Enmity sells. Hatred sells.
At the moment, this takes the form of the uproar and brouhaha over the Mohammed/ Muhammed cartoons.
Here is a link to the cartoons.
And here is perhaps the most offensive one:
So, my view on the cartoons.
This is wrong. This is vile, wrong and disgusting. There is no purpose in depicting the Muslims/Moslems' holiest prophet as a terrorist and bomber. If this is meant as social commentary, it is done in the poorest taste.
We wouldn't want anti-semitic pictures about Jews circulating. We would not want to be defined by one radical, extremist faction. So in my opinion, the cartoons are wrong. And although they may be protected by free speech when it comes to the letter of the law, I think that when it comes to the spirit of the law, such cartoons can only provoke enmity rather than any kind of realization that certain tactics are wrong.
Personally, therefore, I don't agree with Israpundit, who states that the Danish Newspaper is "courageous."
However, the reaction of Moslems around the world is unfathomable by the logical mind. It is pure insanity.
Take a look at Jameel's post about Insane Islamic Hatred, and you might wonder what the world is coming to. Or, as I discovered at S (On the Main Line), look at the fact that Iran has stated that it will engage in a Holocaust cartoon contest. Ezzie has a post about it as well, in which he includes a comic that I will show here.
That truly demonstrates how ridiculously out-0f-hand this situation has gotten.
If anything, you would think tit-for-tat; you published a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban; we'll publish a cartoon of Moses with a bomb on his head. But instead we head over for the Holocaust- an emotionally-packed issue- in order to get more responses and upset more people. That's a damnable kind of logic.
Dry Bones isn't surprised by the extent of this hatred.
DovBear writes about extremist supporters in the Gaza Strip who don't have anything that matters, but are busy burning Danish flags.
More importantly, this anger over cartoons has run so far that extremists have burned the Norweigan and Denmark embassies. Police don't appear to have done anything about it...
Because when someone accuses you of acting in a terroristic fashion...the best way to disprove them is to *eureka!* act in a violent and terroristic fashion.
The idiots at the Danish Newspaper don't mind running the Holocaust cartoons.
This is disturbing, upsetting and so on and so forth. In the end, I am left with two impressions.
1. I am distinctly glad that I am Jewish, and that Jews (to my knowledge) have never engaged in aimless rioting, destruction and violence in order to protest cartoons/ comic strips, even though many of them have offered quite a lot of provocation.
2. That, as my Art teacher said, this is extremely "disturbing and distressing" and doesn't bode well for the future of our society/ civilization. Or, as my fellow classmate said, "it's not that the world's gone suddenly insane- it's only that people are realizing it now."
In the end, Calvin is right. Enmity sells. Enmity against Moslems, deciding to depict their holiest prophet in unsavory ways. Enmity against Denmark, and a boycott of all Danish goods. Enmity, no matter who it's against. Just enmity.
12 comments:
unfortunately that is true. i wish people could treat each other decently. and i wish they would stand up when we are misstreated.
As usual, a more nuanced and thoughtful posting than my own.
As I expect from you.
I envy your eloquence.
I have to say, I don't find the cartoons particularly offensive. Or rather, to be precise, I don't find them unusually offensive. Europe is notoriously anti-religious and these cartoons are quite mild compared to the regular sort of anti-JudeoChristian polemic out there. (I recall one jean manufacturer using an upside-down cross for his logo to protest the Catholic church). Europe tends to treat Islam, however, with kid gloves, because of its relationship with "another cultural viewpoint", the one thing that is truely sacred to liberalism.
What is particularly interesting about this controversy is that it is forcing Europe to re-think what it means to be liberal, anti-religious, and free- how much do they value each one of these, and what do they do when these values conflict? Hopefully, they will emerge from this whole mess with a more clear understanding of morality, liberalism, and the nature of the radical Moslem world.
And it continues.
See here:
TIPH TIFF -- How the Palestinians shot themselves in the foot. Again.
careful!!! you posted the picture - soon you will have cyber-crazies coming after you!! :-)
but the best response was in the NYTimes letters page this week.. and I quote..
