"We have a right to speak our minds, not an obligation to do so..."

That little nugget deserved special attention indeed.

Very astute dissection oh Fearless Leader.

Posted by: Cornelius at January 9, 2006 5:59 PM

The Economist looks a the world from a comfortable tower, surveying the ritziest quarter of London. From there, the world looks terrific: "What problems? Its nice where I live"

Cancel!

Posted by: Sam Roony at January 9, 2006 6:12 PM

It makes me want to tattoo the face of Mohammad on a pork chop and try to get a NEA -National Endowment For The Arts- grant for it (ala "Piss Christ").

I'll call it:

"Pork Prophet" (with all the double entendres that that entails, since art is supposed to be multifariously meaningful, no?)

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 9, 2006 6:20 PM

For decades The Economist has been intolerable in its MIddle East coverage. On the subject of Israel it is no better than the run-of-the-mill Guardian, and was hot off the mark in anti-Israel propaganda, way back in the days of Elizabeth Munro. A particular "Economist" speciality have been photographs of the fiercest and most fanatical-looking Uzi-clutching-in-one-hand, child-held-in-the-other Israeli "settlers" that the magazine photo editors could find. You will not learn, from "The Economist," anything about Mandatory Palestine, or about the terms of the Mandate, or the legal, historic, and moral claims of the Israelis. Nor will you learn overmuch about the demography and state of the Ottoman vilayets of what became Mandatory Palestine.

But aside from Israel, where the Lesser Jihad has always been presented as a simple matter of competing claims, one of those claims belonging to a group termed, without any eyebrow at The Economist being raised, "the Palestinian peole" (and no hint that that self-designation came in to very calculated use only after the 1967 war, and for clear political reasons, as Zuheir Mohsen of As-Saiqa in a moment of candor revealed to James Dorsey in the Dutch newsapper Trouw."

In the world of "The Economist," all's right with Islam, save for a handful of extremists. Just look at the advertisements from the Arab STates of the Gulf -- for Arab Banks, and Arab firms of every kind, and Westren businesses deeply dependent on Arab money. Look at the Economist Area Reports, look at every damn thing The Econmist traffics in -- and realize that not only does it not report anything like the truth about the ideology of Islam, the history of Islam, but it never will -- it can't, it won't. It is in up to its neck in Arab money and Arab clients and Arab subscribers.

There is no solution. But let me make a suggestion. The Economist has for years been trying to break into the American market, to expand its readership. Cancel your subscription, if you have one -- and let them know that this article on the Danish newpaper was the last straw. If you get one of those "4 free issues and absolutely no commitment" letters in the mail, send back the enclosed envelope telling them that until they stop being shills for Islam, you will have nothing to do with it. Ban it from your waiting rooms, doctors, dentists, lawyers, securities firms. Stick with American publications -- you don't need The Economist. It is, on the most important geoolitical, intellectual, moral question of the day, doing the work of the enemy. Don't help it. Try to hurt it. Try to do it and its smarmy staff as much damage as you can.

Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2006 6:27 PM

Victor Davis Hanson has his blindspots, but this little 'Letter to Europe' is an interesting one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601060804.asp

Posted by: Cornelius at January 9, 2006 6:29 PM

While much is left out of the article by Bret Stephens on "The Economist," much is also included. Start here to find out about how it has treated Israel, or google the name "Keith Kyle" for a bit more on one of its steady commentators and deliberate misinterpreters of the Jihad against Israel.

Here's the piece:

Bret Stephens' Eye on the Media: Fear and loathing at 'The Economist'
The Jerusalem Post - BRET STEPHENS - July 4, 2002
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1025787703778

"Israel is a superior country with superior people: its talents are above the ordinary. But it has to abate its greed for other people's land." The Economist, October 7, 2000

Is there a newsweekly smarter, better written, or more globally influential than The Economist? Its worldwide print circulation runs to 838,000. The average subscriber brings in $151,400 a year in personal income. Fifty-two percent of readers work in senior management, and another 27% own a car costing upwards of $40,000. Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger does cameos for the magazine's TV ads. Vice President Dick Cheney even took a copy of The Economist with him down to the White House bunker on September 11, apparently in case he'd need to idle away the time between phone calls to the president and warnings of imminent kamikaze attacks.

I would have taken a copy, too, had I been in his shoes. For sheer intelligent entertainment, there is nothing like it. It is equally interesting when delving into the science of migraine headaches, the life and times of fashion designer Bill Blass, electricity deregulation in China, or the quality of German wines. It regularly supplies lengthy explanatory surveys on everything from the future of Zionism to the future of the universe. The Economist's hard news coverage can be quirky -- it goes for stories on elections in Lesotho and land shortages in Vietnam -- but these somehow are usually worth reading. At the same time, the magazine stays well-focused on its main beats -- politics, economics, business, social trends -- and most of the time it tells the story straight. Its editorials, too, tend to be sensible and fair.

