Israeli Paper Apologizes for Danish Cartoon

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2008-02-27 17:56

Islm_cartoon_7A quote from AnsaMed, 27 February 2008

Israel's largest circulation daily, Yediot Ahronot, has apologized for having published last week the controversial Danish caricature showing the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban about to explode. The picture was part of a report from Denmark. But, at the same time, some dozens of Arab readers wrote to the newspaper that they felt offended by the publication and threatened to cancel their subscriptions. "Yediot Ahronot respects the Muslims and their faith," editor Shilo De-Ber wrote to Arab representatives in Israel. "The editorial staff regrets and apologizes to those who have felt hurt by the publication".

 

 

 

 

What is stupidity? # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2008-03-02 04:45.

@ Flemish American

This has nothing to do with "objectivity".  Cartoons and cartoonists are by definition never "objective".  Cartoons are as 'subjective' as one could possibly get! They are not reporters of facts nor of 'news'.   Cartoons and cartoonists are obout OPINIONS.  They are about expressing opinions, not in an 'accurate' way, but in a whimsical playful way (often by highlighting one specific aspect of the subject, or by over-emphasizing that aspect, be it a particular physical feature or a particular behavioral characteristic rooted in observation).

The Danish cartoons are about the principle of freedom of speech IN the WEST, and more specifically in Denmark.  They are NOT about "diplomacy", nor about approaching muslims or others through 'insults'. They are intended to test whether one can still freely and openly express negative opinions about anything, including about islam. 

And, when you respond to the cartoon crisis by saying that one should "demonstrate civility and respect to all religions", then you are de facto 'validating' bad behavior by untold muslims.   Referring to my earlier analogy, it is as if you are telling the murderer of the child that the child was "wrong" in taking the bike.  It is as ludicrous as telling a person with terminal cancer that somebody else is having the flu.      

If you react to death threats and violence in muslim countries by telling someone in Denmark that he is "wrong" for expressing an opinion IN DENMARK, then you are conceding that freedom of speech does no longer apply in the West to the subject of Islam.  You are in essence conceding that the INTIMIDATION which is all-pervasive in the muslim world can now be extended to the West.  It is the proverbial wedge-in-the-door, and it will ultimately destroy your own freedom. 

Yes, one has to pick one's "fights carefully", and there can be NO MORE IMPORTANT fight than telling totalitarian regimes and intolerant cultures in the world that - no matter how they organise themselves - they cannot restrict the essential freedoms of westerners in Western democracies through intimidation. 

 

Tough room for diplomacy

Submitted by Flemish American on Sun, 2008-03-02 01:37.

I certainly agree with your (logic) on the differences of reaction and I'm not advocating that we should all cower to the demands of Islam for fear of their violent reactions.  I am merely suggesting that we should pick our fights carefully and demonstrate civility and respect to all religions, especially in a press which is supposed to remain objective.

 

 

 

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

What is stupidity?

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2008-03-02 01:37.

@ Flemish American

I profoundedly disagree with your way of thinking. Stupidity can take many forms, but there are many different degrees of stupidity, and some have much greater consequences in the long term than others.

Making a mistake, like UNNECESSARILY offending someone, may be considered "stupid" in the sense of a temporary lapse of 'judgement'.  That MIGHT seem to be the mistake of the Danish cartoonists.  Although I do not think so, because their declared purpose was to test to what degree genuine 'freedom of speech' had been lost in Danish culture in recent decades.  Clearly, the purpose of the test was NOT to gratuitously insult others, but rather to reinvigorate Danish culture, to help restore one of its core values!  That is not a frivolous undertaking.

By contrast, you seem to be making a much bigger "mistake" than the cartoonists (assuming the latter did make a mistake at all, which I doubt).  After all, the inability to distinguish between major and minor MORAL offenses is perhaps one of the highest forms of "stupidity" for an intelligent being, i.e. the stupidity of moral relativism.  'Insulting' someone may be a minor  moral offense (depending on circumstances, esentially depending on the intended underlying purposes of both the insultor and the insultee).  But, letting a relatively minor offense (insults) blind you to the reality of a much greater offense (denying others freedom of speech and/or conscience and committing violence against others for that purpose), that would seem to me to be a much greater offense against morality.

