Cartoon StupidStorm

Just a quick note on the Danish cartoons and the seemingly spiraling 'clash of civilizations' (a term much in vogue on Arab op-ed pages and talk shows these days).   Briefly:  this is what the word "StupidStorm" was invented for.

If the Danish cartoons hadn't existed, al-Qaeda would have paid good money to create them.  The cartoons are the ideal mobilizational issue for radical Islamists, tailor made to stoke up passions and to silence moderate voices and to cut off the possibility of dialogue.  What al-Qaeda wants more than anything else is to heighten the salience of Islamic identity among the Muslims of the world and to sharpen the contradictions between that Islamic identity and "the West."  Nothing could have served al-Qaeda's cause better, and I'm sure that bin Laden has already sent the various European publishers multiple mash notes, along with anonymous letters urging more papers to publish the cartoons.  And all the Western commentators fanning the flames... well, to quote Angel, "they fall for it every time."   

The cartoons crisis does not "prove" that there is a "clash of civilizations":  it provides an opportunity for those on both sides who want a "clash of civilizations" to help make it come true. The appropriate response to such cynical mobilization is not to embrace it but to deflate it.    Mishari al-Zaydi, a thoughtful critic of Islamism for al-Sharq al-Awsat, remarks that Muslims - like any people- have the right to be angry and to protest over an insult to their religion, but shouldn't resort to violence.. and that now is the time for reasonable people to step in.  Because, Zaydi writes, there are definitely people who don't want the conflict to end - they want a clash of civilizations, and it's up to reasonable people to stop them.  That sounds right to me - on both sides.

I've been dismayed by how the media has handled itself on all sides. Al-Jazeera has not been particularly constructive, which is especially disappointing after I just sat on a panel at its Forum on the topic of whether the media could be a "bridge between civilizations".  Even if its coverage of the story itself could be defended in purely professional terms - it is, after all, now a big story, and I haven't seen any other networks, Arab or Western, abstaining from coverage - al-Jazeera does seem to have a particular gusto for the story.  It can't be an accident that Faisal al-Qassem, the presenter most likely to turn a show into a screaming match, was chosen to host the most recent "Behind the News" program about the cartoons rather than its more reasonable, mild-mannered regular hosts Mohammed Krichane or Jumana al-Namour (her January 21  show, for instance, was much calmer  -  her guests included the Egyptian moderate Islamist Mohammed Selim al-Awa) - or that he presented the conflict in his opening statement as a conflict between East and West rather than as a conflict between, say, extremists and moderates.    Check out this photo gallery from the Arabic website, or this one, and tell me how it differs from one which might appear on Fox News?   I read in al-Safir (though can't verify for myself) that al-Arabiya broadcast an apology from a Danish official, while al-Jazeera did not:  if true, that's a poor editorial decision on al-Jazeera's part. I know that on-line polls don't mean anything, but right now 85% of an al-Jazeera one say that the response of Arab governments has been "too weak."   Overall, al-Jazeera just doesn't seem to be able to help itself on this one, which is a shame:  it is playing to populism, rather to to pluralism, which I identified in my book as one of the greatest dangers for the new Arab public.

It isn't just al-Jazeera, of course. The religious stations, like Iqra, seem to be playing an actively inflammatory role.  The current "most read" and "most emailed" story on al-Arabiya is about an Italian cabinet member calling for the use of force against Muslims and for a "Crusader" war - not inflammatory at all, right?  All in all, not a great couple of weeks for the "new Arab public."

The only bright side is that voices of reason are beginning to assert themselves in the Arab media, even if they may be having trouble getting traction in the hyper-politicized environment.  I've seen at least a dozen op-eds in the last few days saying some variation of "shame on you for offending the Prophet, but shame on Muslims for reacting as they did."  A lot of ordinary Muslims - not extremists - are genuinely upset about this, and their legitimate anger should not be conflated with the manufactured "rage" of the extremists.   Moderate Islamists - who stand to lose the most from an incident which strengthens extremists and closes down the possibilities for dialogue  - have begun to step forward.  Yusuf al-Qaradawi supported the calls for a boycott, but condemned violence and riots.  (MEMRI, for its part, declined to mention that second part, even though it was the lead on Qaradawi's own site. Nice.)  Fahmy Howeidy similarly combines anger over the defamation of the prophet with anger at the violent, non-rational response.  Ditto for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. 

So far this controversy is running according to script:  strengthening extremists on both sides and silencing the middle, creating a clash of civilizations that shouldn't exist and making a mockery of reasonable public discourse.   And that, my friends, is a StupidStorm.   Can voices of reason break through? 