STRAIGHT, SENSIBLE and fair, that is, except when it comes to Israel.

For years, Jewish groups and media critics have aimed their fire at CNN, National Public Radio, the BBC and The New York Times. They don't know what they're missing. To the editors of The Economist, Israel is America's "often awkward" (June 27) and "pampered ally" (April 6). Israel's defenders, notably Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, are prone to "scatological excess and testicular obsession." Prime Minister Ariel Sharon represents Israel's "uglier face" (October 7, 2000); he is a calculated liar (April 21, 2001), whose modus operandi is "calculated brutality" (March 10, 2001). In electing him last year, Israelis were in a "bolshie mood" (February 3, 2001).

The right-wing parties in the national unity government are "scary"; indeed, they are "wolves" (February 2). The only way to prevent the Middle East from "burning" is for the US to intervene "swiftly and much more neutrally in the conflict." Which is to say, on the side of the Arabs.

For The Economist to take this line may seem a surprise. In the main, the magazine champions laissez-faire economics and veers right politically. (It endorsed, albeit with reservations, George W. Bush's presidential candidacy.) What's remarkable about The Economist's coverage of Israel, however, is that while other right-leaning British publications -- The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator in particular -- have taken a broadly pro-Israel line, The Economist has gone the way of The Guardian and The Independent, the country's far-left broadsheets.

Stranger yet is that it does so not for traditionally Tory Arabist reasons -- Britain's interest in cultivating good relations with the Arab states -- but instead on the ostensibly humanitarian grounds championed by the European left. Thus the magazine, citing Amnesty International, alleges in its June 29 issue that Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti (whom it describes as "an inspiring resistance leader") is "being tortured" in an Israeli jail. What The Economist does not say is that the Amnesty claim is in turn based on one unverified allegation from the Palestine Media Center. Nor does the magazine mention that Barghouti was wanted in connection to his involvement in the January 17 Bat Mitzva terror attack in Hadera that killed six, the January 22 attack in downtown Jerusalem that killed two, and the March 4 attack at the Tel Aviv Seafood Market restaurant that killed three.

Similarly, the magazine, although not alleging outright that a massacre took place in Jenin, gave great credence to the accusations with its surprisingly melodramatic dispatches. "In the razed heart of Jenin refugee camp," it reported on April 27, "Palestinians were shovelling out their decomposed dead.... The danger of epidemic is real." "Like earthquake victims," it added, "the Palestinians in Jenin, Nablus and elsewhere in the West Bank need massive humanitarian help." But that help, it reported, "is hindered by the Israeli army's sieges."

The Economist did not, however, subsequently note that no epidemic took place, much less acknowledge that the removal of 56 corpses from the scene of the fighting hardly requires "shovelling." Then too, the magazine has yet to mention that Palestinians have used Red Crescent ambulances to ferry explosives.

The Economist has also shown remarkably little interest in the humanitarian tragedies endured by Israelis. Having reviewed dozens of stories, I have yet to see one that names a single victim of terror, or dwells on the consequences for the victim's family, or allows an Israeli voice to have the last word in the story. A January 26 piece that begins with the January 22 terror attack moves swiftly to an allegation that the IDF "executed" four Palestinians "in their beds or the bathroom, or shot them through the head," before concluding the piece with a line from Ahmed Abdul Rahman, an Arafat minion. Another story, pegged to the Dolphinarium attack, also concludes by bemoaning the "dreadful decades of Israeli gradualism" under which Palestinians have suffered.

Indeed, to get a sense of the pervasiveness of the bias in The Economist's coverage, it's enough to quote passages at random.

* "[Sharon] could not, when he was elected prime minister a little over a year ago, turn the clock back immediately. Instead, he joined the diverse and powerful army of spoilers, led on the Palestinian side by militant Islamists, who have managed between them to sabotage the hopes of a permanent settlement along Oslo lines." (April 6)

* "Ariel Sharon was elected Israel's prime minister in February on the double premise that he would make his people safer, and would not talk to the Palestinians until they were. With strong support for this stand, his army set about bringing the Palestinian leaders to heel by means that included bombing from helicopters, shelling from tanks, kidnapping senior security men and killing suspected terrorists. Unremarkably, the uprising continued...." (April 7, 2001)

