It should have been my finest hour. After weeks of defending Denmark over the cartoon row in words I was going to take action at an hour-long solidarity protest in front of the Danish consulate in New York.

“You are either with us or against us,” an unwise man once said. I cannot agree. But for those of us with views in between the protest rally will rarely if ever represent our opinion. I realized that after half an hour that day at the Danish consulate. And I walked away.

Now let’s get one thing straight. There are times when a cartoon can cause offence. Indeed, racist, xenophobic cartoons are published all the time around the world. Cartoons of Ariel Sharon drinking Palestinian children’s blood or of President Bush wearing a swastika are not hard to find in Arab and European newspapers. Hell, you can probably find them in the USA.

And if you want examples of other religions exploding with spiritual indignation then look no further than Martin Scorsese’s movie adaptation of The Last Temptation of Christ that led to the firebombing of a movie theater in Paris.

Yet none of these creations, neither the cartoons nor the movie, caused ambassadors to be recalled and a nation to be vilified.

Thousands of Palestinians marched through Gaza City this week chanting: “War on Denmark, Death to Denmark.” Over a cartoon.

Some might say that the 12 drawings, published in Denmark’s largest daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, vilified a religion—and with some cause. Most of the drawings are innocuous enough but a cartoon of Muhammad wearing a bomb for a turban does more than touch a nerve.

But consider also the circumstances in which these drawings were made.

For some time there has been a growing resentment in Denmark that a small proportion of its 200,000 Muslim immigrants (about 3 per cent of the 5.5 million population) are not integrating. Rather than embracing Danish values second-generation youngsters are adopting extreme interpretations of the Koran preached by fiery imams.

Fiercely liberal Danes want to know why their taxes (almost half the population pays 63 percent income tax) are subsidizing forced marriages and Muslim women having to live behind a veil—in Denmark. In a biography last year, Queen Margrethe of Denmark called for opposition to radical Islam, saying: “We have to run the risk of being labeled in an unflattering way, because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”

Fast forward a few months and a Danish writer complains that nobody dares illustrate his book about Muhammad because pictorial depictions of the prophet are forbidden in Islam. Forbidden in Islam. But what about in Denmark?

Jyllands-Posten tested the limits of freedom of speech in its own country by asking Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they imagined him. With a seemingly relentless wave of suicide bombings around the world in the name of Islam, is it any wonder that about half of the drawings depicted the prophet in relation to extremism? In one cartoon he is pictured at the entrance to heaven telling suicide bombers to stop because he has run out of virgins. That is not a slur on the Muslim faith. It’s satire with a powerful political point.

And now we arrive at the crux of the matter. Because if everything we read is true then it is an offence to make any drawing of the prophet. Never mind that there must be countless images of Muhammad in existence around the world. Never mind that this is a belief that is being imposed on everyone by a minority of zealots within a religion. And never mind that the current protests emanate from countries in which freedom of expression is still a distant dream.

We must do as we are told, they say. Or else.

Related links:
Tom Gross highlights offensive Arab cartoons (via Clive Davis)
Following reports that some of the cartoons doing the rounds of the Middle East were NOT printed in Jyllands-Posten, Sunny at Pickled Politics says Danish Muslims made up quite a lot “convince” their brothers that Muslims were being persecuted. Twelve cartoons were printed in Jyllands-Posten but 15 have been handed out in Muslim countries:

The first of the three additional pictures shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon, the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

See the excellent Brussels Journal for the whole saga (and the drawings).
Jyllands-Posten statement on its stance over the cartoons.

Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

Growing up in a Jewish neighborhood, having a large group of Jewish friends, coming from a community which did—and still does—consider “marrying out” to be a social disability, it was liberating to leave. Admittedly, I jumped from the frying pan into the fire by moving to Novgorod, a small town in Russia where I had to keep my Jewish identity a secret because of deep-seated Russian anti-Semitism. But at least, as Jackie Mason would say, it was not “too Jewish.”

Within a few weeks I went from being sick of suburban British Jewish life to having my ears prick up every time I heard the word yevrey. Jews were clever but cunning. We were better than Georgians, Chechens and people from the “-stans” but still untrustworthy and, in the case of reformist intellectuals like Grigory Yavlinsky, never likely to make it to the head of Russian politics because of the “Jewish” tag.

It was a relief to return to England six months later and begin university in London where I had to neither worry nor care about being a Jew.

