Not an article Ethan Bronner writes goes by without the obligatory claim that Hamas is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Today’s story about the tension in Gaza between Islamizers and moderates within the Islamist movement is true to form:
It [Hamas] rejects Israel’s right to exist and remains doctrinally committed to its destruction. However, its leaders have said several times that if Israel were to leave all land taken in the 1967 war, Hamas could accept a Palestinian state limited to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem…
If Hamas would accept a Palestinian state consisting of the current Occupied Territories, then ipso facto it does not reject Israel’s existence nor can it be committed to its destruction. In fact, many Israeli political, military and intelligence analysts concede that Hamas’ acceptance of a hudna is a tacit acceptance of Israel’s existence.
In fact, no senior leader of Hamas for several years has put forward the incrementalist notion that it may accept a hudna as a creeping process leading to Israel’s destruction and absorption into Palestine. Are there Palestinians who wish this outcome? Certainly, just as there are many Israeli Jews who wish Israeli Palestinian Arabs could be expelled from Israel. But the notion that Israel’s Arab citizens will be transferred out of the country is as far-fetched as the notion that Hamas will or can cause Israel’s destruction.
It’s long past time for Bronner to get with the program and acknowledge the myriad interviews of senior Hamas officials like Khaled Meshaal and others who have documented the moderating of the movement’s positions on these matters. Let’s put it plain and simple for him: Hamas currently does not reject Israel’s right to exist nor is it committed to its destruction (and for those of you out there who are anti-Palestinian partisans clamoring to bring up the Hamas charter, please point me to any evidence that any Hamas leader pays any attention whatsoever to it). The fact that Bronner stays stuck in the past is yet another proof that his reporting is neither careful nor balanced.
Yet another proof of this is a recent profile he wrote about the weekly Bilin demonstrations at the Separation Wall. He interviewed IDF officers and peace activists about their respective views of both the Wall and the demonstrations. But curiously, he noted the IDF claim that 170 soldiers had been wounded over time there (part of the claim that the demonstrators are not non-violent peace activists, but violent hoodlums). But Bronner somehow forgot to mention the Palestinian casualties at the Wall, which include one murdered Palestinian and one American left in a vegetative state by IDF fire in the past four months alone. Altogether, 19 Palestinians have been killed during demonstrations against the Wall. Why wasn’t this fact even whispered in Bronner’s article? Because he wanted his readers to focus on the flesh wounds suffered by Israeli soldiers when a few odd rocks are thrown their way by young Palestinians who violate the discipline invoked during these protests? Why did Ethan Bronner forget Palestinian suffering?
I know you don’t like the answer to the question you ended with, so I’ll defer to Phillip Weiss to explain it.
Yonatan Mendel explains it. Diary: How to Become An Israeli Journalist
Similar rules apply to Bronner and the NYT.
I think it is possible to be Jewish, an excellent journalist and cover the Israeli-Arab conflict. I think it’s even possible to be a Zionist, or at least a critical or progressive Zionist and do so. I think David Shipler and to an extent Tom Friedman did this when they were the Times’ Israel correspondent. Amos Elon, Tom Segev and a small number of Israeli journalists do/did this. But I also think there are some Jews who feel conflicted about these multiple identities and cannot navigate them successfully. They feel in order to remain true to one of the identities they must sacrifice another. That’s what Bronner does. He prob. doesn’t even do this consciously. But he does it nonetheless.
Of course it is possible to be Jewish, and even a Zionist, and excellent journalist covering the Israeli-Arab conflict. No one here suggested otherwise, and there plenty of examples on both counts, though more the former than the latter as honest Zionists are in short supply. What isn’t possible, in the US anyway, is getting well paid to cover the Israeli-Arab conflict with anything resembling journalistic integrity, be one a Zionist, Jewish, or otherwise.
No one denies that Hamas follows a certain pragmatic line, though pragmatism is not necessarily moderation. Obviously as a mass political movement, Hamas needs to be attuned to popular voices and to political exigencies. However, that also means that Hamas often speaks in several voices, depending on the audience. Thus Hamas leaders would say one thing in English when speaking to Westerners, and a totally different thing while speaking in Arabic. The question is what is the more genuine Hamas. Thus Mashal can say that he is willing to have a state in the 1967 borders (without saying if this is his final goal) while speaking to journalists and immediately declare in Arabic that Israel must be humiliated before it is destroyed.
