The bicameral Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC) is scheduled to hold a landmark hearing today regarding the hundreds of thousands of Jews forced to flee their communities in the Arab Muslim nations as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Oriental Jews suffered profound violations of their basic human rights under the Islamic regimes throughout North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf Region. This persecution—including pogroms and expropriations—caused their subsequent flight despite longtime residences in these countries. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, under the auspices of its Chairman, Congressman Tom Lantos, will hear testimony from legal experts on the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries as well as from “living witnesses'”—Oriental Jews who will testify as to their plight in, and flight from, the Arab countries where they were born. More>
Para ler mais sobre os refugiados de que ninguem fala – ao contrário dos fabricados "palestinos" – é só clicar aqui>
_________________________
Sobre os "refugiados 'palestinos'"
-Black September - The PLO's attempt to take over Jordan
-Black September II - Out of Jordan
-The Lie About the "palestinian people" and "palestinian land"
-The Lie About the "palestinian people" and "palestinian land" II
-Mais sobre o "povo palestino"
-O mundo permanece em silêncio
-Os Refugiados
-Fact and Fantasy in the Holy Land
-Essays on the History of the Land of Israel
-The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Equivalência Moral
Essa é uma tática muito usada pela esquerda estúpida, e aparece com muita freqüência no Paradigma Pós-Colonial. No caso do terrorismo islâmico a dinâmica da equivalência moral pode ser vista com toda a força entre as figuras da intelligentsia ocidental, quando na sua suposta indignação moral, vociferando contra o comportamento e os atos das nações ocidentais, eles culpam essas próprias nações – as vítimas – pelos atos terroristas sofridos. E isso tudo enquanto agem de forma extremamente compreensiva com os terroristas, sempre buscando explicações e justificativas para os atos perpetrados por eles (HRC).
Mesmo que não intencionalmente, os que fazem apologia do terrorismo – seja afirmando que essa é a luta do mais fraco, seja comparando tais atos com ações militares legítimas ou até mesmo explicando que tais atos são conseqüências das atitudes do Ocidente, moldando o debate na velha história do “Os EUA mereceram” – só ajudam a aumentar o apoio ao terrorismo. Outro resultado perverso dessas ações é que a equação moral é invertida, com a vítima sendo culpada pela agressão sofrida. Assim os “erros” do Ocidente passam a ser vistos como mais repreensíveis do que a “reação” (claro, ainda assim “severa e injustificável”) dos terroristas.
Somos hipócritas? Será que realmente é a mesma coisa?
Em algum ponto essa autocrítica exagerada chega a ser quase patológica (MOS) – “É tudo nossa culpa, e se agíssemos melhor então tudo se resolveria“. Enquanto isso, ao mesmo tempo em que nos julgam(os) pelos mais altos padrões, pensam(os) nos terroristas como moralmente incapazes, que sequer conseguem entender tais questões, e muito menos ser capazes de alguma autocrítica. No fim os que usam dessa tática imoral acabam incapazes de fazer a distinção entre vítimas e terroristas, terminando sempre por culpar a vítima.
3 eventos recentes que demonstram a Equivalência Moral em sua formas mais extremas, e que levaram a ’intelequitualidade’ ocidental à loucura moral.
30 de setembro de 2000 – O início da segunda intifada
As políticas israelenses na faixa de gaza e na cisjordânia são vistas como “terrorismo de Estado“. A partir daí não só os “palestinos“ são vistos como terroristas, mas também os israelenses – com a diferença de que os atos desses árabes ainda são vistos como uma reação natural (e justa) de pessoas indefesas – “essa é a sua única arma“ – contra uma força muito mais poderosa. “Que escolha eles têm?“ “Se eu estivesse naquela situação eu também poderia fazer o mesmo“.
