He makes some good points but there's a lot he doesn't address.

Such as the huge amounts of unexploded cluster bomblets littering Lebanon now.

Hamid Asan Hasan dropped his wallet, and as he stooped to pick it up he spotted the small round object. Curious, he picked that up too. It exploded and blew off part of his hand. More.

Point being, Israel's response, relying so heavily on air power, is going to net them more enemies primarily.

And then there's the humongous oil slick caused by Israli bombs on a Beirut oil depot.

Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself. But this SOP massive overkill ensures a steady supply of fresh hatred. Oh boy, stale hatred's not good enough, they have to go and whip some up fresh.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Niether the oil slick nor the cluster bomb would be there in the first place if Hezzbola had not started the war.

__________________
I'm sick of .sig files

Obviously you missed the point of the article. Not surprising with your polarised glasses that filter out red, white, and blue (which I'll conveniently use as a metaphor for western society in general). Can you not see the mirror in front of you?

BTW, good point Chris.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Not Just Land
Middle East Conflict Is About Failed Culture.
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

Despite the claims of terrorist organizations, Israel's current two-front war is not just about land. After all, Hezbollah and Hamas fired rockets from Lebanon and Gaza well after Israel had withdrawn from both places.

Indeed, if sacred Arab ground were the driving force of the Middle East crisis, then surely Syria itself would now be willing to risk a shooting war over the all important Israeli-occupied Golan Heights . Meanwhile, Cairo is still perhaps the nexus of virulent Arab anti-Semitism, even though Israel finished handing over Sinai to Egypt in 1982.

The world prayed that after the unilateral departure of Israel from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, and the recent elections in Beirut and the West Bank , it was witnessing an incremental evolution toward a lasting peace between rational democratic states. Gradually, Israel was returning to its 1967 borders. In response, gradually, it was hoped, Israel 's Arab neighbors would vote into office reasonable statesmen who would renounce terror and get on with the business of crafting workable economies and governments. But all that optimism presupposed a radical change in the Middle Eastern mentality. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.

So, if the most recent war in Lebanon and Gaza is not about land per se, then whence arises the elemental desire to destroy Israel ?

The answer boils down to Islamists feeling their reputation is at stake. Words like "honor" and "pride" are evoked — in the sense that they need to be regained — by every insecure radical in the Islamic world, from al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden to Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah and Iran 's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fist-shaking crowds, fiery mullahs and terrorists all boast of not giving an inch to infidels and of the restoration of the now sullied honor of the Islamic people.

Why their hurt?

For about the last half-century, globalization has passed most of the recalcitrant Middle East by — economically, socially and politically. The result is that there are now few inventions and little science emanating from the Islamic world — but a great deal of poverty, tyranny and violence. And rather than make the necessary structural changes that might end cultural impediments to progress and modernity — such as tribalism, patriarchy, gender apartheid, polygamy, autocracy, statism and fundamentalism — too many Middle Easterners have preferred to embrace the reactionary past and the cult of victimization.

At one time or another, they have welcomed all the bankrupt ideologies that traditionally blame others for prior self-induced failure: fascism, communism, Baathism, Pan-Arabism and, most recently, Islamic fundamentalism.

When there is high unemployment, corruption, zero economic growth, endemic illiteracy and no freedom, mullahs, dictators and jihadists of the Middle East always seem to fault the ancient colonial power — Britain, France or Italy (though rarely Islamic Turkey) — that supposedly set them back over a century ago. Or they try blaming the omnipotent United States whose oilmen developed the riches of the Gulf and whose military has saved Muslims from Kosovo to Kuwait .

But above all, for decades leaders like Gamal Nasser, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden have scapegoated tiny Israel .

It is the closest Western bogeyman, and its Holocaust survivors transformed a part of desert into a technologically sophisticated Western state. Israel 's astounding success is a constant irritant to many nearby Muslims, representing the infidel's ability to fashion a prosperous Middle Eastern society without oil revenues under democratic auspices.

Victimization turns out to be the real creed of the Middle East , uniting disparate Shiites, Sunnis, dictators, theocrats and terrorists. "They did it to us" offers an easy explanation of why Islamic states are now weak and offer little hope to millions of their poor, who, ironically, emigrate to the much pilloried West by the millions.

American cash aid, Israeli concessions, windfall petrol profits and, most of all, appeasement of radical Islamists can do nothing to alleviate these perceived grievances.

