| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
UC-Irvine prof Mark LeVine's objections (scroll down to the comments field) to my article about him have attracted the attention of Jihad Watch Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald, who writes:
Mark LeVine's own description of himself states:Mark LeVine is an emerging leader of the new generation of historians and analysts of the modern Middle East and Islam.... taught Qur'an to Muslim Brothers,
LeVine trusts no one, is suspicious of all sources and all authority. He is not afraid to tell the truth based on the facts and data he can personally confirm, and will challenge the actions and opinions of rulers and ruled, oppressed and oppressor alike.
His wide and deep knowledge of the politics and history of the entire region (from North Africa to Afghanhistan), its religions and its cultures, gives him unique insight into the broader dynamics that have produced the events that constantly dominate the news.
Need anything else be said?
Perhaps you thought that reading Qur’an and hadith and sira, accompanied by hundreds of articles and dozens of books, might help one to understand a belief-system that, unlike Mark LeVine, is not “suspicious of all sources and all authority” and indeed, is based entirely on “sources” and “authority.” From what do Sheikh Tantawi, Qaradawi, the “Sunni scholars” of Anbar Province, Ayatollah al-Sistani, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the imams with their khutbas in Saudi Arabia, receive their authority, if not from their familiarity with, and understanding of, the canonical texts? When, on a thousand websites, inquiring Muslims write in, asking for opinions on taxes and hairstyles and avoiding interest and the calculation of zakat and the possibility of permanent peace with Infidels, on what do those offering their opinions and formal rulings base them – if not the authority of the texts, and the commentators on those texts? Yet someone like Mark LeVine, who rushes about the wide world, who is a great believer in his own experiences – teaching Qur’an to Muslim Brothers, interviewing Hamas members, and whatever else it is that he has done (no need for boring book-learning in the stacks) – discounts all that. He, after all, is part of the “new generation of historians and analysts” who are suspicious of “all sources” and “all authority.” One wonders by what criteria he decides to stop being suspicious, and to accept any scholarly work by anyone. At what point, for example, would he say that Snouck Hurgronje or Antoine Fattal, to take two disparate examples, have passed all of Mark LeVine’s tests and need not be read with such a total refusal to accept “all sources” and “all authority”? It appears that Edward Said and Noam Chomsky are among those who, as “sources” and “authority,” have passed some Mark-LeVine-tests. What tests would those be? Perhaps others can apply the same criteria?
And who else meets the test? Does John Esposito? Does Ibn Warraq? What does Mark LeVine think, since he reads German, of Christoph Luxenberg? And since he reads Italian, this polymath, what does he think of the cofanetto of four works by Oriana Fallaci, all on the subject of Islam, and the Islamization of Europe? Anything? Nothing?
Mark LeVine believes that “the West” – or more specifically, America, or Amerika, is also guilty of “terrorism.” It is things that America has done that explain hostility to it. It has nothing to do with America being perceived as an Infidel power. Nor do the world’s Muslims bear any animus to anyone outside the West, such as Hindus and Buddhists (or the Zoroastrians of Persia), with whom they have always gotten along so swimmingly. And if a handful of historians, such as K. S. Lal or Sita Ram Goel or Francois Gautier, suggest otherwise, they are simply puppets of the BJP and Hindutva fanatics.
He believes that we all need a cooling-off period. There is nothing in Islam itself, as a belief-system, to worry about. Nothing about the behavior of Muhammad, and then of Muhammad as a model, to worry anyone. Nothing in the hadith, and of course nothing in the Qur’an, that might, just might, cause Believers to behave in a way that might represent a permanent danger to Infidels.
That is because Mark LeVine doth bestride the world like a colossus. He knows languages – many many languages (just try him out in a debate – try speaking to him in French, or Turkish, -- and of course he can also make out Ottoman script as well as modern Turkish – and Italian, and of course Arabic and Hebrew and Persian. A. K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, S. D. Goitein – these people have nothing on him, and he is not about to submit to their “authority.” Goitein spent a few decades trying to understand the weight of the jizya on the Jews, and finally felt he had done so, after a lifetime of underestimating it as a burden. But Mark LeVine doesn’t have to know what Goitein learned, because he has traveled to the Middle East, and spoken to Hamas members, and even “taught Qur’an to Muslim Brothers.”
