click here to jump to start of article
  • Torah Reading: Naso
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

On Being Borked

On Being Borked

How foes distorted my record.


In the months since President Bush nominated me to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, confirmation etiquette has obliged me not to talk about my nomination. I thus found myself having to remain mute as opponents said what they would about me.

For five months, I quietly endured Sen. Edward Kennedy borking me as someone not "committed to bridging differences and bringing peace" and a Washington Post editorial criticizing me as "a destroyer" of cultural bridges, among other slings.

Fortunately, others responded on my behalf; for example, Sen. Chuck Schumer and the Los Angeles Times both endorsed my nomination.

My months of silence finally came to an end last Friday, when President Bush invoked his constitutional authority (Article II, Section 2) to recess-appoint me and eight others; we will serve through the end of the current session of Congress, or January 2005.

But the accusations remain painful to me. I've spent two-thirds of my life studying the Middle East, learned the Arabic language, traveled the Muslim world, lived three years in Cairo, taught courses on the region at Harvard and specialized on it at the State and Defense departments.

In short, my career has been exactly devoted to "bridging differences and bringing peace."

So, how did some come to discern me as hostile to Islam? I see this resulting from two main developments.

Distortion: My political opponents -- Islamists, Palestinian irredentists, the far left -- cherry-pick through my record, then triumphantly brandish selectively-quoted snippets to malign me.

Consider the following, from a 1990 article of mine. Although I pooh-poohed the idea of a Muslim threat, I acknowledged that Western Europe (as opposed to the United States) could have problems with Muslim immigration because Europeans "are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene."

Out of context, this seems to show hostility to Muslims. But my opponents:

  • Ignore my having explained that "brown-skinned peoples" and "strange foods" were quotes of then-current European views, not my sentiments. (In retrospect, I should have placed those words in quotation marks.)
  • Never quote two subsequent sentences: "The movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."

It is on the basis of such distortions that my critics built their case.

Confusion: I strenuously draw a distinction between the religion of Islam and the ideology of militant Islam; "militant Islam is the problem. moderate Islam is the solution" has virtually become my mantra. But these are novel and complex ideas. As a result, my enmity toward militant Islam sometimes gets misunderstood as hostility toward Islam itself.

I believe this distinction -- between Islam and militant Islam -- stands at the heart of the War on Terror.

For example, last Saturday the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a front-page story about my appointment in which I am quoted saying: "Conflict without violence is the goal. We have differences with all our allies, but there is no possibility of resorting to force with them, and that is the goal which we all hope for. But that is not where we find ourselves now, as we found in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot always rely on nonviolent methods."

Not understanding my argument, the headline writer paraphrased this analysis as "Pipes says Muslim war might be needed." In fact, it should have been "Pipes says war on militant Islam might be needed."

I believe this distinction -- between Islam and militant Islam -- stands at the heart of the War on Terror and urgently needs to be clarified for non-specialists. The most effective way to do so, I expect, is by giving voice to the Muslim victims of Islamist totalitarianism.

Come to think of it, that sounds like the sort of activity that the U.S. Institute of Peace might wish to consider undertaking as part of its mission to "promote the prevention, management and peaceful resolution of international conflicts."

Proposing projects like this is one reason why I look forward to serving on the USIP board.

August 30, 2003

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 4

(4) Rebecca Witonsky, September 4, 2003 12:00 AM

Thank G-d for Daniel Pipes

We need more people in the U.S. government and academia who aren't afraid to speak the truth about totalitarianism and oppression in the Arab world and to advocate for Israel. Middle Eastern studies is dominated by apologists for repressive regimes, and that needs to change.

(3) Jeffrey A. Pomykala, August 31, 2003 12:00 AM

Kudos Mr. Pipes

Mr. Pipes
While there may be many who misconstrue your words and meanings--mostly because the refuse to see the shortcomings of their "own" people, and would rather blame everyone else for their own problems, there are also many who share your views and insights into the issue of MILITANT Islam. Hang in there and keep up the great work! It is only through REAL TRUTH and OBJECTIVITY that the scourge of militant Islam can be defeated...and to do so, we MUST convince the multi-millions of moderate, enlightened Muslims to SPEAK UP and DENOUNCE in words AND deeds, the barbaric and UNGODLY evil deeds of militant Islam who, unfortunately, have their base in totalitarian, theocratic countries that have one goal -- the destruction of Israel....

May there be TRUE PEACE in Israel...soon.

(2) Ian, August 31, 2003 12:00 AM

At least one wise person in the government

Pipes has a clear vision and thank goodness he's not afraid to speak the truth. I'm an American living in Europe and I see first-hand that what Mr. Pipes always maintained. It shows how the Bush administration misconstrues, manipulates and perverts everything that is true and which could really 'bridge differences'. I feel George Bush Jr. has proved himself the REAL friend of militant Islamists, latest proof, the 20 million dollars given to the Palestinian Authority. Daniel Pipes is at least one person who has understood that one solution could be to give voice to the repressed Muslims who fear for their lives if they dared to speak out and rebel against their countries' totalitarian systems.

(1) Adam Neira, August 31, 2003 12:00 AM

One pure breath...

Slandering and libelling someone is easy. They are the tools of the feeble minded. Raising awareness about historical truths and trying to uplift humankind is difficult.

Lies seem powerful, but in reality they are weak. Evil hates to be exposed because then it loses all it's power.

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment