The Real Lesson of Newsweekgate

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 18, 2005 | Robert Spencer

[SJackson]

How both the Left and the Right are missing the most important aspect of the Qur’an-flushing controversy

When in April EBay offered a consecrated host for sale, imagine if Catholics had rioted and seventeen people were killed.

The media would have been full of stories about the dark side of the “Christian Right.”

Imagine if, when Muslims desecrated the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus in 2000, destroying it with hammers, rampaging Jewish mobs had killed dozens of Palestinians.

The establishment media response would again have inundated us with stories about the heroic Palestinians and their Israeli oppressors.

Neither of those things really happened. But seventeen people have been killed and hundreds wounded in riots by Muslims since Newsweek published its story about an American interrogator flushing a Qur’an down the toilet at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

And yet the media establishment seems preoccupied only with the fact that Newsweek, in publishing a false story that it has since retracted, has done a very bad thing. And that the Bush Administration must do something to calm tempers and soothe feelings in the Islamic world.

There is no excusing Newsweek’s irresponsibility in this. But this is not really a story about media bias or carelessness at all. There is a much larger story that is getting hardly any attention at all. The gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur’an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder.

This aspect of the story is being ignored by spokesmen on both the Left and the Right. After the initial reports of rioting, Juan Cole sputtered, “Whatever goddam military genius came up with the bright idea of flushing the Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo should be court-martialed, and Bush had better get out there apologizing before this thing spirals further out of control.” On the other side of the political spectrum, Paul Marshall wrung his hands in National Review: “Even if Newsweek publishes a full retraction, the damage is done. Much of the Muslim world will regard it merely as a cover-up and feel reconfirmed in the view that America is at war with Islam.”

Neither Cole nor Marshall, however, made any moral judgment about the rioters. Marshall was furious with Newsweek: “It would be charitable to think that if Newsweek had known how explosive the story was it may have held off until it had more confirmation. If this is true, it is an indication that the media’s widespread failure to pay careful attention to the complexities of religion not only misleads us about domestic and international affairs but also gets people killed.” Cole, for his part, directed his anger at the Bush Administration: “As a professional historian, I would say we still do not have enough to be sure that the Koran desecration incident took place. We have enough to consider it plausible. Anyway, the important thing politically is that some Muslims have found it plausible, and their outrage cannot be effectively dealt with by simple denial. That is why I say that Bush should just come out and say we can’t be sure that it happened, but if it did it was an excess, and he apologizes if it did happen, and will make sure it doesn’t happen again (if it did).”

Neither one says anything whatsoever about a culture that condones — celebrates —wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book.

The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur’an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad.

I suspect that even Juan Cole and Paul Marshall, somewhere in the back of their minds, know that it is mad too. But why don’t they say so? Because Rule #1 in the establishment (Left and Right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam. To bring a moral judgment to bear upon Muslim people, or to explore the ways in which Islam fuels the conflict, is therefore absolutely forbidden.

This kind of analysis, dominant as it is in the media, does the Western world an enormous disservice. The reaction to the Newsweek story in the Muslim world only shows how critical it is that the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence be examined and confronted. Lives are at stake. But Cole and Marshall, and many others like them on both the Left and the Right, can’t see this necessity through the enveloping fog of political correctness

[Tolik]

Robert Spencer:

...There is no excusing Newsweek’s irresponsibility in this. But this is not really a story about media bias or carelessness at all. There is a much larger story that is getting hardly any attention at all. The gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur’an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder.

...Neither one says anything whatsoever about a culture that condones — celebrates —wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book.

The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur’an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad.

......Rule #1 in the establishment (Left and Right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam. To bring a moral judgment to bear upon Muslim people, or to explore the ways in which Islam fuels the conflict, is therefore absolutely forbidden.

