War of the Caricatures
by Benjamin ShenderI can see the history books now. “The Cartoon That Was Heard Around the World.” And everyone thought that an assassination, or other physically violent act, would start World War 3.
For those of us who already live in caves, good on you mate, this is what has been happening:
A Danish newspaper printed a cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a suicide bomber. Despite their earlier editorial decisions. Muslims world wide are not pleased. Danish goods are being boycotted in Muslim countries. Several have died in protests and riots, and many are calling for acts of violence involving deaths of certain cartoonists. Other European papers have reprinted the cartoons in question claiming that they do so in support of “freedom of the press.” Iran is holding a contest of holocaust cartoons in response.
So, why are Muslims angry? It has to do with the First Commandment. The one that forbids engraven images. The point being that you bow before God, not an idol that represents God. That idol is too easily worshiped instead. This is why early Muslim art involved geometric designs rather than depictions of animals and men, doing would have been considered blasphemous. Needless to say, depicting the Prophet as a suicide bomber in jest was not welcome. Indeed, it was considered insulting.
So, why did the paper not only print those images, but asked for them? Controversy. Controversy sells papers. And, let’s face it, the Middle East is of interest. The Middle East sells. Since the internet has become such a huge source of information on any and every topic imaginable, and can be updated instantaneously, newspapers have seen decreasing readership across the board.
It’s too bad they underestimated the response. At least, one would hope they did. The entire Middle East is a powder keg. And this cartoon threw a Molotov cocktail into the mix. This cartoon is becoming a rallying cry against all of Western Civilization. The President has claimed support for freedom of the press. And now has said that the cartoons were offensive. Some papers believe that this is flip-flop. But this ignores that the freedom of the press means that the newspapers get to choose what constitutes good taste. If they choose wrong, they choose wrong.
Between this and the President’s continued maneuvering in favor of war with Iran (who is being accused, rightly or wrongly, of inciting riots) one might be left with the conclusion that the question is not if, but when the entire region will be at war. Although, perhaps calling World War 3 is a bit premature.
No need for WWWIII, permanent religious fanaticism that promotes violent ends, combined with power groups struggling to maintain their power & control over energy will be bad enough.
Hmmm, if I had to riot over a cartoon it would be a cartoon of people being killed by rioters over a cartoon, yep.
Comment by bubba — 9 February 2006 @ 6:23 PM
The editor of the Danish paper in question has ties to the neoconservatives in the U.S. Juan Cole says that Condi’s bald-faced lying about Syria and Iran, and his analysis seems sensible.
On the other side, these cartoons laid dormant for many months, until a Saudi cleric’s popular sermon raled against them. Just as the kingdom was recieving some scrutiny for the hundreds that died in the latest Hajj stampede. Did I mention that all Saudi clerics are a wing of the government? Hello, tail. Wag, much?
I like to nitpick Ran, but we agree on a lot more than we don’t. Take what he had to say today about the “cartoon riots”:
That’s my thinking at the moment, but I need Jeff to start blogging again and weigh in. As it is, I’m not entirely sure what I think of all this. Or perhaps we already have all the analysis we need…
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 February 2006 @ 7:00 PM
Yeah, pretty much my point of view. Whole place just needs a rallying cry. Enough people want war, but you need a good battle cry. Remember the Maine! Remember the Alamo! Kill the Western Scum!
Just a spark, all that’s missing is a spark.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 9 February 2006 @ 7:20 PM
Well the imam who went off to Arabia from Denmark obviously showed and said much other stuff then just those cartoons from the newspaper. War and hatemongerers are the only thing needed to light the fire (or feed the fire?) in arabia, there’s loads of fuel.
Apart from that Denmark is known to have a very strict immigrant policy (together with the rest of scandinavia). Denmark is very nationalistic (everywhere you can see danish flags — I only rarely see one in Belgium) and they seem a good allie to the USA (they are in Iraq).
So it does not surprise me that they don’t like Denmark…, although it’s only a small country with just 5 million people and I bet it doesn’t really go about Denmark. As you know, they started boycotting Denmark and now it’s become whole Europe.
Comment by gunnix — 9 February 2006 @ 7:44 PM
The assumption inside the intelligence community–although as far as I am aware it is based on only circumstantial evidence–is exactly as Jason suggested: this issue was stirred up by the Saudi government exerting influence over their clerics to mask their failure–the third year in a row–to prevent mass casualties at the annual Hadj pilgrimage.
The Saudis gain significant prestige and influence (of the moral sort–to even out their equally significant economic influence) within the Islamic world because they are seen as the caretakers of Islam’s most holy sites. At a time when the House of Saud is fighting a very real battle within their kingdom against perceptions and al-Qa’ida accusations that they are appostate and puppets of the West, they need all the moral authority they can get.
As for the Danes, it is the general assumption that they’re next on al-Qa’ida’s target list, with Italy following close behind. IF things do work out that Denmark is the taret of a Madrid or London-style attack in the very near future, then this cartoon row may take on much greater significance. Right now, the Islamic world feels largely justified in their anger with the Danes–they think that they have the moral high ground. A single, well placed attack may be able to co-opt much of this outrage and re-direct it behind the use of violence by Islamists to achieve what would now be seen as “valid” ends. This is, of course, pure speculation, but it is just the kind of thing that could make some of the more hyperbolic headlines of late seem right on the mark. Who knows?
On a side note, I strongly recommend Walid Phares’ new book “Future Jihad.” It provides considerable depth and insight–much more than I have seen in ANY other english source–about the background, development, and real motivations and methods of the Jihadists. For example, an excellent discussion of the top-down organization of the House of Saud/Wahabi approach to Jihad (and disinformation in Western academia) and the bottom-up organization of the Muslim Brotherhood approach to Jihad, the synergey between the two, and why this matters. Too long to summarize, and definitely not comforting. I think that it provides the closest approximation to native cultural insight that someone not born and raised Muslim in the Middle East can get–and without that kind of understanding we’re all really just guessing!
Comment by Jeff Vail — 9 February 2006 @ 8:27 PM
Perhaps the problem lies in the overpopulation of the area. This religion is a means to manipulate the hungry masses into jihad/suicide, solving a major problem of the oil-rich middle east elites.
Incitement by a cartoon is a stupid reason, but stupid is as stupid does.
Comment by Rick Larson — 9 February 2006 @ 9:31 PM
What hungry masses?
Comment by DJEB — 11 February 2006 @ 11:11 AM
The ones in the Third World? The ones in Pakistan, Indonesia, and most of the globe? The ones that are rioting?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 February 2006 @ 11:21 AM
Pakistani riots about more than cartoons.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 1:44 PM