Did Goitein, did Snouck Hurgronje, did Margoliouth, did Joseph Schacht do that? Can anyone who hasn’t wandered through North Africa and the Middle East really and truly undrerstand it? Books are so overrated. The study of the past is so overrated. The study of immutable doctrines, and the hapless attempts by some “reformers” to overcome the immutability of those doctrines, is so overrated. What counts is Experience.
It is a little like Nabokov. He once regretted that he had, in his life, only been a writer, whereas so many American writers had been lumberjacks, soda jerks, oil field hands, taxi drivers, and short order cooks, amassing all those experiences which, of course, had caused their prose to be immortal and his prose – well, you can forget about him. And didn’t James Joyce also have a dozen different occupations as well?
So Mark LeVine indeed does represent the newest stage in scholarship: the scholar who doesn’t have to bother with scholarship. There is no past. The past exists only if we let it. Say No to the Past. Stick with the present. See what you can see. And since you cannot see into the minds of men, and do not know what it is – what texts, what sermons and societies and atmospherics and attitudes that are based on, or emerge from, those texts – that forms their minds, they will always be a mystery.
Did Arafat mention on at least four occasions the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya? So what? What is that supposed to mean?
And so what if Majid Khadduri wrote a book which many consider to be the last word on the subject – “War and Peace in the Law of Islam” – in which he sets out clearly the impossibility of any Muslim people or polity making a permanent peace with any Infidel people or polity. Khadduri explains that a “hudna” is to be used only in order to strengthen the Muslim side, or to rescue it from a currently untenable position. For example, it is clear that some members of Hamas believe that the Israeli counter-offensive has been quite damaging, and that Hamas needs a timeout. Yes, but why should Israel give it to them?
And it is also clear that many Muslims are now worried about Infidels learning just a bit too much, and becoming a bit too alarmed, about Islam – about its doctrines, about what Muslims believe, and about the future of Infidel countries where there are large and growing Muslim immigrants. Transparent attempts to protect Islam and Muslims from critical scrutiny, such as the invention, and widespread use, of the scare-word “Islamophobia,” are evidence of this fear.
The “Conflicts Forum” of Alistair Crooke, Patrick Seale (who has been in the business of supplying every – and I mean every – desire of Arab paymasters since he was throwing parties for important Arabs, and inviting some attractive young English girls of a special sort to his house in Eaton Square in the 1970s), and the propagandist and public relations adviser to Arafat & Co., Mark Perry, discussed elsewhere at this website, is another example.
And now comes Mark LeVine to embody this new mode of anti-academic academics, where deep familiarity with the texts can be dispensed with, as one can learn so much more from real life, in Beirut and Gaza, in Cairo and Damascus. Scholarship without scholarship – that is the new motto for a new age. And why not?
Perhaps you prefer Mark LeVine to Schacht, Margoliouth, and Antoine Fattal. Perhaps you think Mark LeVine’s understanding of the “hudna” is superior to that of Majid Khadduri. But why?
Mark LeVine must really tell us what it is about Snouck Hurgronje on Mecca and Islam in the Dutch East Indies, what it is about Fagnan and Dufourcq and Bousquet and Bat Ye'or on Jihad and dhimmitude, what it is about the Indian historian K. S. Lal and about Francois Gautier, Haish Narain and Sita Ram Goel and a dozen other historians of India under Muslim rule, and what it is about Rumanian historians of Islam (Maria-Matilda Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru) and Bulgarian students (Bistra A. Cvetkova; Snegarov) and Greek historians (Speros Vryonis Jr. and Apostolos E. Vakalopoulos and Vassiliki Papoulia), and Serb historians (including the celebrated writer Ivo Andric, whose Ph.D. thesis, "The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia Under the Influence of Turkish Rule” has recently been published in English) that makes him so distrustful of all of them. Is it some internal inconsistency? Is it that they did not know the relevant languages? Is it that they had not had the life experiences, talking to Hamas members, teaching Qur'an to members of the Muslim Brothers, that Mark LeVine has had?
