that simple tallies of how many civilians are killed by Israel compared to their own loses is not going to be the test, and in my books Israel seems far from reaching the point of legitimate criticism yet. (I don't have significant problem with the infradtructure targetting either, as I can several legitimate reasons to attack them in this particular case.)