I'll argue the converse: the character of "religious extremism" varies according to political dictates. In other words, persons motivated primarily or solely by religion are relatively rare, while religious cover for political motives are more common. While certainly genuine religious radicals exist -- Savonarola, David Koresh, and Westboro Baptist Church -- they are the exceptions, and tend to be fairly unsuccessful. Radical right-wing Christians, "Eretz Yisrael" advocates, and violent Islamists, I would argue, are primarily political radicals who use, wittingly or not, religion as justification for their beliefs and ends.

Modern Islamism, and in particular its radical strain, is more the result of political and cultural conflicts arising from the Arab world's experience with the Ottoman Empire, its brief flirtation with independence, the imposition of a European mandate, subsequent decolonization, and place as a Cold War strategic theater, coupled with economic and cultural changes caused by oil wealth, and the friction created by the location (and dislocations) of the modern Israeli state. (It is worth recalling that Khomeini's revolutionary rhetoric gave primacy not to Muslims per se but to the mustadh'afin -- "downtrodden," or "oppressed" -- regardless of religion or nationality, resulting in, for example, strong links between Iran and the IRA.)

This is a particular case of a larger pattern.

Mid-century development theory posited that neoliberal hegemony would eventually result in a secure economic and social position for the peoples of the world, and that the primary development risk came from dislocations occurring as part of the development process. In other words, the liberal American position says that radicalization (in mid-century terms exclusive to Communism and socialism, though in the light of recent events one can add any number of other movements, including radical Islamism and narcoguerilla violence) is a temporary phase that, if properly managed, will fade as prosperity, democracy, and social equality develop. This view represented a consensus within the American Cold War elite, even though significant political faultlines developed based on other factors (e.g, rollback versus containment). Indeed, arguably no American President of the modern age has challenged this consensus, though both the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations hosted dissenting views.

Conversely, the antiliberal position -- associated traditionally with former colonial powers such as France and Britain, as well as Israel and, more recently, the American right -- states that these conflicts are intractable and inherent to the north-south system. In the 1970s, for example, this led to British and French outrage that Nixon and Kissinger led the rapprochement with Mao, who they saw as the major international threat.

This latter position (which one might term "Maxim-Gun diplomacy," after Belloc) tends to look for cultural roots of conflict, and disparage contingent explanations. Thus, they might argue, the conflict between Israeli settlers and Palestinians is not rooted in physical and social dislocation and consequent socioeconomic poverty, but is simply an irruption of an existing and essentially metaphysical conflict between North and South, between reason and fanaticism, the Occident and Orient, Europe and Asia. This leads to the conclusion that diplomatic failures in the Middle East are not contingent but necessary; diplomacy is treachery; and successful diplomacy an existential threat. (It should be obvious that this latter theory of conflict is shared by radical Islamists, leading to reciprocal reinforcement by enemy action.)

It remains to be seen if the liberal view of conflict-as-contingency is indeed correct relative to the cultural view; beyond these two concepts, it is uncertain if neoliberalism can stand on its own given the experience of economic development in resource-rich states and the threat of resource depletion. If neoliberalism undergoes its own "strange death," we should expect a long period of unmediated religiously- and culturally-justified conflict.

Rosenberg is a shallow coward who thinks of himself as a big-shot and will do anything to protect his position. Anything (His obsession with AIPAC is personal. Someone there insulted him and he's determined to get revenge). Which makes him the worst of human beings in any moral schema worthy of the name.

His whole analysis of religion and its extremists is wrong on every level. Human beings don't need religion to be extreme. Extremists are extreme only in their courage and charisma. If there are spoils to be had and pain to the inflicted "little people" will join in by the millions, if the risks aren't too great, and rapidly change sides if they are. Those are the characteristics which make them "little".

The modern state of Israel was founded by religious extremists. The First and Second Aliyahs were mainly composed of Orthodox, as were Jews who had emigrated to Palestine at even earlier dates.
It's true that the extremist Rabbi Levinger was the first to insist upon massive settlement of the conquered territories but the government had already annexed East Jerusalem and announced a plan to settle the Etzion Bloc and the land bordering the Jordan river. Levinger was successful precisely because the larger Israeli public supported his ideas (For the details see
"What shall I do with this people?" by Milton Viorst, pages 201-220).

Similarly, extreme Arab Islamists are successful because of the support they enjoy among the larger population...who want Israel destroyed and the West banished from the Middle East.

"I do think that Islamic scripture has more support for Islamic Jihad, Islamic Imperialism, Islamic Supremacism and Islamic Conquest than the scriptures of Judaism or Christianity; But leaders don't always follow their scriptures, do they?"

