Daniel Pipes survives Livingstone's Lions' Den

Photo from Daniel Pipes' web site. From left to right: Daniel Pipes, Gavin Esler (moderator), Ken Livingstone, Salma Yaqoob.

A World Civilisation or Clash of Civilisations?

an edited guest post by Jonathan Hoffman

LATEST UPDATE: YouTube clips and transcript highlights of the platform debate.

UPDATE: Oliver Kamm's excellent commentary on the Conference is here.

UPDATE UPDATE:Daniel Pipes' own account is here; more good commentaries from Ami here and from Sharon Chadha here. A very interesting account from Sunny at Pickled Politics is very hostile to Daniel Pipes but acknowledges he and Murray had far better arguments than Livingstone and Yaqoob.

I went to hear Daniel Pipes speak at SOAS on Thursday night. I came away very gloomy about Saturday's debate with Ken Livingstone. Pipes had been so negative - Oslo was a failure, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan had been failures, Israel has lost through diplomacy what it gained militarily, diplomacy is almost hopeless, the only solution will be when one side gives up its aspirations, the NGOs should adopt the same definition of 'refugee' as UNHCR - someone who has personally fled rather than including the children and grandchildren of a first generation refugee too.

I’m so happy to admit that I could not have been more wrong. Pipes was magnificent at the Conference. Daniel went into the lion’s den and not only did he survive, he pulverised the lion.

Moreover, he (and his co-speaker, Douglas Murray) got just as much applause as Ken and his co-speaker, Councillor Salma Yaqoob. This was quite remarkable, given the timing of the Conference, which meant that many in the Jewish community missed the daytime programme. And yet more – Israel was not even mentioned in any of the four principal morning speeches on the main topic.

Ken spoke first. Predictably, he seized the moral high ground by saying what a multicultural, harmonious City London is. Huntington’s original ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis had set Western values against those of Islam and of Confucius and wasn’t that misjudging the odds, since these form 2/3rds of the world’s population (trust Ken to do the political calculus). Also predictable was that Ken - ever the populist – would refer to Celebrity Big Brother early on in his speech. The fact that 82% of the vote had been against Jade Goody was very revealing -he said - about the transformation of British society – it would not have happened 30 years ago. Had the vote gone the other way, Ken said he would have to have caught the next flight to India (the second largest source of UK investment, he said).

He went on to discuss his relations with Islamists and with the IRA. Yes – he said – he did meet IRA leaders when he was GLC Leader, and more recently he has met Qaradawi – because he believes in talking to people to try to change them. He does not agree with the Caliphate but is prepared to speak to Qaradawi because he represents ‘the future of Islam’. Here he quoted Max Hastings who apparently said that there was no point in studying any culture except that of Europe . The Chief Rabbi had spoken about a “tsunami of anti-Semitism in Europe” but here in London it had declined. Ken’s peroration followed. The US had been able to vanquish Communism because of its superior economic power. But now the US was increasingly having to share economic power with China and increasingly India . He linked this back to multiculturalism and the need to appreciate all cultures.

Daniel Pipes spoke next. I also went to his talk on Saturday evening at South Hampstead Synagogue. There he said that in the run-up to the Conference he had received so many emails from London warning him that the audience would be very hostile that he had worked harder on this speech than any other that he had ever given.

It certainly paid off – his speech was outstanding – well-judged, scholarly, well moderated and logical throughout. He began by going back to Samuel Huntington’s original “Clash of Civilisations” paper in Foreign Affairs in 1993. Huntington had warned that clashes between civilisations had become the greatest threat to world peace. He had identified eight civilisations - Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, and African. But – Pipes said – there were many problems with Huntington ’s analysis. First, the civilisations he cited are not a political concept. Second, the thesis cannot account for violence within civilisations – he cited the Rushdie Affair. Third, it ignored agreement across civilisations. Fourth, it cannot account for changes over time, eg the increase in tension between the US and Europe .