A slight variation on the old pro-Israel meme: the Palestinians make nice-nice in English & then turn around and speak the truth in Arabic. Provide a single accurately translated recent (within the past yr or so) quotation (in other words, not fr. MEMRI or other pro-Israel advocacy media groups) from Meshal in which he says that Israel must be humiliated before it is destroyed.
“Hamas leaders would say one thing in English when speaking to Westerners, and a totally different thing while speaking in Arabic.”
LOOOOOOL! This is precisely what they used to say about `Arafat and the boys from Fatah. Now they say the exact same thing about Hamas. Plus ca change…
But wouldn’t you think that at least a few of us who are bilingual might have noticed that `Arafat, and now Hamas are sending conflicting messages, and that at least a couple of us would have mentioned it somewhere?
And I join Richard in asking you to kindly provide evidence of a recent statement from Meshaal saying that Israel must be humiliated before it is destroyed. If you can provide the original Arabic that would be even better.
I’ll do you both one better: in English – courtesy of Human Rights Watch – evidence that Hamas is humiliating and destroying Gaza itself.
http://www.hrw.org/en/video/2009/04/18/under-cover-war-hamas-political-violence-gaza
I agree with the main point of this article, that Bronner’s writing is unbalanced, albeit for somewhat different reasons than you do. However, I find it distasteful that you feel the need to label ideas counter to your own either ‘anti-Palestinian’ or ‘pro-Israel’: I am pro-peace and pro-progress, which involves looking at any situation with a fair dose of skepticism, being able to avoid romanticizing rhetoric from all sides, as well as being willing to criticize all sides for their shortcomings.
For the most part, I thoroughly enjoy your blog’s criticisms of Israeli and American politicians and newsmakers. Having said that, where is your criticism of Hamas and Fatah members? All I ask is that every side gets its fair share of appraisal.
Where is your evidence for your claim that Meshaal has said that Israel must be humiliated before it is destroyed?
It’s not a claim – it’s a empirical fact: my evidence is based on me learning Arabic over the last few years, watching Meshal’s 2006 address in Damascus on Al-Jazeera TV, and with my Arabic teacher sitting next to me, translating – sentence by sentence, word by word – Meshal’s own words that he uttered in Damascus in 2006.
Richard, you call MEMRI a pro-Israel advocacy media group, and I won’t disagree with that – if they weren’t, then they would also translate hateful speeches from Hebrew-speaking actors. However, for those who do not study the languages that they focus on, they provide an invaluable monitoring resource of extremism AS LONG AS the reader understands MEMRI’s analytical paradigm, and approaches their work with a critical eye, understanding their professional as well as their political agenda.
Shirin, you asked for the original Arabic, so please watch this clip (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1024.htm) and – assuming you know Arabic – you tell me what conclusions can be made. You wrote, ‘Plus ça change’, et tu as raison – c’est pourquoi je suis en trein d’étudier la langue Arabe et la langue d’hébreu parce que j’ai envie que ça change plus.
I must ask, do either of you even speak both Arabic & Hebrew?
I must reply that I resent this kind of snark. No one has to be able to speak either language to have intelligent views on these matters. All you have to do is be an educated citizen who reads widely & asks pertinent questions. But I DO speak Hebrew fluently and studied it for many decades along with some yrs at Israeli universities. Unlike you I don’t need a translator sitting alongside me to know what Israeli politicians are saying on TV or elsewhere. You’d know this if you bothered to read my translations of Israeli poetry and song lyrics here at this site. And Shirin and others here do speak Arabic. So what’s your pt? That you do speak both & therefore have some leg up on us in terms of yr superior understanding of political events?
You’re only the 200th reader who hasn’t bothered to do his homework by doing Google searches here to find material that you appear to believe isn’t there. I no longer answer these questions in detail with links. You’ll have to do the work yrself to find it. But it’s there both in comments & posts I’ve written. And don’t raise this pt again as I’m sick & tired of it. It’s a red herring.
Davide, Richard and I asked you for evidence of Mish`al (not Meshal, the name is مشعل not مشال or ةشل) recently, as within the last year, saying that Israel must be humiliated before it is destroyed. 2006 is not remotely within the last year. And have you given any thought at all to what was going on at the time Mesh`al made that 2006 speech? Can you think of a single reason he should have had anything pleasant to say about Israel under the circumstances?
