Tuesday, February 3, 2004
Hat tip to mal for a pointer to this profile of Chomsky and Said nemesis, Bernard Lewis. Nice backgrounder on this low-key scholar and the profound impact he's had.
WSJ.com - A Historian's Take on Islam Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight
For much of the second half of the last century, America viewed the Mideast and the rest of the world through a prism shaped by George Kennan, author of the doctrine of "containment." In a celebrated 1947 article in Foreign Affairs focused on the Soviet Union, Mr. Kennan gave structure to U.S. policy in the Cold War. It placed the need to contain Soviet ambitions above all else.
Terrorism has replaced Moscow as the global foe. And now America, having outlasted the Soviets to become the sole superpower, no longer seeks to contain but to confront, defeat and transform. How successful it is at remolding Iraq and the rest of the Mideast could have a huge impact on what sort of superpower America will be for decades to come: bold and assertive -- or inward, defensive and cut off.
As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power...
Even if you're already familiar with Lewis, this is a good refresher overview of just how long he's been around.
For some reason, I feel as though this essay on The Real History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden goes along well as a companion to the Lewis interview. The essay attempts to dispel the myth that the Crusades were an agressive Christian war against Islam. I've forgotten now where I found it (so no hat tip), but I've had it bookmarked in my "read this later" file for awhile now. Very well worth reading.
Update: Robert Spencer comments on Lewis' record regarding the Armenian Genocide.
"Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children."
This is a bit disingenous. It's true that the aim of the crusades wasn't to kill Jews, but the Crusaders went down to the Jewish quarters and slaughtered them. If a bomber on his way to bombing Baghdad decides to stop off in Damascus and drop a bomb there too, would you call that collateral damage?
As they made their way through Europe, the Crusaders cut a swath through the Jewish communities and slaughtered thousands upon thousands. When they got to Jerusalem, they also slaughtered the Jews there. This is hardly "collateral damage."
The church sometimes protected Jews, but forces within the church worked at crosspurposes, and in different areas, and with different orders, the church acted differently. This is a whitewash job.
"with different orders" - ie. Dominicans, Fransiscans, etc. Sorry for the sloppy writing.