| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Iranian filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh recently asserted "the fact that the West does not tolerate any criticism of Israel.”
Not only does "the West" tolerate constant criticism of Israel, but Israel also -- this mighty empire about the size of Connecticut, hard to discern on a map of the world -- about one-third to one-half of the total debates and resolutions at the U.N. and many of its subsidiary bodies. Whole conferences seem to veer inexorably into the subject of Israel's perfidy and the greatest tragedy in the history of the world, that of the "Palestinians" -- whether it be a conference on racism at Durban, or on women in Cairo. And the Western world not only tolerates it, but sometimes joins in. Israel has been left virtually alone, save for a handful of states.
And as for the Western press, a drip-drip-drip of anti-Israel venom now courses through the veins of so many in the West because the good doctors of The Guardian and the BBC and Le Monde and Agence France Presse and Reuters and a cast of thousands, with Robert Fisk in the lead but hardly alone, have misrepresented everything. They have caused everything to be taken out of context. They have promoted the notion of the "Palestinian people." They have caused collective amnesia about the reason, and terms of, the Mandate for Palestine. They have rewritten or ignored the true demographic history and the cadastral history of that tiny sliver of land in dusty Asia that had fallen into ruin and desolation, and that would still be in ruins if the Jews had not returned. That includes the Jews of the Middle East (the Jews of the Middle East whom we are supposed to forget about, as if they never existed) as well as the Jews whose mistreatment in Europe had its final apotheosis in Mr. Hitler and the still-unbelievable events of 1933-1945. Those who belonged to the most persecuted tribe in human history returned -- though some had never left, for there was a continuous Jewish presence, always, in Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, and even in Hebron until the Arab Muslim massacre of 1929). They returned, and reestablished, for the second time in 2000 years, a Jewish commonwealth. The incredible accomplishments in Israel, the magnanimity it has shown as well to its mortal enemies, have both been systematically ignored.
One may or may not agree with the celebrated Italian journalist and historian Indro Montanelli, who, a few years before his death in 2001 at the age of 90, wrote that the reestablishment of the State of Israel was "the greatest thing, possibly the only good thing, to have come out of the twentieth century." Montanelli could say this because, though not Jewish, he -- like Churchill -- understood what that meant, in world-historical terms, what it meant to the West.
This has been forgotten in that same West, the West where we are told by this crazed Muslim observer that criticism of Israel is not tolerated. Though the least deserving of criticism, in the West, as elsewhere, Israel has become an object of hysterical and ahistorical criticism, criticism that is spread and finds favor with two kinds of people: the usual group, some 10-20% of the population in any given Western country, that exhibits signs of that mental pathology we call antisemitism (and for whom Israel provides an "acceptable" outlet for their low-level hostility or hatred) and those who simply do not know, are ignorant of, the history of Israel, of the Mandate period, of the Mandate itself, of the rules of territorial adjustment after wars, of the history of the Middle East, of the history of Islamic conquest, of the demographic and cadastral history of the area that became modern Israel, of the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, of Islam.
And the less you know of these things, the more likely it is that you will credulously accept and pass on to others the inaccurate and at times horrifically and sinisterly unjust reporting on events, and "making sense" of events, that takes place in the popular press and in broadcasting.
From Anthony Lewis, to Tom Friedman, to Robert Fisk, to Eric Rouleau, the misrepresenters of Israel, who have done so much damage, are many and various.
"Criticism of Israel" is not tolerated? There is an object of conceivable criticism that is, in many parts of the Western world, carefully protected from such criticism, but it is not "Israel." It does, however, share the same initial syllable. And that is about all it shares.
Posted by Hugh at April 12, 2008 7:48 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Ah ... all those anti-Israel UN resolutions supported by Europe!? Ah ... leftist media commonly comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Ah ... the apartheid comments from Jimmy Carter that were in the North American media.
Muslims lack critical thinking to the point that it is dangerous to humanity.
Posted by: James Martel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 12, 2008 10:37 AM
Remember, when Muslims like Nader Talebzadeh claim that criticism of Israel is not tolerated, he means literally the criticism of the existance of Israel itself. In that sense he may have a point.
No politician or pundit would advocate the complete dismantling or destruction of the Jewish state. Most rational westerners would consider that anti-semetic, and out of the question. And I say, good for us.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at April 12, 2008 11:58 AM
Sites like this are nice to see. I lived in Israel for years and listened to the BBC world service and it about drove me to throw my radio out the window.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Western press has been promoting Palestinian terrorism for years.
Muslims of course will say the opposite, as the are wont to do: "Jews control the media. The world is pro-Israel." They are so anxious to play the role of the victim they will state the ridiculous which much of the press wants to hear and reports this sad sad story of Hamas and Hizbollah all over the world.
The issue for the press here is clear: Either you think that Islamism is a threat to the world or not. If you think that it is then report that Israel faces every day that threat and this small nation is on the front lines to save Western civilization.
I wish I were overstating it, but I do not believe I am.
Posted by: avisegev67 at April 12, 2008 1:50 PM
"I lived in Israel for years and listened to the BBC world service and it about drove me to throw my radio out the window.
-- from a posting above
You don't have to live in Israel to want to throw your radio out the window because of things you hear on the BBC world service. There are so many reasons to become enraged. The coverage of Israel, I'll admit, may take the cake, but almost anything to do with Islam, and the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims, infuriates. And the failure to educate listeners about the ideology of Islam -- surely a task that should be undertaken, and not entrusted to the espositos and armstrongs -- is shameful.
But what do you expect? John Simpson (google "John Simpson" and "Jihad Watch") is viciously anti-American and anti-Israel, and he's the head of the BBC World Service. He's a good friend of Peter Hounam, once jailed by the Israelis
And so many Arabs and Muslims work at Bush House, and so many of their colleagues are keenly aware of their presence, and either out of conviction, or fear, do everything to please and appease them, and nothing to disturb.
As for the coverage of America -- it's condescending, ill-informed crap. This from the BBC, where once the unsurpassable Alistair Cook broadcast his "Letters From America."
at April 12, 2008 6:28 PM
I think that the Iranian filmmaker misunderstands the concept of free speech, it does not mean that a person who says any old thing will not be answered, it means that when people do criticize anything as they are free to do, others are free to criticize their criticisms.
So when president Carter wrote a book comparing Israel to apartheid era South Africa, everyone who criticized his criticisms were free to do so, or to resign from his foundation.
In a society such as much of the middle eastern states have become where upwards of 99 percent of all the people have become slaves to the doctrines that the entity that called itself Gabriel whispered to Mahomet, it must be shocking to hear such strident disagreements about things that are Unanswerable in their bailiwicks.
Sure in Islamistan someone can routinely call the jews sons of apes and pigs, probably anyone that wondered about the descendants of captured Jewish women and all their relations would have to keep quiet, but it must occur to most what happened to them, and if Mahomet raped those captives whose husbands and fathers were murdered does that mean that Mahomet had sex with apes and pigs?
It is all so confounding that none of this was worked out in some sort of environment of open exchange before so that the doctrines of the entity that called itself Gabriel that were whispered into the ear of mahomet might have spared itself embarrassing itself.
Posted by: stickman at April 12, 2008 7:58 PM
All due respect, I disagree with Mr Fitzgerald on many points.
First of all, I find it quite intriguing, and shokcing the fact that no matter what Israel does; it it NEVER criticized on this website. Nor on any "right-winged" media outlet for that matter (yes I used that term, even though I hate categorizing people).
The fact is that U.S. and Israel share common interests. Isreal is the closest thing to a Democracy that there is in the middle-east. If you give me the mutual-benefit argument, I'd buy it. But to absolve israel of any crimes, it has comitted since its formation, it the definition of absurdness. Sure, the Palestinians have made a lot of mistakes, and I agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization, etc.. etc.. But to simply defend Israel on every single position it has taken is quite weird. Especially since it has clearly violated many UN resolutions (oh, I forgot, you don't like the U.N. either !).
