Horowitz Did Us A Favor

If I understand Anthony’s arguments, he is saying that

1. (some) Arabs, angered over Israel’s injustices, incorrectly associate all Jews and all Americans with support for these injustices, and as a result direct their hatred and violence towards these groups
2. Horowitz makes the same incorrect association by assuming that all people who fail to condemn terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are in league with the terrorists.
3. Therefore, just as terrorist organizations are wrong to target all Jews and Americans, Horowitz is wrong to associate terrorist sympathizers with terrorist organizations.

I’ll try to outline my problems with this:

First, the root cause of Muslim extremist violence towards Jews and Christians isn’t Israel, it’s theology. The Barbary war in the Mediterranean exemplifies this- during the prelude to the war, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with an ambassador from Tripoli in London, who told them “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” The 1797 treaty emphasized this, as the American diplomats were careful to emphasize that the USA was not, in fact, a strictly ‘Christian’ nation, hoping to get better terms.

Second, the irrationality of their motives is irrelevant. For the young lady in the video, it is likely that she is influenced by the situation in Israel, as she was sporting a PLO scarf. But she not only failed to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah, she expressed support for their stated goal of killing all Jews. The fact that her reasoning may be faulty (i.e., all Jews support Israel’s injustices, which Anthony assumed was her reasoning) doesn’t change the fact that she is a terrorist sympathizer. (Anthony- would you say that some terrorist action against Israel is legitimate?)

Third, as for MSA’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, I don’t know and I don’t care. I believe this was Horowitz’s point in changing the question on her- even if there is no official relationship between MSA and the Brotherhood, they share the same ideology.

Fourth- how does Horowitz demonstrate anger towards the Middle East?

Fifth- do you have an historical example of a ‘better relationship’ between a Muslim nation resulting in less violence?

Sixth- “But can we win this complex war by being more extreme and having large bullets, or do we win by rising above these irrational arguments of hatred?” My point exactly. The fact that we see their arguments as irrational is immaterial- and they don’t care if we’re persuaded by their logic.

Seventh- Your p.s.s.- There is no evidence of Horowitz hating all Arabs, and if he did, I would gladly condemn that sentiment.

To conclude, I posted the video on YouTube because it demonstrates that even well-off Americans in higher education are not free from extremist philosophies, and I was impressed with the way that Horowitz turned the question back on the girl. She was arguing that the MSA has no connections with extremist groups, and by the end admitted that she wanted the killing of all Jews.

Horowitz’s question didn’t pose a fallacy- either you oppose the extremism of groups like Hamas, or you support them. You write tongue-in-cheek “Do you condemn Hezebolla? Do you Hate Hamas? Because if you don't you're a terrorist and should be targeted as one,” but this makes sense to me. If you are unwilling to condemn a terrorist organization (and remember- she went beyond this, to express support), you are at least a sympathizer.

Horowitz is a chump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE
ok so before I start I must admit I'm not well versed on Horowitz' arguments, (Though a short perusal of Wikipedia makes me think I'd be further upset when his arguments are fully developed).

However, the clip of him angering some liberal college student posted by my fellow blogger merits a response. There are a few things going on in this short clip so I want to be clear; First I don't condone this girl being a hamas or whatever she admits to in the end of the clip. Rather I want to critique his logical progression which moves from answering her simple, if poorly articulated, question.

Her question--though poorly asked--is; How is MSA a Terrorist Organization?

Rather than answering, 'there have been isolated incidents of a limited number of MSA students who have had some association with known terrorists,' he responds with a question attempted to flush out secret Jew/American haters. Will you condemn Hezbollah?

Some might say this is the only way to determine if someone is a terrorist. Find out if they will condemn terrorists--

Before we go further we should analyze the viewpoint that engenders this extremism. Arabs who hate Israel for historic feuds or isolated issues of violence toward the Arab world (beating the shit out of a couple Palestinians) take their anger toward Israeli policy and anger over the historical Israel and make the absurd leap--All of Israel has committed these acts and is now our enemy. Yet this leap is not enough--all Jewish people should also be hated. But they go further--All people who support Israel should be hated. But they go further--All White Americans should be hated because they all support Israel. White Americnas support Israel even if they don't explicitly say so because they don't stand up and condemn Israels actions. If you can't stand before Muslums and condemn Israel you're an enemy and should be targeted.

It is easy to see the flaw in this thinking. Most Americans don't even know who Palestinians are and could care less about the historical feud in the middle east. But it is unchecked anger that engenders irrational terrorism.

Unfortunately, Horowitz has stumbled into this same logical reasoning. Do you condemn Hezebolla? Do you Hate Hamas? Because if you don't you're a terrorist and should be targeted as one.

Is it clear that the same logical steps made by extremest Arabs are being made by Horowitz?

If we're supposed to be fighting extremism we should be attacking it at it's root--attacking extremists violent and irrational ideology. Instead we're succumbing to the worst part of extremism, putting a target on anyone who even looks like they might harbor some terrorism.

Is this the best way to build relationships with the middle east or is this a race to the bottom?

It's also clear how quickly his irrational anger toward the middle east fosters more anger from this girl. I'll grant that it is stupid on her part to stoop to his level of playground violence 'if you're not for me you're a target' and if you don't agree with my argument you're my enemy. (It's also obvious he pulls this stunt on ignorant 20 somethings on every campus) But can we win this complex war by being more extreme and having large bullets, or do we win by rising above these irrational arguments of hatred?

I'm not saying we should let terrorists roam free--but a response that comes from analyzing evidence of terrorism and dealing justice is more effective than ignorantly painting a target on the entire middle east and shouting--Terrorist!




PS. --now that I've perused more of Horowitz I was correct--I'm more angered. Though not so angered that i'm going to go out and paint all neoconservative tea partiers as people full of hatred toward Arabs.

pss. tim if you don't condemn Horowitz you must hate all Arabs--no wait, you must hate all people who are not white... wait even some people who are white--heck hate everyone, ask questions later...