The Blame Game
A member of parliament belonging to the British Labour Party has accused the West of holding "Muslim blood" cheap. But Shuggy's Blog argues that the MP has it backwards: the moral value of life depends not on whose blood is shed but upon who is doing the shedding.
According to Kitty Ussher MP the Muslim community in Burnley have been asking why it seems the blood of Muslims seems cheaper than that of Jews and Christians? An honest answer to this rhetorical question would have to include the observation that 'Muslim blood' has no fixed price but varies according to who is shedding it.
Christians shedding Muslim blood provokes outrage, although this too can vary. It is a much more serious matter, for example, if the 'Christians' in question are American rather than Serbian. But of course this is nothing like as grevious than the most serious of all - this being the context of the article - when it is Muslim lives being taken by Jews. On the other hand, Muslim lives being taken by other Muslims isn't anything like as serious. The pro-Nasrallah 'left', for example, are not only a little less than - how to put this delicately? - forthcoming in their condemnation of Jewish civilian casualties; they seem unpeturbed by the fact that Arab Israelis were also amongst the victims of Hizbollah's rocket attacks.
Is there any truth to this cynical assertion? Some perhaps. Recently, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense described the conflict between two "communities", who in terms of "toughness" are a matchup comparable to Alien vs. Predator: Muslims and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) of Sri Lanka. In this clash, who gets blamed? In particular who is at fault when Tamil Tigers kill Muslims?
Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader Rauff Hakeem is an angry man. He is angry with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for driving the Muslims out of Muttur and killing large numbers of them.
"What the LTTE has done to Muslims is absolutely horrendous. Tigers are to be blamed for making incursions into Muttur. We have been subjected to torture just because the Tigers think we are collaborating with the Army," he told this correspondent on Thursday, at the end of his visit to New Delhi where he briefed politicians and security officials about the plight of the Muslims in Sri Lanka.
Hakeem, who appeared particularly miffed with the LTTE, maintained that over 100 Muslim civilians, including women and children, were slaughtered by the Tigers in the recent conflict. The Muslim-Tamil relationship took a serious turn in 1990, when the LTTE expelled 90,000 Muslims from Jaffna overnight and killed 140 Muslims in the Kaathankudy mosque in Batticaloa district.
But later, the LTTE apologised to the Muslims.But Hakeem has little faith in the LTTE. It is worthless even to speak to them, he says. "The LTTE leadership has a funny attitude. No one can contact them. What they have done this time is simply unforgettable. The LTTE broke our trust. I was assured by Prabhakaran that our people will be protected when I signed a pact with him," Hakeem said.
Hakeem opined that constant international pressure could arrest the situation in Sri Lanka. And India, he said, could play a proactive part in this.
This incident contains all the stock elements of outrage. There is a mass expulsion of Muslims: ethnic cleansing. Women and children are slaughtered. But no Green Helmeted humanitarians come forward to display their bodies to an eager press. Promises are obtained by the pitiful victims which are immediately and treacherously broken by their killers. The Sri Lankan Muslims remained largely peaceful. Perfidy on perfidy. Had these acts been done by Americans, or worse yet, Jews, there would be calls for a War Crimes Tribunal. But none are heard, and what follows varies from the pattern in practically every respect. No outcry is heard from the UN Human Rights bureaucrats, nor from the Organization of Islamic Conference. No boycott is organized against the LTTE by Muslim countries. Even the European Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission composed of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland -- there to assist with keeping the peace -- has kept quiet. None of the usual champions of Muslim rights have come forward. So much so that the victimized Muslims themselves have appealed to India -- yes, India the archenemy of Pakistan -- for protection. How very, very strange. What is going on here?
What's going is a demonstration of the principle that complaints are rarely lodged against those who are feared. Feared not for their power but for their brutality: such as the LTTE. Suicide bombs do not scare them: Tigers were suicide bombing before Islamic militants copied the tactic. In fact, the Tigers killed the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi with a prototype suicide vest carried by a woman in 1991. The Tigers are impervious to op-eds in the New York Times and speeches at the UN. Law does not affect them. The International Criminal Court would not dare to serve a summons on them. Therefore the LTTE will remain blameless, whatever outrages it may commit against Muslims. In contrast the Danes cannot even publish a caricature of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper without bringing down the wrath of the entire Muslim world and half the flagship newspapers of the West upon them. The difference between the Tigers and the Danes is you fear the one and buy canned ham from the other. The difference between correctness and political correctness is that the former blames who it must and the latter blames who it can.
This is completely perverse. And it means that modern political correctness will be exercised relentlessly against law-abiding nations because they are the only ones on who it works. The lawless will be given wide berth: the more lawless the wider the berth. The result will be split level morality where a few countries will be held to an impossibly high standard while the most brutal will be treated with kid gloves, even fawned upon. Now let's examine the question again: who holds Muslim blood cheap?