|
I am presuming that the basis of the question was a presumtion that better relations between the two sides was the overarching goal for both parties, and thus a question of who has the furthest to go to reach the common ground that will allow such communal relations. The more a party values positive relations, the more that party should be willing to go to meet the other at such a point. Thus how much responsibility one has is driven by the value one has for a positive relationship.
Where is that common ground in this situation, and who is farther from it?
From either perspective, the common ground appears closest to them and farthest from their opposite number. This is only natural. Common ground is that area that represents a reasonable, rational position acceptable to all involved. Since one's idea of what is rational, reasonable, and acceptable is firmly rooted in the values and positions one has, it is only natural that one sees common ground as being closest to their own positions. From the Islamic POV, they have already made enough compromises and are being more than reasonable in their response to Western attacks on Islam. From the Western POV, they have alreade made many compromises and are being very fair in dealing with attacks by Islamists.
Since we are measuring distance between two points, it is really impossible to say who is farther from the other, as any two bodies will always be an equal distance from eachother. We can only compare distances to a third point, and since this third point defies definition, such comparison remains impossible.
Thus I can only answer to the above question: Both.
|