It's not Newsweek's fault that Islam is a bloodthirsty "religion of peace"?

That's Diana West's thesis in "Newsweek's blunder illuminates extremists' major shortcoming" which points out that despite Newsweek anti-American propaganda efforts, it would've have been so destructive if not for the fact that Islam has a lengthy history of reacting to slights with extreme violence.

The "report" did this? Our "image" has been damaged -- only now? For no "other" reason? Something's missing. That is, Quran-gate offers more than just another example of Washington politicking or good, old-fashioned media bias.

Neither drove rioters to murder last week on the Arab-Muslim "street" any more than they drove Mohammed Atta to mass-murder a few years ago in the friendly skies. It was jihad then, and jihad now, the rigid ideology that infuses medieval bloodlust with an unlikely longevity in a post-Enlightenment, technological age. Which is why the Newsweek story is not about Us. Rather, it underscores something about Them that is much more significant.

Us and Them: the words are "divisive," the concept politically incorrect. But what Michael Isikoff and Newsweek have done with their admittedly flimsy instance of reporting is focus our eyes on the chasm that lies between the Muslim world in which a book -- one book -- is sacred and life is cheap, and the Western world where speech is free and life is precious.

At least life is supposed to be precious here, just as speech is supposed to be free. The other revelation this story brought to light is the cringe-making extent to which we are willing to censor ourselves when it comes to Islam and the Quran -- or, as our Secretary of State has kowtowingly taken to calling it, "the Holy Quran," an adjectival distinction I've never heard officially appended to the Bible.

National Review Online's Marshall suggested Newsweek probably didn't know desecrating a Quran is a capital offense in "Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere" -- with enlightened Pakistan meting out only life imprisonment. But whether American news editors are up on their Islamic law is, for once, not the issue. The draconian repression of Islamic dictatorships is nothing for us to emulate or pander to, in our policy or our coverage. Frankly, if we tolerate artwork such as "Piss Christ" and "Dung Virgin," we should be able to shrug off Commode Quran.

Whether the toilet caper actually happened -- in seeking to secure American lives, after all, not score an NEA grant -- is also beside the point; the "damage," the pundits keep saying, is done. As a Pakistani journalist told The New York Times, the Newsweek item confirmed suspicions of "a straight disrespect for the sensitivities of Muslims."

Please. We see the "sensitivities" of some Muslims blowing up other Muslims on a daily basis in Iraq. We saw the sensitivities of Albanian Muslims on a rampage in March 2004, when they destroyed more than 30 Orthodox churches and monasteries in Kosovo. We saw the sensitivities of Taliban Muslims in 2001 when they dynamited the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan. We saw the sensitivities of Palestinian Muslims when in 2000 they violently obliterated Joseph's Tomb in Nablus. In 2002, Nigerian Muslims took their sensitivities to the streets after This Day newspaper reported on beauty pageant contestants so lovely the prophet Mohammed would "probably have chosen a wife from one of them." Before you could say, "The Quran is in the toilet," more than 200 people lost their lives in riots that also left 11,000 people homeless. Also in 2002, armed Palestinian guerrillas and their sensitivities occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. As the Jerusalem Post reported, "Catholic priests later said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper."

I don't recall riots breaking out in St. Peter's Square. Which is why the West still stands on one side of the chasm, and Islam stands on the other. From this vantage point, we can give Newsweek a pass -- but not such violently uncivilized behavior.