“Can a world civilisation exist?” asked Pipes “No, not as Huntington defined it”. But a world civilisation was possible as a coalition against what he termed “barbarism”. He then defined what he called ‘Ideological barbarians’ – fascists, totalitarian Communists and most recently – Islamists. The great question – he said – is how to oppose the barbarians. The Mayor , he said, proposed multiculturalism. But he – Pipes – wanted to win what he termed a War against barbarism. The UK had become a safe haven for terrorists. David Blunkett had noted that British based terrorists had carried out incidents in 15 countries. President Mubarak of Egypt had denounced the UK for protecting terrorists.

Pipes then focused on three aspects of Islamism. One, it was attempting to extend Sharia law into new areas. Two, it divided the world into two – those who held the right religion and everyone else. Three, it’s totalitarian and anti-modern. Here he cited Tony Blair’s August speech in Los Angeles (“it is a global fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and outside of it”).

He went on to ask why some elements of the traditional Left (in which he included Livingstone) were so supportive of Islamism when they opposed other forms of totalitarianism. His answer was that they shared the same enemies. Harold Pinter, for example, said that “the US was run by a bunch of criminal lunatics, with Blair as their hired Christian thug”. Chomsky had called the US “a leading terrorist State”. He noted that the demonstration in Hyde Park on 16 February 2003 was organised by a coalition of Islamists and the Left. Norman Mailer said about 9/11 “We had to realise that the people that did this were brilliant”. Parts of the Left dismiss terrorism as an irritant and blame it on eg Western ‘colonialism’.

In conclusion, said Pipes, there is no way to appease this ideology. It must be defeated as the Germans and Soviets were defeated. Islamism can only be defeated by a coalition of the ‘civilised’, among whom he cited a long list of Muslim dissidents, for example, Irshad Manji.

Then came Councillor Salma Yaqoob, the Chairperson of the Stop The War coalition in Birmingham and a parliamentary candidate in 2005 for Respect. Predictably she attacked Pipes for evading “the history of Western colonialism in the Middle East” and “the attempt of the US neocons to remould the Middle East in their own image”.

Then Douglas Murray. He began by thanking the Mayor “for being so generous with other people’s money”. Then he criticised the “straw man motion” that Livingstone had produced. Muslims can be on the side of civilisation but we are courting the wrong Muslims, we should not be cultivating Qaradawi. Livingstone had said that the Cold War was “our fault” – why do he and his allies always blame the ills of the world on the West? Can countries not make mistakes withut the West being responsible? How is Jihad “our fault”? Why then are Muslims killing Hindus? Why was the gay mayor of Paris stabbed by a Muslim in 2002? Multiculturalism has been a disaster. And how is it going down in Saudi Arabia ? There is no reciprocity in Islamic countries for Western concessions to Islam (he cited the Dutch Justice Minister who said that Sharia Law could be introduced if a majority wished it). The Mayor should be saying “we should not have Sharia Law in the UK ”. Why did Livingstone choose Respect member Yaqoob as his debating partner, rather than a moderate?

Then the Q+A. At least two questioners pointed out that holding the event on a Saturday precluded many Jews from attending. I asked Livingstone about his view that Israel should never have been created (something that he had told me when I met him campaigning before the last Mayor al election). He said that he did believe Israel should not have been created because land was ‘stolen’ from Arabs. But now that it existed he accepted that. He said that the US supported the creation of Israel because they “were scared that if they did not do so they would be called anti-Semitic”. Someone suggested the invasion of Iraq was all about securing oil supplies. Pipes’ response was that the US invaded Iraq despite knowing that this would boost the price of oil.

Livingstone was asked about faith schools. He said they should not exist, there should be no parental choice, all children should go to their local school.

Yaqoob – in an attempt to convey her support for multiculturalism – said “God bless America, God bless the UK , God bless the Jews” – but she pointedly did not say “God bless Israel ”, an omission later pointed out by Oliver Kamm.

The two afternoon sessions I went to were “Enlightenment Values and Modern Society” and “Democratic Solutions in the Middle East ”. The first featured Oliver Kamm, Inayat Bunglawala, Linda Bellos OBE, and Simon Fletcher.