Um grande exemplo são os comentários da Cherie Blair. A idéia de que os israelenses merecem o que estão recebendo é a mesma que impede a reação e o repúdio contra o terrorismo suicida, o que explica o motivo de os britânicos terem se surpreendido tanto com os ataques em Londres em 7/7... eles passaram a acreditar que isso só acontecia por um bom motivo (LCE), sem nenhuma idéia do universo “moral“ que motiva tal violência.
Agosto/setembro de 2001 – Conferência Mundial Contra o Racismo (WCAR)
Durante dez dias, representantes de ONGs do mundo todo se encontraram em Durban, na África do Sul, para discutir sobre o racismo e como lutar contra ele durante o próximo século.
Já que o racismo é uma das mais endêmicas características das sociedades, com o preconceito fundado muitas vezes somente em pequenas diferenças físicas, como a cor da pele, e tão difundido em culturas ao redor do mundo, esperava-se que o tema fosse aprofundado e que houvesse muita introspecção por parte dos participantes. Ao invés disso, a conferência, como tantas outras relacionadas com a ONU, gastou todo o seu tempo atacando Israel (um país que respeita e busca integrar todas as suas minorias raciais e religiosas), enquanto não usou sequer um segundo do seu tempo com o mundo árabe, onde o tráfico de escravos e o massacre de negros e cristãos ainda é comum em lugares como a Mauritânia, Oriente Médio, Sudão e outros. E além disso, ao invés de reconhecer que o tráfico de escravos e massacres nas sociedades islâmicas são uma das mais absurdas manifestações de racismo no mundo atual, o congresso preferiu condenar o tráfico de escravos por parte dos europeus, o mesmo que teve seu fim há mais de um século e um meio.
11 de setembro de 2001: As Torres Gêmeas e o ataque ao Pentágono
Os adeptos da equivalência moral interpretam os ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro como uma reação contra a política externa “imperialista“ dos EUA. Pra resumir, é o famoso “os ’estadunidenses’ mereceram“.
Logo em seguida aos ataques contra o WTC, Chomsky, um dos maiores – provavelmente o maior – fabricante das narrativas de equivalência moral na atualidade, descreveu a “Guerra contra o terror“ liderada pelos EUA como contraditória, já que esse país era culpado de “terrorismo de Estado“ por décadas, e porque para ele o terrorismo era a arma do forte, e não do fraco (Veja aqui e aqui).
De acordo com essa narrativa, a guerra liderada pelos EUA (Reino Unido e OTAN) contra o Iraque do genocida Sadan e contra o Afeganistão dos Talibans é pior do que o os ataques terroristas ou que a ditadura iraquiana ou a afegã, e o presidente George Bush e o primeiro ministro Tony Blair são criminosos de guerra iguais ou até piores que Bin Laden.
Já com os “rebeldes“ os críticos da guerra no Iraque tendem a ser especialmente compreensivos, inclusive descrevendo-os como “revolucionários” – como fez o cineasta Michael Moore.
Para compreender a dinâmica e as consequências da equivalência moral, deve-se ser capaz de identificar e entender suas características principais:
EVEN-HANDEDNESS: De acordo com o professor Richard Landes, isso se refere à tendência predominante na mídia ocidental de adotar uma linha “objetiva e imparcial“ nas coberturas de conlitos entre sociedades democráticas e abertas contra seus inimigos – nesse caso os islâmicos. As grandes corporações midíaticas, tais como a BBC, Reuters (ver aqui também), Associated Press, CNN, Boston Globe e outros, se recusam a classificar ataques deliberados contra populações civis como terrorismo, já que, de acordo com a linha editorial da BBC, a palavra “terrorismo“ pode dificultar a compreensão dos fatos em vez de ajudá-los (“the word ‘terrorist’ can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.”). Então, de acordo com os padrões jornalísticos ocidentais de objetividade, para “não dificultar a compreensão“ dos espectadores, homens-bomba suicidas que atacam civis israelenses são descritos como “militantes“ ou “ativistas“, e grupos iraquianos (tais como sunitas e xiitas) que matam uns aos outros passam a ser chamados de “insurgentes“ ou “rebeldes“. Apesar disso, os ataques de 7/7 em Londres foram classificados como terroristas pela BBC. Afinal qual é a diferença entre os ataques que ocorrem frequentemente em Israel e esse em Londres?