* "Although Israel has transformed itself into a lively high-tech society, there are nowadays echoes of the same misconceptions about peace coming cheaply on Israel's terms. If Mr. Sharon is a snake-oil salesman, many Israelis, battered by Mr. Barak's shot-gun approach, are prepared to allow themselves to believe him." (February 3, 2001)

* "If there is one single Israeli who inspires violent feelings, it is the prime minister-elect. Jordanians recall the time in 1953 when a force led by Mr. Sharon destroyed the village of Qibya, leaving 69 civilians dead. Egyptians remember that it was Mr. Sharon who flouted a ceasefire during the 1973 war, counter-attacking across the Suez Canal to turn Egypt's initial success into near-defeat. Syrians, Lebanese and Christians all know him as the mastermind of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, an act that led to the loss of 40,000 Arab lives and to Israel's 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon." (February 2, 2001)

The picture drawn here is, of course, a familiar one -- a demonic one. Sharon, the Jewish counterpart to Hamas's Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Sharon, the brutish but ineffectual hardliner. Sharon, the quack. Sharon, the mass killer of Arabs. Indeed, reading the news coverage of The Economist, one almost suspects it cribs its lines from Arab press, complete with gross errors of fact. Sharon, for the record, crossed the canal on October 16, 1973, six days before the ceasefire was declared.

Now consider The Economist's portrait of Yasser Arafat. True, the magazine has described him as a "terrorist recidivist" who has "pocketed what Oslo gave him and relaunched a liberation war." Arafat also comes in for criticism for his "lamentable bungling as chief executive of the Palestinian Authority." But in the main, The Economist lets him off with a light slap. Arafat "probably did not plan the intifada." His "brilliance" as a "wily old-time resistance leader" kept "the gleam of Palestinian nationalism against all adversities." He remains, in the magazine's judgment, "unsurpassed at representing his people's aspirations -- and is probably the only one who might, just might, persuade them to do something they do not like."

Not a bad epitaph, one might say, were things to end right there. Yet even by the evidence of The Economist's own reporting, it's a strange judgment. "How" the magazine quotes one Hamas leader as asking, "can Arafat arrest Hamas people for 'violence' when everybody knows that Fatah people led the 'violence'?" The magazine also took note last month that "Islamist and radical national groups have all turned down places in a new Palestinian cabinet." But it failed to explain to readers that this fact owed to Arafat offering these Islamists and radicals places in the cabinet to begin with.

IT WOULD BE an insult to the editors of The Economist not to suppose that a logic informs their reporting and editorial writing. Indeed one does. And it is not the belief that "there is no quick fix, and certainly no military fix, to violence," although this is a theme that recurs frequently in the magazine's pages. Rather, as the editors wrote on April 6:

"Palestine does not fit the September 11th template. For this is terrorism harnessed to a deserving cause: the independent statehood that America itself has taken pains to say it supports."

Put another way, The Economist does not want to see a Palestinian state created in order to end the violence. For them, the end game is not peace in the Levant, nor even democracy for an eventual Palestine. The end is "justice" for the Palestinian people, justice virtually by any means necessary, and justice at the expense of Israel. "The notion that the Palestinian refugees and their families should still, after 52 years, contemplate returning to Israel outraged the nation," clucked one report, in obvious sarcasm.

"The intifada's leaders," added a magazine editorial in April 2001, "mainly members of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, have set their sights, and their guns, at the army-protected settlers who compete for the hills and valleys that may one day be a Palestinian state."

Given the scorn the magazine pours upon the "settler zealots" and their "Jewish nationalist extremist" champions in the Knesset, it isn't difficult to detect where the weight of editorial sympathy lies in that conflict.

Yet never has the magazine expressed itself more plainly than in its June 27 editorial on Bush's Mideast speech. Nor, in my recollection, has it ever expressed itself so angrily about anything. The speech was "the dampest of damp squibs," which could "just as well have been written by... Ariel Sharon." The speech, wrote the editors, was also a puzzle, since "Mr. Bush is after all no Zionist," and "oil has been good to the Bush family."

Coming from a magazine that had endorsed the president, the line contained all the rage of a betrayed spouse.

Most telling, however, was the question the editorial openly posed: "Who are the bad guys?" President Bush, the editorial complains, plainly thinks the bad guys are Palestinians "compromised by terror." The Economist, plainly, thinks they are Israelis, compromised by settlements.

I BEGAN this piece by citing what in my view is the single most egregious line published in any mainstream magazine about Israel in recent memory. The implication is clear. Israelis - Jews - are unusually clever. And Israelis - Jews - are also unusually greedy. This is, of course, a transparent anti-Semitic canard, the most enduring and the most obvious. The editors of The Economist could not but have known what they were doing when they wrote those words.