Instead, there will be no peace in the general Middle East until Iranians and Arabs have true constitutional government, free institutions, open markets and the rule of law. Without these reforms, they will continue to fail, seeking easy refuge in the shreds of mythical ancestral honor — and this pathetic neurosis of blaming nearby Israel for the loss of it.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

The Brink of Madness
A familiar place.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and it is even more baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq , the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan . European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago .

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India , after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya ; America is in Iraq , Canada is in Afghanistan ; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon . Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel: “When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].” Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S: “To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America , is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon , despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel .

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe , an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a clichι to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel .

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

That's true. Apparently also true is the allegation that Israel has viloated Lebanon's border much more often than Hezbollah since the Israeli pullout back when.

The oil slick is messing up a lot of countries in the region. The perception is that Israel uses overkill and to hell with whoever might be inconvenienced. Same with the unexploded ordinance. These things virtually insure that things will get worse.

The notion that inflicting 10 times as much damage on your enemy that he inflicts on you sounds good in theory but I'm not so sure it's effective in the long term. I think more measured responses would have less blowback.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I got the point of the article quite well, thank you so much. My point is the VDH and many others see things only from Israel's POV.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Let's try this experiment, then:

I'll move into the house next door to yours.

Every couple of days or so, I'll toss a hand grenade or an improvised explosive into your yard, or through one of your windows, or under your car in the driveway. Maybe I'll kidnap your dog or repeatedly insult and threaten your family or something while I'm at it....

This will go on for..... how 'bout 20 or 30 years?.....

Let's see how long YOU are able to maintain a "measured response" to the situation.

I personally think Israel has UNDER-reacted. If it were my decision, I probably would have carpet-bombed the entire region by now. Twice.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Would personal economic prosperity undermine fundamentalism? For instance, "if" there was a growing "middle class" in any nation, there seems to be a direct and rapid loss of influence by doctrinistic leaders and the corresponding growth of a belief in individual liberty, probably fueled by consumerism.

Did global communisim fail because it tends to impoverish, stiffle personal ambition and fosters reliance on a "state?" It could be that the key to victory on the war on terror is to carpet bomb the middle east with Mastercards.

interesting concept

back in the vietnam era i often pondered the effect of dropping bags of rice instead of bombs.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

So when you finally see things from the point of view of the guy who's going to murder you does that stop him from trying to murder you? Or would you be better served admitting that the SOB is out to get you and do something about it rather than depressingly riducule yourself for stuff your never even did? Or better yet, you figure his last victim will be enough to satisfy his hatred and maybe he'll leave you alone if you just pack up all your crap and go home.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

That's why they call it war and not peace.

When countries have not the will to totally commit then they remain in aggressive stalemate, trickling blood and money into the sand.

You'd kill lots of kernels.

A Call to Support Democracy

By Samir Sumaida'ie
Monday, August 21, 2006; A15

As the debate on Iraq rages on, we hear more and more voices that call for throwing in the towel and leaving the mess to Iraqis to sort out. A new and unexpected proponent of this argument is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who said in a recent column that it's time for "Plan B." Only a few months before, he was arguing that it would be time for the United States to pack up and go only "when we don't see Iraqis taking the risk to build a progressive Iraq." Now, under the weight of bad news from Baghdad, he seems ready to abandon those very same brave men and women fighting valiantly to establish peace and justice in Iraq. I am an admirer of Friedman, who is generally thoughtful, well informed and supportive, but in this case he and many like him have gone dangerously off-track.

The controversy over the decision by the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime should not prevent an honest assessment of the situation of Iraq today. That the post-Hussein period was not well managed is now widely acknowledged. But we are where we are, and there is a future for all our children to secure. Plan B, advocated by Friedman and others, is to abandon the region to religious fanatics and Baathist terrorists. It is nothing but a declaration of defeat dressed up to look like a vision for the future.

Our enemies' strategy has never changed: creating mayhem and making Iraq ungovernable, thereby driving the Americans and their allies out, and installing a Saddam Hussein look-alike to "make peace." In pursuing this strategy, they have forged many alliances and changed course and tactics many times.

Just as they kept to their strategy and adapted, we should do the same. In this context, "staying the course" should mean being ready to adapt and learn while also standing firm for democracy and for a new vision for the country and the region. If we abandon our effort, our enemies win by default.

Those in the new government and leaders of civil society in Iraq are putting their lives on the line every day to advance a democratic society. And it is this that our enemies are most afraid of -- not U.S. forces but a real democracy in the Middle East that would showcase human rights, women in politics and the rule of law. And they fear that this "worst-case scenario" could prove to be contagious.