RETÓRICA INFLAMADA: Os erros/falhas das democracias ocidentais são invariavelmente descritos de maneira exagerada. Muitas vezes a retórica adquire uma virulência que deveria deixar inquieta qualquer pessoa sensata:
- Quando Guantanamo é comparada aos gulags soviéticos pela Anistia Internacional (a mesma Anistia que não fala sobre os abusos da ditadura castrista de Cuba ou das teocráticas islâmicas)
- Quando o presidente Bush é descrito pelo prefeito de Londres como “a maior ameaçã para a vida na Terra.”
- Quando o ganhador do prêmio Nobel José Saramago compara Israel com a Alemanha Nazista, e os “territórios ocupados“ com Auschwitz.
ANALOGIAS SIMPLISTAS: Nesse caso a tendência é pegar um caso negativo de comportamento por parte do Ocidente, e compará-lo com o pior tipo de atrocidade perpetrado por outros. No mundo da equivalência moral, por exemplo, as políticas israelenses para com os “palestinos“ são comparadas ao comportamento dos nazistas, Bush e os neo-conservadores são vistos como “extremistas“ e tão fundamentalistas quanto os terroristas islâmicos, e os abusos em Abu Ghraib (onde os métodos de tortura eram basicamente jogar o Corão na privada e fazer mulheres impuras/menstruadas tocarem nos terroristas) são equivalentes aos métodos de tortura brutal no regime de Sadan Hussein.
A caricatura abaixo foi publicada em um popular jornal britânico e dá um grande exemplo de como analogias simplistas são frequentemente usadas:
É realmente tentador traçar os paralelos entre eles e se sentir moralmente superior a ambos (“terrorismo é errado, mas os EUA fazem igual“). Mas se você não é capaz de ver as diferenças... o que você acha da cultura que te deixa tão livre para, com esse narcisismo moral, atacar de forma tão violenta o seu próprio governo? Quanto tempo você duraria fazendo o mesmo na cultura que produz o companheiro do lado esquerdo?
AUTOFLAGELAÇÃO MORAL: A equivalência moral geralmente borra a linha do limite entre a autocrítica útil – essencial e vital para qualquer sociedade civil saudável –, e uma autoflagelação moral que maximiza “nossas falhas“ e minimiza a “deles“, mesmo quando eles representam um perigo muito maior e, como no caso da Jihad, uma ameaça existencial. Se os pensadores da equivalência moral, por exemplo, aplicassem ao mundo árabe os mesmos critérios morais absurdamente elevados que aplicam às próprias sociedades (muros de defesa se tornam apartheid e detenções de suspeitos se tornam racismo), seus “radares morais“ disparariam instantâneamente pela violência e violações de direitos humanos (assasinatos em nome da honra, execuções sumárias de “colaboradores“, sharia entre outros). Por outro lado, se nós nos déssemos uma fração da indulgência moral que damos aos “oprimidos“ lá fora, não teríamos crime nenhum.
Porque é importante fornecer sólidos contra-argumentos para a equivalência moral
Em uma entrevista para a BBC em maio de 2004, Noam Chomsky declarou que o termo “equivalência moral“ é usado como uma arma nas mãos daqueles que querem suprimir o direito de criticar livremente: “The term moral equivalence is an interesting one, it was invented I think by Jeanne Kirkpatrick as a method of trying to prevent criticism of foreign policy and state decisions. It is a meaningless notion, there is no moral equivalence whatsoever.”
