Peters used to have no problema with antagonizing Muslims

Justin T., who revealed to us Ralph Peter’s earlier statements condemning Islam, has further enlightening information:

I used to be very impressed by Peters’ work, but it seems like ever since he got his regular column in the NY Post he has floundered intellectually. In the past, he has defended Samuel Huntington for his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis, yet I wonder, with his new-found political correctness, if he would do so today.

Another thing he said in his little NY Post rant was that “…there’s a Realpolitik reason not to insult all Muslims: In the serious world of strategy and the military, you don’t make unnecessary enemies… We’ve got our hands full in the Middle East. Why alienate the Muslims of Indonesia or West Africa (or California)?”

Yet, rule # 16 of his essay, “When Devils Walk the Earth” (2001), says: “Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations.” [Italics added.] Rule # 24 says, “In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West’s. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded off limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.” [Italics added.] Finally, at the end of the essay, he states, “Begin with the study of the classical world-specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable to their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire’s attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed.”

Would he utter such words today? Was not the annihilation of Carthage genocide?

Elsewhere in that essay, he makes the following comments about Islam:

• “Contrary to recommending that believers “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Muslims expect Caesar to render unto their faith…”

• “The power of the Crusader myth in today’s Middle East has far more to do with the perception of collective failure and vulnerability than with reality—after all, the Islamic Ottomans conducted a centuries-long, much more successful crusade against Europe thereafter, and Islamic warriors threatened the marches of Europe well into the nineteenth century. Islamic invaders did far more damage to the Ukraine and Poland than the Crusaders did to Palestine. Those in the Middle East who cite the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem as an act of peerless historical viciousness might do well to remember Islam’s conquest of Constantinople and Budapest, and the Ottoman progress to the gates of Vienna. If the streets of Jerusalem ran with blood, so did the streets-and churches-of Constantinople.”

• “While well-intentioned Westerners have gone to great lengths to refute Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “clash of civilizations,” the man in the street in the Islamic world believes, intuitively, that the clash has been going on for a very long time, and no argument will dissuade him from his delicious belief in Western malevolence.”

I really don’t feel like going any further. I am saddened by the fact that Peters has strayed from his old-ways to appease the politically correct. May he regain his senses, and soon.

I feel horrible citing him in this manner, but on this I simply think he is wrong, and I think he knows he is, too. Maybe I’ll drop him an e-mail and discuss this with him.

Michael E. writes:

According to Ralph Peters the Muslims of Indonesia are moderate and we should be courting them. Nonsense. According to this story in Ha’aretz Indonesia refused to grant a visa to an Israeli journalist to attend a conference on tolerance sponsored by Indonesia and Norway because he was an Israeli. I am glad Peters did all that research on Indonesia.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 13, 2006 10:27 PM | Send