And how well, really, did Majid Khadduri know Arabic? And what did he know about how Muslims think of war, and peace, with Infidels? Did he talk to Hamas members? Or lecture members of the Muslim Brothers? Just how long had Majid Khadduri been studying Islam before he wrote his own book on “War and Peace in the Law of Islam”? Did he get on "Nightline"? Why not? And for that matter, did Elie Kedourie? Or J. B. Kelly? What about his views on Saudi Arabia? Do they have any resemblance to reality? Doesn't the Aramco Handbook tell us so much more, being written as it was for the edification of the real-life oil workers and engineers who spent years right there in Saudi Arabia -- even more time in the midst of Arab Islam than Mark LeVine, and so, presumably even greater experts than he?
And since Mark LeVine is apparently impressed with Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, those two lifelong students of Islam, could he explain what it was about each that made him trust in them as sources, and in their authority? Was there something about Said’s "Orientalism" that escaped the historian of British India Clive Dewey? Or that Ibn Warraq failed to notice in his own review of Said's work? Or Keith Windschuttle? Or Bernard Lewis in his celebrated reply to Said, “The Question of ‘Orientalism’”? And what was it that caused Mark LeVine to have such confidence in Said’s own “The Question of Palestine”? For example, was it the way Said used, or did not use, the testimony of Western travellers, beginning in the late 18th century, to the area known to the West as "Palestine"? Why, for example, does he quote Volney in his "Orientalism" but for some reason leave Volney out of "The Question of Palestine"? Anything about the use of sources there that got Mark LeVine's antennae quivering? What about the quotations, or lack of quotations, from the eyewitness accounts of the Holy Land, of which there were so many? Does Mark LeVine find at all strange the difference, for example, in how Lamartine and Chateaubriand and Mark Twain and Melville are quoted, or not, in Said's book, and how they are quoted in a book of equal length, Katz's "Battleground"?
And as for Chomsky, what with the Sandinistas and syntactic structures, has Chomsky ever had time to study Qur'an and hadith and sira -- or to take seriously a belief-system, and attempt to understand what prompts Muslims to see the universe as many do, by actually looking at the texts upon which that belief-system is so thoroughly based? Does Mark LeVine worry the least bit about a belief-system that offers a Total Explanation of the Universe, and divides that universe mainly into two groups -- Believers and Infidels? Or is this all a fantasy of Donald Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by such neo-con Likudniks as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the late Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, right-wingers all?
Yet, these criticisms surely must be unfair. For otherwise, how could Assistant Professor Mark LeVine possibly have concluded the following about Assistant Professor Mark LeVine: "His wide and deep knowledge of the politics and history of the entire region (from North Africa to Afghanhistan), its religions and its cultures, gives him unique insight into the broader dynamics that have produced the events that constantly dominate the news."
Mark LeVine is an updated academic version of Dickens' Mr. Podsnap in "Our Mutual Friend":
Mr. Podsnap was well to do, and stood very high in Mr. Podsnap’s opinion. Beginning with a good inheritance, he had married a good inheritance, and had thriven exceedingly in the Marine Insurance way, and was quite satisfied. He never could make out why everybody was not quite satisfied, and he felt conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satisfied with most things, and, above all other things, with himself.Thus happily acquainted with his own merit and importance, Mr. Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness – not to add a grand convenience – in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr. Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr. Podsnap’s satisfaction. “I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!”
Perhaps you trust Mark LeVine, who doesn’t want to know about all those scholars, doesn’t choose to discuss them at length, doesn’t admit the justice of their decades of scrupulous research. He knows better. He has been to the Middle East. He has talked to Hamas members and Muslim Brothers. They tell him things. What more does anyone need?
Perhaps you agree as well with Mark LeVine’s guiding motto, that mental bumper-sticker which tells him always to “Question Authority.”
Why should you?
Posted by Robert at December 13, 2004 10:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"the existence of terrorism on the part of
Palestinians does nothing to diminish the much greater use of terrorism by the israeli state
and citizens against palestinians..."
There’s more...