It is, of course, always important not to jump to damning conclusions on the strength of a couple of sentences. But as novelist Cynthia Ozick has noted in this context, "It all adds up."

"Some Israelis disagree strongly with the policy of collective punishment. Most neither know nor care."

"The election of Mr. Sharon... invites alarming speculation."...

"Mr. Arafat built up shadowy armed groups alongside the official police, and these groups now conduct 'terror' against Israel."...

"This is terrorism harnessed to a deserving cause."...

"Mr Bush is no Zionist."...

"Israel is a superior country with superior people: its talents are above the ordinary. But it has to abate its greed for other people's land."

It all adds up."

That is "The Economist" on Israel. The Arabs pay many of its bills -- again, look at those ad pages. Look at the Foreign Intelligence Units on the Middle East. Look at the names of the people involved, then google them, and everything will become clear.

You might think this is a matter of interest only to those who are interested in the survival of Israel. You would be wrong.

For the failure of many people in the Western world to understand Islam has led to quite a few near-fatal errors. The first and greatest of these errors is not the misinterpretation of right and wrong in the Arab siege of Israel, and the hasty acceptance of the re-presentation of that Jihad as a war of one "tiny people" to "reclaim" its "legitimate rights" -- each part of that claim phonier, and more easily shone to be phony, than the next.

No, the real damage has been done in making the kind of well-heeled but not always very thoughtful People Who Now Run Us -- that is, the rich, the Movers and Shakers of the World -- believe that Islam is not a worry. Why was it, after all, that all over Western Europe millions of Muslims were simply allowed in -- Pakistanis (and Bangladeshis) in England, Moroccans in Spain, Egyptians and Somalis in Italy, Moroccans and Turks in Belgium and Germany, Algerians and Moroccans in France, and then smatterings all of these, and still other kinds of Muslims from all over, all over Europe.

What madness, what criminal negligence, what inattention to the tenets and attitdues of Islam, and the history of Islmaic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims over 1350 years, based on texts that remain immutable -- this negligence by the ruling classes, some of whose members no doubt lazily take their worldview from the pages of "The Economist" and which, when it comes to Islam (as when it comes to the Jihad, and to Israel) is, and will be, given the economic interests of "The Economist" -- always a Guide to Nothing and Nowhere.

It is tainted, it is bought. Have nothing to do with it, or at least understand that questions deemed marginal are now central, and The Economist cannot possibly change its spots. Not until the OPEC petrodollars diminish in number, and cease to be so important to the welfare of The Economist, its editors, its book-reviewers (who are ecstatic about every apologist, from Dilip Hiro and John Esposito and Edward Said -- for how could it be otherwise?).

The mild pleasure one might take in the ever-so-slight rise in level of allusion -- of course, since American publications are written so that cats and dogs can understand, there really is not much of a contest -- but of course only allusions of the most predictable schoolboy kind ("Country Matters" as a title for a piece -- that sort of thing).

Easy and cheap as they come. Perhaps someone there sees the problem. Perhaps someone can do something about it. But I doubt it.

Meanwhile, keep sending back those subscription offers with your little expressions of disgust --and tell them the grouchos of Jihad Watch sent you.

Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2006 6:50 PM

I agree with Sam. The Economist is a very smart magazine, filled with knowledgeable, sophisticated coverage of world events. Which makes their unbridled optimism laughable and their blind spot with regard to Islam remarkable.

I can't tell you how many times I've read the magazine (which I love, btw) and seen them talk optimistically about the chances of peace in places like the Middle East or Africa, and thought to myself, "How can such intelligent people be so oblivious to human nature?" And time after time, events prove me right.

Posted by: scissor at January 9, 2006 7:21 PM

Hugh l must in my humlbe way commend you on this last article above, it was a great read, and enjoyed every word of it!
Do you really think that sending back their magazines will make them think differently? is there another way, writing letters, faxs, or all the above?

Posted by: Lulu at January 9, 2006 7:35 PM

Good God man.

Unless you were already working on the above piece before you last posted (an interval of apprx. 30 minutes), you have to be as driven as anyone I've ever seen...a man in a state of perpetual fast motion, googling and copying quotes, laying down his case with calm deliberation but at hyper-speed...a whirling dervish (pardon the analogy)...a Road-Runner in spades...gene-spliced together with the Tasmanian Devil and Speedy Gonzales...a veritable toronado that sweeps through the junkyard of momentary inspiration and instantaneously constructs such a well-written, devastatingly effective 747 of a critique.

Not bad Hugh. I need a drink...