Kamm’s was by far the best speech. He cited Jefferson ’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as a key Enlightenment document. Religion should be a matter for private choice; there should be no religious requirement for public office. He said that there are many forces urging the repeal of the Enlightenment and that it was wrong to interpret the Enlightenment s meaning that groups of people should be protected from being offended. He also praised Nick Cohen’s forthcoming book “What’s Wrong with the Left?” which he had proof-read. Enlightenment values, he said, have an embattled prospect. More embattled than a year ago.

Bunglawala was asked about the Teheran Holocaust denial Conference. He called it ‘ridiculous’. He noted it was a reprisal for the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons offensive to Muslims. He also said that the creation of the State of Israel was “a terrible mistake”. However “we are where we are”.

Oliver Kamm also spoke outstandingly well in the “Democratic Solutions in the Middle East ” session. “The autumn of autocrats in the Middle East has not been followed by a Prague Spring”. On Israel , he said that many Israelis were prepared to trade land for peace, but it would take time and a change of PLA leadership for this to happen. In the rest of the Middle East , democratic solutions are not on offer. We have to press for reform. He asked how MPAC in any way could claim to represent the British Muslim Community. Bunglawala accused him of saying that the MCB was not representative – but that was not what he said, it was about MPAC. Kamm also roundly criticised Bunglawala for drawing apparent ‘moral equivalence’ between the Holocaust and the publication of some cartoons which upset Muslims.

The same session featured Susan Nathan, an English-born writer who lived in Israel and has moved from Tel Aviv to Tamra, an Arab town in the North. She said that the Western form of democracy could not be imposed on the Arab world. Karma Nabulsi also spoke – now the Fellow in Politics at St Edmund Hall Oxford, she was a PLO representative from 1977-90, working at the UN and in the UK . She spoke about the right of return and about de-democratisation in the Middle East .

Ken Livingstone’s cynical tactic of tailoring his policies to the demands of his interest groups was seen for what it is; Daniel Pipes, Douglas Murray and Oliver Kamm (and I’m told David Aaronovitch) got at least as much applause for criticising multiculturalism as the other side did for praising it; and a conference in which the Middle East was a main subject did not degenerate into a tirade against Israel.

Comments

[Ian Mordant]

Good news is that the Muslim Council of Britain got a kicking over some of their one-sidedness; I got up and asked Mr Banglawala why the MCB had condemned the FBI for surveillance of mosques in the US but been totally silent about the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran, to which Banglawala said that the MCB didn't usually comment on this outside Britain, but that he personally didn't think 'there was any need for the conference'. Nice eh.

He also said that he regarded the creation of Israel the greatest mistake os the 20the century; this in a century which saw Hitler Stalin Mao, Japanese slaughter of 6 million Chinese 1937-45, etc etc. WOW!

But Banglawahla was then clobbered by Oliver Kamm re the silence over theTeheran Conference, and a Hindu woman challenged him on the decrease of the Hindu population of Pakistan and Bangladesh from 30% each to 1% and 7% respectively. He had no answer to either of these.
Linda Bellos also shouted at me for demanding that the Teheran conference be condemned; apparently I was guilty of some bullyboy honesty.

So I think some good came out of the conference. Ian

[PooterGeek]

Thanks for hosting this; and thanks for the summary, Jonathan.

[Moischele]

"Pipes had been so negative - ... the NGOs should adopt the same definition of 'refugee' as UNHCR - someone who has personally fled rather than including the children and grandchildren of a first generation refugee too"

For how many generations should 'refugee' status obtain? Would you prefer UNRWA's approach to the UNHCR's? UNRWA has been magnificently successful with its goals of prolonging the conflict, prolonging the misery of the original refugees' descendants, maintaining and reinforcing its own raison d'être, and bringing bloodshed and heartbreak down upon countless Israelis. To UNRWA, of course, you are a refugee if you are Palestinians and any ancestor of yours ever moved (under whatever circumstances and for whatever reason) at any point from the area within the Green Line to one of the towns or cities in the West Bank or Gaza called "refugee camps". You might think a refugee camp would look a little like a tent village, but under UNRWA's loving care they have become normal towns and cities with normal buildings and houses, solid infrastructure, and a middle class. The third and fourth generations, however, are still "refugees". My own mother fled Germany for her life and was stripped of her German citizenship. I, as far as I know, don't get to be a refugee; I have to make my own way in the world. Okay, I'm not doing so bad. But there are millions of very real refugees in the world who have no shelter, no place to stay, no food, no protection, absolutely nothing. Oh, and by the way, no one to help them either, not even from the UN. The UN is too busy, just at the moment, making sure the Palestinian middle class doesn't forget its reasons to hate Israel.

