On Being Borked
How foes distorted my record
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
August 26, 2003
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1220
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4101.htm
In the months since President Bush nominated me to the board of the
United States Institute of Peace, confirmation etiquette has obliged me
not to talk about my nomination. I thus found myself having to remain
mute as opponents said what they would about me.
For five months, I quietly endured Sen. Edward Kennedy borking me as
someone not "committed to bridging differences and bringing peace" and a
Washington Post editorial criticizing me as "a destroyer" of
cultural bridges, among other slings.
Fortunately, others responded on my behalf; for example, Sen. Chuck
Schumer and the Los Angeles Times both endorsed my nomination.
My months of silence finally came to an end last Friday, when
President Bush invoked his constitutional authority (Article II, Section
2) to recess-appoint me and eight others; we will serve through the end
of the current session of Congress, or January 2005.
But the accusations remain painful to me. I've spent two-thirds of my
life studying the Middle East, learned the Arabic language, traveled the
Muslim world, lived three years in Cairo, taught courses on the region
at Harvard and specialized on it at the State and Defense departments.
In short, my career has been exactly devoted to "bridging differences
and bringing peace."
So, how did some come to discern me as hostile to Islam? I see this
resulting from two main developments.
Distortion: My political opponents - Islamists, Palestinian
irredentists, the far left - cherry-pick through my record, then
triumphantly brandish selectively-quoted snippets to malign me.
Consider the following, from a 1990 article of mine. Although I
pooh-poohed the idea of a Muslim threat, I acknowledged that Western
Europe (as opposed to the United States) could have problems with Muslim
immigration because Europeans "are unprepared for the massive
immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and
maintaining different standards of hygiene."
Out of context, this seems to show hostility to Muslims. But my
opponents:
 | Ignore my having explained that "brown-skinned peoples" and
"strange foods" were quotes of then-current European views, not my
sentiments. (In retrospect, I should have placed those words in
quotation marks.) |
| Never quote two subsequent sentences: "The movement of Muslims to
Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite
challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to
a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly,
the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to
their host societies." |
It is on the basis of such distortions that my critics built their
case.
Confusion: I strenuously draw a distinction between the
religion of Islam and the ideology of militant Islam; "militant Islam is
the problem. moderate Islam is the solution" has virtually become my
mantra. But these are novel and complex ideas. As a result, my enmity
toward militant Islam sometimes gets misunderstood as hostility toward
Islam itself.
For example, last Saturday the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a
front-page story about my appointment in which I am quoted saying:
"Conflict without violence is the goal. We have differences with all our
allies, but there is no possibility of resorting to force with them, and
that is the goal which we all hope for. But that is not where we find
ourselves now, as we found in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot always
rely on nonviolent methods."
Not understanding my argument, the headline writer paraphrased this
analysis as "Pipes says Muslim war might be needed." In fact, it should
have been "Pipes says war on militant Islam might be needed."
I believe this distinction - between Islam and militant Islam -
stands at the heart of the War on Terror and urgently needs to be
clarified for non-specialists. The most effective way to do so, I
expect, is by giving voice to the Muslim victims of Islamist
totalitarianism.
Come to think of it, that sounds like the sort of activity that the
U.S. Institute of Peace might wish to consider undertaking as part of
its mission to "promote the prevention, management and peaceful
resolution of international conflicts."
Proposing projects like this is one reason why I look forward to
serving on the USIP board.
To comment on this article, please go to
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1220#comment
To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to
http://www.DanielPipes.org
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go
to
http://www.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail
services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles):
http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php
Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (monthly publication):
http://meib.org/maillist_survey.htm
You may freely forward this information, but on
condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with
complete information about its author, date, and source.