This kind of analysis, dominant as it is in the media, does the Western world an enormous disservice. The reaction to the Newsweek story in the Muslim world only shows how critical it is that the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence be examined and confronted. Lives are at stake. But Cole and Marshall, and many others like them on both the Left and the Right, can’t see this necessity through the enveloping fog of political correctness
 

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[PGalt]

The "elephant in the room" is the enemy within, and the lengths to which they will go. The lie is the first weapon used in the criminal's arsenal. The National Socialists have an unlimited supply and use them without fear of retribution.

That is why we the people have gathered here. The anti-freedom collective of individuals called Islam is a given in our minds.

[kabar]

Conservatives generally want to undermine the credibility of the biased media. The conservatives are winning this round. Spencer does a disservice to distract from that fact.,/i>

Partisan politics and media credibility aside, Spencer is pointing out the elephant or gorilla in the room. We are involved in much larger war than terrorism, which is just a manifestation of the struggle between Islam and modernity. If we are afraid to identify the problem, we will never solve it. Conservatives and liberals in this country are afraid to state that radical Islam is the enemy and that the Muslim silent majority sympathizes with the extremists.

We Conservatives can beat our breasts about the MSM being appeasers on the WOT and push our partisan advantage on this issue, but to say that Mr. Spencer "does a disservice to distract from that fact" politicizes further any real discussion of the issue, i.e., radical Islam.

Spencer's article is not a diversion, it gets to the heart of the problem. If we have to walk on eggshells re Islam for fear of inciting death and mayhem, it says more about us than our enemy.

[carton253]

What the author calls Newsweek's irresponsibility... I would call treason...

[kabar]

Thanks for the correction. I should know better.

But, you know, at some point, rational people have to make a stand against irrational ones. Otherwise, civilization will be lost

I don't think it has to do with rationality as much as fear and intimidation. I view Islam as almost a cult. The MSM and our public leaders are afraid of speaking the truth about Islam because they know that words will have consequences, personally and for our country. The same holds true for Western Europe.

Some religions are more equal than others. Islam is above criticism or reproach.

[jec41]

The gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur’an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder.

The gorilla in the living room is MSM sedition and their attempts to overthrow government and impose control by the left.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The MSM has become a poitical party. They all want to play "Watergate".

. . . and if The Washington Post wants to be a political party, that's fine. After all, Hamilton and Jefferson sponsor competing newspapers in which they waged their partisan battles. And that basically started the political party system in America. So under the First Amendment I think that is perfectly legitimate.

The framers of the Constitution had hoped - see the original scheme whereby the second-place finisher of the presidential election would be the Vice President - not for a two-party system but to avoid altogether what they denigrated as "faction." And if you think about it, the FCC with its licensees purported to broadcast "in the public interest as a public trustee" is founded on the same conceit.

But the historical reality is that, as Socrates would have told you, claiming to be virtuous is the epitome of arrogance. So when the FCC or its licensees follow the example of the MSM newspapers and claim to be "objective," they express mere arrogance, not virtue. And whereas it is clearly OK if the Washington Post is a political party, when an Establishment arises which coheres in a mutual defense pact against flame wars among major newspapers and broadcast networks the result is a single, monopolistically inclined political party. An Establishment political party which praises conformity as "objectivity" - and even (in the mode of a Ward Churchill) "dissent". An establishment of the rich and powerful, founded on contempt for responsibility and the middle class and a patronizing claim to represent "the poor."

The Democratic Party is the party of George Soros and the irresponsible rich, eager to use their wealth to promote the idea of their own virtue with insincere solidarity with "the poor." And who are "the poor?" They are Americans who would as a class be ill-advised to trade the things they have which are made of plastic - or which run on electricity, natural gas, diesel oil, or gasoline - and all their access to scientific health care, for all the wealth of Queen Victoria).

[snarks_when_bored]

At the heart of islam lies irrational hatred and fear of 'the other'. The islamic response? Convert or kill all 'others'.

[Travis McGee]

Yep, our "brave" western artists are never going to do a "Piss Mohammed" or a "Mohammed covered in elephant dung."