Relevando a incoerência da passagem acima (John Kennedy foi quem inventou o termo pra denunciar o fenômeno), a linha final parece incompreensível: Não era exatamente isso o que Kirkpatrick quis dizer – que não havia equivalência moral entre os EUA e a União Soviética? Mas a mensagem geral está clara: ao nos recusarmos a aceitar as gritantes diferenças entre os erros do Ocidente – que apesar de realmente existirem, foram cometidos para defender os direitos humanos – com o comportamento de regimes totalitários, é como se impedíssemos qualquer forma de crítica... É como se rejeitar críticas absurdas e fora de tamanho fosse o mesmo que rejeitar toda e qualquer crítica.
Numa entrevista para o Der Spiegel, a maior revista da Alemanha, em junho de 2005, o cineasta Woody Allen falou sobre os eventos de 11 de setembro da seguinte maneira: “The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis. And in my childhood, some Nazis killed Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral - not important.”
Allen, talvez sem querer, repetiu o que o professor Richard Landes chama de “dominating imperative”, que foi o argumento que os atenienses usaram para justificar o assassínio dos homens de Melos e a venda de suas mulheres e crianças como escravos.
Allen não usaria tal idéia para justificar esses horrores, afinal ele é muito civilizado...
Ele é tão autocrítico que ele não vai – ou não quer – ver a diferença entre nazistas matando judeus de um lado, e “palestinos“ e israelenses se matando de outro. Aparentemente ele não se dá conta de que a mudança rumo à sociedade civil, que tornou possível que alguém como esse Woody Allen fosse possível, veio de tentativas – imperfeitas, sim – para superar esse imperativo.
Ao amontoar tudo nesse cálculo político mal feito, ele fortalece as pessoas que querem massacrar homens e vender mulheres e crianças como escravos. Estão fazendo isso nesse exato momento no Sudão.
____________________________
The Persistence of Islamic Slavery - Human beings are still in bondage in Sudan and elsewhere in the Islamic world. More>
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Relativismo moral e “A Mighty Heart”
Fantástico. Nada mais a dizer depois de ler o belo texto do pai do jornalista Daniel Pearl. Só resta lamentar que o pai-símbolo (da esquerda) nessa guerra seja a estúpida e debilóide Cindy Sheehan, e não o sensato Judea Pearl.
Um artigo de Judea Pearl *
Angelina Jolie e Dan Futterman nos papéis de Marianne e Daniel Pearl
Acreditei em tempos que o mundo estava basicamente dividido entre dois tipos de pessoas: aqueles que eram de um modo geral tolerantes e os que se sentiam ameaçados pela diferença. Se as forças da tolerância conseguissem vencer as forças da intolerância, pensava eu, o mundo poderia finalmente conhecer alguma paz.
Mas havia um problema com a minha teoria, e nunca tal fora tão claro como numa conversa com um amigo paquistanês que me disse que abominava pessoas como o Presidente Bush, que insistia em dividir o mundo entre “nós” e “eles”. O meu amigo, é claro, tomava uma posição inocente contra a intolerância e não percebeu que, ao fazê-lo, ele próprio estava também a dividir o mundo entre “nós” e “eles”, caindo exactamente no campo das pessoas que dizia abominar.
Esta é a versão política de um famoso paradoxo formulado por Bertrand Russell em 1901, que na época abanou os alicerces lógicos das matemáticas. Qualquer pessoa que diz ser tolerante naturalmente se define a si própria em oposição àqueles que são intolerantes. Mas isso faz com que essa mesma pessoa seja intolerante em relação a certas pessoas – o que acaba por invalidar a afirmação de tolerância.
A lição política do paradoxo de Russell é que não existe tolerância absoluta. No fim de contas, é necessário poder ser intolerante em relação a certos grupos ou ideologias sem renunciar à superioridade moral normalmente ligada à tolerância e à inclusão. Deve-se, na verdade, condenar e resistir a doutrinas políticas que advogam o assassínio de inocentes, que minam as normas básicas da civilização, ou que tentam tornar impossível o pluralismo. Não pode haver equivalência moral entre aqueles que procuram – mesmo por vezes desajeitadamente – construir um mundo mais livre e tolerante, e aqueles que defendem a aniquilação de outras religiões, culturas ou estados.
