Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/19/2006 | A cartoon contest with Iran as loser

Philadelphia Inquirer 02/19/2006 A cartoon contest with Iran as loser

Posted on Sun, Feb. 19, 2006
A cartoon contest with Iran as loser
Frida Ghitis

AMSTERDAM - "The Jews don't care if you make fun of them," my Dutch taxi driver said as we discussed the rage over cartoons depicting Muhammad. He was telling me about a collection of crudely anti-Semitic cartoons he had seen from a variety of Arab newspapers and from a Muslim European Web site. They don't get angry, he explained, because "Jews are the first ones to make fun of themselves."

When Muslims from Europe to Indonesia reacted with fury at the depiction of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, two groups, in Iran and in Belgium, decided to fight back by making cartoons attacking Jews (and Christians and gays, but mostly Jews). It's not quite clear what they intended to prove. What is clear is that their plan was fatally flawed.

They forgot that when it comes to laughing at Jews, and at the vicissitudes of their history, nobody outdoes Jewish comics. Over the centuries, Jews have learned that laughing at your difficulties can ease the pain.

It's not quite true that Jews don't bristle at attacks against them, particularly when they come loaded with hatred. European Jews, however, have heard it all before. And claims that freedom of speech in Europe is restricted when it comes to Jews are greatly exaggerated. Granted, denying the Holocaust is a crime in some countries that saw their large Jewish populations exterminated during World War II. But humor is hardly off-limits.

When a Muslim extremist killed and then tried to sever the head of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in an Amsterdam street, he was enraged because van Gogh - an equal opportunity offender - had made a film criticizing the treatment of women in Islam. But Muslims were hardly the first to be dissed by the artist who thrived on crossing the line.

"Hmm, it smells like caramel," he once said. "They must be burning diabetic Jews today." There were no Jewish riots or assassination attempts.

After the Danish cartoons, Belgium's Arab European League launched its "freedom of speech" campaign. A cartoon in their Web site showed a half-naked Hitler in bed with Anne Frank, the child diarist killed in the Holocaust, telling her, "Write this one in your diary." Not particularly funny. But then, let's face it, most cartoons really aren't. No riots followed, by the way.

Then came the idea from Iran's biggest newspaper of holding a competition for the best Holocaust cartoon. They were so proud of their cleverness. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on record saying he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened. So this brilliant ploy would hit two Western taboos with one Iranian stone.

Iran thought the West would recoil in horror. (Riots, anyone?) But before the contest could get going, an Israeli cartoonist launched his own competition.

"We will show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew-hating cartoons ever published," said Israeli cartoonist Amitai Sandy. He noted a truth well-known to students of humor: When it comes to making fun of the tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people, nobody does it better than the Jews. "No Iranian can compete with us on that," he declared.

And what about the publication of Iran's contest winners? Tehran's bet that the cartoons would be shunned apparently was a loser. The Iranian Holocaust cartoons are already appearing in - you guessed it - Israel. The cartoons now appear in the Israel News Agency Web site.

There is a difference, however, between what you see in the Iranian publication and the Israeli one. The Iranian publication is in the best tradition adopted by the Arab and Muslim world from anti-Semitic cartoons in Nazi Germany. They are part of an attempt to demonize, and dehumanize; designed to create hatred, not to entertain. While Iran is questioning the Holocaust ever happened, the INA site posts the caricatures with a line explaining, "Six million Jews were gassed, shot and hung during the Holocaust." The INA did one more thing.

Through the use of search-engine-optimization techniques, they made sure that if you try a Google search of "Iran Holocaust Cartoons" the INA site appears at the top of the page, ahead of any Iranian or Muslim extremist site. It conveys a message about the dangers of hatred to anyone who wants to see anti-Semitic cartoons. Pretty funny.

MiamiHerald.com | 02/08/2006 | Clash of cultures and values

MiamiHerald.com 02/08/2006 Clash of cultures and values: "
Published on Wed, Feb. 08, 2006

DANISH CARTOONS
Clash of cultures and values
BY FRIDA GHITIS

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the sounds of arguing editors in newsrooms all over the world. To print or not to print, that is the question. What shall news organizations do about the explosion of irreconcilable differences over European cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed?

News organizations face a choice: Print the cartoons and knowingly offend Muslims, who have told us in not uncertain terms the cartoons constitute blasphemy; or refrain from printing or broadcasting them and, thus, give in to what is an effort to muzzle freedom of the press. The dilemma affects every newsroom because the story has grown so large that it cries out for detailed reporting. When a news organization decides not to show the cartoons, it deliberately chooses to tell an incomplete story.

It is no accident that the raging controversy has not exploded with the same bitterness in America. To understand the actions of both sides, and the fury of the debate, one must remember that Europe today stands at a cultural turning point. A massive wave of Muslim immigration is changing the society. Many Europeans feel their values are under siege. Some think liberal European countries have gone so far in accommodating the values of Muslim immigrants, that they are sacrificing their own secular freedoms, including the freedom to declare nothing is sacred.

Initially, the dilemma only affected Danish editors, who first printed the series of a dozen Mohammed cartoons last September. The controversy simmered on a low flame until a few weeks ago, when the editor of a tiny Norwegian paper decided to reprint the drawings, along with an interview with two local cartoonists who said they felt drawing Mohammed would endanger their lives.