Somehow their "courage" stops short of the religion of bloody pieces.

[Travis McGee]

Good bumper sticker:

FLUSH NEWSWEAK

[cricket]

Political Correctness in it's worst 'amok' yet.

And if we do not 'get a grip' on this culture-altering. . .mind-numbing' tactic of the Left-wing; we can ONLY do, further damage to ourselves. . .while jeopardizing further, America's future. (sorry, repeating myself per other posts)

The next 'issue/question' should be. . .'WHY do these prisoners have the frickin 'book' to begin with?'

Oh. ..that's right; it was just the PC thing to do; and it pacified the humanitarians - so called - of the Demrat Left. (An oxymoron bigger than the word itself)

But, you know. . .they are entitled to; and they take great comfort in this book; which simply reinforces their Muslim v a l u e s. . .

It is enough to make one cry. ..'stop the world!'.

[tx_eggman]

culture that stones women and exempts men from same action, where fathers murder their own daughters, is not one that has any right to complain about extremism.

And Newsweek knew that would happen. They should be shot.

Pot / Kettle / Black ....

[the OlLine Rebel]

Amen (oops, no pun?) to the article.

I can't believe hardly any1 is talking about the monstrous, atrocious behavior of the asshole idiots who start mob violence over something so stupid. I don't care whether Newsweek was correct or not about the "desecration", the Moslem childish murderous reaction is the real story.

(And I'd add, it's not just "fanatical" Moslems - it's the very root of the religion. If the root of the religion itself was anything peacable, there would not be such a riot by thousands at all.)

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I think that in Islam, any portrayal of Mohamed is considered blasphemous. Never mind the media used for the portrayal.

[cricket]

"If Muslims were held to the same standard as modern humans such as America, Israel, or England, Muslims would be expelled from every Western nation and the entire world would be at war with them by now. JIMO"

Agree and good points all.

Our standard is of course, a political-handicapping; the equalizer that isn't ie PC. . .

In this case, it makes every American as uncivilized and barbarous as those that 'defend their holy book'.

Barbarous to consider such an act with the 'book'. . .more so; publishing it as a fact. Meanwhile. . .back in 'barf 'ur'. . .

[the OlLine Rebel]

"We hold ourselves to the standards and ethics of evolved modern humans while disregarding the outrageous murderous behavior of the Muslim as the behavior of a primitive, barbaric, un-evolved people with no self-control. Their fanatical, hypersensitive, and murderous dedication to their God seems to be view by some in the West in a "awww, isn't that cute" sort of way and summarily dismissed.

"If Muslims were held to the same standard as modern humans such as America, Israel, or England, Muslims would be expelled from every Western nation and the entire world would be at war with them by now."


And this is what happens when you have moral relativists overtaking society. "You cannot judge a person (a people) by your own standards; you must look at it thru his/their eyes/standards/morals."

[Gritty]

Rule #1 in the establishment (Left and Right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam

Exactly! This is like saying 19th Century Das Kapital and Karl Marx had nothing to do with 20th Century Communism and the Soviet Union!

How can we possibly be ultimately successful in carrying on a lethal war defending our civilization to a satisfactory conclusion when we refuse to be realistic in defining the enemy? At some point our fantasies will intrude, directing a fatal error in our strategies!

[Faraday]

First, conservative commentators in general have not been avoiding the issue of the culture, beliefs, and actions of Islamic radicals in relation to the Newsweek article or a host of other issues. For example, just go to National Review on-line and see the articles posted there on this very topic. Government officials are more circumspect. This may be due to a PC attitude in some cases, it could also be due to the tactical requirements of isolating our principle enemy--which, BTW, is not all Koran-believing Muslims.

Second, you and I appear to disagree where the greater danger to our nation lies. I feel the greater threat resides in the the socialist forces within our country. They control several vitally important social institutions, including the MSM. If we can solidify a patriotic majority around the founding principles of our Republic, we can deal with any exterior threat.