Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Where Muhammad isn’t

Monday, October 11th, 2010

Daled Amos talks about the cartoon that the Washington Post would not print, here. This  is important for the following reason:

One can argue that it is rude to deliberately provoke religious people, and maybe that is a reason not to publish cartoons that violate their taboos. For example, I know lots of Christians who find Serrano’s “Piss Christ” in poor taste. Actually, I do too.

The issue was never about insulting Islam or Muslims — it was about Muslims violently interfering with freedom of expression among non-Muslims. But this was obscured by the fact that it was necessary to insult Muslims to make the point.

Now Wiley Miller has found a way out of this. It is not about insulting Muslim religious sensitivities anymore. His cartoon expresses a political idea, not a religious one. And the fact that the Washington Post declined to publish it shows that we in the West are nothing more than cowards in the face of Muslim bullying.

Here’s the cartoon:

The cartoon makes a political point, not a religious one

The cartoon makes a political point, not a religious one

Technorati Tags: , , ,

How fear becomes submission

Friday, October 1st, 2010

Yesterday I reflected on the fact that my local newspaper chose not to publish a well-written, interesting letter that happened to call attention to the political aspect of Islam.

They do not hesitate to print relatively obnoxious left- and right-wing screeds, as well as ones so poorly written as to be almost unintelligible. Sometimes they print long endorsements of obscure candidates for minor local offices, by unknown writers. Almost every day there is the obligatory ad hominem attack on Victor Davis Hanson (today there were two).

But the letter I posted yesterday apparently crossed a red line for them: it suggested that Islam is more than a religious faith — which, in today’s America, means ‘something having to do with food and what days a person takes off from work’ — but is a movement with a political purpose.

This is unacceptable to the newspaper, because you are allowed to criticize political movements. But in the America of 9/11 plus nine years, you may not criticize Islam.

Just in time comes a description of this phenomenon which absolutely nails it. I can’t urge everyone strongly enough to read “Two Decades of the Rushdie Rules,” by Daniel Pipes:

From a novel by Salman Rushdie published in 1989 to an American civil protest called “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day” in 2010, a familiar pattern has evolved. It begins when Westerners say or do something critical of Islam. Islamists respond with name-calling and outrage, demands for retraction, threats of lawsuits and violence, and actual violence. In turn, Westerners hem and haw, prevaricate, and finally fold. Along the way, each controversy prompts a debate focusing on the issue of free speech.

I shall argue two points about this sequence. First, that the right of Westerners to discuss, criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years. Second, that free speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper – indeed, a defining question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?

One of the most fascinating points Pipes makes is the change in Western attitudes, particularly on the Left, since 1989:

At the time, François Mitterrand, the socialist president of France, called the threat to Rushdie an “absolute evil.” The Green Party in Germany sought to break all economic agreements with Iran. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister, endorsed a European Union resolution supporting Rushdie as “a signal to assure the preservation of civilization and human values.” The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution that declared its commitment “to protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy, and read books without fear of intimidation and violence” and condemned Khomeini’s threat as “state-sponsored terrorism.” Such governmental responses are inconceivable in 2010.

Indeed. And not just governmental responses, but in the media as well. Recently I wrote about the surprise I felt watching a 2002 episode of the TV drama “West Wing,” which sharply criticized Saudi Arabia’s prevailing (misogynist) mores. I can’t imagine this sequence being produced today.

So while I’m disappointed in my newspaper, I’m not surprised. Why shouldn’t it take part in this widespread psychological defense mechanism, in which the unattractive emotion of simple fear of violence is transmuted — first into ‘respect’ for Muslim culture, and finally into submission to it?

Technorati Tags: , ,

NY Times hits bottom, sticks

Sunday, August 29th, 2010
One view of the NY Times

One view of the NY Times

One would have thought that the New York Times could not possibly descend any lower, with regular columnists like Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristoff — and then they strike the semi-solid layer of excrement at the bottom of the bubbling pool of filth in which they live and feed, and give a platform to Ali Abunimah.

Market forces will soon flush away this shitty little newspaper, as it well deserves. It can’t happen too soon.

Abunimah’s arguments are barely worth discussing. He draws  an analogy between Hamas and Sinn Fein, suggesting that the initial refusal of the British to negotiate with the latter can be compared with Israel’s shunning of the former.

Of course Catholic nationalists did not intend to rid Northern Ireland of Protestants, nor did they believe that God commanded them to murder Protestants wherever they could be found. They did not believe that Ireland was a Catholic waqf and that the only solution to the presence of any Protestants on Irish soil was violent jihad (Hamas says all this and more about Jews and Israel).

It is one thing to enter negotiations with a group that has committed terrorist acts. It’s another entirely to talk to one that believes that it is their religious duty to kill you, all of you.

It was possible to get the IRA to declare a cease-fire and to “permit Sinn Fein to enter into inclusive political negotiations” because there was an intersection between outcomes acceptable to Sinn Fein and the British government. There is no such intersection possible between Israel and Hamas, whose bottom line is simply that there must be no Jewish state — indeed, no non-subjected Jews — in ‘Palestine’.

He writes:

Why should Hamas or any Palestinian accept Israel’s political demands, like recognition, when Israel refuses to recognize basic Palestinian demands like the right of return for refugees?

You must give Abumimah and his friends credit for chutzpah: first, they invent a ‘right’ — the repatriation of the descendants of refugees from a war that their own leaders caused — that has never existed in history, then they breed a whole population in misery for years to make a demographic weapon of mass destruction out of them, and finally they demand that they be allowed to use it to end the Jewish state. What will remain for them to ‘recognize’?