PS.  The sacking of embassies in Lebanon and Syria? I'm not sure about Lebanon, to be honest, but in Syria it's hard to argue with the "blame Bashar" crowd.  Large mobs generally don't sack foreign embassies in Damascus without a green light from above... and probably a map, and some gasoline.

Comments

[LRW]

I'm not sure Amr Khaled's message is "inciting punishment of infidels" as MEMRI suggests. His sin may be one of omission because he didn't spell out that the violence was wrong. But I don't think his words are clearly calling for riots or anything. He has a history in general is speaking against religously motivated violence. Any thoughts in the peanut gallery? You can see his full statement on www.amrkhaled.net

[hummbumm]

You know these cartoons were printed in an Egyptian newspaper in October with no reaction. It took a lot of fanning to get things going by the Egyptian govt, the Saudi govt (after their Mecca debacle), Syria of course etc... It is amazing that this Clash thing gets accepted so quickly. A few hundred protesters in Indonesia (pop 200M), ditto in Pakistan, Syria rent a crowd etc... It is sad that western press and pundits fall into the trap and repeat that the whole muslim world, all 1.3B, are enraged. It has been a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda, though the table was set by our "friends" Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Those two regimes never cease to amaze me. It is too bad that Al Jazeera also did not put things in context. I mean a series of cartoons in a Danish newspaper, please, we are not talking the New York Times, or a media outlet of a great power, or given press freedoms, a declaration from a government official.
This just confirms that the biggest proponents for the big clash of civilization are the Mubaraks of the world to hide their hideous incompetence and corruption. Let us not forget the ridiculous actions of the Jordanian Government for arresting the one editor who tried to calm things down.

[Stacey]

In the ongoing account of the (potential?) importance of blogging, the Financial Times did a profile yesterday of "bloggers in the Middle East attempting to make sense of the furore..."

I freely admit that mine was included (though really just quoting me quoting Abdullahi an-Naim), but this isn't just self-promotion. The article also highlighted some particularly good points by Aqoul's Ashraf - in addition to the "blame Bashir" camp, he added the important point that the diversity of they types of protests and even the types of messages featured in those protests suggests a diversity that undermines the Western discourse on "Muslim rage"...

Don't know how to put links in comments, but here's the URL:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/06b2a32c-9899-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html

[raf*]

dear hummbumm,

would you know which egyptian newspaper printed the cartoons in october? and ... you don't happen to have a copy?

as for what stacey said - well ... i also got the willingness of leb i.s.f. to use bullets against demonstrators entirely wrong ...

but who cares - WE'RE FAMOUS NOW!

--raf*

[hummbumm]

I don't have a copy but it was the October 10th issue of El Fagr. It has been scanned on the web, on various egyptian bloggers sites.
The ISF in lebanon shot in the air, but did not shoot at protesters averting a bloodbath. Of course the idea of having armed troops acting as riot police is a disaster waiting to happen. ( you go to soccer games in lebanon, and you have troops with M16s, I mean what are they supposed to do shoot the crowd if it gets rowdy)
As to all the stoking that it took for the flames to catch, please see the NYTimes article today.

[Pete]

Usually I don't believe anyhthing that comes out of the state department. And I still don't but there is a ring of truth to the blame "bashar" talk. Anyone who knows Syria will tell u it is a virtual prison, there are nearly 13 branches of Syrian intelligence better known as mukhabarat. I would question very seriously if this rampage was given a green light. Honestly lets see protestors storm the British or American embassies in Damascus. The Danes even told the Syrians before hand that their emabssy was under threat and asked for extra security.

Why would Damascus allow it. I think to increase a sentiment that the Syrian regime is part of the history and culture of the region. It allows protests to show that people can express themselves (in causes the regime allows). So why this cause? Just like the b'ath in Iraq in a situation when the country is isolated they wish to increase religious sentiment as a tool of mechanism, not because they like religion, but because it a useful tool for the gang that rules Damascus. A form of solidarity.

Secondly, the regime wishes to take a position that it is isolated as a beacon in the region that wishes to protect its interests and culture, that of course are being threatened by the "other" who wish nothing but harm to Syria and its people (plus their beliefs and customs). Like the neo-cons in America this polarization of the "other" against "us" is a great propaganda tool, even if you look at it closely its realy stupid. But its propaganda and history shows it works again and again and again......

[Meph]

LRW- Amr Khaled has a huge following precious at this time and he missed a golden oppurtunity. He did not incite riots but generally repeated what was expected of him (and what many audiences had heard before as his statement came somewhat delayed) and in my opinion, was disappointing as one of the most reasonable, realistic and contemporary preacher in the Arab World today. In any case, this may be pre-mature as he has a second message to be announced soon.