Tudo isto vem a propósito do meu filho, Daniel Pearl. Graças à estreia do filme A Mighty Heart, o filme baseado no livro homónimo de Mariane Pearl, o legado de Danny está novamente a merecer atenção. É claro, nenhum filme poderia captar exactamente o que fazia de Danny uma pessoa especial – o seu sentido de humor, a sua integridade, o seu amor pela humanidade – ou por que razão ele era admirado por tantos. Para os jornalistas, Danny representa a coragem e a nobreza inerentes à sua profissão. Para os americanos, Danny é o símbolo de um dos melhores instintos nacionais: o desejo de estender uma mão de amizade e diálogo a gentes de terras distantes. E para quem tenha orgulho nas suas origens e na sua fé, as últimas palavras de Danny, “eu sou judeu”, mostraram que é possível encontrar dignidade na nossa identidade, mesmo nos momentos mais negros. Traços destas ideias são certamente evidentes em A Mighty Heart, e espero que os espectadores saiam dos cinemas sentindo-se inspirados por elas.
Ao mesmo tempo, preocupa-me que A Mighty Heart possa cair numa armadilha que Bertrand Russell teria reconhecido: o paradoxo da equivalência moral, da tentativa de esticar demasiado a lógica da tolerância. Podem ver-se traços desta lógica nas comparações feitas pelo filme entre o rapto de Danny e Guantánamo – o filme abre com imagens da prisão – e com as suas comparações entre os terroristas da al-Qaeda e os agentes da CIA. Podem ainda ler-se nos comentários do realizador do filme, Michael Winterbottom, que escreveu no site do Washington Post que A Mighty Heart e o seu filme anterior Road To Guantanamo eram “muito semelhantes. Ambos contam histórias de pessoas vítimas de um crescendo de violência de ambos os lados. Há extremistas em ambos os lados que pretendem aumentar o clima de violência e centenas de milhares de pessoas morreram por causa disso.”
Estabelecer comparações entre o assassínio de Danny e os suspeitos detidos em Guantánamo é precisamente o que os assassinos queriam, tal como o expressaram nos seus emails e no vídeo do assassínio. Obviamente, Winterbottom não quis fazer eco destes sentimentos, nem certamente justificar as suas exigências nem os seus actos. Mesmo assim, preocupa-me que aspectos deste filme possam fazer o jogo dos profissionais da ofuscação da clareza moral.
Na verdade, após um visionamento antecipado de A Mighty Heart, um representante do Council on American-Islamic Relations alegadamente afirmou: “Precisamos acabar com a cultura das bombas, da tortura, da ocupação e da violência. Esta é a mensagem que sobressai do filme.”
A mensagem passada a jovens inflamados é infeliz: Todas as formas de violência são más; então, enquanto uma persistir, as outras não podem ser postas de parte. Esta é precisamente a lógica utilizada por Mohammed Siddiqui Khan, um dos bombistas suicidas de Londres, na sua mensagem transmitida pela Al Jazeera. “O vosso governo democraticamente eleito”, disse ele aos seus compatriotas, “continua a perpetrar atrocidades contra o meu povo… nós não vamos parar.”
A tragédia de Danny exige um fim para esta lógica. Não pode haver comparações entre aqueles que têm orgulho em matar um jornalista desarmado e aqueles que fazem votos de acabar com actos semelhantes – sem apelo nem agravo. O relativismo moral morreu com Daniel Pearl, em Carachi, a 31 de Janeiro de 2002.
Tempos houve em que traçar simetrias morais entre dois lados de qualquer conflito era a marca d’água do pensamento original. Hoje, com os intelectuais ocidentais a traçarem equivalências de forma absurda e negligente, reflecte apenas um preguiçoso conformismo. O que é necessário agora aos intelectuais, realizadores de cinema e a todos nós é resistir a esta perigosa moda e traçar distinções legítimas sempre que essas distinções se justifiquem.
