Posted on 03/16/2002 5:38:33 AM PST by CrossCheck
Perhaps you remember George W. Bush's innocent use of the word "crusade" six months ago, and perhaps you recall the furor it provoked. Commentators around the globe quickly pounced: Why, the word is a provocation, they insisted. It will rattle Muslim moderates and confirm the worst fears of the radicals who hate us so. There are two things to keep in mind, however, about Bush's use of "crusade": He meant it in the familiar secular sense, not as a synonym for holy war. And he never used it again.
Now comes Yasser Arafat, one week ago today, exhorting Palestinians to "sacrifice themselves as martyrs in jihad for Palestine." Not only does he call for a holy war, in other words, but a holy war of terrorism against civilians. And yet I have seen only a couple of stories mentioning his statement (both in USA Today) and only one brief commentary denouncing it.
When it comes to the Middle East, two standards are observed: one applies to Western nations and Israel, and the other to everyone else. Arafat can resort to the most primitive rhetoric and tactics, and does all the time, and yet even much of the civilized world still gives him the benefit of the doubt.
To most Americans, any call for holy war is medieval in the most literal sense; it belongs to another era. It is the sort of thing that only a lunatic like Osama bin Laden might demand today, we think, but certainly not a leader who is toasted in diplomatic chancelleries around the world and who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
How does Arafat get away with embracing the jihadist movement, the most aggressive form of barbarism now astride the world stage? Why,the same way he got away with aligning Palestinian nationalism with the Soviet Union when it represented the world's most aggressive form of barbarism. (And the same way, 60 years ago, that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini, got away with cozying up to the Nazis, who were the world's most aggressive barbarians of that time; Palestinian leaders have an uncanny knack for locking arms with the dark side.)
A similar double standard -- restraint for Westerners and Israelis; anything goes for prominent Arabs and Muslims -- seems to apply to journalists, religious figures and historians, too.
For example, in a recent article in the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, a columnist made the following sickening claim: "During this holiday [Purim], the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare -- it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets. Unfortunately, this filling cannot be left out, or substituted with any alternative serving the same purpose. For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!"
Imagine if National Public Radio had broadcast such a libel regarding the Taliban or al-Qaida.
For that matter, try to imagine a journalist or religious leader of any stature in the West denying that Christianity at times has been a crusading faith that sought to impose its will on others by force. Can you think of anyone who says that? Incredibly, though, Muslim representatives regularly deny or dismiss Islam's record of imperialism. On a recent CNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, for example, during a discussion of Islamic history, the editor of Trans Islam magazine even denied that the Arab conquest of Spain was a "war of aggression."
"No, no. No, no," Khalid Duran exclaimed, before going on to claim that the Spaniards had "requested" the Arabs "to come over to Spain to get -- to rid us of that Catholic subjugation to which we were -- that oppressed us . . . "
It was a war of liberation, in other words -- which also seemed to be Duran's explanation for the Muslim conquest of the Balkans and large chunks of central Europe.
But why, if the Muslims were genuine liberators of Spain, did they refuse to leave for nearly 800 years, seizing the big estates and the peninsula's wealth? Why did they occupy Portugal for 600 years, Greece and Bulgaria for 500 years, Serbia and Romania for 400 years? Why did they rule Sicily and Hungary for longer than the Crusaders ever held Jerusalem?
How can an editor of a serious magazine deny the obvious truth regarding Arab conquests?
Because he is the beneficiary of a double standard. Just as Arafat is -- and has been, for that matter, for the better part of 40 years.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
I think a BIG war is around the corner. Too much hate. Too much bloodlust. Too much pressure. Just like an earthquake is a release of pressure and force long in building, so is war. I'd say the kettle is about to boil over.
When it comes to the United States, two standards are observed: one applies to liberals, and the other to everyone else.
Whatever else, Mr. Duran is no blanket Arab apologist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.