Posted by: Cornelius at January 9, 2006 7:43 PM

Make that 23 minutes...

Posted by: Cornelius at January 9, 2006 7:44 PM

Free speech has no victims, but it does have one daughter called Democracy, which is largely why freedom of speech and persecution of journalists is commonly used as a barometer of democratic evolution in a given society.

Congratulations to Robert Spencer for exposing and deconstructing this article so successfully.

Posted by: cruzado at January 9, 2006 7:45 PM

Ah, the stench of arab petrodollars.... infecting all that they touch, making otherwise smart people say exceeding stupid things, turning otherwise moral people into supporters of unspeakable evil, making futurists and visionaries blind to what's right in front of their eyes, erasing 14 centuries of human history. Powerful stuff!

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 9, 2006 7:53 PM

I was going to mention that the Economist accepts a lot of Arab money, but Hugh beat me to the punch. Expect the same "makeover" to happen at FoxNews really soon. However, I disagree with Bret Stephens. The Economist does tow the Arab line for traditional Tory Arabist reasons.

Stephens has to realize that there are two voices in the Economist, an Arab voice and a British voice. It's the Arab voice that fawns over Said but it's the British voice that demands America to be more "neutral" towards Israel. I wouldn't let their concern over "human rights" for the "Palestinians" make you think they have anything in common with the EuroLeft, because they don't. Patrick Buchanan hates Third Worlders with a passion, and nothing stops him from demanding Israel to grant the "Palestinians" their basic human rights. Does he sincerely care about the "Palestinians"? No, of course not. But pretending he does makes it easier for him to bash Israel without most people questioning whether he is antisemitic or not. The British voice in the Economist does it for the same reason. Under a veneer of concern for human rights for the "Palestinians" they can print the most out of context pictures and parrot the most distortive historical narrative. But they also do it for economic reasons too: they want to expand their free market neoliberalism to the Arab world and they think they could make a mint if it wasn't for those dastardly Israelis who keep messing everything up by not conceding enough land.

So there you have it, traditional antisemitism and corporate greed are the reasons why the Economist is a traditional Tory antisemitic rag. That's why I boycott it and every other British newsource (yes, including the Telegraph) because antisemitism and Arabism is so pervasive in British politics that even the most pro-Israel of the bunch (the Telegraph) has to throw a bone to the "Palestinians" and bash Israel every so often. That's conservatism (and liberalism) in Britain for you. And like Robert and Hugh demonstrated, the more anti-Israel a publication gets, the more apologetic it becomes towards Islam and that's not just a danger to Jews, that's a danger to everyone. First they came for Israel, then they came for the rest of the infidels...

Posted by: igor at January 9, 2006 7:53 PM

Israel's defenders, notably Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, are prone to "scatological excess and testicular obsession."

Well, though she may be anti-Dhimmi of the year, Oriana Fallaci is prone to scatological and other excesses. This doesn't make her wrong, just unpleasant to read.

Our office takes "The Economist". Nobody reads it. This could be an opportunity for a cost-cutting exercise. Boost the profit, not the Prophet.

Igor - "The Telegraph" is not perfect, but it is a very good newspaper and its writers have generally got the measure of Islam.

Posted by: Interested at January 9, 2006 8:23 PM

Interested

I don't get how O.F. is prone to "scatological and other excesses." Can you be more specific? I'm really looking for information I don't have. And did you really find her "unpleasant to read" because of this "scatology"? Scatology has a long, colorful and legitimate history, especially in folk, satire, oppositional, and subversive lit.

How "unpleasant" can she be?
What a quaint, euphemistic way to put it... You'd make the poster boy for those phony theories about prude, sexually repressed Victorians.

Can you point me to those "excessive" writings/passages?

Posted by: ovidius_naso at January 9, 2006 9:32 PM

Regarding those subscription postcards with their prepaid postage mark, I have always heard that you can wrap a brick, stick the postcard on it, and let them pay the bill when it arrives. Never did it, but always thought it would be amusing for those sending those renewal pleas to receive a brick.

Posted by: John Sobieski at January 9, 2006 10:12 PM

I cannot agree with Robert more here. I read the Economist religiously, and inshallah, shall continue to read it. But the truth is the truth. The magazine is not even "dignifiedly" dhimmi.

I will be reading the pages the next few days but I am off to work in another city during the week, as will be the case for me for the coming months. As a result I will be only lurking occasionally and not posting. Nevertheless, I look forward to jumping into some debates in a few days, but sadly, I will have to contain myself until Friday.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 9, 2006 10:13 PM

When she speaks her mind Oriana Fallaci apparently prefers, as the Russians like to joke, Gounod to Glinka.

Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2006 10:33 PM

I have never understood or trusted the Economist, what is their agenda?

I remember a scathing article about Oriana Fallaci as a false Cassandra or the nauseating expose about a British Muslim fair and how wonderful and new British it was.

Hugh when I read the article about Denmark at the a news stand - I never pay for it so as not to support them - I found it absurd and mockingly funny.

I new The Economist was an open borders, sell out of the West for pure economic expediency, rag but this article was so shocking, even to those aware of the it's bias.

Shame on them!

I hope they lose readership and that sensible people ban it.

Posted by: El Cid at January 9, 2006 11:22 PM

Gounod to Glinka. sounds Hungarian to me!

Posted by: Lulu at January 9, 2006 11:23 PM

It's definitely a Russian joke, but one that includes a bottom-of-the-shoe aspect that, given the symbolism of that shoe bottom to express contempt may be said to also contain a hitherto-unidentified Muslim Arab flavor.

Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2006 11:28 PM

Religious sensitivity - seems to only apply to Islam these days. Slag off Christianity all you want, but don't touch Islam. Ever. I doubt the Economist or any other mag would write such an article advocating "religious sensitivity" towards non-Islamic religions. It's amazing how they happily flaunt their double-standards and hypocrisy. If you complain, you're a "racist", or "Islamophobe". Complain about any anti-Christian opinion, and you're anti-free speech, or a right-wing, Christian fundie nutjob.

Posted by: feralee at January 9, 2006 11:42 PM

Yes, it was a trial balloon intended to see if free speech still exists in Europe. But it was planned, IMO, with the same amount of thought that goes into a schoolboy’s prank.

The cartoons:

http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/#comments

This isn’t about how many cartoons the newspaper could publish.

Had Jyllands-Posten published drawing number one, and no other, they’d have won the argument hands down. The right to free speech would have been demonstrated. The children’s book author’s assertion would have been fully tested. The silly and contestable Muslim belief about drawings (merely one of so very many other silly and contestable Muslim beliefs) would have been exposed for all to see, and Muslims would have been forced to admit that in non-Muslim lands, Muslim beliefs are for Muslims – and only those Muslim beliefs which do not conflict with existing laws, such as freedom of speech.

And any Muslim outrage at that one drawing would have shown them to be intolerant.

Instead, the Muslim mobs were handed another victim card—mockery.

Artists #6 and #12 submitted their drawings in protest, and they must have had a reason to do so.

It’s not that Muslims and Islam should not be mocked or criticized. Such mockery and criticism is fully warranted—when it’s appropriate to do so, and when we win by doing so.

But we’re not winning this one. Muslims, and their sympathizers at the Economist, are.

Sorry, but I believe that Jyllands-Posten squandered a golden opportunity.

Posted by: PRCS at January 9, 2006 11:57 PM

I'm afraid I missed the "scatological excesses" of Orianna Fallaci myself. She is brutally frank but that's what I love about her. As for being "unpleasant to read", I must be a pervert because I see my own thoughts written in her words and that gives me great pleasure!

She writes about reality. Reality is often unpleasant. Sugar-coated dog crap is still dog crap (pardon my scatology) and Ms. Fallaci, who aptly believes that the Islamic problem has reached the point of extreme urgency, ommitted the euphemisms, false optimism, and platitudes that assauge or obfuscate the plain, ugly truth.

The Western world desperately needs to hear the truth about Islam, with no holds barred. Is there really a "polite" way to explain Islam? There is no justification for this vile, heinous ideology to exist, much less be exalted by useful idiots and forcibly imposed on clueless, tolerant Westerners. Islam, or its "holy" texts, are replete with "scatological excesses."

Posted by: Susanp at January 9, 2006 11:59 PM

Louise Arbour, the United Nations human-rights commissioner, said she was "alarmed" by such an "unacceptable disregard for the beliefs of others".

Dead freaking set. Bring back my mother from the throes of Alzheimers to sort this world out. What the damn hell has publishing Mo cartoons got to do with human rights? There are people in this world with REAL problems, eg. the victims of Islamic human-rights abusers.

Appease not the followers of Mohammad and their apologists. Aggravate them. Mo' Mo cartoons,T-shirts with Mo cartoons, piggy banks with Mo cartoons, toilet paper with Mo cartoons, get Arlo Guthrie to write a 25-minute song about the absurdities of Mo cartoons going before the UN human rights commissioner, publish a "schoolboys edition" of The Economist, with lots of Mo cartoons...