Like I said, to rally more people towards your cause of fighting Jihad (which I agree with 100%), you'd have to show more objectiveness. Which is why I think this site is only popular amongst right-wingers (yes I used the term again!)
Again, I am only saying this out of respect I have for the multitude of sound arguments I read here against the J ideology. What I don't like is the whole "package" that seems to come with it: blind pro-Israelism, partisanship (clearly Republican) and much more...
at April 12, 2008 8:29 PM
"partisanship (clearly Republican)"
--from a posting above
You need to read more closely.
Posted by: Hugh at April 12, 2008 10:33 PM
TheDudeAbides wrote:
All due respect, I disagree with Mr Fitzgerald on many points.
First of all, I find it quite intriguing, and shokcing (sic) the fact that no matter what Israel does; it it NEVER criticized on this website.
. . . I think this site is only popular amongst right-wingers (yes I used the term again!) . . . blind pro-Israelism, partisanship (clearly Republican) and much more...
........................................
Dude, perhaps you haven't spent much time on this site. There are a wide range of readers and posters, from the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, Western Europe, the Middle East, the far East. There are men and women, straight and gay. Some posters are quite religious--Catholic, evangelical Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and yes, Muslim--and quite a few are agnostics or atheists. There are quite a few conservatives here, certainly, but many other political points of view, as well.
I myself am classically liberal in many ways--pro equal rights for women, pro gay marriage. The only time I have ever been arrested in my life was at an anti-Aparthied demonstration in Berkeley as a student.
Many of the reasons that I am so alarmed at the spread of jihad and Islamic Shari'ah is the threat to liberal human values--the oppression of women, children, gay people, religious and ethnic minorities, and the catastrophic threat to freedom of speech.
Many anti-jihadists are conservative. Many are not--Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and Bruce Bawer are hardly mainstream conservatives.
Not everyone here is in full agreement on all issues, and that is as it should be. Most people visiting this site are concerned about the threat of jihad and the ways that jihad is resisted, or not resisted.
Many posters have criticized Israel. Israel, like any other nation, is not perfect.
Here's the following from Hugh Fitzgerald, in another article:
"Israel merely tries, and with amazing, unimaginable scrupulosity, to limit its responses [to Palestinain violence]. What country, being made war on, supplies electricity and gas to its mortal enemies, as Israel does? Israel also gives all kinds of goods and services, and even offers free and advanced medical care to thousands upon thousands of "Palestinians" who come from Gaza and the "West Bank" to Israeli hospitals. After that, having received care equal to that given to Israelis, and even having had their lives saved, those “Palestinians” return to, or never drop, their fanatical hatred of those who have given them, unstintingly, that medical care."
Until you can answer the questions posed above, further criticizing Israel for small failings. while her enemies try to violently destroy her and her people utterly, seems largely beside the point. In many cases, I think Israel's greatest failing is in not doing enough to protect her own citizens against a savage enemy who seeks to wipe it off the map.
at April 13, 2008 12:10 AM
Dear Gravenimage,
Actually I do spend a lot of time on this site. I like it. I don't like all articles, of course, but I do.
Let me give you a small example. Whenever the word Palestian comes up, Hugh like to surround it with quotation marks. His argument would be that, there had never been a country called Palestine. Fair enough, does that mean that certain people do not exist since they don't have a country ?
Even before 1948, they used to call themselves that. Alright, use whatever term you'd like to use: "Arab speaking people living in Israel"
Secondly, have you forgotten about settlements ? Sure, you might disagree with the UN's resolution number 465 regarding going back to pre '67 borders, but about the illegal settlements ? Israel continues to build those on occupied territories. Yes, occupied !
I agree completely that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has, and continues to act as a diversion for people living in the middle east. The governments are quite satisfied with its exitence since it diverts attention away from its own oppresssive tacts. Take my home county, for instance (Egypt) that has official and full diplomatic relations with Israel, and yet that relationship is manipulated by the government (and the labour unions, and other pro-government organization) to fake an image of standing by the Arabs' side.