But more to the point, saying you have been learning Arabic for the last few years and that you saw the speech on Al Jazeera in Damascus with your teacher translating by your side is not evidence of anything except that you have made that claim. I am not saying you are lying, but your word for it is not evidence, as I am sure you know. You certainly would hold me to a higher standard for evidence, and you would be right to do so.
Unfortunately the MEMRI clip you referred to is behind a wall, and I need to register to access it. I am not even a little bit enthusiastic about being registered on MEMRI’s website, but I will take a look when I have a bit more time, even though it does not really satisfy our request for something recent.
By the way, are you still in Damascus? If so, let’s get together some time for coffee. I’m not in Damascus at the moment, but I’ll be back before long, and there is nothing like meeting and communicating face to face to dispel misunderstanding and misconceptions.
And ah yes, MEMRI as provider of valuable service monitoring Arab extremism. MEMRI as a provider of of a valuable service demonizing Arabs and Muslims is more like it. To say their translations cannot be trusted is an understatement. Who can forget their “translation” of the Farfour childrens TV clip in which a little girl supposedly said “I will shoot” when she clearly said in Arabic “بدي أرسم صورة”, or still more egregious, when she supposedly said “we will annihilate the Jews”, when her statement in Arabic was “بطخّونا اليهود”? And then there was MEMRI’s “translation” of “بدنا انقاوم” as “we want to fight”, and “باستشهد” as “I will commit martyrdom”. And you expect me to be excited about the wonderful “service” MEMRI provides with their “translations”, which demonstrably often bear little or no resemblance to the original Arabic, and only ever err in a negative direction? Sorry, but no. MEMRI is a particularly nasty piece of the hasbara machine.
No, I do not speak Hebrew, though I understand it a little, and can read it a little. On the other hand, I also do not pretend to know what Israeli leaders say in Hebrew, nor do I trust “translations” that come from sources with an agenda to demonize Israel, Israelis, or Jews.
Not saying anything ‘pleasant’, or saying something ‘unpleasant’ is not the same as the vitriolic words we are discussing. As the leader of Hamas, regardless of whether it was said publicly three years ago or one year ago, don’t you think it is natural for leaders on the other side to approach his words of moderating the party, with a large dose of skepticism? Especially when one hears of the perpetuation of Hamas brutality to the Palestinian people it is meant to represent and protect? (As referenced in my second post above.)
I am not dismissing that Israeli leaders have had their fair share of indefensible sound-bites, but those seem to be much better documented and criticised. Like I wrote earlier, I simply want criticism to dealt to all sides so that the discussion and subsequent progress can become more open and honest.
Unfortunately, I am no longer in Damascus – I am in Tel Aviv for the next year finishing my thesis while trying to improve my Hebrew along with my Arabic because, like you, I don’t trust sources with a demonizing agenda of any kind – the only reason I referenced MEMRI is because I do not know of another source that still has that TV clip readily available. If you do pass by Tel Aviv, I likewise would like to meet face-to-face for coffee and a chat. If so, then Richard, if you are willing, please pass along my email address to Shirin.
Davide, my use of the word pleasant was not intended to be taken literally. I was employing irony. But why would it surprise you to hear vitriolic words toward Israel from any Palestinian under the circumstances? What surprises me is that Palestinians do not direct even more and stronger vitriol at Israel. As many have pointed out, what is surprising is not that Palestinians have sometimes used verbal and physical violence against Israel, but that they have shown as much restraint as they have under the circumstances.
You didn’t just mention MEMRI, you defended them by saying they provide a valuable service. That is certainly true if demonization of Arabs and Muslims is the service you value. What do you conclude from the “translations” I cited of the Farfour TV show? Do you consider those “translations” a valuable service? Can you, based on your knowledge of Arabic do as others have attempted to do and defend them as just normal mistakes translators make, and therefore excusable, honest errors?
I’m afraid if we are going to have coffee together it won’t be in Tel Aviv, at least for the foreseeable future. I don’t “do” Israel. I’m sure you can understand. But I would be happy to go to `Amman or Cairo or Sharm to meet you, or even the West Bank or better yet Gaza. :o}
Indeed I do. But not because of anything he has said or not said this year or in 2006 or ever. Israeli leaders demonize Hamas not based on facts or statements, but based on an intrinsic hatred of Hamas resistance to Israeli Occupation and their role as a viable force in that regard. A reasonable Israeli leader would weigh Hamas statements and note that ones made during the Lebanon war might be diff. than ones made in 2009. But there are very few reasonable Israeli leaders nowadays and none in the governing coalition.