Naturally, he believes that the reason the US was tough on the British but will not get tough on Israel is the nefarious Jewish (OK, he says ‘Israel’) Lobby. Hamas knew about the Jewish Lobby all along. Here’s what they wrote in their charter:

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained … With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

…They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it…

Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. — Hamas Covenant, sections 22, 28, 32

Abunimah, like Hamas, knows what he wants: no more Israel. Israel, one hopes, knows how to deal with Hamas.

But what does the New York Times want?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

The BBC breaks out

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Despite the anti-Israel culture of the BBC, some journalistic blood apparently still flows in their reporter Jane Corbin, who presented a documentary about the Mavi Marmara affair called “Death in the Med” on the Panorama program this week.

Although the program gives far too much exposure to the repulsive American psychopath Ken O’Keefe, the facts of the events that transpired on May 31 are more or less correctly presented. Video of the ‘activists’ cutting up the ship’s rails for weapons, and of course the attack on the soldiers was shown. Near the end, Corbin says,

At the end of the day the bid to break the naval blockade wasn’t really about bringing aid to Gaza. It was a political move designed to put pressure on Israel and the international community. The price was high — nine people died — but the outcry assured that the flotilla achieved its aim: the IHH presented the dead as martyrs for the cause of Gaza.

Heavy stuff for the BBC!

Corbin allows Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland, who led the IDF investigation of the incident, to suggest that the Turkish government was well aware of the violent plans of the ‘activists’. She mentions the UN investigation, but does not draw the reasonable conclusion from the evidence in the program that the Turkish regime should be investigated — and held responsible for the deaths of the nine IHH ‘activists’ as well as the serious injuries to several Israelis.

Although one doesn’t normally congratulate someone for doing their job, the BBC is more like a drug addict that has been screwing his up for some time. It deserves credit for breaking free.

Of course, the usual suspects are absolutely livid. How dare Corbin and the BBC stick up for the Jew Among Nations, whose function is to be beaten bloody (like the naval commandos) for their satisfaction! You can see the comments here (the BBC has removed the usual obscene ones). Although  I didn’t count them, about 90% of them refer to the ‘shocking pro-Israeli bias’ of the show, etc.

O’Keefe, apparently a celebrity in the UK (he would be considered a clear nutcase in the US) plans to demonstrate at the BBC this Sunday.

Here are the two parts of the program, about 15 minutes each, if you care to watch.

If you can see this, then you might need a Flash Player upgrade or you need to install Flash Player if it's missing. Get Flash Player from Adobe.

If you can see this, then you might need a Flash Player upgrade or you need to install Flash Player if it's missing. Get Flash Player from Adobe.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Short takes: Hamas likes mosque, AP distorts, Harvard doesn’t divest

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Hamas supports Ground Zero mosque

One of the objections to the proposed Ground Zero mosque has been that radical Islamists around the world will understand it as a triumphalist symbol of America’s defeat at the hands of Islam. Hamas’ Mahmoud Zahar didn’t exactly say that, but he came close:

Two days after President Obama came out in support of a plan to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero, the controversial project has received yet another high-profile endorsement – this one from the chief of the terror group Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

“We have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places,” stated Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas who is regarded as the chief of the group in Gaza.

Zahar said that as Muslims, “We have to build everywhere.”

It can’t be helpful to Barack Obama to find himself on the same side as Hamas!

***

AP blames Israel for Palestinian intransigence

Here’s what I read this morning in the Fresno Bee:

By Karin Laub, Associated Press

RAMALLAH, West Bank — Israel will not accept conditions for resuming direct negotiations with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and top Cabinet ministers affirmed in a meeting late Sunday, reflecting a hard line just as invitations to the talks appeared to be near.

“Hard line?” Are you nuts, Karin Laub? Netanyahu has been agreeing to direct talks without preconditions for months. What could be less hard line than that? Isn’t the function of negotiations to, er, negotiate?

The Palestinian Authority (PA), on the other hand, has refused to talk unless their demands are met in advance. In Laub’s words,

Abbas wants Israel to accept the principle of Palestinian statehood in the lands Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast war with minor modifications, and wants all Jewish settlement building to stop during negotiations.

I’ll note yet again the deliberately misleading formulation “Jewish settlement building” to mean “any construction activity outside 1949 lines,” suggesting that Israel is building new settlements or even expanding the boundaries of existing ones, which has not happened for years.

The PA wants negotiations to pick up where they left off when various generous offers — the Clinton-Barak ideas of 2000-1, and Olmert’s 2008 proposal — were made. Of course, these were presented by Israel as absolute final offers, which were rejected by the PA as inadequate. It’s ludicrous for them to become starting points for new talks, in which the PA will demand even more — not to mention that the response to the Clinton-Barak offer was to start a war.

The AP’s original headline, “Israel: No conditions for talks with Palestinians” is not so  bad. My friends at the Bee changed it to this: “Israel refuses conditions on talks”, to make sure that everyone gets the message that it’s Israel’s fault.

What are my neighbors in Fresno likely to think when they read this propaganda disguised as news?

***

Harvard does not divest

Some blogs and even mainstream media sources have been saying that Harvard University’s endowment fund has ‘divested’ from Israel. Actually, what happened is that Israel’s economy is so good that its stocks have been shifted from an ’emerging country’ index to a ‘developed country’ one. Harvard rebalanced its portfolio by selling some stocks in Israeli companies and buying some from ’emerging’ countries.

And they probably had a nice capital gain, too.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,