Posted by: islamophobic pride at January 10, 2006 12:49 AM

Archimedes,

This Economist article illustrates vividly the bankruptcy of PC. Just out of curiosity, how do you define a viable PC? I thought there was only one PC.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 10, 2006 12:50 AM

The British surrendered nearly 20 years ago, they are almost all Dhimmis now.

I recently saw a British movie that was based entirely on fiction, about an Israeli Radical Terrorist group that didn't exist kidnapping and killing a fictional UN mediator (Now who does that in real life all the time? Why the Muslim Jihadists, how convenient for the British Cowards who make the french seem heroic), and who were supported by a powerful Jewish Parliament Member for the Torries who placed his loyalty to Israel first, and how the heroic British Intelligence killed those evil jews and arrested the evil british jew.

Don't expect anything but spin, slander, and surrenders from the dead Isles.

People say France will be the first to have a Muslim Majority, maybe there right, but Britain will be the first to cave in and become another Muslim Country.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at January 10, 2006 1:38 AM

Go ahead and gasp.......I recently cashed in some frequent flyer miles and ordered a subscription to the Economist.

To my surprise, I noticed that Ariel Sharon is on the cover of the last issue. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read this new issue. I bet there will be some anti-Israeli rant contained in the pages.

It is true that the Economist is one of the most popular magazines in the world among left leaning politicians and intellectuals.

The arab world does have some connections to this magazine. Consequently, the magazine rarely dives into controversial topics which involves Islam.

Journalistic integrity? Not!

I read the Economoist purely to learn about what is happening in other places around the world. I like the depth in the reporting, appreciate the good writng skills, and enjoy a little dose of dry British humor.

I don't read the Economist to find out anything about Islam.

Posted by: Johnathan at January 10, 2006 2:02 AM

Excellent post Hugh.

I got rather hot under the collar when they started to compare Islamic Fundementalists to Anarchists in the early 1900's, I think it was early this year.

It was obvious that the writer spent too much time chewing over negative binomals and not enough on history.

I don't read the Economist to understand Islam either, they have the Frattini disease, to look at something and apply their own values and beliefs to it, something as irrational as Islam meets complete mis-comprehension and yes there is that arrogant upper class British attitude to Jews that I am so ashamed of as a Brit.

But I will continue to subscribe, I tend to skim over the articles on Israel and Iraq anyway as not being worth the reading time due to the ignorance of the people involved.

Posted by: Daffersd at January 10, 2006 3:00 AM

Hugh

This is what I found in the Economist's Survey of Saudi Arabia

SURVEY: SAUDI ARABIA

A long walk

Jan 5th 2006

.......
History, too, sets the kingdom apart. Few outsiders realise that this is one of only four Muslim countries that were never colonised by Europe, and the only one never invaded. All the others that escaped outright conquest—Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan—at various times had parts of their territory captured by “infidels”. Saudi Arabia is the site of the holiest places in Islam, which carries with it both heavy responsibilities and wide influence among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. It is also the only modern state to have been created by holy war, or jihad: its present territory was captured between 1902 and 1925 by a crusading puritan army under Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, who declared himself king in 1932.
........

It forgets to mention the role played by colonial powers such as UK and France in liberating Arabs from Turkish yoke !!! The so called crusading puritan army of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud could never have succeeded without the help of Britain.

It is also the only modern state to have been created by holy war, or jihad: its present territory was captured between 1902 and 1925 by a crusading puritan army under Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, who declared himself king in 1932

Bullshit.It terms the fight between Al-Sauds and Al-Rashids as "jihad". Great!!!

Saudi Arabia is the site of the holiest places in Islam, which carries with it both heavy responsibilities......

I wish Economist elaborated the actual details of responsibities and how Saudi Arabia discharged the duty of such magnificent responsibilities!

Posted by: Sandracottus at January 10, 2006 4:35 AM

"The British surrendered nearly 20 years ago, they are almost all Dhimmis now." Is that 18 or 19 years ago,NicephorusPhocas? I'm not a Dhimmi. Noone of my friends are Dhimmis. Guessing my straw poll is more accurate than yours. There are 4,000 British troops in Iraq, in Basra, and we don't win any friends in Europe by them being there. Don't presume to comment on my countrymen if you know little about them. If you have spent time in UK and know how we operate then fine, criticise away, we're deficient in a great number of areas. Let's focus on our common cause against Islam. Which is something that has much attention in the Anglosphere, not just the United States. What is said in the British media, including the BBC and the Economist, does not represent what most people think. Not at all. Large numbers of people are ill disposed towards Islam. We wish it great ill, we see it at first hand and we don't like it, we think they are dirty dogs. There were riots in the North of England between mobs of white and Muslim youths in 2002/2003. We are not Dhimmis. Neither are the Dutch.