Your claims about what is happening in Gaza are false. If you read the NY Times article on this subject which was reported by someone actually in Gaza, it makes clear that there are conflicting forces within Hamas and that SOME favor a extreme Islamist agenda and that some oppose this. Those favoring a more moderate position have won out & many of the draconian measures you decry have been rescinded. But for some reason you’ve neglected to note this. I wonder why?
Richard, you wrote, “All you have to do is be an educated citizen who reads widely”. Wouldn’t you agree that the more educated citizen, with the ability to read and speak in all the languages concerning the conflict, has a wider range of materials at his disposal to ask pertinent questions? You’re right, “no one has to be able to speak either language to have intelligent views on these matters”, but it sure helps when we live in a society where EVERY news outlet puts its own spin on current events.
As for the ‘red herring’ comment, I did do my homework before posting that remark – by typing ‘Hamas’ into your archive, plus I have been reading your blog for several months now – and though Hamas is the focus in a few of your posts, the number of posts critical of Hamas pales in comparison to your other subjects. All I want to make the world a better place is to hold everyone under the same microscope of criticism.
Furthermore, why did you dispel my comments on Gaza without offering me a link to your NY Times article? I was polite enough to offer you a link, I think it would be in bad taste if you didn’t reciprocate. Also, you wrote “those favoring a more moderate position have won out & many of the draconian measures you decry have been rescinded”: I admit, I do not know who has won out (and I do not believe we will know for quite some time), which is why I ask you now to provide evidence for your claim that the moderates have won out.
I don’t want this to get into a slugging match so I will credit you where credit is due – at least we agree on the fact that there are very few reasonable Israeli leaders nowadays.
Shirin, as the son of two interpreters, naturally I do not find those actions cited excusable: it is disgusting when sources like MEMRI demonize the Arab and Muslim world. However, show me another website with a video archive as extensive as MEMRI’s: like I wrote earlier, they provide a valuable service “AS LONG AS the reader understands MEMRI’s analytical paradigm [i.e. pro-Israel], and approaches their work with a critical eye [i.e. translates the videos free from MEMRI’s own subtitles, and pays attention to their editing of footage], understanding their professional as well as their political agenda [i.e. sometimes they spin the words to demonize their subjects]”. No source is 100% trustworthy: it is our duty as citizens of this world to read as much of them as we can, while holding each one accountable whenever they bend – or sometimes flat out crush – the truth.
Concerning coffee, if you can find me a way into Gaza with you, I’m there! 😀 If not, the other places work for me as well.
Davide, what value would you see in an archive of translated videos and transcripts of Jews and Israelis when those videos have been 1) carefully cherry picked for ugly, extremist-sounding content, or content that can be manipulated to seem ugly or extremist, 2) carefully cut in order to remove clarifying and mitigating context, often changing the meaning and intent of a statement, 3) rearranged in order to place together unrelated content in order to create a more extreme and ugly statement than the person actually made, 4) maliciously translated (for those who do not know, a malicious translation is one in which the translator has chosen the most damaging of several possible translations of a word or phrase regardless of what the context indicates), 5) consistently mistranslated to “enhance” the ugliness and extreme nature of the speech, 6) out and out fraudulently represented, as in the childrens show example I gave earlier? Oh – and then there would be those videos and other items in the archive that are not from extremist Jews, but which had been cherry picked, cut, rearranged, maliciously and mistranslated to sound extreme. Would you, under those circumstances, consider the compiling of this archive of videos of Jews to be a valuable service?
It’s good that you include a set of very strong caveats, but they all have problems:
1. “AS LONG AS the reader understands MEMRI’s analytical paradigm [i.e. pro-Israel]” There are two problems here: 1) The overwhelming majority of people who see – and broadcast – MEMRI’s material do not understand its analytical paradigm, nor do most of them care. They absorb it without thinking about it, except, of course, that it makes them realize how truly horrid those Arabs and Muslims are. 2) MEMRI’s analytical paradigm is not pro-Israel, it is anti-Arab/anti-Muslim. Their primary mission is not to support Israel, but to engender fear and hatred of Arabs and Muslims. There are plenty of people who are able to support Israel without demonizing Arabs, just as there are plenty of us who are able to support, and even fight for Palestinian rights without demonizing Jews or Israelis.