Darfur ? The Kurds ? Nobody knows about them. Saddam, well, he was a the bad guy and now he's a martyr. It all depends on what mass media drug you're currently on.
While you that Politics is logical, you're forgetting the fact that the middle-east has a high illetracy rate, religion fanaticism (or simply religion), and it's stuck in the 15th century Arabia. I feel sad when I see my home country where you could hardly see any veiled women walking down the streets like 10 years ago, turning into another Kuwait or Saudi Arabia (minus the wealth). A great civilization and culture that once existed is going backwads, looking up to the great example and properity of 7th century Arabia !! Imitating their nomadic ways and their dress style, mind you.
Sorry for the off-topical passages...
at April 13, 2008 5:30 AM
Gravenimage is spot on but how refreshing to read an educated and polite debate!
Posted by: blufink at April 13, 2008 6:26 AM
for there was a continuous Jewish presence, always, in Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, and even in Hebron until the Arab Muslim massacre of 1929).
it is interesting how the Dome of the rock a.k.a. the noble sanctuary guardians claim there never was a Jewish presence. Ever notice how Moslems makes ridiculous claims that we cannot criticize Israel or Islam or Mohammed they truly are a cult
at April 13, 2008 9:17 PM
Well said, Hugh. Excellent.
Posted by: DukeOrange at April 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Personally, I think criticizing Israel should be OUTLAWED. They have been through 4,000 years of being kicked in the gut from one end of this globe to the other, and for no reason but that they are Jews. At this point in history they should not be questioned as to the decisions they make with regard to their own national security. The Israelis should be allowed to lay waste to all their enemies on whatever grounds they see fit and I do mean smiting folks for even so much as looking at the Jews cross-eyed.
Posted by: Madame Vengier at April 14, 2008 8:45 PM
Madame Vengier,
Sorry, but are you seious ?
Outlawed ? You gotta be kidding me !
You said:
"The Israelis should be allowed to lay waste to all their enemies on whatever grounds they see fit and I do mean smiting folks for even so much as looking at the Jews cross-eyed."
I rest my case.
at April 15, 2008 7:17 PM
TheDudeAbides wrote:
Secondly, have you forgotten about settlements ? Sure, you might disagree with the UN's resolution number 465 regarding going back to pre '67 borders, but about the illegal settlements ? Israel continues to build those on occupied territories. Yes, occupied!
..........................
Actually, I think these settlements are generally a bad idea. They are under constant threat of attack (even more than Israel proper) and are difficult to defend.
The idea, though, that dismantling settlements will bring Israel any sort of peace has not been bourne out by events.
Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in June of 2005, even pulling their own citizens out by force in some cases. Israel hoped that full withdrawal would allow for a stable, peaceful Palestinian state as a neighbor.
Nothing, unfortunately, could have been further from the truth. First, Palestinians destroyed greenhouses and other infrastructure that Israel left so that Gaza could get a leg up on jump-starting its economy. Then Gazans elected Hamas, whose main goal has always been the complete violent destruction of Israel. Eventually, Hamas drove out their Fatah rivals in an orgy of violence. Many Fatah members fled to Israel for safety.
Today, Gaza is free from Israeli settlements. It is also an increasingly violent place, especially threatening to Christians and secular or democratically-minded Muslims. It also serves as a haven for terrorists--is indeed a terrorist state, and serves as a base for almost daily attacks on Israel, especially the beseiged and undefended city of Sderot.
Your own home country of Egypt is also at risk from Gaza, as was shown recently by the Gazans' destruction of the Egyptian fence, and subsequent attacks on Egyptian security forces and widespread theft from Egyptian shopkeepers.
Posted by: gravenimage
at April 16, 2008 2:44 PM
Gravenimage,
Thanks for agreeing that settlements are a bad idea.
I couldn't agree more about Gaza being a risk.
I don't think there are any Christians or secular-minded people in Gaza anymore. Probably less than 100 Christians or so live in Gaza.
So what is the solution ? Turn it into the huge Alcatraz it currently is ?
at April 16, 2008 7:10 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)