Tweet
DANISH CARTOON CONTROVERSY INFLAMES 'CLASH OF CIVILATIONS'
Michael Mirliss
Staff Writer
The Graphic, Malibu
April 17 2006
Samuel Huntington, who predicted the "clash of civilizations," has
been getting much mileage out of his theory post Sept. 11. Naturally,
the phrase is used in the West, not as an objective evaluation of
the world climate, but as a euphemism for "the barbarians want to
destroy our blessed civilization."
These analysts were thrilled with the recent Islamic uproar over
those Danish cartoons, making their familiar cries of Islamo-fascism
at their intolerance of a free press. This was ample evidence that
the secular West and mainstream Islam are incompatible, right?
Islamists really do hate U.S. freedoms.
A look at the facts, however, shows that the Danish cartoonists had
a clear objective to provoke, as evidenced by their tour of Egypt
in which they paraded the newspaper cartoons and more unpublished
material, portraying the prophet Mohammed as everything from a
terrorist to a pedophile.
Denmark's government is run by ultraconservatives and anti-Arab
sentiment runs rampant in the land of this war-on-terror ally. The
cartoons were not perceived as a few cartoonists expressing themselves,
but quite justifiably, as another Western attack on all that Muslims
consider sacred. And while this was allowed by the European free press,
Holocaust and Armenian genocide denial are not.
They seem to recognize the importance of prohibiting the provocation
of certain groups, but not Muslims.
This kind of hypocrisy runs rampant in the United States as well.
Those politicians who hail the Islamic "rejection" of the free press
as an indication that they "hate our freedom," are the same people
who seek to pass sedition laws on the home-front, limiting freedom
of speech in wartimes.
Some keen observers still remember the Christian reaction when Martin
Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," hit theaters in 1988. Not
only were there mass protests throughout the United States and Europe,
but a theater in Paris was burned to the ground, killing one person. To
understand why the Muslim protests became so violent, it is necessary
to revisit the roots of the so-called "clash of civilizations."
Muslims perceive the United States as having precipitated a war on
the Arab world that began many years ago. This perception is not
without merit. In 1958 President Eisenhower questioned the "campaign
of hatred" against the United States. The answer came back from the
National Security Counsel saying, "In the eyes of the majority of
Arabs, the United States appears to be opposed to the goals of Arab
(secular) nationalism.
They believe the United States is seeking to protect its interest in
Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or
economic progress." In the late 50s, they "hated" the United States
for blocking democracy and development.
Flash forward to the War on Terror." The U.S. government's apparent
aim in fighting these wars has little to do with reducing the threat
of terror. Take the case of Syria, which is on the United States
list of states sponsoring terrorism. In 2004 the Bush administration
imposed further sanctions on the nation despite the admission that
Syria had not been implicated in terrorist acts in many years and had
been cooperative in providing the United States with intelligence on
al-Qaeda and other such groups.
Why the sanctions then? The answer lies in how quickly Clinton was
prepared to take Syria off the list if they agreed to U.S.-Israeli
peace terms. The priority here is the continued backing of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine through economic support, or lack thereof,
in Syria's case.
Even more evident was the invasion of Iraq and former U.S.-backed
dictator, Saddam Hussein, which U.S. intelligence agencies had warned
would increase the risk of terror.
The National Intelligence Agency reported that "Iraq and other
possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training
grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are 'professionalized.'" Indeed, 5 percent to 10
percent of the foreign insurgency had no prior record of association
with terrorist groups.
The ongoing U.S. economic relationship with the Saudi royal family is
another telling aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The
arrangement provides for the flow of oil and money to the West
while domestic human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and impoverished
citizens in the region are ignored. It's not surprising that 16 of
the 20 terrorists involved in Sept. 11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. This
country, led by an ultra-fundamentalist regime, has been a breeding
ground for terrorists for many years, but that doesn't prevent the
United States from doing business with them.
The answer to why Middle-Eastern Arabs hate us doesn't have much to
do with Islamic fundamentalism. Suicide terrorism expert Robert Pape
argues that al-Qaeda-style terror is "a product of a simple strategic
goal: to compel the United States and Western allies to withdraw
combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries."
They may be right, based on the fact that this is exactly what bin
Laden and followers espouse, consistently condemning any Muslim who
would attempt to conquer new lands. Case in point, bin Laden and
his U.S.-funded terror group deserted Russia after the Soviets had
retreated from Afghanistan in the late 80s
This civilization is not comprised of a "backwards" people who hate
our freedom and Western culture, but a people who feel wronged by the
only remaining world super power and want their grievances addressed.
After Sept. 11, a vast majority of jihadis viewed al-Qaeda as a
dangerous fringe group, but the Bush administration decided that
rather than tap into that sentiment, they would forcibly change
unfriendly Middle-Eastern regimes. In doing so, the United States
proved to be bin Laden's most "indispensable ally" by legitimating
al-Qaeda's contention that the U.S. was at war with all Arabs and
further radicalizing the Middle East. There are a few reasons why
the cartoons caused such a violent uproar.
With the West at war with Arabs, dehumanization of the enemy is
seen as an attempt to rationalize violence against them. If they are
just terrorists or just uncivilized barbarians and not complex human
beings, then why not clash against their civilization and ignore their
legitimate demands? In protesting, Muslims were fighting against the
stereotypes that allow Western powers to violate their human rights.
