No doubt you'll come across the fact that the latter has a book out about how the left are bad. Chief among his criticism of leftists currently is their association with Muslims. Stop the War's Andrew Murray says of this on CiF:
His method is not in the least bit novel. In one passage he suggests that since the Stop the War Coalition organised demonstrations with the Muslim Association of Britain, and the Muslim Association of Britain is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood looks up to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Qaradawi has made undoubtedly offensive remarks about gays and women ... then the Stop the War Coalition is sexist and homophobic. Even Senator McCarthy might have collapsed through exhaustion before arriving at Cohen's destination.
It's an easy game to play. Nick Cohen writes for the Evening Standard, which is published by Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, which is not just homophobic but Tory so Nick Cohen is ... Conservative? Not yet, not yet.
Actually Cohen's links are a bit easier, as Murray mentions earlier in the article that he has been wined and dined by Paul Wolfowitz in the past.
There is the connection that simply points out how the Evening Standard is a nasty little piece of right wing garbage!
Posted by: Yakoub Islam | 05 February 2007 at 08:58 AM
I'm surprised nobody has attacked Cohen from his Israel-supporting angle. Are his views not really about shoring up support for Zion, dressed up as socialism? Much as the likes of Daniel Pipes' ilk cloaks his views in concern for Western civilization and/or American patriotism?
Posted by: Raashid | 07 February 2007 at 02:23 PM
Raashid, there are probably as many, if not more, Westerners who are strongly pro-Israel as there are Westerners who are strongly anti-Israel, so you can't really "attack" someone by pointing out that they support Israel.
By the way I sometimes wonder if some of the anti-Islam ranting of the American right wing has its motivations in internal American politics. I suspect a lot of Americans dislike savage capitalism and look favorably to the European social-democratic alternative. The rightwing seeks to quash this alternative, by claiming that Europe's welfare state will doom it to the Islamist jackboot.
Posted by: George Carty | 07 February 2007 at 05:38 PM
Agreed GC, but what I mean is that such supporters of Israel often attempt to portray their opposition to Islam as being a stand for some other values: in Cohen's case it's a pretense of upholding socialist values, whereas a Melanie Phillips will cloak her war-cry against Islam in terms of British patriotism. I strongly suspect that in the case of such people, they're not really concerned about either such values Islam is not going to be able to start executing homosexuals in the UK, or force women into veils. Not in our lifetime, maybe never. However, they evoke such frightening scenarios because giving their honest agenda of "I want everyone to reject all Muslim groups because they reject my beloved Israel and I don't want anyone else to support them in that", perhaps wouldn't be as effective.
You may be right in some ways about Islam being a convenient bogeyman in Western domestic politics. Certainly tarring the left as being soft, or even complicit in radical Islam's advance is an effective slur to discredit it.
Posted by: raashid | 08 February 2007 at 03:14 PM
Agreed GC, but what I mean is that such supporters of Israel often attempt to portray their opposition to Islam as being a stand for some other values: in Cohen's case it's a pretense of upholding socialist values, whereas a Melanie Phillips will cloak her war-cry against Islam in terms of British patriotism.
I suspect Muslims actually agree with Melanie Phillips's conservative views (when she isn't damning Muslims, of course).
I heard one American say something like "American Jews believe in liberalism while needing conservatism (because American liberals are often sceptical about Israel), while American Blacks and Muslims believe in conservatism while needing liberalism (because American conservatives are often racist bigots)."
However, they evoke such frightening scenarios because giving their honest agenda of "I want everyone to reject all Muslim groups because they reject my beloved Israel and I don't want anyone else to support them in that", perhaps wouldn't be as effective.
Why don't Zionists just use the old favourite: "The Arabs are all Nazis who want to kill all the Jews. Look at Haj Amin al-Husseini."
Posted by: George Carty | 08 February 2007 at 04:08 PM
I strongly suspect that in the case of such people, they're not really concerned about either such values Islam is not going to be able to start executing homosexuals in the UK, or force women into veils. Not in our lifetime, maybe never.