Perhaps a simple analogy may clarify the matter. Suppose you see a man killing a child, and the man tells you that the child stole his bike.  If you then respond later by saying "nobody is right" (or they are both wrong), I would then have to say that you are guilty of the rather extreme "stupidity" of 'blind' moral relativism.   Yet, that is precisely what you have done in this case of the Danish cartoons.   

The cartoons are great, really

Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Sat, 2008-03-01 18:52.

This is a lot better than what else could be taking place. Imagine arson at a mosque? Lynch mobs against wannabe terrorists? Arms cache blowing up in a mosque?

Really, caricatures is a really great tradition of the free world. They can, in a nutshell, point out real problems that would otherwise take thousands of words to describe, and a good one is instantly understood.

Which is of course why the bomb-in-turban causes so much trouble.

>But by doing something absolutely fine and non-violent, we have the moral high ground against aggressive Muslims who want to blow cartoonists or newspaper buildings to smithereens. This helps us stand united, which in case of violence from the Western side we'd probably not do.

Anyway, rather than squabbling over the merit or qualities of the Motoons, it's time to stand up for our fundamental rights. As in when Muslims bitch about artists calling a stone 'stupid'.

Danish papers are brave, but stupid

Submitted by Flemish American on Sat, 2008-03-01 18:34.

OK, so just about everyone here agrees with the rights of Danish newspapers to print these cartoons, but how many of us know in our minds that it is causing unneccessary problems?

 

I suppose if we had a Europe that was sufficiently prepared to start a new Crusade there could be some advantage in smoking out the Muslims with extremist views in our communities, but since most of the European leadership is relatively weak when it comes to the issue of Islam there is no advantage in these publications trying to make some point out of rights to free speach.  They know what the reaction is going to be and the only people really hurt are within their own borders.  Ask Arla Foods how much money they lost after the first printing.

 

The other issue comes down to "good taste".  As a Christian I am sometimes offended by the depiction of Christ and other symbols of my faith, but I don't react violently.  Still, is that an excuse to confront me with these insults just because you can?  In a way, you could say that the Danish paper was acting like the neighborhood bully.

 

At the end of the day, nobody is right.  The Muslims are wrong for exercising their anger in a violent way and the papers are wrong for continuing to push their right to publish such things without any other purpose to these drawings.  The worst is that, except for the one about "running out of virgins", these 'toons weren't even that funny and only the one with the blank box over the eyes made a solid political statement.  For me, the whole thing was an exercise in futility.

 

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

@Flemish American

Submitted by logicalman on Sat, 2008-03-01 23:57.

One has the right to be a coward but one doesn't have the right to act violently against one's neighbors.

In the first instance no one is hurt.

On the other hand the perpetrators of violence should be punished, because they violate others' right to live and to bodily security.

re: Probing deeper # 2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-03-01 12:46.

a.k.a. Testing the veracity of my own theory with the sarcasm removed.

 

@kappert,again.

 

Should the Palestinians somehow gain the upper hand in this conflict and the injuries and death toll become reversed,will your sympathies switch to the Israeli side...?

 

Thank you.

re:Probing deeper

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-03-01 12:34.

@ marcfrans

 

" As you can see,unlike the 'sly fox's questions,mine are 'direct' ones,more Germanic ones in a certain way,not sarcastic ones".

 

Well,your questions might be considered by many to be more "direct",more "Germanic",but I'm confident most neutral observers will agree with me that Kappert's ANSWERS invariably fall miserably short of qualifying for the same description.

probing deeper

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-03-01 04:48.

@ Kappert

As you can see, unlike the 'sly fox's questions, mine  are 'direct' ones, more 'Germanic' ones in a certain way, not sarcastic ones.   Despite many decades of following British 'Masterpiece Theatre'-style productions, I will never fully grasp British humor, although I have made considerable progress over the years (I hope).