Michael Mirliss
Staff Writer
The Graphic, Malibu
April 17 2006
Samuel Huntington, who predicted the "clash of civilizations," has
been getting much mileage out of his theory post Sept. 11. Naturally,
the phrase is used in the West, not as an objective evaluation of
the world climate, but as a euphemism for "the barbarians want to
destroy our blessed civilization."
These analysts were thrilled with the recent Islamic uproar over
those Danish cartoons, making their familiar cries of Islamo-fascism
at their intolerance of a free press. This was ample evidence that
the secular West and mainstream Islam are incompatible, right?
Islamists really do hate U.S. freedoms.
A look at the facts, however, shows that the Danish cartoonists had
a clear objective to provoke, as evidenced by their tour of Egypt
in which they paraded the newspaper cartoons and more unpublished
material, portraying the prophet Mohammed as everything from a
terrorist to a pedophile.
Denmark's government is run by ultraconservatives and anti-Arab
sentiment runs rampant in the land of this war-on-terror ally. The
cartoons were not perceived as a few cartoonists expressing themselves,
but quite justifiably, as another Western attack on all that Muslims
consider sacred. And while this was allowed by the European free press,
Holocaust and Armenian genocide denial are not.
They seem to recognize the importance of prohibiting the provocation
of certain groups, but not Muslims.
This kind of hypocrisy runs rampant in the United States as well.
Those politicians who hail the Islamic "rejection" of the free press
as an indication that they "hate our freedom," are the same people
who seek to pass sedition laws on the home-front, limiting freedom
of speech in wartimes.
Some keen observers still remember the Christian reaction when Martin
Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," hit theaters in 1988. Not
only were there mass protests throughout the United States and Europe,
but a theater in Paris was burned to the ground, killing one person. To
understand why the Muslim protests became so violent, it is necessary
to revisit the roots of the so-called "clash of civilizations."
Muslims perceive the United States as having precipitated a war on
the Arab world that began many years ago. This perception is not
without merit. In 1958 President Eisenhower questioned the "campaign
of hatred" against the United States. The answer came back from the
National Security Counsel saying, "In the eyes of the majority of
Arabs, the United States appears to be opposed to the goals of Arab
(secular) nationalism.
They believe the United States is seeking to protect its interest in
Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or
economic progress." In the late 50s, they "hated" the United States
for blocking democracy and development.
Flash forward to the War on Terror." The U.S. government's apparent
aim in fighting these wars has little to do with reducing the threat
of terror. Take the case of Syria, which is on the United States
list of states sponsoring terrorism. In 2004 the Bush administration
imposed further sanctions on the nation despite the admission that
Syria had not been implicated in terrorist acts in many years and had
been cooperative in providing the United States with intelligence on
al-Qaeda and other such groups.
Why the sanctions then? The answer lies in how quickly Clinton was
prepared to take Syria off the list if they agreed to U.S.-Israeli
peace terms. The priority here is the continued backing of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine through economic support, or lack thereof,
in Syria's case.
Even more evident was the invasion of Iraq and former U.S.-backed
dictator, Saddam Hussein, which U.S. intelligence agencies had warned
would increase the risk of terror.
The National Intelligence Agency reported that "Iraq and other
possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training
grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are 'professionalized.'" Indeed, 5 percent to 10
percent of the foreign insurgency had no prior record of association
with terrorist groups.
The ongoing U.S. economic relationship with the Saudi royal family is
another telling aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The
arrangement provides for the flow of oil and money to the West
while domestic human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and impoverished
citizens in the region are ignored. It's not surprising that 16 of
the 20 terrorists involved in Sept. 11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. This
country, led by an ultra-fundamentalist regime, has been a breeding
ground for terrorists for many years, but that doesn't prevent the
United States from doing business with them.
The answer to why Middle-Eastern Arabs hate us doesn't have much to
do with Islamic fundamentalism. Suicide terrorism expert Robert Pape
argues that al-Qaeda-style terror is "a product of a simple strategic
goal: to compel the United States and Western allies to withdraw
combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries."
They may be right, based on the fact that this is exactly what bin
Laden and followers espouse, consistently condemning any Muslim who
would attempt to conquer new lands. Case in point, bin Laden and
his U.S.-funded terror group deserted Russia after the Soviets had
retreated from Afghanistan in the late 80s
This civilization is not comprised of a "backwards" people who hate
our freedom and Western culture, but a people who feel wronged by the
only remaining world super power and want their grievances addressed.
After Sept. 11, a vast majority of jihadis viewed al-Qaeda as a
dangerous fringe group, but the Bush administration decided that
rather than tap into that sentiment, they would forcibly change
unfriendly Middle-Eastern regimes. In doing so, the United States
proved to be bin Laden's most "indispensable ally" by legitimating
al-Qaeda's contention that the U.S. was at war with all Arabs and
further radicalizing the Middle East. There are a few reasons why
the cartoons caused such a violent uproar.
With the West at war with Arabs, dehumanization of the enemy is
seen as an attempt to rationalize violence against them. If they are
just terrorists or just uncivilized barbarians and not complex human
beings, then why not clash against their civilization and ignore their
legitimate demands? In protesting, Muslims were fighting against the
stereotypes that allow Western powers to violate their human rights.