The pictures show the revered Muslim prophet in largely unflattering ways. In one his turban is a bomb with a sparkling fuse, in another he declares paradise is running out of virgins -- an allusion to the claim that Muslim suicide bombers (martyrs in some eyes) are entitled to 72 virgins in heaven. Muslims erupted in a fury. Any depiction of the prophet, they explained, is blasphemous and it brings them pain. When the Danish editor apologized, editors across Europe reprinted the cartoons in country after country. Journalists brandished the images as proud shields in what they view as a dangerous assault against freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press.

The new battle in the clash of civilization was joined. Arab countries -- where viciously anti-Semitic cartoons are daily fare -- recalled ambassadors from European posts. Mobs burned Danish embassies in several countries, police shot protesters in Kabul, and Palestinians threatened to kidnap citizens of the offending countries.

To Muslims, the printing and broadcast of the cartoons looks like a provocation, a transparent effort to hurt and to stereotype. To mainstream Europeans, however, this is a battle over which culture will have to adapt as East and West blend in a shrinking world. While it is true that discrimination against Muslims is on the rise, these cartoons were not part of a systematic effort to degrade and vilify Muslims. And the reprints have clearly been intended as a statement about press freedom, not as racist incitement. That should be the standard by which free societies judge whether offensive material can be permitted.

Editors routinely choose to leave material out. The choice is a cultural one. Profanity is replaced by bleeps, and disturbing images are left out. For Europe, however, the images of Mohammed represent one of today's most pressing questions. Whose culture will determine what is acceptable? The answer to that question will go a long way in determining the values of a fast changing Europe and an ever-shrinking world.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She is the author of A Changing World in the Age of Live Television.

JS Online: Palestinians: Welcome to the consequences of your vote

JS Online: Palestinians: Welcome to the consequences of your vote

Palestinians: Welcome to the consequences of your vote
By FRIDA GHITIS
Sunday Feb 5, 2006

The world's reaction to the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian election provides more evidence of the hypocrisy of Western leaders when they claim to support the spread of democracy. That's the curious view making its way through the streets of the Arab world and the electronic alleys of the Internet.

The argument goes something like this: Since Hamas won the election through a democratic vote, the United States, Europe and the entire democratic world owe it a warm embrace.
An article in the Saudi Arab News charges that the West is being vindictive in demanding fundamental changes in Hamas as a condition for aid, simply because it did not like the results of the election.

A leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood calls Western reaction to the elections an "unacceptable double standard."

Aid to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people, according to this view, should continue unimpeded, and a Hamas-led Palestinian government must be welcomed into the community of nations.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Palestinian elections earned high marks from many quarters - including from President Bush - for producing a result that the world can recognize as reflecting the wishes of the Palestinian people.

Palestinians deserve recognition for conducting free elections. That is all their fledgling democratic process earns them from the international community.

World leaders, from the American president and European leaders to the secretary-general of the United Nations, agree that Hamas cannot expect support from the democratic community of nations unless it plays by the rules and principles of civilized society.

You don't vow to obliterate your neighbor and then receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the West. The world simply doesn't work that way. (Or, at least it shouldn't.)
Since the Arab world has minimal experience with democracy, it can be forgiven from not having learned one of the key lessons of democracy: Elections have consequences.

Palestinian voters: Welcome to the consequences of your vote.

Since a majority of Palestinian voters cast their ballot for an organization devoted to the destruction of another country, the rest of the world now must decide how to deal with that. The world has no duty to give it financial or political support.

When voters in Serbia elected Slobodan Milosevic, the world did not exactly embrace their choice, either. Milosevic's commitment to criminal violence, militant racism and "ethnic cleansing" led to bombing of his forces by NATO's military. The people who elected Milosevic eventually saw the error of their ways.

Pollsters tell us many Palestinians turned to Hamas as a protest against the corruption of Fatah. If true, their protest appears to have backfired disastrously.

Forget about Israel for a moment. If Hamas achieves its aims within Palestinian society, the future looks bleak for those who elected them, especially women and minorities.

Hamas comes from the extremes of Islamism. In the West, we have seen the handiwork of Hamas in the carnage of their suicide bombings against passenger buses, nightclubs and restaurants inside Israel.

But this organization that claims its religious beliefs justify targeting and murdering civilians in the name of resistance has other ideas beyond its stated wish of obliterating Israel.

Hamas has openly declared it wants to rule by the strictest guidance of the Qur'an. That does not bode well for personal freedoms, for the lives of women and for the status of minorities.
We have seen what Islamic law has meant for quality of life in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

The lifestyle choices of most Palestinians, believe it or not, run closer to those of Israel than those of Saudi Arabia.

Hamas officials have already spoken of imposing a special tax on non-Muslims, a throwback to ancient Islamic times, and an affront against the once-large Palestinian Christian community.

And if Hamas has its way, this election could end up marking the beginning and the end of democratic voting. Radical Islamists are not great supporters of democratic politics.
Palestinian voters knew exactly what Hamas stood for when they went to the polls. They knew voting for Hamas risked turning their back on the international community.
Like voters in other places, including many in the U.S., Palestinians may start having second thoughts about their choice at the ballot.

Unfortunately, they will have to live with the consequences of their decision. That's not a Western double standard. That's what happens when you elect a government.

Their best option now for Palestinians is to exert as much pressure as they can to force Hamas to change. If that does not happen - and if they see their own elected government turning into an oppressive one - they may have to consider redirecting that famous Palestinian resistance.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She is the author of "The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television."