But being Jewish in England is not quite as simple as it first seems. Big cities like Leeds, Manchester, London and Glasgow have sizable Jewish populations. Here you are likely to find non-Jews who have Jewish friends, or who go to school or who work in offices with Jewish people. But outside of these areas are towns and villages where many people have rarely if ever met a Jew. To them, a Jew is someone in a black hat and a beard, with dark eyes and a hooked nose, hurrying along the street to pray, not a white, middle class English kid. So it always came as a surprise to some people several months into knowing them when you informed them that you were a Jew. (Sometimes, only occasionally, one sensed it was a little repulsive, “You’re Jew-wish?”)

You’re a stealth Jew. Not conforming to their preconceptions of how a Jew looks or acts, but a Jew nonetheless.

Your persona is suddenly and incontrovertibly tied up in Israel and everything the media (rightly or wrongly) claims it has done. You are an aggressor, a bully, a hypocritical Jew meting out some form of sick violence against Palestinians as though it was revenge for what the Nazis did to your people 60 years before. Your character is also linked to everything your new friend has been led to believe that a Jew will be. In most case we are decent, intelligent, hard-working, successful people. In other cases we are greedy, degenerate, conniving filth.

And here’s where Brooklyn comes in. Because although I could not have asked for a better place to have grown up than north Leeds; although Russia was a magical country with a fantastic people, a beautiful language and a rich culture; although London was exciting and edgy and multi-cultural and cool, I have never felt so at home, so totally unconsciously Jewish, as I do in Brooklyn, surrounded by possibly the densest Jewish population in the world.

Links for Monday:
Chicago Bears player scores a 108-yard touchdown, the longest play in NFL history. Via Macboy
Big Apple Blog Festival

If Ken took the time to find out a little more on the subject maybe he would pause first before making statements like this:

And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s… the Americans recruited and trained Osama Bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan.

From my reading of Peter Bergen’s Holy War, Inc, so far (and I have yet to finish it so things could change…but I doubt it), the Americans had practically nothing to do with OBL in Afghanistan. In fact, OBL was quite happily building up his own little band of merry men, paid for out of his own pocket, completely separate from any US involvement.

Yes, the Americans poured money into Afghanistan via Pakistan. And most of it went to some of the world’s worst people, like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. But not to Osama. So where does Ken get his facts from? His own press statements perhaps?

But Ken’s malfeasance doesn’t stop there. Oh no. When he shines his little light on Israel in particular, he produces this gem:

“Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves.”

Well, it, didn’t happen here in England. But we still managed to produce three suicide bombers. What does that tell you about these people’s ideology?

When I wrote my original On London post I never imagined the amount of feedback I would get. Comments were dropping onto the site at a rate that I could barely keep up with let alone reply to. One assertion I made which attracted more attention than most was my claim that America could take a lesson in democracy from countless countries in the world.

The sooner Americans detach themselves from the delusion that they are the sole arbiters of freedom and democracy in the world the better. Countless countries could give America a lesson in those two subjects, especially on human rights.

Well, when you make a statement like that and only expect a handful of people to read it, it can be quite shock to be called to account by dozens of people a few days later:

One note on your thoughts re: Americans thinking they are the arbiters of freedom, though… this is like hating that Yankees fans consider themselves the arbiters of baseball. Sure, other teams may play the game, but doesn’t it seem like the Yanks are always around when it counts? Mike

(The emphasis is mine.)

Far from saying the US was somehow lacking in the democracy department my point was that there are plenty of other countries in the world which are equally and rightly proud of their commitment to democracy and human rights. I don’t deny that the Yanks are always around when it counts, but as far as I know they have been known to hang around for some time before jumping in. They have also been known to back some pretty horrible people in their pursuit of freedom and democracy. As for Europeans being ruled by apparatchiks in Brussels, I never noticed any of my civil liberties being curtailed when I lived in Europe. In fact, if I lived in Turkey right now, I might be quite glad that the country was having to modify some of its laws in order to gain acceptance.

I don’t want to get drawn into a slanging match over this. On London was supposed to be a defense of the United States and an explanation of how and why my views had changed. If anything, it was an argument tipped towards the right. So why did so much of the hostility I receive come from the right? Why amongst all of the many kind messages I received from some wonderful people–most of them American—did I also have to put up with messages like this one:

You don’t like “Freedom Isn’t Free” tees? Maybe I don’t like a bunch of gap-toothed Brits claiming moral high-ground. Just a thought. Next time you are in the DC area, visit the Arlington National Cementery. Freedom is not free. Some of us Americans prefer to distill our messages. Simple people. Simple lives.

Actually, I retract that comment. The British have always stood shoulder-to-shoulder with its American ally – in deed if not always in word. That is enough. You answered your own question in your essay. If not now, when? If not us, who?

Exactly, if not now, when? If not us, who? So why the gap-toothed Brits reference? Because some people still think the moral high ground is theirs. The truth is it belongs to no one. It’s shared between us all. That’s partly what On London was all about.