2. “approaches their work with a critical eye [i.e. translates the videos free from MEMRI’s own subtitles, and pays attention to their editing of footage]” 1) What percentage of people who are exposed to MEMRI’s material are likely to approach it with even a remotely critical eye? I would guess less than 1%. The rest take it for granted that it is true and accurate. In fact, most people don’t know anything about MEMRI, or even that it is the source of what they are hearing. 2) Even fewer people have the wherewithal to translate anything for themselves, nor do they know anyone who could translate it for them even if they realized the translations could not be trusted. 3) Few people are going to notice the editing of the footage, and even fewer are going to question whether it is done deceptively.
3. “understanding their professional as well as their political agenda [i.e. sometimes they spin the words to demonize their subjects]” 1) Most people don’t think about that. 2) Spin the words? Really? Is spinning what you call it when we are told that a little girl saying “بدي أرسم صورة” is saying “I will shoot”? Or when we are told she has said “we will annihilate the Jews” when what she really said was “بطخّونا اليهود”? Turn that around, substitute al Arab for اليهود, and pretend it was a Jewish child speaking those words. Is “spinning” the appropriate word for that, or might it be out and out fraud? And would you ever translate “انقاوم” as “fight”, and “باستشهد” as “I commit martyrdom”?
No source is 100% trustworthy, true, but MEMRI does not fall within “not 100% trustworthy”, MEMRI falls within not at all trustworthy.
To tell the truth, I don’t even know how I would get into Gaza, though I would love to see my friends there. When I head back to the Middle East I’ll let you know. Sometimes I go through `Amman, sometimes not, but I can always travel to any of those places (well, maybe not Gaza).
Regarding mischaracterization:
If Hamas would accept a Palestinian state consisting of the current Occupied Territories, then ipso facto it does not reject Israel’s existence nor can it be committed to its destruction. In fact, many Israeli political, military and intelligence analysts concede that Hamas’ acceptance of a hudna is a tacit acceptance of Israel’s existence.
The claim of Hamas “ipso facto” acceptance of Israel could have been made even before the offer. The offer/s of acceptance are in the conditional tense. It has not happened yet. This is a bargaining chip, part of Hamas’ power. That there is willingness is good enough for some ( including me) to say it is so but for others more skeptical and cautious not- it must be more formal.
In fact, in the Cobban interview you link Meshaal takes exception to the pre-condition that Hamas recognize Israel. (They want recognition too.)
Then you argue about incrementalism which some Israeli’s/Jews fear -which helps your case against Bronner but it is not what he is arguing.
The Bronner statement is not incorrect.
( yes I know- I “popped up” again. I thought you might have praised Bronner on another recent article. You are not in that business I guess.)
Find me something Bronner writes that is praiseworthy & I’ll do it if I find it so. My job here isn’t to be nice to well-paid professional journalists w. enormous impact who should know better.
Listen, I blogged a bit about this (http://www.icsr.info/blog/Islamists-unite-against-Arab-Israeli-Peace). Hamas’ actions clearly indicate they are against a peaceful resolution along a two-state solution as indicated by their recent secret meeting with HuT, Hizballah, and the Brotherhood. Check out my ICSR blog
You’re nothing but a hasbarist. If it was a “secret” meeting how do you know about it? Were you in the rm. or did MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch or CAMERA spill the beans? Whatever you’re peddling, I’m not buying. Not to mention that you use a pseudonym in your blog & call yourself a “DC analyst” which could mean anything to anyone. What are you afraid of? I prefer dealing with real bloggers willing to put their name on their product.
Just for the hell of it I actually wasted a few mins. looking at yr alleged rpt. First, the original Lebanese media source for this doesn’t even state what it’s own source is. How does it know the event happened? Is it made up? Second, this is how it characterized the mtg:
God, is that the best you can do?? Don’t waste our time till you have something real, credible, and substantiated.
What might help balance and render a little more objective our coverage of the Middle East, particularly Israel and the territories, is a little more diversity and diversity of perspective in the establishment U.S. media. Do a thought experiment and imagine if Bronner’s position at the NY Times was inhabited by an Arab-American, or god forbid a Palestinian-American, or even just an American who doesn’t happen to be Jewish and/or Zionist (i.e., that other 97-point-something percent of the U.S. population that might like to be heard once in a while). Such a notion produces cognitive disconnect, we’ve become so used to and take for granted the dominant influence and, dare I say it, over-representation, of American Jews in American media and commentary. Listen, every American group should have a voice and some influence in our domestic and foreign, including Jewish-Americans, but I’d like to make the audacious suggestion there needs to be more balance, here.
