The podcast interview with Dr. Daniel Pipes takes one hour one minute 34 seconds. As for his work and interviews, please refer to my previous postings (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/archive?word=%22Daniel+Pipes%22). (Lily)
1.Ricochet(https://ricochet.com/podcasts/real-realism-daniel-pipes/)
Conservative conversation and community
The Milt Rosenberg Show
The Real “Realism” of Daniel Pipes
4 March 2015
Here is a conversation recorded about ten days ago with Daniel Pipes, to our mind the best expert, by far, on the seething and long-running anti-western turmoil in the Arab middle-east. But first some words of background.
Many American foreign affairs scholars classify themselves as of the school of “realism.” That supposedly means that they take inter-nation competition and distrust as always operative, potentially or actually. A further premise is that struggles of that sort will persist until “victory” or exhaustion are reached. Nowhere is this overview of “international relations” more regnant than in the clusters of “middle eastern scholarship” found at many American universities.
Together with many hidden away in the State Department and more visible and audible in the American and West European print and electronic press, the prevailing view among such middle-east “experts” has been this: that murderous jihadism, in its many contemporary manifestations, was and is an inevitable reaction to the humiliation (originally colonialistic and then Israeli) to which the Arab nations and peoples have been subjected. At their worst such intellectoid apologists have sometimes come close to implying that “tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner.”
Compounding the offense is the increasingly evoked gambit (Edward Said may well have been its most prominent American academic exemplar) that the standard of “realism” forces all explanation of the renascent barbarism of Al Queda to be understood on this basis. That view is now often whispered—whether in academic, journalistic or governmental settings—about the new monstrosity of ISIS/ISIL.
Some well qualified scholars–trained in the American scholastic tradition but operating beyond its received “truths” have provided a far more accurately realistic account of where and how modern jihadism came from, how it operates and how it may be countered, perhaps in a rather extended “twilight struggle.”
Foremost among such analysts is the redoubtable Daniel Pipes whose rejection by some of the entrenched academics is, in fact, testimony to his tremendously important contributions, over the last thirty years, as he provided a detailed and truly realistic account of what went wrong in the middle east—and in Islam itself.
1.Pleated Pants Forever
Milt – thank you for another fine podcast with a great guest who was well interviewed, as always. I may not agree with Mr. Pipes on everything – what was that part where he discussed the benefits of institutionalized second class citizenship over informal second class citizenship? – but he is a learned man with well developed thoughts.
I think you asked the key question when you inquired as to what this all looks like in 50 years. It would be an elemental question to our forebears but seems so foreign to us now. We are on such unprecedented ground that I don’t think anyone knows and I have not heard a satisfactory answer to this question. What does the future look like when your civilization has given up? The last time thhis came up was likely the year 400 in Rome…. and we saw how that story played out.
Keep up the great work! You are the one who brought me to Ricochet and I am grateful to you for that as well as the many many thought provoking interviews.
2.Vectorman
The hour goes quickly when listening to Mr. Pipes.
He spoke of the typical leftist (anti-American, anti-Israeli) attitudes on the campus – does this also spill into the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department?
I wonder if he (or anyone else) can comment how much of our Israel / Mideast Policy can be changed if a more enlightened White House comes into being?
3.Claire Berlinski
Would anyone but me be eager to have transcripts of podcasts like these? I never seem to have the time to listen to them, but I’d love to read them.
2.Repubblica(http://www.repubblica.it)
Daniel Pipes: "Quello di Netanyahu al Congresso un appello di impatto che smonta l'accordo tra Iran e Obama"
Il presidente del Middle East Forum, un think tank conservatore, considerato un "falco" sulle questioni medio-orientali: "Il premier israeliano ha toccato tutti i punti-chiave del problema iraniano intrecciando l'intelligenza del ragionamento con appelli emotivi"
di ARTURO ZAMPAGLIONE
04 marzo 2015
NEW YORK - Presidente da vent'anni del Middle East Forum, un think tank conservatore, e considerato un "falco" sulle questioni medio-orientali, Daniel Pipes mette le mani avanti: "Non sono mai stato tenero nei confronti di Benjamin Netanyahu". Una premessa, questa, che serve a Pipes per non apparire schiacciato sulle posizioni del premier israeliano: eppure il suo giudizio del discorso di ieri al Congresso è a dir poco entusiasta. "È stato un testo scritto e pronunciato in modo brillante", dice Pipes a Repubblica: "Ha toccato tutti i punti-chiave del problema iraniano intrecciando l'intelligenza del ragionamento con appelli molto emotivi".
Perché la Casa Bianca si era opposta con tanta tenacia alla visita del premier? I giornali conservatori hanno parlato di sei settimane di "capricci".
"Lo si è capito bene ascoltando il discorso: il premier ha smontato sistematicamente tutte le posizioni di Obama e dei suoi negoziatori, avvertendo che il risultato delle trattative sarà di spianare la strada alla bomba atomica iraniana e che non bisogna credere che l'attuale regime di Teheran sia meglio dei precedenti".
Ritiene che il premier israeliano sia stato in grado di cambiare le opinioni dei politici Usa e gli orientamenti della Casa Bianca in un momento in cui l'accordo con Teheran appare a portata di mano?
"Al Congresso non si sta discutendo se bombardare o meno gli impianti atomici iraniani, ma più semplicemente se mantenere l'arma delle sanzioni economiche nei confronti del regime iraniano, come si apprestano a chiedere i repubblicani in una risoluzione con un alto valore simbolico".
Perché un provvedimento del genere sia al riparo dal veto presidenziale occorre una maggioranza dei due terzi: non sarà facile, visto che oltre cinquanta democratici hanno boicottato il discorso del premier.
"A me sembra invece che le parole di Netanyahu abbiano fatto breccia - nel Congresso come nel paese - e che non sia quindi impossibile ottenere una maggioranza ampia a favore delle sanzioni commerciali. Di qui il la mia valutazione positiva. Aggiungo che il discorso aiuterà il premier nelle prossime elezioni, perché gli israeliani apprezzeranno la sua statura internazionale".
© Riproduzione riservata
（End）
