Reply to Dr. Pipes implicit point that Arab sponsored anti-semitism is no longer a problem....

Submitted by Bryan Taplits (United States), May 21, 2017 at 11:47

These comments refer only to the 1st point of Dr. Pipes article. His conclusion (based on the four points he raises) may very well be correct, and probably are, since he is a long known scholar in this area. However, the first point-in my opinion-is a major flaw in the foundation of his full argument.

I believe that this paraphrase I make of Dr. Pipes first point is fair: He says that since Arab governments no longer officially call for the elimination of Israel, this fact indicates a huge change. However, will and does this matter?

While Arab governments may have indeed changed in their outlook vis a vis Israel (and let's assume they have; and it is not just a political determination due to the Trump presidency), it seems to me that looking at the populace and how it feels about Israel's survival makes a huge difference, and this is why:

Terrorist organizations who wish the demise of Israel (and whom I believe are historically anti-Jewish and not just anti-Zionist) must be funded in order to organize and fulfill their terrorist ambitions. Many of these funds come from Arab lands; so why should one believe that the wishes of Arab governments are relevant? It would be interesting to see a poll on what would be the Arab citizen advocacy on the elimination of Israel, particularly before and after the '67 War.

Moreover, the new pogroms are-it is my belief-terrorist actions. It is no longer necessary for states to sponsor pogroms; since money is moveable, fungible and anti-Semitism is (and, as it always has been, due in part to the minority status of Jews and the envy which is elicited, this being due to perceived Jewish arrogance, and, perhaps, even to Jewish stubborness) prevalent.

Why isn't the likelihood of these terrorist organizations being funded by anti-semites from around the world even mentioned in Dr. Pipes first point; it seems to me that this should be a relevant consideration to his first point's argument.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".