O meu filho Danny teve a coragem de examinar todos os lados. Ele era também um ouvinte atento e um campeão do diálogo. Mas ele tinha também princípios e linhas que não ultrapassava. Ele foi tolerante mas não o foi de forma irresponsável. Espero que os espectadores se lembrem disto quando forem ao cinema ver A Mighty Heart.
Um artigo de Judea Pearl *
Angelina Jolie e Dan Futterman nos papéis de Marianne e Daniel PearlAcreditei em tempos que o mundo estava basicamente dividido entre dois tipos de pessoas: aqueles que eram de um modo geral tolerantes e os que se sentiam ameaçados pela diferença. Se as forças da tolerância conseguissem vencer as forças da intolerância, pensava eu, o mundo poderia finalmente conhecer alguma paz.
Mas havia um problema com a minha teoria, e nunca tal fora tão claro como numa conversa com um amigo paquistanês que me disse que abominava pessoas como o Presidente Bush, que insistia em dividir o mundo entre “nós” e “eles”. O meu amigo, é claro, tomava uma posição inocente contra a intolerância e não percebeu que, ao fazê-lo, ele próprio estava também a dividir o mundo entre “nós” e “eles”, caindo exactamente no campo das pessoas que dizia abominar.
Esta é a versão política de um famoso paradoxo formulado por Bertrand Russell em 1901, que na época abanou os alicerces lógicos das matemáticas. Qualquer pessoa que diz ser tolerante naturalmente se define a si própria em oposição àqueles que são intolerantes. Mas isso faz com que essa mesma pessoa seja intolerante em relação a certas pessoas – o que acaba por invalidar a afirmação de tolerância.
A lição política do paradoxo de Russell é que não existe tolerância absoluta. No fim de contas, é necessário poder ser intolerante em relação a certos grupos ou ideologias sem renunciar à superioridade moral normalmente ligada à tolerância e à inclusão. Deve-se, na verdade, condenar e resistir a doutrinas políticas que advogam o assassínio de inocentes, que minam as normas básicas da civilização, ou que tentam tornar impossível o pluralismo. Não pode haver equivalência moral entre aqueles que procuram – mesmo por vezes desajeitadamente – construir um mundo mais livre e tolerante, e aqueles que defendem a aniquilação de outras religiões, culturas ou estados.
Tudo isto vem a propósito do meu filho, Daniel Pearl. Graças à estreia do filme A Mighty Heart, o filme baseado no livro homónimo de Mariane Pearl, o legado de Danny está novamente a merecer atenção. É claro, nenhum filme poderia captar exactamente o que fazia de Danny uma pessoa especial – o seu sentido de humor, a sua integridade, o seu amor pela humanidade – ou por que razão ele era admirado por tantos. Para os jornalistas, Danny representa a coragem e a nobreza inerentes à sua profissão. Para os americanos, Danny é o símbolo de um dos melhores instintos nacionais: o desejo de estender uma mão de amizade e diálogo a gentes de terras distantes. E para quem tenha orgulho nas suas origens e na sua fé, as últimas palavras de Danny, “eu sou judeu”, mostraram que é possível encontrar dignidade na nossa identidade, mesmo nos momentos mais negros. Traços destas ideias são certamente evidentes em A Mighty Heart, e espero que os espectadores saiam dos cinemas sentindo-se inspirados por elas.
