Mobben ? Mobben ?? The Times are achanging ...

Vyrde Lesar.

I Sarpsborg snakker man om mobben. Men de ser ikke at vestens/Norges handelspolitikk i århundrer har vært skrikende urettferdig. Norsk landbrukspolitikk har holdt den tredje verdens fattige .. ja .. fattige. Og fattigdom fører ofte til revolusjon og opprør. Vi, Norge, har nesten hånende holdt fattige landbruksprodusenter utenfor våre markeder, mens vi har dumpet suppsidierte landbruksprodukter på verdensmarkedet. Vi har tollmurer, suppsiddier og overføringer som har lagt den tredje verden i grus, uten mulighet til å reise seg på egne ben. TRADE NOT AID, har de skreket, men vi har sendt de almisser, ofte via kristne kanaler. Hva kan vi egentlig vente oss av de fattige vi har undertrykket ? Takknemlighet ?

Og her er et amerikansk syn på "mobben".

The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments

ByGeorge Friedman

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't help butopen with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare. Nonetheless, there issomething exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark -- which has made anational religion of not being offensive to anyone -- could become the focalpoint of Muslim rage. The sight of the Danish and Norwegian embassies beingburned in Damascus -- and Scandinavians in general being warned to leaveIslamic countries -- has an aura of the surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark orNorway. Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes andNorwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney. History has itsinteresting moments.

At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The explosion inthe Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by a minor Danishnewspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in September -- has, remarkably,redefined the geopolitical matrix of the U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be moreprecise, it has set in motion something that appears to be redefining thatmatrix. We do not mean here simply a clash of civilizations, although that isundoubtedly part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamicworld and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways.

Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is aprohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed. There alsois a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridiculesthe Prophet violates two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around theworld were deeply offended by these cartoons.

It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoonsdoes not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. Thecriticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions inequal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account oftheologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view istheological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. Butviolating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslimsfrequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about otherreligions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of thesereligions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concernedabout the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas inBamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect forIslam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.

The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to framethe question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers, wishing to showsolidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating theMuslims. European liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage overinsults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It isdifficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietlyif a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the receptionamong liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professorpublished a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior tomen. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in arecent speech, led to calls for his resignation.)

In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even themost jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greatersensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatreddemanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, ofcourse, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threateningto kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holdingentire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. TheEuropean liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to killcritics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from,say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by NationalEndowment for the Arts grants.

These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: Thecontroversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sidesthat neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving theProphet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat offorce, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and thattranslates into geopolitics.

In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual inconsistencyor dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims -- or at least radicalones -- threatening to kill people who offend them. What is new is the breadthof the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not againstthe United States, but against European states.

One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that each sidehas tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault line. For the UnitedStates, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensionshas been evident. For the jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslimscaught up in the war, the tension between the United States and Europe has beena critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the cartoonaffair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split and the Sunni-Shiitesplit. It is, paradoxically, an affair that unifies as well as divides.

The Fissures in the West

It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" --there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that generallyhas been taken to be the European position. More precisely, there is the eliteFranco-German position that The New York Times refers to whenever it mentions"Europe." That is the Europe that we mean now.

In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted to 9/11. Apartfrom the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that the United States failedto appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation within the Islamic world and, byreshaping its relations with the Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed,this view goes, the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and addedunnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European criticisms --particularly from the French -- was the view that American cowboy insensitivityto the Muslim world not only increased the danger after 9/11, but effectivelyprecipitated 9/11. From excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt andJordan, the United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was theresult of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the UnitedStates -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over the top.

Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United States, butalso did not involve a state decision. The decision to publish the offendingcartoons was that of a Danish private citizen. The Islamic response has been tohold the entire state responsible. As the cartoons were republished, it was notthe publications printing them that were viewed as responsible, but the statesin which they were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in EUoffices at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe.

From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans an argumentthat the Bush administration has been making from the beginning -- that thethreat from Muslim extremists is not really a response to anything, but aconstantly present danger that can be triggered by anything or nothing. Europeanstates cannot control what private publications publish. That means that, likeit or not, they are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, isnot under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of theUnited States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune to thethreat than the Americans are.

This combines with the murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark" campaign, European patienceis wearing thin. The other beneficiary is Iran. As Iran moves toward aconfrontation with the United States over nuclear weapons, this helps to rallythe Muslim world to its side: Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam,and Sunnis who have raised questions about its flirtations with the UnitedStates in Iraq are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against Europe.

The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the Islamicworld, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not die down in duecourse, but it will take a long time for the bad feelings to dissipate. Thishas created a serious barrier between moderate Muslims and Europeans who wereopposed to the United States. They were the ones most likely to be willing tocollaborate, and the current uproar makes that collaboration much moredifficult.

It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but theseare.

Og i bakgrunnen synger Bob Dylan : but the times are achanging ....