Note: This piece was to be posted Jan. 9, but due to technical problems with my Facebook page, was delayed until now.
The attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo was an act of viciousness and cruelty. It was representative of neither Islam nor Arab culture.
However, the warped, extremist attitude of the perpetrators was not produced in a vacuum. It is a byproduct of many years of European and US intervention in the Middle East, the last few decades of which have been the most barbarous. As I often remind people, between 1991 and 2011, the United States can claim responsibility for the death of around 1 million Iraqis. According to news reports, the suspected perpetrators became inspired and radicalized by imagery from the Abu Ghraib abuses in Iraq committed by US service personnel.
From a distance, we can summarize that a group of countries have brutalized the countries of another region, which has inspired extremism among a few in the latter. The subject of religion has also become a sensitive issue in the latter, viewed by some as a "last straw."
I couldn't help but notice the concern about freedom of speech voiced by many commentators and celebrities. I suspect the reason there's much talk of freedom of speech is because the attack on Charlie Hebdo's staff members is not about freedom of speech. The goal, I sense, is to appear enlightened and courageous while saying nothing. On the contrary, when the United States was gearing up for its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or when Israel (with US authorization and support) rains death and destruction on the people of Gaza killing thousands, one is deafened by the silence with regard to celebrity moral outrage. I mention this not out of expectations I have of the entertainment industry and its members, but because their comments and its coverage often set the parameters for public discourse.
When the White House is busy creating and garnering support for a war is precisely when the exercise of freedom of speech is vital. That is when it matters most. It's revealing and serves as a commentary on the culture that, instead, offensive cartoons and a film about the assassination of a world leader are the impetus of deep moral concern, not war crimes and the destruction of a foreign country.
While I am sympathetic to the Charlie Hebdo victims and their families, I have no interest in what their magazine does. I find their insensitive, naughty-schoolboy approach to satire boorish and underwhelming. To portray and ridicule the prophet revered in a region that has experienced such trauma and dislocation is appalling. I'm not Charlie.