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Moishele - I agree with you - but that was not my point. My point was that (i) Pipes advocated changing the UNRWA definition as something which wd help the Palestinians - but if you believe you are a refugee no amount of semantics is going to change that (ii) I was concerned Pipes wd use the same argument to Saturday's hostile audience and would get mashed. But my fears were groundless.

[Moischele]

Glad you agree Jonathan. And I realise it's not your main focus in this post, of course.

Perhaps I partly misunderstood you because you'd mentioned NGOs and not UNRWA (and also because your sentence could be understood to mean that YOU consider the UNHCR definition to be something negative).

Certainly if UNRWA is finally receiving some attention, then that is a good thing, because UNRWA has played a huge role in perpetuating the conflict and the misery of millions of Palestinians and this is not widely known or discussed.

[Joanne]

"[Pipes] and his co-speaker, Douglas Murray got just as much applause as Ken and his co-speaker, Councillor Salma Yaqoob"

"And yet more – Israel was not even mentioned in any of the four principal morning speeches on the main topic."

I was a little let down when I got to the latter sentence. The fact that Israel wasn't again pilloried is a good thing, of course. But when I read that second sentence, I realized that Pipes and Murray were being applauded not for what they said supporting Israel, but for what they said about multiculturalism and Islamofascism.

I know that Pipes is pro-Israel, and perhaps Murray is, too. Otherwise, judging from the summary above, there seemed to be two approaches to Israel: to say that its founding was a mistake or to say nothing at all.

It may be that the view that Israel is a Bad Thing, at best a necessary evil that one has to accept, has taken full hold of the British public.

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Joanne, I really think that in a conference which was about the 'clash of civilisations' that it was very positive that Israel was not mentioned - because if it had been, it would inevitably have been in a bad light by its opponents, given that the central theme was not one which encompassed Israel. There were positive references to Israel - eg by Kamm - I just have not put everything in, it was long enough anyway! Regards Jonathan

[mark]

Surely the point about Israel in the context of a discussion (this does not sound like a "conference" in any meaningful sense) of "the War of Civilisations" is that Israel and the Jews are patently not one of the big eight noted by Huntingdon. We (and I mean we) are a small people with but one country in which we are a majority.

The fact that so many find so much to say obsessively about us and our problems (again, not least in this context) is telling, not about us or those problesm, not even about the Israeli Palestinian dispute, but about them and their priorities.

[GaryJ]

I was there and think your account is largely spot on. However I'm sure that Pipes mentioned Israel at some length, saying that a solution in Israel/Palestine would only come after victory by one side or the other and that he wanted Isreal to "win" by making everyone recognise its right to exist.

Yaqoob was disgraceful, describing the 7th July bombings as "reprisals". Livingstone's choice of her as a partner was revealing.

Douglas Murray was excellent, ad hominem attacks can misfire, but he gave both Yaqoob and Inayat Bunglawala a good peppering.

[ami]

As Johnathan says, this is a summary of a 2 hour debate. I have a guest post at Harry's Place which is complementary (and complimentary!) to Johnathan's. The references to Israel came in the q & A. Ken said the creation of Israel was a mistake, but now it was here he supported a two state solution. A Palestinian woman went on about the negotiations being between unequal parties, unjust solutions for the Palestinians etc. I asked her what about the 600th Jews thrown out of Arab countries. Her response was "oh, that was a state of war."

[Jonathan]

Thanks everyone - Mark I agree with you - thanks Ami. Has anyone seen any coverage of the Conference in a newspaper? Or have they raised the white flag to the bloggers?

[cormac]

'Her response was "oh, that was a state of war." '

Presumably with those same largely non- or anti-Zionist Arab Jews whom the anti-Zionist Arab Muslims concerned regarded as de facto fellow Jewish nationals with Israeli Jews.

