AIM
World
COMMENTARY
Who's Obsessed
About Obsession?
Jonathan S. Tobin
Special to the Jewish News
Philadelphia
L
ast month, millions of Americans
opened their Sunday newspapers
and found amid the usual pile
of coupons and advertising flyers some-
thing unusual: a free DVD of a documen-
tary called Obsession: Radical Islam's War
with the West.
The film, a well-researched foray into
the world of Islamo-fascism, features
an array of scholars, such as Sir Martin
Gilbert, Robert Wistrich and Daniel
Pipes, and investigative journalist Steven
Emerson, as well as extensive footage of
the anti-Semitic and anti-American fare
that is par for the course on Arab and
Islamic television.
The documentary's thesis is simple:
Radical Islam is at war with the West, and
its hatred of Jews and Western democ-
racy isn't based on misunderstandings
but on a faith-based fanaticism that will
brook no opposition. Its prime tactic is to
educate Muslim youth into believing that
such hatred is a divine imperative, so as
to create new generations of jihadist sui-
cide bombers.
One might think that seven years
after Sept. 11 this insight would be
self-evident, rather than controversial.
Especially, that is, since the film goes to
great lengths to assert that most Muslims
do not subscribe to these beliefs and are
peace-loving citizens whose faith is being
hijacked by a radical minority
Firestorm Of Criticism
But though it does no more than state the
obvious about the rise of Islamism, its
tactics and its purpose, Obsession appears
to have a message that many Americans
neither wish to hear nor believe. Indeed,
the free distribution of the film, which
was produced in 2005 and first released
on DVD in 2007, has set off a firestorm of
critics from both Islamist groups and lib-
eral media figures.
The Council on American Islamic
Relations has organized protests against
the fdm's distribution, asserting that the
movie seeks to "incite hate and bigotry"
A46
October 23 • 2008
But CAIR's leading the opposition to
Obsession ought to lend the movie more
credibility, not less. American support-
ers of the Hamas terrorist group founded
CAIR; FBI witnesses revealed CAIR's role
as a Hamas front-group during the federal
prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation
for illegally supporting terror abroad.
Yet, some in the news media are
marching to CAIR's drumbeat. The
Greensboro News & Record in North
Carolina refused the DVD insert because,
as a statement from its publisher assert-
ed, "it was divisive and plays on people's
fears and served no educational purpose'
The Detroit Free Press and the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch also declined the DVD. The
latter explained
its decision
by saying the
film "troubled
American
Muslims."
These papers
did not refute a
single point in
the film. But
the raising of
the issue of
Islamist terror
has, in their
view, become not
merely politically incorrect, but inadmis-
sible and, therefore, something that must
be suppressed. That these publishers,
who should be facilitating such a debate
rather than squelching it, have acted in
this manner is an ominous sign of the
times.
Were that not enough, the film also
has run afoul of some supporters of
Democratic presidential candidate
Barack Obama. It is true that most of the
DVDs were inserted into newspapers in
swing states. That has led some para-
noids to argue that the documentary's
message is a subliminal argument
against their candidate, and that it has
been placed into newspapers to mis-
lead voters into thinking that Obama is
a Muslim.Others talk about the use of
right-wing foundation money to distrib-
ute the DVD. Yet, the most-incriminating
connection about the film is that Rabbi
Raphael Shore, the producer and co-
writer, as well as the founder of the non-
profit organization that distributed it, has
worked for Aish HaTorah, the Orthodox
Jewish religious outreach group.
The problem with this whole argu-
ment is that the film contains absolutely
nothing about American politics or the
election.While some on the left may
consider raising awareness about the
dangers of Islamism to be something
only Republicans do, that is not a point
Democrats ought to concede if they are
as tough on terror as they claim to be.
Indeed, one of the prominent voices heard
in the film is attorney and author Alan
Dershowitz, a well-known Democrat and
supporter of Obama.
But some
Democrats are now
9 11,
so spooked by the
topic of the Islamist
threat, they think
even mentioning
the topic in a non-
political context is
somehow part of a
conspiracy against
their hero.
Indeed, Keith
Olbermann, a host
on the MSNBC
cable news network
and a prominent liberal fan of Obama in
the media, denounced Obsession as "neo-
con porn:' as if his banal grudges against
the neoconservative movement trump the
facts about radical Islam.
Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, Va., a
leading figure in the "Rabbis for Obama"
group, called a press conference to blast
the movie. In a scary echo of language
used by CAIR, he said Obsession is a
"thinly veiled call for disparagement and
distrust of all Muslims:' which seeks to
"limit the rights of Muslims to enjoy the
free exercise of their faith!"
But does Moline really believe that
speaking openly about the way Iran,
Hezbollah and Hamas seek to teach chil-
dren to hate Jews restricts the rights of
peace-loving American Muslims to prac-
tice their faith? Does he not know that,
as the film rightly asserts, the primary
targets of the Islamists are moderate
Muslims who have been slaughtered and
Seven years after
many Americans seem
to have forgotten that
indifference to the threat
of radical Islamists led
directly to the tragedy.
-
silenced by the radicals.
Finally, how does it possibly help the
candidacy of Obama, a man who has
missed no opportunity all year to assert
his support for Israel and his disdain for
Islamist terrorists, to claim that giving
a documentary about Islamism a wide
audience is hurtful to his cause? Can it be
that some of his supporters believe that,
contrary to his campaign statements, their
candidate doesn't really share the concerns
that the film raises?
'Connect The Dots'
Seven years after 9-11, many Americans
seem to have forgotten that indifference
to the threat of radical Islamists led
directly to that tragedy. Apparently, some
prefer to ignore the grim truth and cling
to the illusion that right-wingers are
making up all the fuss about
Islamism to scare everyone unnecessar-
ily.
As Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the great-
est historians of our generation and the
leading biographer of Winston Churchill,
points out in Obsession, 70 years ago,
many in the West were similarly unwill-
ing to face up to the danger of Nazism.
Just as today many laugh at Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they
dismissed the murderous threats of Adolf
Hitler as clownish bombast, and consid-
ered the brainwashing of a generation of
German children by the Nazis unimport-
ant.
They denounced those who refused
to be silent as prejudiced warmongers.
Those truth-tellers were proved right, but
too late to avert a world war, as well as
genocide.
Just like then, those who ignore similar
evidence about radical Islam today "don't
connect the dots:' Gilbert asserts.That
is a mistake the next president, who will
confront an Islamist threat that may well
be augmented by a nuclear Iran some-
time in the next four years, cannot afford
to make.
The message of Obsession could not be
timelier.
❑
Jonathan Tobin is editor of the Jewish
Exponent in Philadelphia. His e-mail address is
jtobin@jewishexponent.com.