1) Serious insults, of any kind, can be upsetting to many people.  Yet, I suspect that you are not "upset" about muslims (somewhere, anywhere) constantly blaspheming Christianity or Judaism, or even secular westernism (like calling Western women "whores' for instance, or mocking 'arrogant' atheism, etc...).  So, why would it be "natural" for muslims to be "upset" about insults, if you are not?  It is only "natural" in the context of their world view, of an intolerant cultural outlook.   You (and many others) declaring it "natural" is only going to make the problem worse, because it 'confirms' their bad behavior.  Instead of declaring it "natural" (and therefore, in a sense acceptable) you should denounce it, if you want civilisation to survive a bit longer.

And yes, many palestinians will be concerned with daily survival and not with abstract notions of the absence of 'free speech'.  But, unless they can come to understand the link between the two over the long haul, their concern with daily survival will necessarily continue.  And, in any case, the earlier issue was not 'free speech' (something I introduced later), but cartoons.  There is no doubt that many Palestinians are quite capable of being BOTH concerned with daily survival and being upset with cartoons.  In fact, at a deeper level, the two are linked.

2) Your hypothesis about a Luxembourg(Echternach)-procession-style in Israeli newspapers is interesting, but I still do not understand how that makes the apology "clever".  Perhaps I am not clever enough myself. I think it is just the opposite. Israelis in general understand Arabs much better than you or me.  They know - unlike most Europeans - that Arabs essentially tend to respect 'power'.  Arabs generally do not respect "apologies" (which they will interpret as weakness, not strength), although they will constantly demand apologies for presumed 'slights' (to asssure themselves of own 'cultural superiority').  Intelligent Israelis know this.  So, it would not make sense for them to first want to "heat up things", in order to prevent a "boil". On the contrary, they will know that any heating-up will ensure a boil.  So, I think there are other - better -  explanations for the apology, and they have to do with 'freedom of speech' and Israeli 'diversity' of opinions (or absence of group-think). 

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-03-01 18:12.

Thank you very much for your comments.
1) I wonder if we have the same understanding of 'blasphemy', which is, in my view, strictly applicable to religious matter. The lack of 'ethics' noted in our societies and criticised by many, applies to pattern of social behaviour – thus, critique of other cultures implies essentially a social critique, not a religious one. As the cartoons aim religion, I speak of blasphemy and not of social critique. Anyone who strongly identifies with a certain religion, will regard his views as 'natural', and I agree with you that such a doctrinaire behaviour makes any existing problem worse. Only dialogue and mutual acceptance contribute to what we desire to be a 'civilisation'.
Maybe it's a bad time to speak about Palestinian views on the cartoon publications, they are right under fire this very moment.
2) Israeli governments, as direct neighbours to Palestinians, are studying how to deal with Palestinians/Arabs since 1948. On several occasions, an agreement was almost reached. Yet, from my point of view, Israel as a state is not particularly interested to engage in a Two-State-Solution, as long as its economic and military survival is guaranteed. In an article “Street Naming and Residents’ Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in the Old City of Akko” by Noam Shoval (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), I remember the local mosque with an Israeli flag on its minarett. Things like that, which I may call 'provocation', are frequent in Israel. It may be a sign of 'power', as you argue, but I doubt it will ease the tension.

@ marcfrans

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-03-01 13:37.

Your point 2 to Kappert. Of course they understand them better, they are both semitic and are fighting each other since a few thousand years.
One has evolved into the 21st century, the other one is stuck in the 7th century AD mentality, with some 21st century tools. You cannot have a more primitive and locally explosive situation.

dinosauric mentality

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-03-01 16:24.

Traveller: "One has evolved into the 21st century, the other one is stuck in the 7th century AD mentality"

Not everyone living in the 7th century AD had an ugly mentality. My 7th century ancestors were cool and civilized. The Jews were civilized too. Even the New Testament (written around 0 AD) sounds very modern. I have been told that the Old Testament is less civilized than the new one, but less gruesome than the koran.