Ao mesmo tempo, preocupa-me que A Mighty Heart possa cair numa armadilha que Bertrand Russell teria reconhecido: o paradoxo da equivalência moral, da tentativa de esticar demasiado a lógica da tolerância. Podem ver-se traços desta lógica nas comparações feitas pelo filme entre o rapto de Danny e Guantánamo – o filme abre com imagens da prisão – e com as suas comparações entre os terroristas da al-Qaeda e os agentes da CIA. Podem ainda ler-se nos comentários do realizador do filme, Michael Winterbottom, que escreveu no site do Washington Post que A Mighty Heart e o seu filme anterior Road To Guantanamo eram “muito semelhantes. Ambos contam histórias de pessoas vítimas de um crescendo de violência de ambos os lados. Há extremistas em ambos os lados que pretendem aumentar o clima de violência e centenas de milhares de pessoas morreram por causa disso.”
Estabelecer comparações entre o assassínio de Danny e os suspeitos detidos em Guantánamo é precisamente o que os assassinos queriam, tal como o expressaram nos seus emails e no vídeo do assassínio. Obviamente, Winterbottom não quis fazer eco destes sentimentos, nem certamente justificar as suas exigências nem os seus actos. Mesmo assim, preocupa-me que aspectos deste filme possam fazer o jogo dos profissionais da ofuscação da clareza moral.
Na verdade, após um visionamento antecipado de A Mighty Heart, um representante do Council on American-Islamic Relations alegadamente afirmou: “Precisamos acabar com a cultura das bombas, da tortura, da ocupação e da violência. Esta é a mensagem que sobressai do filme.”
A mensagem passada a jovens inflamados é infeliz: Todas as formas de violência são más; então, enquanto uma persistir, as outras não podem ser postas de parte. Esta é precisamente a lógica utilizada por Mohammed Siddiqui Khan, um dos bombistas suicidas de Londres, na sua mensagem transmitida pela Al Jazeera. “O vosso governo democraticamente eleito”, disse ele aos seus compatriotas, “continua a perpetrar atrocidades contra o meu povo… nós não vamos parar.”
A tragédia de Danny exige um fim para esta lógica. Não pode haver comparações entre aqueles que têm orgulho em matar um jornalista desarmado e aqueles que fazem votos de acabar com actos semelhantes – sem apelo nem agravo. O relativismo moral morreu com Daniel Pearl, em Carachi, a 31 de Janeiro de 2002.
Tempos houve em que traçar simetrias morais entre dois lados de qualquer conflito era a marca d’água do pensamento original. Hoje, com os intelectuais ocidentais a traçarem equivalências de forma absurda e negligente, reflecte apenas um preguiçoso conformismo. O que é necessário agora aos intelectuais, realizadores de cinema e a todos nós é resistir a esta perigosa moda e traçar distinções legítimas sempre que essas distinções se justifiquem.
O meu filho Danny teve a coragem de examinar todos os lados. Ele era também um ouvinte atento e um campeão do diálogo. Mas ele tinha também princípios e linhas que não ultrapassava. Ele foi tolerante mas não o foi de forma irresponsável. Espero que os espectadores se lembrem disto quando forem ao cinema ver A Mighty Heart.
Marianne e Daniel Pearl na vida real
* Judea Pearl, matemático e professor universitário, é pai de Daniel Pearl, o jornalista do Wall Street Journal assassinado brutalmente pela al-Qaeda no Paquistão, em Janeiro de 2002. Este artigo foi publicado na edição impressa desta semana da revista The New Republic.
Arafat, AIDS and Malevolent Narcissism
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Well, the big secret about Yasser Arafat's death is out, thanks to his lifelong comrade-in-terror, Ahmed Jibril. Jibril droolingly revealed that Arafat died of AIDS. According to Mark Steyn, this was
What's most important is that
(a) Neither the vaunted "news media" nor any governments in the world chose to reveal this open secret to the rest of us, including the Palestinians themselves, who were taken in hook, line and sinker about the true nature of their glorified leader, at the expense of their lives and their children's lives; and
(b) The revelation confirms Arafat's malignant narcissism. Because our hero Yasser was not just gay; he could be as gay as he liked. The problem is that he was a Typhoid Mary, just as much as the 18th century heterosexual sailors who spread syphilis to the world. Syphilis is still killing people today, but it exploded around the world at that particular moment in history. Medical scientists have known for centuries that infectious plagues spread geometrically, starting with a few individuals and then accelerating explosively by way of major vectors of infection. The only way to stop a plague is to stop it early, before it explodes. The biggest hubs in the networks are always the most dangerous ones. Arafat was a major contributor of the virus to a major hub of infection.
