Monday, December 29, 2008

Caroline Glick on Multiculturalism and Islamic Terrorism

Syndicated columnist and blogger Caroline Glick wrote an excellent weblog entry a few weeks ago connecting multiculturalism to the recent Islamic terrorism attacks in Mumbai.

First, she openly identifies Islamic Totalitarianism as the enemy of the United States, Israel and India:

In the aftermath of the Mumbai massacres, it is hard to imagine that there is anything as pernicious as the jihadists who sought out and murdered non-Muslims with such cruelty. But there is. Their multicultural apologists, who enable them to continue to kill by preventing their victims from fighting back, are just as evil.

The jihadists in Mumbai, like their counterparts throughout the world, were motivated to kill by their adherence to totalitarian Islam. Totalitarian Islam calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people and the subjugation of all other non-Muslims.

The jihadists in Mumbai, like their counterparts from Gaza to Baghdad to Guantanamo Bay, have been defended, and their acts and motivations have been explained away, by their allies and loyal apologists: Western multiculturalists. Multiculturalism is a quasi-religion predicated on both moral relativism and a basic belief in the inherent avarice of the West - particularly of the US and Israel. Multiculturalists assert that Westerners - or, in the case of India, Hindus - are to blame for all acts of violence carried out against them by non-Westerners.

Afterwords, she starts to cite several explicit examples of how multiculturalism leads to moral paralysis (although Glick does not use that specific term.

IN THE case of the Mumbai massacres, the jihadists' multicultural defenders began justifying their actions while they were still in the midst of their torture and murder spree. In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria [best-selling author of The Post-American World] hinted that Indian Hindus had it coming.

"One of the untold stories of India," he explained, "is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last 10 years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted."

She then takes a few shots at the media in general for the similar evasions:

Then too, the multicultural media suppressed the fact that the jihadists were targeting Jews. Outside of Israel, it took the media nearly two days to report that the Chabad House had even been taken over by the jihadists. And once they did finally report that Jews were being targeted, they made every effort to downplay the strategic significance of the jihadists' decision to send a team off the beaten path simply to butcher Jews.

Emblematic of the Western media's attempts to play down the story was The New York Times. Two days into the hostage drama, the Times opined, "It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."

JEWS WERE not the only ones who had their identity obscured. The jihadists did too. For almost an entire day, major news networks in the West suppressed the fact that the murderers were Muslim jihadists, claiming oddly, that they could also be Hindu terrorists. This was odd not because there are no Hindu terrorists, but because the perpetrators referred to themselves from the outset as "mujahideen," or Islamic warriors.

She continues with another example that I think is also worth quoting:

Once the jig was up on their attempts to hide the identities of the perpetrators and their victims alike, the jihadists' multicultural enablers started blaming the victims. For instance, on Sunday, The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by University of Chicago law professor Martha Nussbaum attacking Indian Hindus. After blithely dismissing the atrocities that were still under way while she wrote as "probably funded from outside India, in connection with the ongoing conflict over Kashmir," Nussbaum focused her ire against India's Hindus. Recalling the gruesome and apparently state-sanctioned violence against Muslims in India's Gujarat state in 2002, Nussbaum cast the jihadists as nothing more than victims of a Hindu terror state which has been victimizing Muslims for no reason since the 1930s.
Caroline Glick's analysis of the whole situation is also very good. For instance,

HE ATTACKS in Mumbai and the multiculturalists' rush to minimize their significance exposed two disturbing truths about the global jihad. First, they showed that the jihadists are quick studies. With each passing day, their capacity to attack grows larger....THE SECOND truth about the global jihad that the Mumbai attacks exposed is that there is nothing that jihadists can do to make the multiculturalists stop defending them.

Glick has written an excellent analysis of terrorist attacks in Mumbai. For those of you who enjoyed the excerpts that I quoted, I again highly recommend that you read the entire post. I only wish that more commentators would recognize the connection between multiculturalism and Islamic terrorism.


Anonymous said...

It is interesting, and not a little scary, that we can no longer trust either the news media or plain ordinary newspaper reportage. The New York Times, for example, has been playing hide-and-seek and various kinds of shell games with its reporting on the Israeli action against Gaza, dropping paragraphs with "news not fit to print" from original articles on its website, and using very suspicious photographs of Palestinian "victims" of Israeli military attacks, which focus especially on "civilians" and children. I mean, just who is taking these photographs? Palestinian "journalists"? Why don't we see photos of Israeli casualties from Hamas rocket attacks? Because, that's not news "fit to print."


Burgess Laughlin said...

Glick: "THE . . . truth . . . that the Mumbai attacks exposed is that there is nothing [no matter how outrageous] that jihadists can do to make the multiculturalists stop defending them."

Glick's observation is insightful. The question that arises for me is: Why?

Superficially the answer appears to be the concept already named: moral relativism. But if the defenders of the jihadists were consistently relativist they would also be defending the nuclear attacks on Japan in WWII and similar acts. In fact, such people don't defend actions of the West as "relative" to the culture.

So, moral relativism cannot be the explanation. I suggest envy as the underlying motivation: Hatred of the good for being good, as Ayn Rand describes it. Specifically, the jihadists and their relativist defenders hate reason and all of reason's products. Reason is the source of all good.

Doug said...

Excellent point, Burgess!

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

Very interesting and timely.
Thanks for the link to the whole article.

My physicist first husband used to say: "Everything is relative . . .(pause) to the speed of light." I think if he were reading this now, he would have said: "To a Jihadist, everything is relative . . .( pause) to the absolute evil of the West." That is what they consider absolute in the universe.

Thanks again.

Anonymous said...

The anti-Israel mob was out in force at Westlake Park in downtown Seattle yesterday. I made a point of mocking the apologists. I seemed to be the only one not drinking the Kool-Aid, except for a Christian on the corner with the Israeli flag. I also yelled for death to Hamas. Will that make the Palestinian human shields-er, I mean slaughtered women and children cry?