Op-Ed: Those Self Destructive American Apologies
MP Fiamma NirensteinHon. Fiamma Nirenstein is the Vice-President of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Chair of the Committee for the Inquiry into Antisemitism in the Italian Chamber of Deputies
Il Giornale, September 15th, 2012, send to Arutz Sheva in translation by the writer.
American embassies are burning across the Middle East and further afield. Jihadist Islam bites the hand which helped it during the revolutions. Embracing the idea that this mass murderous frenzy is due to a negligible film on Muhammad on the web is pathetic. It is never only about cartoons, videos, films, or statements.
Analyzing how dear the character of Muhammad is to Islam could be compared to how dear the character of Jesus Christ is to Christians. But only mad Christians would set off to murder people and set embassies on fire against an affront.
An Egyptian Salafi television inflamed tensions by broadcasting this poor performance on the internet one year after its release: just a provocation stunt. Since the mob had heavy weapons when they attacked the embassy, it was not such a spontaneous deed after all.
It is self-destructive that Hillary Clinton rather than blasting as expected from a Foreign Minister after the loss of her ambassador, briefly labeled the moronic film as “reprehensible”, as if this implied violent consequences.
It is despicable that Obama, the appointed advocate of freedoms of the free world, did not seize the opportunity to explain that in the West freedom of speech extends to all topics. He could have mentioned that back in 1940 the Supreme Court acquitted a certain Newton Cantwell and his two sons accused of distributing offensive anti-Catholic literature that incited violent reactions
A considerable number of extreme opinions are a legitimate part of western history, and we conquered the certainty that we would never stand on the side of those who burnt heretics because they disturb the current general opinion. In this case, it would have been possible, and even a good occasion to say "I'm sorry for the offense, if you feel some" and immediately after that, reiterate with an extremely tough statement that ambassadors are sacred, as sacred is the right of speech, hands off; and not even the most moronic and unknown exhibitionist will be muted in our countries.
The truth is we desperately want to be accepted by Muslims. We will accept any misunderstanding under the guise that the star of democracy will rise for them, everything will be alright.
George Bush thought that by ousting Saddam Hussein Iraq might become an occasion for Shiites and Sunnis to sit together around the banquet of freedom: he sincerely tried that, accepting that the world would blame him, and that was admirable: but the death toll of tribal, religious, ethnic casualties is still being counted by the thousands.
Obama will undergo the same fate. He will be blamed one day, much more severely because the danger is greater, assaulting the free world from every direction. He wanted to be the sorcerer's apprentice of the Arab revolutions, like Carter was of the Khomeinist Revolution: his acquiescence toward Islam got him an image of weakness in a world where it is considered a sign of idiocy as well as a promise of a near victory for Islamism.
Khartoum, Tunis, Jerusalem, and Lebanon, on top of Benghazi and Cairo, have fallen prey to hatred demonstrations that already cost the lives of numerous people.
Stevens' murder should have become the occasion for a decisive deadline. An institutionally untouchable character, he was the less protected one and in addition, the most courageous among the fifty-year-old Americans who jog in the morning (he did), confident that a couple of trustworthy people flanking him would be enough in the sultry Middle Eastern breeze.
That is sign of the American times. How could Stevens ignore that Libya is a hatred brewing pot? He must have known that in November 2011 when the regime fell, the rebel forces hoisted the Al Qaeda flag over the Courthouse in Benghazi, as Caroline Glick remembered.
Numerous groups, no matter whether they are called Al Qaeda or else, all kinds of Jihadist organizations demand their kind of justice, and its called Sharia; their current unhappiness is because new governments have neither given out enough bread, nor enough Jihadism.
Therefore, the US and Israel are always to be blamed, the hatred is always turned toward the West. In the mind of the mobs that now burn American, Israeli, German, British flags, there is nothing personal, nothing connected to a specific event, therefore nothing that can possibly be fixed; it is absurd not to relate the new revolutions to the ideology that seems to rule them, i.e. Jihadism.
How can Obama still ignore it? It is Islam's promise to bend the world to subjugation. The experts' attempt to describe Al Qaeda as a declining organization is pathetic. It does not matter that Al Qaeda is scattered, divided, or impoverished.
It is just the same as when people say that it was not Hamas in Gaza that fires rockets, whereas it is well known that small groups do not act without their boss's permission. Attacks are the loud voice of Jihadism, where Al Qaeda enjoys renowned room. The spontaneous division into autonomous branches does not make it a weak organization in any way. It got a diversified militant party from Libya to Syria and Sinai.
Obama however does not want to acknowledge there is a jihadist danger, America pandered to the idea that it is a minor event, resulting from fanaticism and that an idiot who posts a film is to be blamed, the murderers therefore are somehow right.
So new claims, as well as new provocations, arise: Sheikh Yussuf Al Qaradawi, in an ironic and aggressive message, asks the Pope on his way to Lebanon for his apologies for his 2006 statements on political Islam. He foments hatred against Christians, and he states at the same time that Christians are to blame. American-style.