Here is how it begins but I encourage you to read the short article in full:

If I’m asked about 7/7, I – a Yorkshire lad, born and bred – will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. I think what happened in London was a sad day and not the way to express your political anger.

Then there’s the “but”. If, as police announced yesterday, four men (at least three from Yorkshire) blew themselves up in the name of Islam, then please let us do ourselves a favour and not act shocked.

Trainee Aslam goes on to imply that the UK’s role in helping the US in Iraq is the reason why the suicide bombers detonated themselves in London last week. And that the reason these young men took the action they did is that they are not prepared to stand idly by while the US (and, one assumes, Europe) kills and oppresses Muslims around the world. What really got my goat was this:

The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don’t-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We’re much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.

and this:

Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as “young”, “underprivileged”, “undereducated” and perhaps even “fringe”. The don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn’t mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.

Those “labels” he speaks of are the explanations we fumble for in the West to explain why young men (and women) could want to do the terrible things they do to civilians around the world. They are the best excuses we can come up with for the actions of what we believe are, at heart, decent human beings like the rest of us. Otherwise, we are left with a starker truth–that these people are educated, that they are well off, that they know exactly what they are doing, and that they are possibly even sane.

I am willing to bet that Mr Aslam is in his late teens or early twenties (he is, afterall, a trainee) so he has time to change his mind. He has time to refelct on how many innocent Muslims around the world, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Africa, in Britain and in the US have died because of suicide bombings. He may also do well to consider how well people like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein treated their citizens when they were in power. And, of course, he is completely missing the point—that in a democracy young Muslims can and should speak out as they wish. They just shouldn’t blow people up.

But the editors and fellow journalists at the Guardian ought to know slightly better. Mr Aslam is comparing suicide bombing to “rocking the boat” in a country which is still obviously traumatized by a terrorist attack. I’m sure if I were a relative or friend of one of the victims, I would not be happy at all…

(Thanks to Clive Davis for pointing me in the direction of the Guardian, my former favourite read…)

I have been preoccupied over the past few days with a tangle of questions and thoughts connected by the London bombing. Not thoughts of the why they did it, how they did it, or who did it variety. I have been wondering why and how this has affected me. Selfish, I know. But also, it is the only way I can feel myself a part of this whole, sorry situation.

My thoughts and ideas about the War on Terror, US Foreign Policy, and European Foreign Policy (if it can be called or characterized as such) has been in a state of flux for the past six months or longer. It is no coincidence that the last four books to enter my apartment were Peter Bergen’s Holy War Inc, Christopher Hitchens’ Love, Poverty, and War, Scott Anderson’s The Man Who Tried to Save the World, and Bob Dylan’s Chronicles (Chronicles, the exception, I hope proves the rule).

Warning: there follows a list of gratuitous admissions.

1. I have been on two anti-war/anti-Bush marches in New York (2003/2004)
2. I believed that the September 11 attacks on America were the ghosts of US foreign policy coming back to haunt it.
3. On September 11, 2001, and on July 8 7, 2005, (and on all the bombings in between) I acted as though it had nothing to do with me.

The first admission is no source of shame. I still believe that the way the US invaded Iraq was wrong; the Bush administration falsely linked Saddam and September 11, the UN was brushed aside and terribly weakened, the electorate in the US and the UK was misled on the road to war, and plans for running the country post Saddam were not thought through.

Hussein was a dictator. I support his removal just as I would the removal of Robert Mugabe. But if you have to lie to your electorate in order to go to war, then perhaps you are not going to war for the right reasons in the first place.

On the second admission I confess that I feel woefully uneducated. There is a school of thought which points to “US imperialism” and draws a winding line from the mountains of Afghanistan during the 1980s to the man behind the attacks on September 11. They view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, US backed despots in the Middle East and the presence of US troops and oil interests there, as the obvious explanation for these people’s hatred of Western society. Among the second school of thought, writers like Christopher Hitchens point to the rise of Islamofascism over the past 40 years and argue that Islamic terrorists would attack Western Democracies no matter what:

But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there’s no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about “the West,” to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don’t like and can’t defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state.

The contrast between these two world views has been my main preoccupation during the past few days. I spent so long believing in the first school of thought, and the shift that I have made towards the second camp has been so gradual, that I think it has been perceptible to everybody except myself. While not wholeheartedly agreeing with School Number 2, I can no longer agree with School Number 1. I am in the unfortunate position of not knowing anything anymore—of being somewhere in between.

If living in New York has had one major effect during the past year and a half, it is to open my eyes to a different world view. To put it another way. When I immersed myself in Russia for five years between 1995 and 2000, it opened my left eye. Living in America is opening my right eye. And my vision is still pretty much a blur.