"but this only will work if we all join the palestinians in this sort of non-violent "terrorism" against the occupation. all of us with the ability to get to israel/palestine should go at least once and stand in solidarity with them against the bulldozers and tanks."
Does Dr. mark LeVine care to make any comments about the above quotes?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 13, 2004 11:26 AM
AMY GOODMAN: What were the people chanting?
MARK LEVINE: Well, I mean, one of the problems with the march, it was actually smaller than what was expected. A lot of that is because of the security issues. The march -- along the march, many of the slogans were fairly anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli,
A smaller than expected march of Iraqi's chanting anti-jewish and anti-Israeli slogans a problem?
Judging from the comments in Dr. Mark LeVine's emails above, one wonders if he joined in with their anti Israeli/Jewish chants....
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/19/155250&mode=thread&tid=25
Posted by: Andrew at December 13, 2004 11:40 AM
Mark LeVine on O'Reilly spins like a top to apologize and run cover for the despicable behavior of certain Muslims wanting to dress like ME terrorists at a graduation ceremony at the UC, Irvine.
Strange that these Muslim students felt that they could get away with this behavior at this university which offered a professorship to someone such as Dr. Mark LeVine.
With Muslims constantly complaining about insults, can you imagine if a similiar statement were made against them, how many in the press and perhaps LeVine himself would come to their defence?
MARK LEVINE: Well, there are several issues here. The first issue really is the context. I think the context, when Muslim students want to wear a sash that says -- that has the Shahada (ph), testifying to the faith, to make an assumption, which I think you have done and which someone on your show last night did, that wearing that means you support terrorism and support Hamas, is basically like saying 1.4 billion Muslims, all the Muslims in the world and Islam itself is a terrorist religion.
O'REILLY: All right. Let me stop you here. I want to deal with facts here. All right?
http://www.meaning.org/news/oreilly.html
Posted by: Andrew at December 13, 2004 12:02 PM
From an above comment, "...is basically like saying 1.4 billion Muslims, all the Muslims in the world and Islam itself is a terrorist religion.
Perfect "Straw Man" argument.
And by the way, Islam IS a terrorist religion.
Hugh, I loved your quote about Mr. Podsnap...ha ha! That's great. Mr. Podsnap reminds me a lot of Carson McCuller's character, Judge Clane from "Clock Without Hands".
Posted by: kj at December 13, 2004 12:27 PM
Andrew,
"Judging from the comments in Dr. Mark LeVine's emails above, one wonders if he joined in with their anti Israeli/Jewish chants...."
Why wouldn't he? Afterall, it's a non-violent protest and he clearly understands the context so who's to care if a little anti-Semitism slips in here and there, it still doesn't mitigate the "greater use of terrorism by the israeli state and citizens against palestinians".
How do these people sleep at night?
Posted by: igor at December 13, 2004 12:41 PM
Here's a bit more about the Conflicts Forum that Hugh mentioned above:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=10929
Should be called, "The Dhimmi Forum."
Posted by: Suzan at December 13, 2004 12:57 PM
1.4 Billion people CAN'T all be wrong about Israel, can they?
LOL.
Last year it was 1.2 billion, now it's 1.4 billion, soon to be "one-and-a-half billion" and in three or four years it'll be "nearly two billion".
Not that they aren't increasing (since if a woman refuses the man sex she goes to hell, and if you use birth control you go to hell, and if you get an abortion, you go to hell, and all children in a Muslim or Muslim+non-Muslim marriage are automatically Muslims) but they aren't increasing/converting that damn fast.
Except in "palestine" where Arafat and his handlers in Mecca tell all the idiot "refugees" to have as many kids as possible.
Maybe once they finally see their so-called "Right Of Return" go the way of Arafat, the hillbillies and trailer trash of the Middle East will stop claiming to be palestinians and get on with their lives. A good start would be a procuring a job and a box of condoms.
That's what I tell the hippies and Muslim kids, how does a people "get massacred" and "suffer from genocide" and yet increase from 500,000 to 5,000,000 in just two generations? By having every couple have eight kids that live long enough to have eight kids each.