Fine. But enough of saying Jews cannot comprise a national group. The fact the most Arab Jews had to leave Araby shows they were regarded as a separate, non-Arab national group.

[Joanne]

OK, Jonathan. Point well taken.

[Denise Ward]

Basicaly , we are talking about governments----when it comes right down to the wire .
Governments determine our way of life; like it or not .
There are really only two types of government : the democratic and the totalitarian . A democratic governmental system gives a voice to the people. The people can decide how they want to live thier lives. The totalitarian is a dictatorship in truth, and it's citizens are controlled by governmental figures and thier laws etc.
Islamic government is theocratic , or ruled by religion. This does not work in the people's favor because it's law, the Shari'a law ,is inhumane by all modern standards .
If we live the life imposed on humankind by the Shar'ia law , we lose the most valuable element of our lives---our freedom ; our human rights .
Considering all this, how important is it to do whatever we need to do to secure our freedom ? Is our freedom worth fighting for ?
Of course it is. But , before we do that, we have to understand all these things , and have the will, courage , and awareness to position ourselves to fight for our free way of life. I don't believe America , and most of the other countries of the free world , have any perspective on all these things. Europe and the West MUST wake up ; get some guts , and RESIST being imposed upon by a radical, religious, barbaric force. Do so or die.

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Daniel Pipes has posted a fascinating piece on his Blog about the Conference. Why has no MSM (= mainstream media) reported the Clash Conference? Is it cockup or conspiracy? I incline towards the former ... but then again, there were so many journalists and TV cameras there. Is this really self-censorship? If so what does that say about our media? The message would be profoundly deperessing.

[Jonathan Hoffman]

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/724

Here is the Pipes Blog

[Fabian from Israel]

I find that Israel is one of the best things ever created. And anyone who talks about "a mistake" can sod off, as you say. I would use a much stronger word.

I am disheartened about how the "right to exist" of Israel has become a topic of discussion.

I think that Australia was a mistake. England too (have you ever seen Israel as a ruthless global empire? Because England sure was).

Oh, God, just give me the chance to slap in the face anyone who comes with "Israel was a mistake".

[harvey garfield]

azI attended the afternoon workshop on segregation in the community.
Dr Bari head of the MCB was one of the panellists.I informed him that as a child living in London in the late 60s I regularly attended synagogue with my family.In those days there was no need for security and people were able to congregate outside after the service was over and socialise.Yes I am sure there would of been the odd antisemitic insult but as for the possibility of a major terrorist attack,simply unthinkable.Not now .Every synagogue community hall Jewish school is now subject to stringent security measures which for the purpose of this blog i will not enter into detail.There is a very real clear and present danger to our community and it does not emnate from the Hindus Sikhs Catholics Janes etc etc.Nor does it emnate from law abiding Muslims.
There is however a sizeable minority of what i will describe as Islamo fascists who make very clear there visceral hatred for Jewish people -witness the Dispatches programme in which Jews are depicted as the descendants of pigs and monkees.Much the same as Hitlers depiction of Jews as vermin .

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you for this review of the Pipes/Livingston conference.
A couple of thoughts - could it be said that the more religious a person is, the more that person fails to develop (or loses) a civilized view of the MEANS vs ENDS problem of life. Or is this just a problem of the militantly religious?
Second - is it more logical to view Islam as a sort of ANTI-civilization than as just a different civilization? One of the reasons I suggest this is because, having studied the life and views of Mohammed, it seems to me that bin Laden and Zawahiri
sound just like him. Thus I disagree, although with all good feeling, with Dan Pipes when he says that "moderate" Islam is the solution. For it appears to me that while there are large numbers of good human beings who are Muslims, they are, if so, bad Muslims. In other words, there's no such thing as "moderate" Islam.
Thanks again for your comments. Ron Thompson,
outside Wash, DC, USA

[harvey garfield]