Arabs living in the 7th century AD did not compare well with their neighbors, which they liked to kill and maim. Besides, it is one thing to say that today's muslim Arabs have the same mentality as their ancestors from the 7th century AD. But Arabs living in the 7th century AD may have had the same mentality as their ancestors living in the 7th century BC. And even in the 7th century BC, I think the Greeks were pretty civilized. But the truth is that Arabs living in the 7th century BC may have had the same mentality as their ancestors from the 14th century BC. And even at that time, the Egyptians were pretty civilized. But the truth ... And on and on, until the dinosaurs.

Thanks, Kappert

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-02-29 18:46.

@ Kappert

Thank you for answering some of my questions in a clear manner.  

1) I doubt very much that "Palestinians" do not care about newspaper drawings.  I think that you do not, but many of them do. At least that seems to be in line with many observations about Palestinians and other Arabs. I take note of your opinion (1 more observation), but I must warn you that a typical mistake by naive-left (multicul) westerners is to underestimate the impact of cultural differences on different people's behavior patterns.  The typical Palestinian is not like you or the average German.

2) I do not understand your explanation about the apology being "clever".  How does it "enhance Israeli comprehension of Palestinian culture"?  But, never mind.  I think that the Israelis, being a democratic people who actually practice 'freedom of speech', and given their proximity, are the world's experts on "Palestinian culture".  Indeed, I venture to think that they must understand that culture better than most Palestinians themselves (who cannot practice genuine free speech 'on pain of death', and therefore by definition must be poorly informed in general). 

3) I do not think that I would have to read Israeli newspapers to form a reasonable 'big picture' of the Arab-Israeli conflict in my mind.  No more so than I would have to read Russian, Chinese, or Brazilian newspapers to understand the reality of these places today.   Nevertheles, good information sources of quality are essential.  Russian and Chinese newspapers cannot possibly be good sources of information, because they do not operate in a free environment.  While Israeli nespapers certainly could be useful, they are not essential reading for comprehension of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

4) I am not going to "choose another language".  As a native-Dutch (Flemish) speaker I do have a fairly good passive comprehension of German.  But, if I were to write (actively) in German, I am sure that you and Hauptmann Andre would have even greater problems of comprehension than I currently have with your English.  

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-02-29 19:55.

I try to explain better.
1) Blasphemy is a serious insult in any religion, and naturally Muslims are upset about the drawings. What I wanted to express, however, is the fact that Palestinians are more worried about their daily survival than on apotheric discussions on free speech.
2) In Israeli newspapers you may encounter issues which are treated like 'two steps in front, one step back', a clever trick to heat up things, without getting it 'boiled'.
3) As with television, be careful what you read in newspapers.
Groetjes

@kappert # 2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-02-29 14:27.

btw: Any chance you are prepared to respond to my previous two questions:

 

re: clever (read:stupid) and @kappert [above it] ?

Baffled by the hypocrisy

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-02-29 13:21.

@ kappert

 

As a practising Taoist and therefore practising what you preach,shouldn't you be taking a dispassionate view on these issues? Shouldn't you be telling the Palestinians to simply "go with the flow",let history take its course and accept that violent resistance is both futile and counterproductive to their cause? Shouldn't you be telling them,as well as the rest of us,that in the end their apparent defeat at the hands of the zionists will be their moral victory?

Just wondering.

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-02-29 13:56.

Not 'go with the flow', but 'building harmony'. I have doubts that the history since 1948 permit a peaceful resolution. So I deplore the fanatism, the rockets, the killings, the occupation, the segregation, the threats of holocaust, in a region overwhelmed by hatred.

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-02-29 12:19.

“I am still waiting for an explanation as to why this apology was (a) "useless" and (b) "clever", and (c) how it could be both at the same time? “
The apology is 'useless', because neither Israelis nor Palestinians care about newspaper drawings. It's 'clever' at the same time because it apparently enhances the Israeli comprehension of Palestinian culture. If you would read Israeli newspapers, you would notice a lot of statements which are subsequently 'corrected'. For example just today: “A senior Israeli minister today warned of increasingly bitter conflict in the Gaza Strip and that the Palestinians would bring on themselves what he called a "holocaust". According to Reuters news agency, Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, used the Hebrew word for holocaust in an interview on Israeli army radio.” Take this news and look tomorrow in the newspapers: the minister will correct his words, either because Palestinians will be upset, or the far-right Zionist claim the 'copyright' of that word for themselves!
With regard to the Danish 'lunatic', you may read http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,538386,00.html
And as you are talking with so much certainty about Israeli issues, you rather should read Israeli newspapers.
As for my English skill, I apologise, you are free to choose another language.

still stupid

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-02-28 22:41.