The BBC that I used to love for its impartiality, I have “discovered,” is far from impartial. I don’t love it any less for this. And I think that the license fee is the surest way keep the world’s greatest (and I mean this) news/current affairs institution at its best. But I do wish that they would admit that news output is only as impartial as the people who produce it. And I am yet to meet an impartial human being—especially an impartial journalist.

Likewise, the great British Press, the envy of the world, contains a mass of half-truths, deliberate omissions, undeclared interests, and regurgitated press releases. It chases its tail to produce almost a dozen national newspapers that carry the same story, albeit of varying lengths, each and every day. And regional journalism, at least as I knew it, has been reduced to filling space.

The result is not a lie on the scale of Pravda. But it is still a false world view masquerading as the truth.

So, after 12 months of living in New York is it any surprise that Israel starts to look a little less evil? And that Europe starts to look a little more parochial? That the US starts to look a little more like it is trying to solve some of the world’s problems, and that it is doing so despite the sometimes unfair criticism of its allies? If in England it always looked like the US was the playground bully. Then from the US it looks a lot more like an embattled headteacher in a problem school.

So what does any of this have to do with me?

Like many Englanders abroad I received the phone calls and emails last Friday. I reproduce one below:

Paul, heard from your London friends? Hope they are all safe.

So after having been abroad for both the 9/11 attacks as a UK resident, and
today’s London attacks as a New Yorker, do you still feel somewhat distanced
from the reality? I remember you said that you felt indifferent, maybe even
unfazed in 2001.

Indifferent and unfazed are exactly the qualities I expressed throughout Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I don’t have to express them any more because we are past the point when people will ask. But what bothered me was the fact that while I expressed both qualities to a frustrating degree in front of my wife, I was in fact neither indifferent nor unfazed within.

The reason for this is at the heart of the gradual metamorphosis I have just attempted to explain. On September 11, I thought I knew the reasons why the attacks had taken place. And it was not my fault. Moreover, it was somebody else’s fault – the US’s – and they were reaping what they had sown. But in the past 12 months I have slowly come to understand that the wordview I held was tainted by a media that sees the problems in the world (dictatorship in Iraq, authoritarianism/terrorism in the Middle East, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, global warming) as being the fault of the United States. All of this from a country and a continent that seems to have done little itself to try to redress the balance in a world which it has corrupted/manipulated to a gargantuan degree during the past 100 years.

“We know that,” comes the cry. “But the US has the power to do so much good and yet it chooses to do the opposite.”

Really? Should the US have stayed out of Kosovo? Should it have stayed out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Should it leave North Korea and Iran to their own devices? Is it the US alone that has not done enough to stop the killing in Darfur? Or is Britain, Europe, Africa, just as much to blame? Why are we not rushing headlong into Zimbabwe to get rid of Robert Mugabe? Is it worse to do something? Or is it worse to do nothing?

At this moment, I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has done more than most to help the US get rid of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. And I think that it would do other Europeans some good to think again about what their countries have achieved, if anything, to try to stem the tide of dictatorships and terrorism around the world. They should wonder whether they are really asking themselves the hard questions. Or whether they are shrugging their shoulders and blaming America because that is what they have been brought up to do.

Would the world be a safer place if the people who bombed Bali, New York, Madrid, and London, were in power in Africa and the Middle East? If not, how do we stop them? If we lived in Israel would we believe that a return to our 1967 borders would mean the chance of a life lived in peace? If not, how can we ensure that for them?

This weekend I took my first trip to Washington DC, where I had to suffer the Smithsonian National Museum of American History’s terrible exhibition The Price of Freedom: Americans at War. If it had been simplified any further it would have just had the words “The Good Guys Won and the Bad Guys Lost. We were the good guys.” under each exhibit. I was further sickened by the prevalence of “Freedom is not free” T-shirts being sported by passers-by on the Mall, and by one woman’s remark at a service station on the freeway who said “It seems like all the coaches in the free world have stopped here at once.”

The sooner Americans detach themselves from the delusion that they are the sole arbiters of freedom and democracy in the world the better. Countless countries could give America a lesson in those two subjects, especially on human rights.

But by the same token, Europe and the rest of the world must accept that far from being playground bullies, Americans are actually do-gooders with very heavy hands. A few decades ago, they would have backed any despotic ruler if it meant they could have their way. Well, they learned their lesson. Nowadays they hope that planting democracy in the Middle East will reap its rewards for generations to come. It’s time they were lent a more willing hand.

Please do not try commenting at the bottom of this page. My blog cannot handle it. It will not work. Instead, follow this link and post your comment here.