[Sidebar: here's the proof. The UN said that there were 500,000 "refugees" after the 1947 Arab-Israeli War. Say half of them were of child-bearing age. In thirty years, if they had eight kids per couple, that would be an increase of (125,000 couples)X(eight kids per couple) = 1,000,000.
Now THEY all do the same in the next thirty years and produce (500,000 couples)X(eight kids per couple) = 4,000,000. By this time about half of the original 250,000 "non-child-bearers" should've died of old age or whatever. That leaves (rougly, VERY roughly) 125,000 + 250,000 + 1,000,000 + 4,000,000 = 5.75 Million peaceloving "palestinian" "refugees".
Like I said, this is a "coarse grained" calculation, but the numbers are approximately right. Especially considering that a "couple" in an Arab Muslim hellhole means "a man and ONE of his wives." Of course, when Hamas & Co. make your town a war zone, infant mortality goes way up, as does child mortality. (Note to "palestinians": Jordan is no more than fifty miles away, and there's NO WAR THERE.)]
I'll never forget the whiney Jewhater they had on NPR one day asking why oh why did the IDF cut down his olive trees and orange trees. It wasn't HIS fault Hamas snipers used them for cover. Anyway, the guy was sixty years old and had....(drumroll please) TWENTY kids! TWENTY! Between the ages of 40 years and TWO MONTHS! He's SIXTY years old and still having kids!
I couldn't help but think that if only he'd stuck with just ONE wife and had TWO or THREE kids, he'd probably be the wealtiest guy in town (Beit Hanoun I think). What a loser.
I know that a lot of Mulisms read this site. Listen, fellas... too many children NEVER makes the situation better. You've been had by your religious (and otherwise) leaders, and it's your own damn fault for being so gullible. Wake up, and improve your own life and those of your children. A seventh-century fairy tale isn't going to help you in the 21st.
Posted by: kj at December 13, 2004 12:57 PM
Note that they ARE increasing.... sorry about that.
Posted by: kj at December 13, 2004 12:59 PM
NO, wait... I had it right the first damn time. Sorry... forgot my drugs today.
Posted by: kj at December 13, 2004 1:00 PM
Before 9/11, I knew absolutely nothing about Islam. It was JUST another religion to me. As time has permitted, I've tried to "get up to speed" on the topic. It didn't take long for me to come to the conclusion that the religion of peace was not what it seemed--to put it mildly, it didn't fall anywhere near any definition of religion I've known. With that said, I am always astounded when I hear anyone defend such a vile and bloodthirsty ideology (my opinion).
Since I currently don't have the knowledge to argue the details of the misguided defenders (I'm being kind) of this ideology, I just wanted to say that I'm grateful to Hugh Fitzgerald and Robert Spencer for doing it for me. Thank you.
Posted by: Greg at December 13, 2004 1:09 PM
Says Prof. LeVine: "all of us with the ability to get to israel/palestine should go at least once and stand in solidarity with them against the bulldozers and tanks."
(An aside: Don't you just love the way the "new generation" of academics has adopted the teenaged girl's typical typography, rejecting the patriarchal, authoritarian and probably also Zionist use of capital letters?)
More to on point: Who are "they" with whom we are supposed to "stand in solidarity"? The builders of terror tunnels? The Heroes of Hamas? The Fedayeen of Fatah?
Thanks, Prof. LeVine, but no. I'd actually rather go stand on top of a tank or bulldozer, in solidarity with the IDF. I could be a spotter, looking out for would-be Rachel Corries or other useful idiots who, inspired by the humane professor's clarion call, might get in between an armored bulldozer and one of those tunnel-concealing houses. Since the drivers have such a limited visual field, perhaps I could stop another inadvertent flattening, thus sparing the IDF more bad press.
Sign me up.
Posted by: Cato the Elder at December 13, 2004 1:26 PM
cato the elder
I'm with you. I support the IDF and salute their professionalism and temperance under the microscopic lens of a hypocritical media and biased brainwashed public.
Posted by: Andrew at December 13, 2004 1:38 PM
Ouch. This has got to hurt. Mr LeVine (with a capital V), you have a lot of responding to do. Hugh just skewered you clinically and relentlessly.
The Emperor LeVine is wearing no clothes.
