Quote Originally Posted by seireikhaan View Post
hooahguy- A few critiques of the articles you posted, mainly pertaining to the points he addresses(additionally, thanks for putting it in spoilers, cuts down on page length and scrolling ):

Firstly- he argues quite well, until he gets to the point of national interests- you cannot tell me that the US and UK in particular do not have interest in Israel maintaining a strong presence in the middle east. As such, the US and UK's political opponents, mainly Iran, also have a vested interest in the opposite effect.

Second- He states poverty hasn't caused terrorism in Africa. Uh... wow. No terrorism? How's genocide sound? Further, how exactly do most states in Africa fit into the mold of a functioning state? As well, India has a strong, centralized, fairly modern government as well as very modern cities, something which Palestine has historically lacked. Even more, India has a vested interest in maintaining cohesiveness, something which terrorism destabilized, as well as trade with the West, something which Palestine hasn't even ever had much of to begin with. I also resent the insinuation that those who believe poverty is a cause of terrorism are just masking guilt for their own wealth.

Third- I'm not going to deny that humans can be pretty savage creatures. Absolutely they can. And he's absolutely right that there's far too many people in power in the middle east/Egypt who deny the holocaust. However, this does not, in my view, justify Israelis to do whatever they "feel" best enables their own "survival". The state of Israel is not militarily threatened in the least in its current state- heck, look at the 6 days war.

Fourth- I frankly do not know any Palestinians, and hence don't feel all that comfortable projecting any sort of major disagreement with the premise. However, when he delves into the issue of population and the loss of a Jewish majority, I have this to say. And? Is there a law to state that Jews MUST live in Israel? Yes, I do realize the whole "Y-weh promised us this land" issue, but is there a genuine consensus that a Jewish person MUST live in the "holy land" if its at all possible?

Fifth- The Muslim council of Spain condemned Bin Laden. Clearly, this shows that all Muslims are intolerant. Sorry for the rolling eyes, but the professor contradicts his own statement with his own evidence. I also disagree with the premise that the power of Islamic patriarchy is "irreducible". Granted, it is very much entrenched. However, Patriarchy has been just as entrenched in Jewish history, in Western history, Japanese history, and Chinese history(though certainly this one has not progressed nearly as much as the others). My point is not to criticize the others to justify the Islamic patriarchy. My point is that there is little that is "irreducible". There is social progress to be made, but to say it cannot be made is incorrect, in my view. Further, should there be a "miracle" of sorts, depending on one's view of the war, Iraq could itself serve as an example to other Arabic Islamic states of how to treat minorities should they succeed in creating a functioning Democratic state.

Sixth- I'm confused as to what his argument is here. He does not outline what a supposedly "legitimate" Islamic state would even be- he only states that there aren't any. Further, he doesn't outline how exactly Israel holds "moral legitimacy". What exactly is that supposed to be? Is because the land was "promised" to them? If so, why on earth should a person who does not believe in that promise believe in said "moral superiority"?


And I have one last query- if the doctrine of "once Islamic, always Islamic" is so ingrained and important to the basic tenants of Islam, then why is Spain not under a siege of terror attacks? Especially given the incredibly harsh tactics imposed on Muslims(as well as Jews) during the reconquista?
thanks for the critique. i will email him and hopefully i will get an answer from him, then i will post it.