"As a Jew I am especially sensitive to the kind of outrage religiously offensive caricatures can inspire, and I empathize with my Muslim cousins. As a liberal American, I am sensitive to the complex interplay between the press's freedom to publish these images and legitimate questions concerning the wisdom of doing so.
Yet, as the same time, I am struck by the inescapable irony of witnessing chanting mobs responding to the insult of being stereotyped as violent, by rioting and burning embassies and threatening to behead those who have offended them. Daniel P Baker, Trumbull Conn"
Well said Daniel!
zsta or xyz?
It's hard to judge because I don't know Islamic law..
If someone burnt a Torah scroll for the sake of freedom of expression or art..we would be beside ourselves with anger and sadness.
While someone who is not Jewish would not really be able to relate to our anger.
david, don't agree. sorry. burning a holy item is clearly an act of hatred. anyone in the west (and I suspect most in the east too) can recognise that a political cartoon is meant to be a social comment. some cartoons can be hatred-based, but these weren't. they were fair comment. so it touched a few nerves... they need to learn not to react violently.
If someone drew a caricature of G-d with horns and eating a pig would you get that upset?
Conversely, if the Danes had burnt an effigy of Muhammad, then I could (maybe) understand...(but it still wouldn't justify the violence.)
zsta
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you, and agree with Rav Instapundit. The cartoon you pictured is meant to show that the original seeds for all this violence and hatred were planted by Mohammed himself (who we as religious Jews know to be a false prophet.) That's called commentary. If the Moslems can't handle it, too bad.
anon...
burning a holy object to us..can be seen as art by another (remember cow dung on the virgin mary?)
I'm not saying we as a people would react the same way..although we have seen certain elements of our society act out violently in Israel when they feel that shabbos is being violated in their neighborhood...so I wouldnt put anything by us.
If you look through the Koran, it's difficult to see your point, jakblak. Where do you see Mohammed advocating violence against Jews?
I will agree with you in that he limits the people you cannot kill to "believers," but I don't think he actually advocates killing Jews.
So do we blame Mohammed as the source of all violence, or do we blame the radical factions that are twisting his words to support them? If there were a terroristic group of Jews, would we blame Moses because of it, or lay the blame squarely at their feet? After all, "the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
To David/ Tobie-
As far as burning flags are concerned, I think everyone agrees that this is a symbol of dislike or hatred for the country. The question is, is this legal? We have laws regarding the American flag that regulate how it is raised, etc, but can it be burned? According to free speech some say yes and some say no. I don't think the burning of a flag is cause for absolute uproar- after all, if you've watched the News lately, radical Moslems everywhere are busy burning both Danish and Israeli flags (yes, that was on CNN.) Do they have a reason? No, but of course everything is an Israeli plot! Does this mean Israel has to go on violent rampages? Of course not...and it doesn't.
You misunderstood the cartoon. Ii wasn't commenting on Mohammad. It was commenting on people's perception of Mohammad. Westerners view Mohammad as supporting terrorism. The cause of the perception is that many Islamic organizations from Al Qaeda to Hamas have used Islam as their justification for terrorism, and the majority of the Muslim world is not willing to do anything more than insincere pro forma condemnations of the actions and justifications of the vocal minority. Mohammad is viewed by the West as supporting terrorism because of the actions of his followers. They've brought shame to their religion's founder, and until they take the proper action, this misperception will continue. The irony is that the violent protesters have done more than anyone to reinforce this misperception.
What I find really said is that the real cause of the hypocrisy here is cowardice. Condemning the West is safe, because the West won't slaughter those who disagree with them. Condemning the Muslim Fundamentalists in the Middle East who pervert Islam and shame Mohammad will get you shot dead. These protesters are afraid to take the steps to undo the misperception, so instead they condemn those who state the obvious truth: Islam is being used to justify mass murder. There is another other possibility that I consider too perverse to even consider. They actually agree with those who use Islam to justify terrorism, and still the need to kill those who recognize that truth.
Read this bottom letter in the NYT.
You misunderstood the cartoon.
See my above comment, then open a book or two by Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of the Islamic world. Islam has been violent for hundreds of years.
Post a Comment