Commentary Magazine


Contentions

The Never-Dying Post 9-11 Backlash Myth

Those determined to portray the life of American Muslims as a never-ending series of officially inspired torments have always confronted a basic problem: there is no tangible evidence that there is any wave of oppression that has reduced followers of Islam to second-class citizen status. Nor has there ever been. FBI crime statistics continue to show anti-Muslim hate cries dwarfed by those linked to Jew-hatred. Even when the mainstream media takes up the subject and treats the truth of this assertion as self-evident, such as last August’s TIME magazine cover story that asked “Does America Have a Muslim Problem?” the authors had to admit that all they can come up with to back their claim were anecdotes.

But that doesn’t stop those determined to force the country to repent of its supposed sins. The latest example is a blog post from New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal that is breathtaking in its lack of intellectual integrity. While readers of his editorial page are accustomed to outrageous hyperbole delivered in the Times’ trademark tone of condescension, Rosenthal appears to have no limits in the depths of absurdity he is willing to plumb on behalf of his cause. Rosenthal not only hypes the post-9/11 myth, but goes so far as to assert that the United States has now established a “separate justice system” for Muslims. His proof: the fact that the New York City Police Department conducted a program of surveillance on mosques and community groups where Islamists were suspected to congregate. Oh and don’t forget Guantanamo Bay, which the Times editor describes as a “special detention center for Muslims.” So intent is Rosenthal on proving that America is hostile to Muslims that it seems to have slipped his mind the only reason the NYPD or the federal government is somewhat concerned about radical Muslims is because Islamist groups attacked the United States.

Rosenthal also makes a meal out of the revelation that FBI training material at one time contained statements that might have been inflammatory. The “crude stereotypes” that Rosenthal cites have since been rejected. But he leaves it unclear whether this offensive material was referring to all Muslims or just radical Islamists. It is true that the vast majority of American Muslims are not terrorists, but hard-working law-abiding American citizens. But Islamists, including those that work to fundraise for rationalize the efforts of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and other radicals are not figments of the imagination of over-zealous law enforcement personnel. They are real threats and absent the vigilance of organizations like the NYPD, they would have done far more harm than they already have.

Any rational examination of post-9/11 American society would reveal quite the opposite of Rosenthal’s overheated charges. Despite the fact that the 9/11 terrorists and their allies justified their crimes in their faith, the instinctual response of the overwhelming majority of Americans and their government was to make it clear that they didn’t hold their Muslim neighbors responsible for any of it. Muslims were subjected to no official discrimination and there is no evidence that there was much, if any, unofficial prejudice. If anything, the popular culture of post-9/11 America went out of its way to avoid the depiction of Muslim villains or to connect the dots between al-Qaeda, bin Laden and the Islamist interpretation of that faith that is widely supported in the Middle East.

To allude, as Rosenthal does to the mass detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, actually debunks his own assertion since in the wake of the latter-day Pearl Harbor, not only were Muslims not subjected to anything remotely like the treatment of the Japanese, but were actually actively protected by the government from even the slightest hint of discrimination. Anyone who doubts that should remember how President George W. Bush went weak at the knees at the idea that the U.S. was fighting a war against what he continually described as a “religion of peace.” The notion that Americans have sacrificed their liberties to ensure their security is another myth that was quite popular four years ago when liberals were using the charge to paint the Bush administration as a pseudo-tyranny that needed to be swept away by Barack Obama and the Democrats. But since Obama has largely kept the same policies in place (including keeping Guantanamo open), that is a trope we hear very little of these days.

While many liberals have longed for the world of September 10, 2001 before the attacks uncovered the truth of the Islamist war on the West, Rosenthal goes that mentality one better. He treats every measure taken to defend the country against terror is not merely unnecessary but a deliberate act of bias. By claiming that America only provides “liberty and justice for non-Muslims,” he seems to be trying to pretend the attacks and the hate-filled ideology that brought them about never even happened.

Introducing Commentary Complete

9 Responses to “The Never-Dying Post 9-11 Backlash Myth”

  1. lumiere1 says:

    While some attention has been paid to the anti-Israel ravings of Roger Cohen, Nick Kristof, Tom Friedman, and Maureen Dowd, Andrew Rosenthal's role in promoting the de-legitimization of Israel has basically gone unnoticed. Now, obviously, Rosenthal is not responsible for one-sided reporting of Isabel Kreshner, or the anti-Israel propaganda that appears on Robert Mackey's blog on a daily basis. nRosenthal is, however, responsible for the op-ed pages and, as Rod Dermer noted "the surest way to get an op-ed published in the New York Times these days, no matter how obscure the writer or the viewpoint, is to attack Israel". It was Rosenthal, for example, who allowed an obscure and radical professor at a minor college to legitimize as well as popularize the bogus charge of "pinkwashing". It was Rosenthal who invited Mahmoud Abbas to write an op-ed which distorted and outright lied about the history of the UN partition plan of 1947 without issuing a correction. It was Rosenthal who would not publish Richard Goldstone retraction (of the infamous Goldstone Report), alleging that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza. It was Rosenthal who allowed the libelous charge by Tom Friedman that American Jews and Israel control America's foreign policy. nThis list of far from complete. Dermer noted that 19 out of 20 columns that appeared in the NYT during one three month period were highly critical of Israel. nIt is time that Andrew Rosenthal be held to account for this appalling record.

  2. I just happened to be reviewing this morning, the FBIs 2010 table of reported hate crimes, e.g., assaults, property damage, etc. directed against racial and religious minorities in the US. Attacks against Jews outnumber attacks against Muslims by over 500 percent. n nIt appears the NYT propaganda campaign against the Jews is working.

  3. Mr. Tobin: ''….lack of intellectual integrity?'' Why not a stronger word-dishonesty?

  4. Picturemaker says:

    Aside from Rosenthal's looney tune piece claiming the United States has a “separate justice system” for Muslims, his role as the official NYT gatekeeper makes him responsibility for the tenor of what is published.

  5. rulieg says:

    nobody should be surprised by this. just another self-hating Jew at the New York Times trying to show the world he's "not like those Zionists." n nyet another example of why the NYT has lost all credibility. sad, really, when you think about what it once was.

  6. Empress_Trudy says:

    Of course these are the first people who are screaming for Sharia inspired Muslim-only laws and courts for Muslims only and anyone who lives among them. And if Islamic Autonomous Regions come to the west, to the US I will beg the Rosenthals to move there. Please at least have the outward courage of your own convictions.

  7. mkbnpzkg says:

    Keep in mind how estranged and how disaffected leftists are from their countrymen. They are only able to identify with aggrieved, disaffected and radical Muslims. To them the anti-Sharia Muslim, the sincere pro-peace with Israel Muslim, the pro-American Muslim is as loathsome as the minority Republican.

  8. besht2003 says:

    An Islamist pulls the trigger on a little Jewish girl to deliver a "kill shot" and Muslims then shower her school with death threats and anti-Jewish Islamic know-nothingism–down the memory hole. n nDidn't happen, never happened. Imaginary campaigns against ROP: shouted from the rooftops. n nAholes like Rosenthals and the other merry band of mosseriim toiling with him are only the rouge on the by now well-putrefying cheeks of the irrelevant corpse of the one-time "newspaper of record". Apparently, however, this is the swill the Hamptons and the Martha's Vineyard set love to guzzle when running their fingers over all those high-gloss adverts for haute couture fashion, boats, and jewelry. Their horses have more sense.

  9. lbjack says:

    What's wrong with being anti-Muslim?

Leave a Reply