|
|
Jewish World Review August 29, 2005 / 24 Av, 5765
Realpolitik vs. pretendpolitik
By Diana West
 | |
|
| |
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Unbowed, if unemployed, Michael Graham issued a thought-provoking
challenge as his airtime on "The O'Reilly Factor" ran down to a
break. The topic under discussion was the conservative radio host's
firing by the Washington, D.C., radio station WMAL — egged on by
the terrorist-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) —
for having made his case, logically, forcefully, even regretfully
that "Islam is a terrorist organization."
Before discussing Graham's final words on "O'Reilly," it's worth
mentioning that Graham's argument linking terrorism to Islam is
posted at JewishWorldReview.com in a column he wrote after the
second London Underground bombing. Sure, the stand-alone scare quote
("I. is a T.O.") collides head-on with 21st-century sensibilities,
but Graham builds his argument carefully. He makes the politically
incorrect kind of sense, supported by fact (e.g., more than one in
four British Muslims said they wouldn't tell police of a planned
terrorist attack) and observation (Islamic teachings drive terrorist
jihad), that the open-eyed child in "The Emperor's New Clothes"
would instantly recognize. But not his bosses at WMAL — not, it
seems, after CAIR objected. When Graham refused to "apologize," the
ABC-Disney-owned station fired him.
All of which is what he went on "O'Reilly" to discuss, offering a
factually reasoned discourse on the controversy. (Good stats,
conceded an outgunned Bill O'Reilly.) And then, in closing, Graham
said this: "(t)ell me one terrorist attack that's going to be
stopped because we stopped this conversation" — that is, by WMAL
taking Graham off the air.
An interesting notion. WMAL is no Department of Homeland Security,
but given the line the radio station decided Graham crossed over
global terrorism (jihad) and its central role in Islam, maybe it's
worth wondering whether we are safer because Michael Graham isn't
pursuing his on-air line of inquiry. Surely, we are more
"sensitive," meaning more guarded, even nervous about what is
currently permissible to say, at least according to CAIR's
enforcers. Even so, ending a conversation about jihad and Islam
doesn't end Islamic jihad. Nor does cutting the talk about links
between Islam and terrorism cut the links between Islam and
terrorism. The fact is, the train of logic doesn't change its
destination no matter how many of us — radio stations, pundits,
academics, politicians — hop off.
Still, thanks to WMAL, maybe we really are better protected, at
least against the sharp edges and noxious corners of reality. This
reality includes the fact that what we know as "terrorism" is
directly linked to the centrality of jihad (holy war) and dhimmitude
(non-Muslim inferiority) in Islam, no hijackings necessary. But
spare us: We live in a politically correct country, one in which the
U.S. State Department declares to the world that Americans "believe
we are part of one human family, and that the enemy of that family
are those who use the name of religion to pursue a violent and
hateful ideology that really goes against (what) ... any person of
faith believes in, no matter what that faith is."
But what if, as Michael Graham roughly wondered aloud, the violent
and hateful ideology runs through Islam itself? In America today, it
is considered better to cut the mike, seeking not the truth, but
rather a kind of security from the truth. Once the survival
strategies of realpolitik are traded in for the pipe dreams of
pretendpolitik, such security even feels safe, at least for a time.
In other words, not only does terrorism have nothing to do with
Islam, as WMAL seems to have determined, but sharia (repressive
Islamic law) and the caliphate (Islamic empire) have nothing to do
with extremism, as Britain's Muslim leaders have explained. Clearly,
our vocabulary is shrinking as fast the ranks of bold talk-show
hosts. But isn't there so much more to talk about?
Protected against reality, we see only good in any religion because
it is a religion. Secure from the truth, we see only liberty and
justice in any constitution because it is a constitution. Our only
problems stem from "extremism," which not only defines nothing, but
also offends no one. Or does it? Out of Great Britain this month
came a communique from nearly 40 Muslim leaders and groups. Their
message? In part to renounce the label of "extremism." They wrote:
"To equate 'extremism' with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia
laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a
Caliphate in the Muslim lands ... is inaccurate and disingenuous. It
indicates ignorance of what Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and
will alienate and victimize the Muslim community unnecessarily."