Douglas Murray: The British broadcaster brave enough to discuss Islamic violence
Last night Channel 4 broadcast a deep and seriously important programme. ‘Isis: The Origins of Violence’ was written and presented by the historian Tom Holland and can be viewed (by British viewers) here.Response to Daniel Pipes: Why Palestinian Statehood Obviates Israeli Victory
Five years ago, to coincide with his book ‘In The Shadow of the Sword’ about the early years of Islam, Holland presented a documentary for Channel 4 titled ‘Islam: The Untold Story’. That was something of a landmark in UK television. For while there had previously been some heated and angry studio discussions about Islam and plenty of fawningly hagiographic programmes about the religion’s founder presented by his apologists, here was a grown-up and scholarly treatment which looked at the issue as though there weren’t blasphemy police around every corner.
Sadly, part of the reception of that programme, and numerous events in the years since have kept such displays of scholarly truthfulness nearly as much of a rarity since as they were before. Which is one reason why Tom Holland deserves even more praise for returning to the subject of his earlier documentary.
And not just returning to it, but – in ‘Isis: The Origins of Violence’ – returning to the hardest part of that subject. In a nutshell he posed the question ‘Why do Isis, and groups like Isis, do what they do?’ And he answers this with the only honest answer anybody interested in truth could possibly come back with – which is that although they may be inspired by many things, their most important inspiration is a version of Islam whose roots can be traced to the origins of the religion, its foundational texts and the behaviour of Mohammed.
With commendable daring, Pipes — an international scholar of repute — has opened up the mainstream discourse for the use of terms previously thought of as beyond-the-pale in “polite company.”Amos Oz wants to talk
He unabashedly called for subjecting the Palestinians to “the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair” and does not shy away from prescribing that Israel “dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure…reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies…occupy and control the areas from which…gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets…originate.”
This language is refreshing, beneficial and will contribute greatly to breaking up the semantic “logjam” that the tyranny of political correctness has imposed on the discussion of Israeli policy options. By dispelling semantic taboos that restrict open debate, the CIVC rhetoric can contribute greatly to a more robust and unfettered appraisal of such options.
Debating disagreement
Pipes concisely sums up the principal point of disagreement between us: “Sherman and I directly disagree on only one point — Israel accepting the possibility of a Palestinian state.” He goes on to speculate that “the allure of a state after the conflict ends offers benefits to both sides. Israelis will be free of ruling unwanted subjects. Palestinians have a reason to behave.”
He elaborates on the benefits he envisions emerging from the establishment of a Palestinian state, pursuant to an Israeli victory, writing that “when Palestinians do finally give up the fight against Israel, their centrality to the conflict will enfeeble anti-Zionism from Morocco to Indonesia.” He admits “[t]hat shift won’t happen instantly, to be sure,” but somewhat optimistically suggests that “sustaining a more-Catholic-than-the-pope position gets harder over time. A Palestinian defeat marks the beginning of the end of the wider Arab and Muslim war on Israel.”
I confess to a certain amount of surprise at encountering this view from someone as knowledgeable and well-informed as Pipes, for he appears to be embracing the unfounded thesis that Arab/Muslim enmity towards the Jewish state centers solely on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinian-Arabs.
Sadly, this is demonstrably untrue, or at least only very partially true.
It has been 50 years since Israel's glorious victory in the Six-Day War -- a victory that drastically changed Israel and flooded its discourse with the kind of spiritual, cultural and political energy that had not been seen here before. Author Amos Oz is an obvious spokesman for the camp that supports the division of Israel into two states, as he has been since the moment that war ended. Recently, Oz published his latest book, "Dear Zealot," which includes "three pleas" on the key issues that spark Israel's emotions.
I am well aware of the Right's hurt feelings over some of the very critical things that Oz has said and written over the years. Over the course of our conversation, however, I learned that he is also terribly hurt by the things that many in the Right have said about him. It is not the insults or the rage he elicits that hurt, but rather deeper sentiments. But before we delve into the heart of our conversation, I will say that in the current landscape of superficial news media discourse and amid the social media circus, it is comforting to know that there are other arenas for serious debate about our identity and our future.
My copy of Oz's latest book is interspersed with handwritten comments. I strongly urge my friends within the Israeli Right to read it and argue about it. Oz's curiosity about his rivals is an encouraging blast from the past. One of the socio-historical observations I have often written about is the current Left's loss of curiosity about its rivals on the Right, while the Right continues to actively study the Left and remains eager to argue. So Amos Oz invited me -- why would I refuse? (h/t Elder of Lobby)