I recently saw a British movie that was based entirely on fiction, about an Israeli Radical Terrorist group that didn't exist kidnapping and killing a fictional UN mediator (Now who does that in real life all the time? Why the Muslim Jihadists, how convenient for the British Cowards who make the french seem heroic), and who were supported by a powerful Jewish Parliament Member for the Torries who placed his loyalty to Israel first, and how the heroic British Intelligence killed those evil jews and arrested the evil british jew.

Don't expect anything but spin, slander, and surrenders from the dead Isles.

People say France will be the first to have a Muslim Majority, maybe there right, but Britain will be the first to cave in and become another Muslim Country.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas

Posted by: melbourneman at January 10, 2006 5:18 AM

Can you be more specific? I'm really looking for information I don't have. And did you really find her "unpleasant to read" because of this "scatology"?

For scatological and other excesses, read "The Rage and the Pride". All of it. Yes, it was unpleasant to read because it is unstructured and incoherent. Her passion and bravery do not make up for that. Scatology has its place, but it should be controlled, not incontinent. Repression is good.

Scatology has a long, colorful and legitimate history, especially in folk, satire, oppositional, and subversive lit.

Well I never knew that, but thanks for telling me. My New Year resolution will be to start making scatological jokes and even double entendres. This will be a new departure for me, and I will have to start at the bottom, working against my natural delicacy until everything comes together.

as the Russians like to joke, Gounod to Glinka

The long Russian winters must just fly by. Haven't a clue what it means but it sounds good.

Posted by: Interested at January 10, 2006 6:01 AM

"For decades The Economist has been intolerable... "

Really, Hugh, that's all you had to say.

Posted by: longtime lurker at January 10, 2006 7:18 AM

The more I read the kind of things written by these "useful idiots" the more I think Islamists must be laughing their heads off at us all. I wonder what The Economist has to say about Iran arming itself for nuclear warfare and their President's recent pronouncements. I look forward to the article.

Posted by: londongirl at January 10, 2006 8:58 AM

Gounod -- depending on the transliteration from French into Russian, can end up sounding like "govno" (merde)
Glinka -- diminutive of "glina" (clay)

On the bottom of one's shoe, it is possible to find either. This can happen on the sidewalk or the street, or even metaphorically, within an office building. It depends partly on what you are really doing when someone calls, and the person trying to reach you by phone is brightly told that "he has just stepped away from his desk."

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2006 11:00 AM

I read the Economoist purely to learn about what is happening in other places around the world. I like the depth in the reporting, appreciate the good writng skills, and enjoy a little dose of dry British humor.
I don't read the Economist to find out anything about Islam.

So what makes you think that their reporting on things other than Islam is accurate?

Posted by: Cynic at January 10, 2006 12:00 PM

Louise Arbour, the United Nations human-rights commissioner, said she was "alarmed" by such an "unacceptable disregard for the beliefs of others". Similar condemnations came from the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Arab League.

Now how does this jibe with the beliefs of Jews, for example, who have been derided and defamed not just by the Arab media but also the European as well.
Who can forget La Stampa's cartoon of the standoff at the Church of the Nativity.
Then again those Guardian cartoons that won British awards.
Where are the rights of those Christians whose faith is debased in the agenda of the UN "human" rights office?

Posted by: Cynic at January 10, 2006 12:09 PM

Louise Arbour -- are she and Mary Robinson identical twins?

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2006 1:07 PM

Yes the tone of the debate has become worse, some time ago only the PC Intelligentsia was entitled to write like this; to give an example:

"That night I was of the conviction that Denmark would be a great country if it wasn´t for the Danes. I would love it if it was ful of Germans, Arabs, Italians, British, Americans, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, polynese, Greenlaenders and the Samish. I also think all those would believe Denmark is a wonderful country without Danes. All the Danes could be moved to greenland. There is plenty of space up there and far to cold to pull your pants and show your big fat white ass. "

"Morten Sabroe, Author and J(G)our(ma)n(d)alist
Politiken 20-6-99 "

It a bit Funny, we use the term "Gourmandjudge" or more literally "judges of good taste" for such people.
This is really selfhate in disguise as satire, but you can find pure venom not even disguised from those people who have the correct kind of hate.
Kasem Ahmad said in a 1999 interview:

"I am a representative of islam here and I wish that the whole world will get islamized"

Then he expresses that females should be covered and wear hijab so they are "protected" from rape.

That is freedom of speech, if you are an idiot, a totalitarian sledgehammer, we have the right to know.

Posted by: TBH_1 at January 10, 2006 9:26 PM