@ Kappert

Obviously, part of the problem is your mindset, and part is your poor language skills (at least in English) which prevents comprehension by others.

1) I am still waiting for an explanation as to why this apology was (a) "useless" and (b) "clever", and (c) how it could be both at the same time?.  You tried to answer the (a)-part, but the answer was nonsensical.   The daily reporting of violent events, and also the "well-known" (?) opinions of this particular newspaper, have nothing to do with the veracity (or lack thereof) of an apology regarding a cartoon.  If you just want to vent your anger at Israel or Israelis in general, then do so IN GENERAL.  But do not do it by making nonsensical specific statements in the context of a particular issue.

2) Could you rephrase, or at least explain, the following subsentence of yours: "If you regard the citation of Israeli newspapers as part of a silly comment...".   I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying.   I certainly do not think that citations (from any newspapers) in and of itself would make a comment "silly".   What on earth could give you such an idea?  Your comment was 'silly' because, as I explained above, you vent general frustration and prejudice vis-a-vis Israel by making statements that do not make sense in the context of the specific issue raised in the article under discussion.

3)  Indeed, I used the word "retaliation" to refer to the "reaction" (your word) to the frequent rocket attacks on Sderot?  It is a "retaliation", and the Israeli government calls it that. Furthermore, it is a very predictable reaction, and Hamas can stop the "reaction" by simply stopping the rocket attacks.

4) On what grounds do you talk about "Danish lunatics"?  What makes a cartoonist a "lunatic"?  Are all cartoonists lunatics? Or, only the ones that make fun of something that has to do with 'Islam' or muslims?

Many questions for you, but we all know that no answers will be forthcoming.  And I am sure that Atlanticist, that 'old fox', is not expecting any answers either to his questions. You are quite adept at making pronouncements, some sillier than others, but not very good at promoting clarity by answering specific questions.   By the way, I know what you really 'feel' about the correct answers to Atlanticist's questions (that is easy, given your manifest bias), and I also know why you cannot give them here (for that would be too embarrassing or 'revealing').

P.S. I never read Israeli newspapers.

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-02-28 20:20.

“The apology relates to a cartoon, and is intended to 'appease' some of its readers.” I'm fond of your 'appease', which means that you don't believe in this measure of the newspaper. And it is useless, as the fronts and opinions on this particular case are well known and pretty unflexible.
However, if you regard the citation of Israeli newspapers as part of a 'silly comment', I must agree with you. The damages in Sderot and the reaction, you call it retaliation, implying a dozen cadavers, is everyday news. Nor Palestinians nor Israelis care much for some Danish lunatics and their stupids drawings. In your words: “After all, what do reports (...) have to do with an apology by a newspaper that is concerned about having offended some of its readers with a cartoon reprint? The answer is: nothing.”
And don't forget to look in an Israeli newspaper tomorrow!

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2008-02-28 23:04.

Dear kappert, during my travels around the world I was very often obliged to watch for body-language because I had no clue what the chap was trying to tell me. Could you please join a video tape while reading your last 2 posts, I am sure it will make things much clearer.
Hoping to see you in action soon.

@ everybody

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-02-28 16:28.

A kappert vs marcfrans post.Now THAT is an example of how my "cartoon for a cartoon" idea might work.

clever no, stupid yes

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-02-28 16:13.

@ Kappert

If you are going to post silly comments, at least you should try to be CLEAR about what you are saying, so that a reader could know that you are saying something coherent.  What are you saying? 

Why is this particular apology from this particular paper "useless"?  The apology relates to a cartoon, and is intended to 'appease' some of its readers.  How is this "useless"?  You and I may disagree with the apology (obviously for different reasons), but from the paper's perspective it is not "useless".

