A month ago JoshuaPundit questioned the wisdom of President Bush naming an envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference. After noting some previous antics of the OIC, JoshuaPundit writes:
This is the racist, anti-American group our president legitimized and is now sending an official US envoy `to listen and to learn’.
Daniel Pipes observes that the envoy, Sada Cumber, didn’t just “listen and learn” but also whitewashed:
as paraphrased by Agence France-Presse, he found “a new more moderate leadership in the Islamic world.” He will report to President Bush and Secretary of State Rice that the OIC is changing: “the way things are going on in this conference I can almost see the new leadership moving into moderation and that alone is very encouraging news.”
Roger Kimball also finds the cheek turning in the face of aggressive Islamism rather unsettling:
What makes this little pow-wow among “leaders of the world’s Muslim nations†significant is not what might follow from it in the way of positive legislation—though you never know—but rather what it betokens as a sign of the times. It is part of a large if still more or less amorphous mobilization of anti-Western sentiment on the part of people who detest Western mores but crave its wealth and Lebensraum. It is not at all clear that we have formulated any compelling response. Mostly what we find are anodyne bleatings like those of Sada Cumber, U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who kept trying to burnish “America’s image†in Muslim countries and find what the AP called “common ground†with Muslim nations by championing “universal values the U.S. holds dear like religious tolerance and freedom of speech.†Gee whiz.
We see similar behavior regarding the Palestinians. Recently AFP ran a story Israeli-Palestinian peace talks renewed on sour note. What was the sour note? That Mahmoud Abbas had hysterically claimed that Israeli was ethnically cleansing Jerusalem and got the OIC to deem Israel guilty of war crimes? That he couldn’t unequivocally condemn the Merkaz Harav massacre? That he declared his pride in engaging in “armed struggle?” No. None of those:
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks resumed on a sour note on Monday with the Palestinian negotiator blasting Israel for vowing to continue settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.
And how did the Americans react? Why Ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones said:
“Sometimes people do have to move to a different location. They cannot always stay close to their families.”
He was clearly talking about Israel building new houses and apartments in Jerusalem.
Elder of Ziyon also links to a number of bloggers who objected to Ambassador Jones’ comments. The approach was generally that building around Jerusalem is an internal issue. But there’s a different problem with the Ambassador’s remarks. He essentially was validating the claims of the Palestinians. He was giving legitimacy to their “causus terrum.” (I just made that up.)
While Mr. Cumber simply said why can’t we all just get along, Mr. Jones essentially explained why the Palestinian ought not to get along. He confirmed their grievance. In the West we are facing a very real and possibly existential threat from radical Islam.
We are not going to win the war by sitting around the campfire and singing “Kumbaya” or by saying, “you know you just might be right.” Radical Islam in its various forms must be confronted and challenged.
Being silent or encouraging is not going to reduce their grievances with us. It will perpetuate the grievances.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