What has made the past three years hugely more difficult and complicated is the fact that we all underestimated the determination of our opponents and some of our neighbors to undermine this new project. In the context of a global confrontation, this has pitched our fledgling democracy onto the front line of a monumental struggle. It is these outside forces, allied with Saddamists, other terrorists and regular criminals, that threaten to overwhelm us.

To argue that American withdrawal from Iraq would create a "huge problem for Iran" is disingenuous. Iran is fairly secure within its borders. Any problems in Iraq will be for Iraqis to suffer. If there is a collapse and a civil war in Iraq, it is Iran's proxies who will do the fighting, and when the dust settles these proxies will most likely end up with the oil-rich southern region of Iraq -- a significant strategic gain for Iran.

There would also be the psychological impact of the perceived defeat for America. That would encourage all the enemies of the United States -- and they are many -- to be bolder and readier to challenge its interests everywhere. A new super-radical, geographically contiguous bloc would be born: Iran, Syria and a radicalized, totalitarian, fragmented Iraq.

As for the argument that the very presence of the foreign forces is a source of tension and that their departure would remove a prime source of violence: It may appear plausible at first glance, but it is in fact without merit. We need to understand precisely who is ready to fight to drive foreign forces out; it is only the Saddamists and the religious extremists (al-Qaeda and the like). If U.S. forces are in fact withdrawn, these people will consider it a victory and go on fighting even harder to achieve control over the country.

Other Iraqis range from those who, while irritated by the foreign forces, would not go so far as to actually fight them to those people who know that there would be big problems for them and the country if those forces were withdrawn prematurely. This majority includes Sunnis as well as Shiites and Kurds.

The question that must be addressed here is what to do now in the face of the combined onslaught of insurgents, terrorists, criminal gangs and sectarian militias. A policy for success should include:

· Developing, with the Iraqi government, workable measures for reforming the security forces, and making available the necessary resources to implement them.

· Supporting the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in its efforts to disarm the militias. What is needed is a detailed multifaceted approach that encompasses political, economic and public information considerations as well as coercive measures.

· Applying maximum pressure on regional powers to refrain from undermining security in Iraq and to help stabilize it.

· Mobilizing the people to oppose the extremists in their midst. Those who say that Iraqis are at each other's throats and should be left to fight it out are wrong. A minority of sectarian extremists and Saddamists is causing and promoting sectarian violence. These resisters have been successful in intimidating the rest of the population, which abhors them. When they are challenged, as they should be, the great majority of Iraqi men and women will be very supportive.

· Taking the initiative from our enemies by acting boldly and aggressively. Our posture should not be defensive. That is a recipe for defeat.

· Back here in the United States, where Iraq has become a divisive issue, working out a bipartisan understanding aimed at success; an attitude to win this war for America, Iraq and democracy. This item is for American leaders to achieve; the others are collaborative U.S.-Iraqi endeavors.

Is all this achievable? We know it is. Iraqis are resilient. They thirst for normality and a chance to build a future in freedom and dignity. They are fighting and dying for it every day -- witness the numbers enlisting in the security forces despite horrific losses. Witness the support Iraqi women are providing for the political process, and the potential of their emancipation.

The United States cannot escape responsibility for the current situation in Iraq. Not only would abandoning Iraq to its fate now be irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to disintegration and dictatorship, with a high risk of a wide regional conflict. It would be catastrophic not just for Iraq but also for the United States and for world peace and stability for decades to come. On the other hand, winning this war would be one of the best gifts the United States could make to the world and to its own people.

The writer is Iraq's ambassador to the United States

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

This articls reminds me of 2 things: 1 the numerous times radical islam is compared to fundemental christianity - it just ain't so; and 2, some of the best Catholic jokes I've ever heard have come from priests and nuns. They seem to understand the importance of a little bit of sacrilage.

______________
OpinionJournal, WSJ editorial page.

'Islamofascism'
Beware of a religion without irony.

BY ROGER SCRUTON
Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978. Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved. But we should be grateful to him for coining a word that enables people on the left to denounce our common enemy. After all, other French leftists--Michel Foucault, for example--had welcomed the revolution as an amusing threat to Western interests. It is only now that people on the left can acknowledge that they are just as much a target as the rest of us, in a war that has global chaos as its goal.

The word has therefore caught on, not least because it provides a convenient way of announcing that you are not against Islam but only against its perversion by the terrorists. But this prompts the question whether terrorism is really as alien to Islam as we should all like to believe. Despite his communist sympathies, Rodinson was a peaceful soul, who spent seven years teaching in a Muslim school in Lebanon and wrote a biography of Muhammad in which the prophet is portrayed as a mild-mannered campaigner for social justice. But this biography was denounced by the Egyptian authorities as an offense to Islam, was withdrawn from the curriculum of the American University in Cairo, and has ever since been banned in Muslim countries.