Posted by: Kaffir Boy at December 13, 2004 1:40 PM
Mr. Spencer, Mr. Fitzgerald, et. al.,
It gets worse. It looks like Dr. Mark LeVine, of the University of California at Irvine, is a supporter of cop-killer, Wesley Cook, AKA Munia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of executing Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner in 1981:
Police officer Daniel Falkner's case:
http://www.leftwatch.com/faq/people/mumia_abu_jamal.html
Dr. Mark LeVine has said :
"i'm all for this, and in fact just wrote a piece called 'culture jamming' for a catalog for an amazing art exhibit in LA called "capital art: on the culture of punishment" (info: www.track16.com)..."
I did a quick GOOGLE (Sorry LeVine)to see what "Capital Art" was and found that there was an exhibit Dedicated to Mumia Abu-Jamal, dated February 3 - March 31, 2001, of which Professor LeVine's name appears as a contributing writer in a catalog featuring the art:
Dr. Mark LeVine and Mumia Abu-Jamal, AKA Wesley Cook:
"...smart Art Press will publish a small catalogue that will include statements by Mumia Abu-Jamal,...and professor Mark LeVine."!!!
http://www.track16.com/exhibitions/capital/capital.html
Can it get any clearer than that? An Anti-Israeli, free-Mumia, let's make a hudna with Islam professor teaching students ant UC Irvine.
This is a disgrace, UC Irvine should be ashamed of themselves for granting LeVine a professorship in light of his embarrassing, biased leftist record. Their suicide sash wearing Muslim students have found a friendly environment with which to conduct their despicable behavior.
P.S. I can't find the catelog online, can someone find it? I want to see what he had to say about Wesley Cook, darling killer and cause celebre of the left.
at December 13, 2004 2:34 PM
This is the catalog dedicated to cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal that Dr mark LeVine contributed to. It appears that it is not readily available online. Notice LeVine's name in the list:
http://www.smartartpress.com/catalog.lasso?product%20id=1133
Posted by: Andrew at December 13, 2004 3:03 PM
I've been following this since the graduation
this past June at UCI. I attended UCI for
some postgrad work and keep up with activities
there. The administration caved big time to
the Muslims on the arm band issue. The weasel
words were some of the best I've heard. Some of
the Jewish students wore Stars of David at the
graduation ceremony to counter the Muslims...and
if I remember correctly, that irritated the
Administration more than the Muslim garb.
at December 13, 2004 3:21 PM
"but this only will work if we all join the palestinians in this sort of non-violent "terrorism" against the occupation. all of us with the ability to get to israel/palestine should go at least once and stand in solidarity with them against the bulldozers and tanks."
Been to the West Bank. Been there, done that, have my kafia.
And here's a helpful tip: If you want to hang out in the West Bank, it helps if you're a GUY. Got it? Men have a much better time "being at one" with the Muslims than do women. I think giving people that kind of advice to "join the palestinians" is crap. Yah, sure, go help 'em out... if you're male. If you're female you'll need to be accompanied by some men, preferably your relatives, or you're considered fair game... for... whatever they think they can get away with. Ladies, never go the West Bank alone.
at December 13, 2004 3:22 PM
NO, wait... I had it right the first damn time. Sorry... forgot my drugs today.
Posted by: kj at December 13, 2004 01:00 PM
Gold Star for you today??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to Defeat ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
PS
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/10405784.htm
Posted on Mon, Dec. 13, 2004
Palestinian leader apologizes to Kuwait
Associated Press
KUWAIT CITY – Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas apologized to Kuwaitis on Sunday for Palestinian support of Saddam Hussein during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war, his latest gesture to mend fences with Arab nations offended by the late Yasser Arafat over the years.
Kuwaitis had mixed feelings ahead of Abbas’ visit, with many holding a grudge against the Palestinians for supporting Saddam during the war. On his arrival Sunday, Abbas provided a long-awaited apology in response to a question.
“Yes, we apologize for what we have done,” he said.
As PLO leader, Arafat supported Iraq in its 1990 invasion of this oil-rich country and opposed the subsequent U.S.-led war that liberated it.