And why is this apology "clever"?  You certainly do NOT explain!  If it's supposed to be "useless", how could it be "clever" at the same time?  The rest of your own 'useless' wortspielerei does not clarify anything.  After all, what do reports of Hamas rocket attacks on Sderot and retaliations by the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces), have to do with an apology by a newspaper that is concerned about having offended some of its readers with a cartoon reprint?  The answer is: nothing. 

Your problem is that you cannot make necessary intellectual 'distinctions', like for instance between (a) a newspaper in a genuine democracy, (b) rocket firing by terrorists, and (c) military retaliation undertaken by a government (not a newspaper).   If you cannot make a distinction between apples and oranges, you better do not go to the supermarket (i.e. a blog). Send someone else, someone who knows what he/she is saying.          

@ kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-02-28 16:06.

Should the 'Palestinians' somehow gain the upper hand in this conflict and the injuries and death toll become reversed,will your sympathies switch to the Israeli side? Note: Any prolonged silence in responding to this question will speak louder than words.Well?

clever

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-02-28 15:37.

Just have a look on the frontpage of Israeli newspaper. It's nearly every day the same: "17 suffer shock as Grad rocket slams into Ashkelon home; 70-year-old woman hurt as rockets continue to hit Sderot; Dichter's security guard wounded after Kassam lands outside Sapir College." Shocked and an old lady hurt!
On the other side: "Palestinians: IDF kills 4 youths. Earlier, seven gunmen die in air strikes in Gaza; 5 months old Palestinian baby killed." Come on, 11 dead, including a baby.
Quite clever to post an useless apology.

What's the problem here?

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2008-02-28 08:10.

On a personal note, I would be concerned if such apologies were issued by Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post.

 

In any event, there is nothing wrong with an editorial staff of a publication self-censoring or apologising for and retracting content deemed offensive by its readership. Since when does respect equal weakness? Many Western media outlets edit their content out of respect for their audiences e.g. cable stations deleting the "crucifix scene" from The Exorcist when they broadcast it during primetime, because the scene is very distasteful to many, particularly Christians.

 

Indeed, liberal democracies such as the United States have obscenity laws on the books out of respect for the sensitivities of their citizenry. And despite references to the "Jewish State", Israeli Arabs, who comprise some 20% of the Israeli population, are a constituent ethnic group, having been present at the founding of the Israeli state. Some 9% of Israeli Arabs are Christians (the overwhelming majority of Israeli Christians), and 8.5% are Druze, with the remaining 82.5% being Muslims, who comprise some 16% of the total Israeli population. Therefore, Islam is not foreign to Israel, and certainly belongs more there than in Germany, the United Kingdom, France or Scandinavia. If Israeli institutions, including the media, can practice respect for Judaism, then it is reasonable that they do so for Islam (obviously not at the expense of other religions).

 

Furthermore, I was under the impression that publications had to cater to their audiences. Certainly, the editorial staff of Yediot Ahronot deliberate publish content provocative to Muslims to satiate anti-Islamic or confrontational convictions. However, this would assume that the staff has much of either. In any event, if the publication is reliant upon its Muslim readership, then such behavior would be reminiscent of The Fountainhead, and result inevitably in bankruptcy.

 

Muslim boycotting (e.g. against Denmark) is not state-centric totalitarian behavior, in fact it is perfectly in keeping with capitalism. According to the tenets of the free market, individuals can choose (collectively or not) to purchase or not purchase goods and services for any reason, including moral ones. Should Christians be forced to purchase pornography to keep that industry going? If a media conglomerate dependent upon Christian consumers decides to venture into pornographic content provision, are these Christians not entitled to boycott?

An eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-02-27 20:19.

And a cartoon for a cartoon? Perhaps western democracies should collectively agree to refrain from further publication of the Danish cartoons,only threatening to publish them again in response to anti-Christian or Jewish cartoons published in the Arab media.When the inevitable occurs,a western newspaper could then select a cartoon from their Danish cartoon archive and print it beside a reproduction of the offending Arab cartoon.