Never read "Prayers for the Assassin"? It's set in a future "Islamic States of America" with Seattle as it capital, and where San Francisco is in the grip of a Taliban-style group called the "Black Robes". This resulted from terrorist nuclear attacks on New York, Washington and Makkah, blamed on renegade Mossad agents.
The former Confederacy is a breakaway Christian nation called the "Bible Belt". We see here again an attempt to reinforce Southern jingoism, which is currently faced with the dilemma that the South (though the most jingoistic part of America today) was the only region which in the past treasonously seceded from the Union...
Posted by: George Carty | 08 February 2007 at 04:16 PM
I've not read the book though I have had a look at the website. It's highly fanciful: Muslims here in the UK have made virtually no impact on wider society beyond grabbing the headlines with incendiary actions or speeches. Fact is, in a country of 60 million, only a few thousand people have converted to Islam. I'd imagine the figures are statistically even more insignificant in a USA with 300 million people. I don't see how Ferrigno concludes that atom-bombs blamed on Israel would win Americans over to Islam en masse. That's a fantastic leap of imagination. Much like Victor Hanson's comparison of Europeans being the beautiful gentle Eloi of Welles' Time Machine (with Muslims being those underground ape-like beings). He's also used the Lord of the Rings comparison, with Muslims filling in for the Orcs of Mordor, wussy Europeans as Ents and of course heroic Americans as the Free people of Middle Earth!
I sometimes think that both sides of this clash of civilization merely see it as an opportunity to tell a flattering story about themselves.
Posted by: raashid | 09 February 2007 at 08:58 AM
I've not read the book though I have had a look at the website. It's highly fanciful: Muslims here in the UK have made virtually no impact on wider society beyond grabbing the headlines with incendiary actions or speeches.
Ferrigno posited conversions of celebrities as one of the impetuses. I think he's expressing a general anxiety among secular and weakly religious people that "it is the strictest religions that are the most effective" (and you can't get much stricter than Islam). Think of the rise of both Salafism in the Islamic world and Evangelical Christianity in the United States.
Fact is, in a country of 60 million, only a few thousand people have converted to Islam. I'd imagine the figures are statistically even more insignificant in a USA with 300 million people.
You're wrong. Compared to other Western countries, a much higher proportion of the USA's Muslims are converts (mostly Blacks).
I don't see how Ferrigno concludes that atom-bombs blamed on Israel would win Americans over to Islam en masse.
The nuke attacks were just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Much like Victor Hanson's comparison of Europeans being the beautiful gentle Eloi of Welles' Time Machine (with Muslims being the Morlocks).
What is the best way to counteract this type of American-supremacist propaganda? By the way, I think nuclear MAD was the main reason why the Europeans have lost their old martial values.
Posted by: George Carty | 10 February 2007 at 10:41 AM
"A book about how the left is bad?" It's a bit more nuanced than that, Osama.
He doesn't have a lot of time for the MAB though, you're right. As Scottish spokesman, what do you think the punishment for leaving the Muslim faith should be, or homosexuality?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 20 February 2007 at 12:28 PM
No punishment for leaving the Muslim faith and none for leaving homosexuality either!
Just taking lessons from you in interpretation John. Seriously, none for your latter question either.
If Muslims had been pro-war none of this would come up. Disagree with the policy and straw men are created.
Posted by: Osama | 20 February 2007 at 01:55 PM
That was actually quite funny.
You're right about how if more Muslims (I'm not going to attribute a single mindset to any particular religious or ethnic grouping) were pro-war this wouldn't have come up - but seeing as how much of the book is about how the anti-war left turn a blind eye to odious far right opinions just because the people expressing them are also anti-war, or anti-American as Cohen would have it, it's difficult to see how that can be avoided.
Straw men or not, there are some Muslims who do believe the punishement for apostasy, homosexuality or adultery should be death, just there are some wackos who take the Bible literally and believe similar rubbish too. Is it wrong to say those opinions are reprehensible and counter to traditional left-wing views?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 20 February 2007 at 02:19 PM
Not being funny, I clicked on the "Murray smashes Cohen" because I thought you might have done a post on my favourite sport and one of it's rising stars. Am disappointed, that there's no post about tennis, but never mind.
Posted by: aineliva | 20 February 2007 at 08:35 PM