Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
The incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Peter King, plans to hold hearings next year on the “radicalization of the American Muslim community and homegrown terrorism.” Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR predictably has deplored this as a program for a "witch hunt."
Every time the names "Ibrahim Hooper" and "CAIR" appear in the media without a word of qualification or explanation, an Enlightenment Fairy dies. But I'm so used to seeing this that it's not even what leapt out at me. What I noticed--and what I imagine will go unremarked--is this. Peter King wrote an op-ed for Newsday explaining that he's not an anti-Muslim bigot:
So what's the story that CAIR and the mainstream media aren't telling you?
Before 9/11, few if any American politicians had a closer relationship with the Muslim community and its leadership than I did. During my first months in Congress in 1993, I traveled to the Balkans - including Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo - to support that region's Muslims from aggression by Serbian Orthodox Christians. I was one of a bare handful of Republicans who supported President Bill Clinton's military offensives in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1998.
I attended the Islamic Center of Long Island (ICLI) in Westbury on a regular basis, visited socially with local Muslim leaders, had Muslim students intern in my office, and advocated for Pakistan's position against India in Kashmir.
He did what? Why? This is one of the world's major nuclear flashpoints, a leading candidate for "most dangerous conflict in the world." For more than half a century the US has taken exceptional pains to be exceedingly circumspect in its language about Kashmir: "Our policy is to encourage dialogue aimed at narrowing differences and preventing violence, and we intend to remain actively engaged with both countries toward this end," that sort of thing. We don't "take sides," and we always mention "the wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory." Any deviation from the script would not only be noticed but seized upon by all parties concerned.
Did the new chairman of the US House Committee on Homeland Security really advocate for Pakistan's side in this conflict? I checked the Congressional Record. Indeed, in 2000 he called India "a hostile country." His lobbying and voting record reflect this.
The man is definitely not an anti-Muslim bigot, no worries there. But who could blame the Indians if they're reluctant to share intelligence with him? This clearly has some bearing on homeland security, so it's hardly a trivial point.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Having read Congressman King's op-ed I don't see why he takes a pro-security view on Homeland Security and support Pakistan's decades long insurgency in Kashmir.
I would've thought the reasons were already clear, especially to Congressman King, a long-time supporter of the IRA. One need not look across the world to understand the dynamics of close-knit immigrant communities. California is witness to what occurs when the line is blurred between ethnicity and nationality. Southall & Birmingham in London might as well be Lahore or Amritsar with their inherent prejudices and harsh communal pressures.
I don't begrudge immigrants wanting the benefits of Western nations, nor am I discounting their contributions to them. Still, there's something wrong when the benefits of technology and globalization allow immigrants to consider themselves to be literal extensions of their former nations, and we are seeing the effects all around us.
In other words, Indian food=totally cool. The fight between Indian and Pakistani communities in Chicago over Jinnah Street or Gandhi Road, not so much.
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Unfortunately, Anang seems to be right about King and the IRA. This story is not improving for me.
May '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
I'd rather put Opie and Anthony in charge of Homeland Security than this LI schlub. Maybe the water's different in Suffolk County.
Dec '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Rep. Pete King's affinity for the IRA can be pretty easily explained by the fact the he and his core constituents (NYC firemen and policemen) are Irish. OK, he's not 100% purely against any form of terrorism, regardless of the source and the target. As far as Kashmir goes, I really doubt that his interest is/was the kind that endures over the course of years.
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Douglas, he himself just brought it up--and called attention to it--again. And did while this is going on--today.
The ethnic origins of his constituency might explain his support for the IRA, but sure doesn't excuse it.
Dec '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Douglas, he himself just brought it up--and called attention to it--again. · Dec 21 at 5:11am
Are you referring to this statement, Claire? "... and advocated for Pakistan's position against India in Kashmir."
If that's what you're referring to by saying that "he just brought it up", this was done for obvious political reasons, and doesn't represent current support for one side over the other.
~ My mission is to browse about the Internet, soothing people's nerves.
Sep '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
I hate to play Freud here, but I can only guess the King sees some analogy between the Protestant Catholic tensions in Ireland (and by extension, England) and the tensions between Pakistan and India. I hope he gets placed on a 24x7 body cavity search list by the TSA and Homeland Security.
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Given that he's the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I see this as unlikely.
Jul '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Given that he once said there are "...too many mosques in this country..." and that he pooh-poohed the mourning of the passing of Michael Jackson by noting that MJ was a "child molester", I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Dec '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
I'm inclined to nominate him for POTUS, but no one would care.
Sep '10
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Given that he's the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I see this as unlikely. · Dec 21 at 7:08am
This sounds like one of those Get Smart routines:
"Would you believe?...."
Re: Why Did Peter King "Take Pakistan's Side" on Kashmir?
Claire, I'm with you 100 percent on this one. But my disquiet at King's slap to the side of India's head goes beyond the immediate vagaries of Kashmir.
While our short-term national security interests force a very uncomfortable (and unstable) partnership with Pakistan, there's no question in my mind that India is the power most congenial to America's long-term interests in the region. Whenever we do get around to that Asian century (it's always just around the corner, isn't it?), we need them on our side of the table at least as much as South Korea, Japan, et al.
And here I had all that goodwill built up for King after the Michael Jackson remark ...