Part 2

cut off in my prime-went on to ask Dr Bari whether he thought it acceptable that mosques were being used to disseminate antisemitism homophobia and mysogeny.i stated that i felt deeply bitter towards main stream bodies such as the MCB for failing to put their house in order.In fact I believe groups such as the MCB uphold these teachings but are required as part of a policy of deception and disinformation to present the official mainstream face of Islam.
Unfortunateley my question was one of agroup of 4 and Dr Bari was able to avoid giving an answer.Nevertheless the question i believe was quite a revelation to some Muslims as they sought to find me during the tea break in order to apologise for the deeds of their coreligionists.
On a seperate note ,Iwas delighted to travel back with Dr Pipes in the same taxiafter the meeting Saturday night.Both agreed it was a victory for the good guys on the day.

[Battal Agha]

The Palestinian refugees have been used (and they still are) as a pawn in the hands of their Arab brethern. When the Indian Sub-continent was parted between India and Pakistan, there was an exchange of population by the millions. I do not see any claim such as "the right of return" of a refugee agency taking care of these people. The Palestinians have their counterparts, i.e. the Arab Jews who also had to leave their countries and were absorbed by Israel. So why continue with this sad issue on and on???

[Rachel]

Informative comments but I just have a couple of quibbles about the term arab-jews. I cringe everytime I see it in print. I heard that term for the first time when I lived in Israel decades ago. And since then I have made it my mission to set things straight! Especially on English blogs where it is used the most.
1. AS a fomer native of North Africa, I have never used this term to describe myself & neither has anyone from my former jewish community. It is even considered an insult in some quarters. It is like calling Ashkenazim Khazars.
Yes, I know that in Israel some intellectuals have used that term but it is mostly for political reasons. And some Iraqi Jews also describe themselves as such. But in Morocco, we have never called ourselves ARAB. North African communities were comprised of Berber/native Jews and Sephardic Jews. There are many ethnic groups in Arab countries, and guess what, not everyone is an arab, including jews.
2.Please do not use us -us being sephardic jews from arab/islamic countries -as a political tool vis a vis Palestinian Refugees. There is no parallel. Jewish people from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia left for post colonial and economic reasons. The more fortunate Jews went to Canada , France, the US, etc. Nobody expelled us, and I am saying that a zionist.
3.I can't belive I have to say this but each country in the Mid East/North Africa had its own distinctive Jewish community with its own cultural practices, languages, and history. We are not a monolithic bloc. Algerian Jews have nothing in common with Yemenites but more in common with Moroccan & Tunisian. I have no clue what Persian Jews are like for instance. Get my point?
4. I know you don't mean it but you have rendered us invisible while we are the majority in Israel and some European countries. We consider ourselves proud jews, direct descendants of the first Israelites, and not some mongrel ethnic group whose voice can be appropriated to score some cheap points.
OK, enough ranting for one day. Thanks for the soapbox.

[Jonathan Hoffman]

About the Conference - does anyone have an audio recording of it? Daniel Pipes has been inundated with requests but it seems City Hall is being slow to publish the audio/video/ transcript - I wonder why.

[Lyn]

I agree with most of what Rachel wrote - and it is true that Moroccan and Tunisian Jews were not expelled, although it's hard to argue that Algerian Jews were not, if only as Frenchmen. But Iraqi, Egyptian, Syrian, Libyan and Yemeni Jews were expelled. They deserve justice as dispossessed refugees and inevitably their case will, and probably should, be compared with that of the Palestinians.
It is an oversimplification to claim that Moroccan and Tunisian Jews left for economic and post-colonial reasons - 44 died in rioting in 1948 and life was made very uncomfortable for them as JEWS after these countries became independent.

[Lynne T]

Re: the flight of Morocco's Jewish population, it should be noted that about a century prior to 1948, a visiting Italian Jew wrote an account of the requirement that Morocco's Jews not only pay the jizya, but also had to kneel and accept being struck in the face having rendered payment.

I cannot recall who cited this account in attempting to debunk the notion of Muslim tolerance of "the Other" -- Andrew Bostom, Daniel Pipes or Bat Ye'or, but the point has to be made and keep being made that Jews in Muslim countries were only barely tolerated long before the formation of a Jewish state was of any concern to the Arab Muslim world.