It would be one thing if who ends up where in U.S. media and elsewhere in the country really was a product of some pure meritocracy, or objective criteria of excellence, and so on. The wee bitty problem with that argument is that the U.S. has undoubtedly the worst, most incompetent, corrupt and propagandistic press in the Western world, by a long shot. Gore Vidal has rightly called us the most propagandized nation on earth. Israeli media is better in some respects than ours, but still quite far down the list, i.e., the implicit argument for Jewish excellence (or even superiority) whenever this quasi-taboo topic is brought up doesn’t really fly when you look at the bigger picture and consider how much better French, British, German, Australian and many other Western medias are than our own (and who aren’t blessed by the disproportionate imbalance I mention above).
Listen, the Jewish contribution to American culture and society has been huge. American Jews are and should be an important and cherished voice in our society, notwithstanding their small overall demographic. I personally can’t imagine life without the great American songbook composers, Gershwin, Berlin, Kern and so on, the director Billy Wilder, the playwright Arthur Miller, etc., etc., and when it comes to American commentary, my favorite columnist is Paul Krugman, who is Jewish.
But dare I suggest that a Zionist Jewish perspective should be one voice among many, rather than such an incredibly dominant voice as it is today when you look at the big American newspapers and other media? Other groups should be heard more of too, particularly when it comes to mainstream Middle Eastern foreign policy commentary in America, this would probably help create more objectivity and balance, particularly regarding Israel—where that objectivity and balance is so conspicuously lacking in mainstream U.S. news and commentary.
(What I’m basically saying is that the other 97-point-something percent of us Americans who are not Jewish count as well, but you wouldn’t really think so looking at our foreign policy coverage and commentary and who does most of it.)
Shirin,
You’re right, one of MEMRI’s aims is to engender fear and hatred of Arabs and Muslims – but then you have to ask why they would do so: until three weeks after 9/11, MEMRI’s mission statement included emphasizing “the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel”.
As for your question about a cherry-picked archive of Jews and Israelis, my answer would be exactly the same as my views above on MEMRI.
Concerning the majority of MEMRI viewers who do not approach MEMRI with a critical eye: MEMRI is not to blame for that – viewer apathy, ignorance and indifference is. Ian Kershaw once said, “The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference…”: it’s an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite – they just had to be apathetic. Yes, it is disgusting when MEMRI does do any of the 6 points you mentioned above; but you need to hold the viewers accountable for their indifference to what is true and what is manipulated by MEMRI (or by anyone else for that matter). Speaking of manipulating…
In public relations, ‘spin’ is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics: so yes, I think ‘spin’ is the right word.
At the end of the day, MEMRI’s work falls at times in the trustworthy and at others in the not trustworthy at all categories: I suggest you watch it more because the more Arabic and Persian speakers watch it and independently check MEMRI’s work, the more easily wider audiences will be able to know which segments from MEMRI are accurate and which ones are filled with propaganda. Who knows? Maybe there will be a day when there is a company that monitors those who ‘monitor’ the Middle East. That in my mind, would be a beautiful thing to see.
Speaking of getting into Gaza, if anyone else reading this knows how to get supplies through to Gaza, please contact: http://gazasurfrelief.com/About.html
“one of MEMRI’s aims is to engender fear and hatred of Arabs and Muslims – ”
So, what you are admitting is that you find valuable a service that aims to, and succeeds in, engendering fear and hatred toward a group – any group – of human beings? I don’t find a service that aims to engender fear and hatred valuable in the slightest. On the contrary, I find it dangerously wrong.
“…but then you have to ask why they would do so: until three weeks after 9/11, MEMRI’s mission statement included emphasizing ‘the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel’.”
1. No, I don’t have to ask why they would do so. I don’t have to ask why anyone would do something that is dangerously wrong. What I do have to do is find a way to put a stop to it, and if I cannot put a stop to it I have to do what I can to counter it, and that includes demonstrating to as many people as possible why they should not give them any credence.
2. You are going to have to explain to me the relevance of their changing their mission statement. It looks like a non sequitur to me.
“As for your question about a cherry-picked archive of Jews and Israelis, my answer would be exactly the same as my views above on MEMRI.”
So, you would be fine if any organization whose clear goal was to engender fear and hatred of Jews were to daily go through the Jewish and Israeli media with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything and everything they could use, whether honestly or deceitfully, to achieve that goal? Well, I, a committed antizionist, would not be even a little bit OK with that. I would call it by its proper name, dangerous antisemitism, and I would try to counter it whenever I found an opportunity.