This readiness to take offense is not yet terrorism--but it is a sign of the deep-down insecurity of the Muslim psyche in the modern world. In the presence of Islam, we all feel, you have to tread carefully, as though humoring a dangerous animal. The Koran must never be questioned; Islam must be described as a religion of peace--isn't that the meaning of the word?--and jokes about the prophet are an absolute no-no. If religion comes up in conversation, best to slip quietly away, accompanying your departure with abject apologies for the Crusades. And in Europe this pussyfooting is now being transcribed into law, with "Islamophobia" already a crime in Belgium and movements across the continent to censor everything at which a Muslim might take offence, including articles like this one.

The majority of European Muslims do not approve of terrorism. But there are majorities and majorities. According to a recent poll, a full quarter of British Muslims believe that the bombs of last summer in London were a legitimate response to the "war on terror." Public pronouncements from Muslim leaders treat Islamist terrorism as a lamentable but understandable response to the West's misguided policies. And the blood-curdling utterances of the Wahhabite clergy, when occasionally reported in the press, sit uneasily with the idea of a "religion of peace." All this leads to a certain skepticism among ordinary people, whose "racist" or "xenophobic" prejudices are denounced by the media as the real cause of Muslim disaffection.

Now of course it is wrong to give gratuitous offence to people of other faiths; it is right to respect people's beliefs, when these beliefs pose no threat to civil order; and we should extend toward resident Muslims all the toleration and neighborly goodwill that we hope to receive from them. But recent events have caused people to wonder exactly where Muslims stand in such matters. Although Islam is derived from the same root as salaam, it does not mean peace but submission. And although the Koran tells us that there shall be no compulsion in matters of religion, it does not overflow with kindness toward those who refuse to submit to God's will. The best they can hope for is to be protected by a treaty (dhimmah), and the privileges of the dhimmi are purchased by onerous taxation and humiliating rites of subservience. As for apostates, it remains as dangerous today as it was in the time of the prophet publicly to renounce the Muslim faith. Even if you cannot be compelled to adopt the faith, you can certainly be compelled to retain it. And the anger with which public Muslims greet any attempt to challenge, to ridicule or to marginalize their faith is every bit as ferocious as that which animated the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. Ordinary Christians, who suffer a daily diet of ridicule and skepticism, cannot help feeling that Muslims protest too much, and that the wounds, which they ostentatiously display to the world, are largely self-inflicted.

To recognize such facts is not to give up hope for a tolerant Islam. But there is a matter that needs to be clarified. Christians and Jews are heirs to a long tradition of secular government, which began under the Roman Empire and was renewed at the Enlightenment: Human societies should be governed by human laws, and these laws must take precedence over religious edicts. The primary duty of citizens is to obey the state; what they do with their souls is a matter between themselves and God, and all religions must bow down to the sovereign authority if they are to exist within its jurisdiction.

The Ottoman Empire evolved systems of law which to some extent replicated that wise provision. But after the Ottoman collapse the Muslim sects rebelled against the idea, since it contradicts the claims of the Shariah to be the final legal authority. The Egyptian writer and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, went so far as to denounce all secular law as blasphemy. Mortals who make laws for their own government, he argued, usurp a power which is God's alone. And although few Muslim leaders will publicly endorse Qutb's argument, few will publicly condemn it either. What to us is a proof of Qutb's fanaticism and egomania is, for many Muslims, a proof of his piety.

Whenever I consider this matter I am struck by a singular fact about the Christian religion, a fact noticed by Kierkegaard and Hegel but rarely commented upon today, which is that it is informed by a spirit of irony. Irony means accepting "the other," as someone other than you. It was irony that led Christ to declare that his "kingdom is not of this world," not to be achieved through politics. Such irony is a long way from the humorless incantations of the Koran. Yet it is from a posture of irony that every real negotiation, every offer of peace, every acceptance of the other, begins. The way forward, it seems to me, is to encourage the re-emergence of an ironical Islam, of the kind you find in the philosophy of Averroλs, in Persian poetry and in "The Thousand and One Nights." We should also encourage those ethnic and religious jokes which did so much to defuse tension in the days before political correctness. And maybe, one day, the rigid face of some puritanical mullah will crack open in a hesitant smile, and negotiations can at last begin.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone