Rotten in Denmark
Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations by Justin Raimondo
he publication of 12 cartoons
, a Danish right-wing newspaper
, that caricatured the prophet Muhammad was clearly a provocation – and it has had its intended effect. The editor responsible claims
the genesis of the cartoons was the alleged reluctance of artists to illustrate an upcoming children's biography of Muhammad: they are supposedly too afraid to step forward, fearing violent retaliation. All this before
anyone had so much as raised their voices over the matter: now, of course, the subject dominates
headlines throughout much of Europe and the Middle East.
the Muslim world, demands
for the expulsion
of the Danish ambassador from a number of countries, attacks on the Danish
) embassies in Beirut and Damascus – this incident couldn't have roiled relations between Islam and the West more if it had been planned that way, which raises the question: was it? Is something rotten in the state of Denmark
? We don't know, and probably will never know, but it is worthwhile looking into the origins of this particular incident, because a very definite odor
is wafting in from the general direction of Copenhagen.
To begin with, the real impetus for the demonstrations and declarations of outrage coming in from all across the Middle East wasn't merely the publication of these rather juvenile scribblings in Denmark, but their republication in several European countries. If this wasn't a coordinated provocation, then it is certainly an amazing coincidence that it bears all the earmarks of one.
Secondly, let us examine the venue – a newspaper that today describes itself as "liberal" in the classical sense, but yesterday openly supported fascism
– and particularly the man most responsible for starting this ruckus: Flemming Rose
, the "cultural editor" of Jyllands-Posten
, who commissioned the cartoons and now is at the center of a rapidly-escalating controversy
Here is his Wikipedia biography
, which states that he has "links with U.S. neoconservatives," but lacks citations. Rose is apparently a big fan of Daniel Pipes
– the controversial anti-Arabist appointed by George W. Bush to the U.S. Institute of Peace
– and authored an entirely uncritical profile of Pipes, originally published in Jyllands-Posten
and translated here
Pipes is the founder of Campus Watch
, an organization devoted to stamping out any and all academic treatments of Middle Eastern affairs that don't conform to his narrow strictures, which might be mildly described as fanatically hostile
to Islam, Arabs, and anyone who opposes his extreme Israeli nationalism. Campus Watch is engaged in compiling blacklists of professors who refuse to spout the pro-Israel party line, and actively encourages students to spy on their teachers
and report miscreants.
None of this is mentioned in the profile authored by Rose: instead, we are given a long disquisition on his subject's view of "militant Islam
" as a threat supposedly on a par with communism
– again, uncritically, in spite of the lack of proportion evinced by such an extravagant claim, to say nothing of the lack of evidence marshaled by Pipes.
More @ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512