He never visited Kuwait afterward.
at December 13, 2004 4:57 PM
Mr. Levine sounds SO much like those knee-jerk liberals in the Academia, doesn't he? Oh wait, he IS one. And the media and democratic leadership Lap it up.
God help us. The kerry crowd never would have.
at December 13, 2004 4:58 PM
The 'acclaimed', 'hot button', 'progressive' self description of Assistant Professor Mark LeVine, at 'meaning.org', is nauseating. Do you know what I mean?
Well, Assistant Professor LeVine, welcome to rigorous academic debate courtesy of Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald. Come on in and join the party.
Please let us all know when the debate is to be scheduled.
Has anyone forwarded Hugh's article to the Chairperson of the History Department at Irvine? And attach a link to LeVine's self description. Art and comedy love contrasts. Or should I go ahead and do it myself. Oh well, the cat is probably already out of the bag.
There were so many hot buttons in Hugh's piece that I lost count. A veritable light show worthy of Woodstock to Paris to Damascas Gate, a blending of art, scholarship and activism, along with a dose of responsiblity.
Good show Hugh!
Posted by: JTF at December 13, 2004 5:31 PM
Mr. LeVine is a programed change-agent.
To learn how we arrived to this state of affairs google:
Paul Baran Marxist
The Frankfurt School
Cultural Marxism
Antonio Gramsci
Saul Alinsky
at December 13, 2004 5:56 PM
Nice marketing from Mr LeVine. All that stuff about trusting no one is sure to appeal to the kind of people who've bought into the activist lifestyle, which appears to be quite a big market in America. All those middle-class kids doing their save-the-world-for-the-tv-cameras act must love him, while he does his save-the-middle-east-with-my-guitar act. And the Culture Jamming - it's just so new, so fresh! zzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at December 13, 2004 6:00 PM
Never underestimate the power of self-aggrandizement and the temptation to ingratiate one's self in pursuit of tenure. One would hope that LeVine, as a professor specializing in the region, would indeed have not only familiarity with relevant studies and interpretations of the region, but also a command of both sides, and can explain the relative merits and weaknesses of the different schools of thought.
However, as a historian, he also needs to rely on primary sources, including the Koran, documents etc. This even includes interviews with Hamas members and personal observation of rallies. Bernard Lewis, Edward Said, et al., are just interpreters, and while worthy of consideration and discussion, subject matters for historiography, not history.
In today's media climate, Mr. LeVine can draw attention to himself by appearing on various outlets, and ingratiate himself to the academic community by offering the politically correct party line. I imagine that his "scholarship" is consistent with the party line, and probably jargon-filled and unreadable. At the same time, his command of the sources and interpretations cited by Mr. Fitzgerald, and more importantly his contribution in the form of new interpretations and new "evidence" should be a part of this scholarly output. It seems reasonable to demean him on the basis of his self-honed image and media appearances, but his full measure should include analysis of his scholarship.
Posted by: dw0613 at December 13, 2004 6:27 PM
"Demean him"? I was just warming up, a little anacrusis, the first thrum on the lyre, clearing my throat.
Posted by: Hugh at December 13, 2004 8:36 PM
Sp, Dr. LeVine is suspicious of all sources and authority? We've heard that one before. It's code for being a credulous jackass before every destructive goon whose gang sweeps him into power in some hapless country where her throws up some cinderblocks, puts some people in white smocks, stuffs some sick folks into cubicles, and claims he's built a hospital in order to win the applause of "progressive opinion"--never mind that the staff has had all of two weeks' training in injecting people with fructose, and that the masses--turned out on cue if they know what's good for them--view such places as nothing but where people go to die.
I respect Dr. LeVine's study of languages, and when I need translation from one that he knows, I'll give him a call and discuss rates.
Good job, Hugh--except that I'm one who thinks that experience does tend to get interpreted in terms of tradition and the authorities one accepts.
Posted by: Kepha1 at December 14, 2004 12:55 AM
The most sickening thing about these gutless hypocrites is that they parrot the pompous spiel about "speaking truth to power" but dont dare to speak the truth to the power of the Koran, Hadith etc.
That is the point that Hugh made so beautifully. I want to hear LeVine's (with a capital V) response. Where is his response to this specific point?