Ummm... no. I will grant that leaders do not necessarily follow their scriptures. The needs of Ceasar rarely coincide with the needs of spirit, and one invariably becomes the servant of the other to the detriment of all.

But there isn't anything particularly imperial or supreme about Islam relative to other world religions. Open up a random page in the Old Testament and there is a good chance you will find YHVH railing against Israelites for transgressions or supporting them to military conquest. The Mahabarata is full of explicit and gory warfighting that deals with the right of conquest.

Part of the problem is that the doctrine of "one true faith" creates fanatics. Therefore, it isn't particular faiths that are the problem, it is the fanatics who, if they gain power of the political and religious authority, will resort to repression, violence, and ignorance.

I mean, hell, didn't Conrad already mine this territory in "Heart of Darkness"? This problem, one that marks all atrocity, is one of human nature, of which belief is an extensio--not an attribute. What colors the atrocity is culture, but the atrocity remains an atrocity.

What is a greater atrocity:

1. The shootings at Ft. Hood

2. The suicide bombings and rockets that kill innocents in Tel Aviv

3. The targeted missile attacks on civilian populations in Gaza

4. The invasion and occupation of Iraq

5. The systematic starvation of the third world.

6. The manufacture and sale of conventional weapons by the hundreds of billion per annum.

In my opinion, the practices that lead to numbers 5 and 6 are directly responsible for the first four. That is the real atrocity, and it is one whose ideology is recent, and is a perversion of its founder Adam Smith.

"What is the difference between this abomination of a book and "Meine Kampf?"

Six million?

It is not that there are no people out there, including Jewish people, who are incapable of being the next Hitler, but there is something fundamentally sick about the ongoing and concerted efforts by so many to draw analogies between Israel, or some Jews, and the Nazis.
Some might think that I distract from discourse with these protestations. I really don't give a fuck.

Wonderful crowd your attracting these days MJ. But boy are you brave when you take on Anna. Sleep well.

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York.

This question of your is absurd. MJ hardly talks about countries other than Israel and the US. Most of his columns on the US concern its policies or attitudes towards Israel and Palestine. Mentions of Nazis have actually been quite rare here, but the extent they occasionally appear they could only make sense or be relevant in comparison to Israel or the US. (One could conceive of parallels to the Palestinians too, but the Nazis only became a historically powerful menace after taking control of a major state. The Palestinians have never had a state.) Speaking of relevancy: THAT -why there is no Palestinian state yet- is a important question you might try addressing, instead of what side of the bed this or that commentator got out of or hopelessly superficial and extraneous speculation about the psychology of other posters.
You have the brains and knowledge, why not apply them to making a substantive contribution to a conversation of societal significance?

Blue Pearl. You are ahead in the game. You may get the prize. Keep trying. How about a donation from me in your name to Doctors without Borders if you win? I will not donate to Hamas lol.

Sticks and stones. Full disclosure. If you choose to answer my question about why you don't like Nazi analogies, I reserve the right to distribute your response depending on how important I believe it is to the public discourse. I don't want to mislead you into thinking this is necessarily just between us guys.

I a very appreciative reader most of the time, here, but am not a happy camper this time, MJ.

I managed six minutes of the video of Mohammed Omer. It is not a pleasant subject, but what bothered me was not the vicious brutality suffered but the utter lack of corroboration of the account thereof.

Although he calls himself a journalist, Omer was not acting in that capacity at all here. I understand, this is his personal story. Burningly recent in his memory. And it takes courage to just to stand up and convey the basics. But what about you, or your colleagues in the media business? Where, in this thread, on the Youtube information page, in some link somewhere, where are the independent sources, where are the facts, where is the evidence?

Go to any AIPAC-like source and you can get mountains of 180 opposite stories. The IDF goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, they always give lots of advance warning, Palestinians are notorious for using human shields, and staging incidents to trick Western reporters. There is not a great deal of doubt in my mind as to which side the truth lies closer to, but why do I have to totally estimate it all myself? What is the purpose of thousands of journalists covering the Mideast if not to provide factual information?

This is serious business, it is not a matter for for he-said, she-said games.

I am sure there are lots of facts in Goldstone. I am also sure that it is a turgid tome full of longwinded legalese. No time for that either.

Facts, Sources, Evidence. AIPAIC et al understand this very well, and apply it, even though the facts and the evidence tend NOT to support them. What is so hard about non-AIPACers being credible?

Seeing as you're in the mood of answering questions, here is a few for you.

You keep choosing defamatory headlines, and/or declare that F Hood carnage was inspired by Islam. And now you have Judaism in your sight. Please justify.

You keep advertising AIPAC, and Likud as so strong, and resourceful, etc. Please justify.

You keep promoting a world view entirely through Israel's eyes under the guise of withering criticism of Israeli policies. Please justify.