“Concerning the majority of MEMRI viewers who do not approach MEMRI with a critical eye: MEMRI is not to blame for that…”
That is, to say the least, an extremely poor argument. If I commit a fraud, responsibility for the consequences of my fraud is mine, not those who believed me and acted accordingly. MEMRI is 100% accountable for its actions, and for the consequences of its actions.
“I think ’spin’ is the right word.”
I know what spin is, and spin far too benign a word for a “translation” so fraudulent that when a child says she wishes to draw a picture we are told she will shoot a firearm, and when she expresses the common, and very realistic Palestinian child’s fear that Jews will shoot firearms at her and her friends we are told she has stated they will annihilate the Jews.
At the end of the day MEMRI’s work is dangerous. I do not consider anything that seeks to engender fear and hatred a valuable service. Further, I do not consider an archive filled with all the worst things anyone can find from a particular group of people to be a positive thing, even if everything were presented in a completely honest and truthful fashion.
No, we’re not going to rationalize MEMRI’s propagandistic mission & look for extenuating circumstances that justify it. We’ll lv. that job to others. Nor are we going to blame MEMRI’s fans & viewers for the faulty product it puts out. We’re going to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, on the producers of the content. And we’re going to continue to point out MEMRI’s inadequacies every chance we get so that the world will know what it gets if it makes the mistake of accepting anything written there at face value.
“until three weeks after 9/11, MEMRI’s mission statement included emphasizing “the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel”.”
I still can’t understand what you were trying to suggest by bringing this up, but my distinct impression has been that MEMRI removed that part of their mission statement because they felt it made their bias a bit too obvious. Certainly they did not suddenly go from presenting a balanced and unbiased picture of Arabs and Islam to demonizing. Their purpose has from the beginning to demonize Arabs and Muslims and Islam.
“You are going to have to explain to me the relevance of their changing their mission statement. It looks like a non sequitur to me.”
Shirin, you wrote earlier, “MEMRI’s analytical paradigm is not pro-Israel, it is anti-Arab/anti-Muslim. Their primary mission is not to support Israel, but to engender fear and hatred of Arabs and Muslims.” Engendering fear of the Arab & Muslim worlds and being pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive in MEMRI’s case – that is all I was trying to point out.
“So, you would be fine if any organization whose clear goal was to engender fear and hatred of Jews were to daily go through the Jewish and Israeli media with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything and everything they could use, whether honestly or deceitfully, to achieve that goal?”
‘Fine’ is not the appropriate word of how I would be in this hypothetical situation, nor of how I am now with MEMRI’s work: naturally I do not find those actions excusable, and it is disgusting when supposed monitoring sources demonize their subjects. However, I am a realist and a skeptic on such issues, thus I will approach their work accordingly. If this hypothetical organization had a video archive as extensive as MEMRI’s I would use it in the exact same manner that I use MEMRI’s archive now: dismissing their deceitful work and taking note of their honest work.
“If I commit a fraud, responsibility for the consequences of my fraud is mine, not those who believed me and acted accordingly.” “Nor are we going to blame MEMRI’s fans & viewers for the faulty product it puts out. We’re going to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, on the producers of the content.”
At least we agree to “point out MEMRI’s inadequacies every chance we get so that the world will know what it gets if it makes the mistake of accepting anything written there at face value.” Ironically, Richard’s words help prove my point: MEMRI deserves blame whenever it publishes a faulty product, but it is the responsibility of the readers not to “make the MISTAKE of accepting anything written there AT FACE VALUE”. Unless you think factual ignorance is an involuntary action – for someone curious enough to find MEMRI’s work, to read it, and only then to take it at face value – I find you have doled out blame disproportionately, if you only blame MEMRI and not the reader at least a little bit.
“I do not consider an archive filled with all the worst things anyone can find from a particular group of people to be a positive thing, even if everything were presented in a completely honest and truthful fashion.”
Really? Even if everything were presented in a completely honest and truthful fashion?? In that case we have a difference of opinion that cannot be resolved. I personally think a progressive society is at its best when it confronts the skeletons in its closet. Extremism in all of its shapes and forms is an ugly thing. Propaganda is even uglier at times. But to not document something because of its inherent ugliness sets the stage for ignorance of a potential threat, which I would find unacceptable.