Come, brave truth speaking hippie, let us know the truth to Islamic power.
Posted by: Kaffir Boy at December 14, 2004 7:45 AM
LeVine wrote that bio?!
BWAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I just LOVE it when people write about themselves in the third person - it's got that certain je ne sais quois!Maybe one day I'll have the hauteur to speak of myself in such a manner.
By the way, since I speak a little of la langue francaise, you all may assume that I have an authoritative knowledge of the history and culture of the French speaking peoples - never mind that I can't distinguish Pepin II's bastard son from his great-grandfather, much less illustrate their roles in French history - I can chat with les filles while I'm sipping my cafe au lait and reading Le Monde in Montmartre.
Did I mention that I leaned against some sheep the last time the farmers invaded Paris, ma cherie?
By the way, Hugh, all that reading is just too tedious and time-consuming - if I have to suffer through another 500 page book by Bat Ye'or or Bernard Lewis my head is going to explode! It's just SO much easier to rely on the data I can personally confirm while I'm on Culture Jam Tour 2005. You see, Mike trusts no one, and is suspicious of all sources and all authority.
Wow - that last part sounded so cool. Nice to meet me!
at December 14, 2004 3:12 PM
Hey Mark Levine, 1992 called, and it said it wants its tendency in scholarship to embrace, under the banner of "postmodernism," an all-encompassing relativism that denies the validity of all knowledge, value, authority and meaning (except for so much knowledge and value as is needed for us to now know with certainty, almost a priori, that the West is generally wrong and culpable for everything bad, and except for those authorities such as Noam Chomsky who are needed to lead the postmodernist circle-jerk), and which fatally undermines the white man's oppressive Enlightenment myth of "objective truth," thereby allowing historians and others to break free from the shackles of "objectivity" (standards) in the classroom and "book learning" (work) in the library in favor of cheerleading for and indoctrinating students in one's favorite politically correct causes, back.
Posted by: Schopenhauer at December 16, 2004 12:58 PM
More: in his film Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen has a line where he advises his niece "don't listen to your teachers. Just see what they look like, and that's how you know what life is like." After clicking on Mark LeVine's bio of himself, I thought of that.
I also thought of the scene in Natural Born Killers where Robert Downey Jr. plays "Wayne Gale," the sensational activist-reporter, reminiscent of Geraldo Rivera. In the intro to Gale's show, there's a shot of him with a SWAT team, holding a microphone while he kicks open a door. That's what Mark LeVine reminds me of.
Mark LeVine is equal parts Noam Chomsky and Indiana Jones. Mark LeVine is naturally suspicious of the lies of dead white males, and so Mark LeVine has done his learning at the university of life, standing in the way of bulldozers and marching in rallies to free Mumia, the political prisoner. But Mark LeVine will still venture into the library to sift through open dusty old tomes in search of evidence that his beliefs are correct. When he finds such a piece of evidence, amid this dusty sea of non-evidence, he seizes it, like Indy seizing the gold idol. Mark LeVine has Culture-Jammed with Phish. Mark LeVine is respected in the halls of academia because Mark LeVine fights against oppression, but Mark LeVine is also revered by his young students, with whom Mark LeVine has a natural rapport. When an attractive and credulous young co-ed comes to Mark LeVine's office with a personal problem, Mark LeVine will take time away from the world's important work to guide her, baring his sensitive soul. Mark LeVine is a rebel, a sage, a lover. Mark LeVine is a scholar on a mission. Mark LeVine knows that scholarship is not an end in itself, it is a tool for activism and overthrow. It is ammunition and armor, to be molded for offensive and defensive purposes. Mark LeVine is a historiactivist!
Posted by: Schopenhauer at December 16, 2004 1:20 PM
Dear Dr. LeviNe, I read your comments directed at Mr. Spencer. You made reference to welcoming a debate with him at UC Irvine, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to debate off campus, without your safety net, and all of the plants sure to be in the audience.
How about a debate on neutral ground?
Vegas? Denver? New Orleans? Pittsburgh perhaps?
Posted by: DCWatson at December 16, 2004 11:54 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)