Arafat most likely picked up the disease from a gay playmate, perhaps provided by the criminal Romanian dictatorship of Nikolai Ceausescu, and passed it to his bodyguards, and from them to all the political centers in the Middle East. After AIDS was clearly identified as predominantly a male homosexual disease around 1980, passed most often through dangerous anal sex, Arafat must have known exactly what he was doing. His physicians must have known. And yet, to the best of our knowledge, nothing stopped him from spreading the virus to as many other people as he liked, spreading death and mortal suffering, in pursuit of nothing more than personal pleasure.
The psychiatric term for that is "malevolent narcissism," which comes down to treating human beings as objects to be used and abused, simple victims to be infected and thrown away to satisfy one's personal whims. Obviously the diplomatic and political world knew all about it. All the intelligence agencies must have known, and all the top diplomats and heads of government. But they colluded in hiding Arafat's murderous narcissism from the world at large. Because Arafat's attitudes about sex no doubt applied to his politics and war-making as well. Human beings were there to be used and thrown away. But nobody told the Palestinian people, the Israelis, or the rest of the world. Instead, the "international community" gave Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize.
Gives you a kind of warm feeling inside, doesn't it?
Well, the big secret about Yasser Arafat's death is out, thanks to his lifelong comrade-in-terror, Ahmed Jibril. Jibril droolingly revealed that Arafat died of AIDS. According to Mark Steyn, this was
"...pretty much an open secret in diplomatic circles. ... it prompted many knowing chortles among political types I mentioned it to today, along with fond reminiscences about Yasser's corps of hunky blond Scandinavian bodyguards - an odd bunch of chaps to find in Ramallah, but presumably they were doing the jobs Palestinians won't do."
What's most important is that
(a) Neither the vaunted "news media" nor any governments in the world chose to reveal this open secret to the rest of us, including the Palestinians themselves, who were taken in hook, line and sinker about the true nature of their glorified leader, at the expense of their lives and their children's lives; and
(b) The revelation confirms Arafat's malignant narcissism. Because our hero Yasser was not just gay; he could be as gay as he liked. The problem is that he was a Typhoid Mary, just as much as the 18th century heterosexual sailors who spread syphilis to the world. Syphilis is still killing people today, but it exploded around the world at that particular moment in history. Medical scientists have known for centuries that infectious plagues spread geometrically, starting with a few individuals and then accelerating explosively by way of major vectors of infection. The only way to stop a plague is to stop it early, before it explodes. The biggest hubs in the networks are always the most dangerous ones. Arafat was a major contributor of the virus to a major hub of infection.
Arafat most likely picked up the disease from a gay playmate, perhaps provided by the criminal Romanian dictatorship of Nikolai Ceausescu, and passed it to his bodyguards, and from them to all the political centers in the Middle East. After AIDS was clearly identified as predominantly a male homosexual disease around 1980, passed most often through dangerous anal sex, Arafat must have known exactly what he was doing. His physicians must have known. And yet, to the best of our knowledge, nothing stopped him from spreading the virus to as many other people as he liked, spreading death and mortal suffering, in pursuit of nothing more than personal pleasure.
The psychiatric term for that is "malevolent narcissism," which comes down to treating human beings as objects to be used and abused, simple victims to be infected and thrown away to satisfy one's personal whims. Obviously the diplomatic and political world knew all about it. All the intelligence agencies must have known, and all the top diplomats and heads of government. But they colluded in hiding Arafat's murderous narcissism from the world at large. Because Arafat's attitudes about sex no doubt applied to his politics and war-making as well. Human beings were there to be used and thrown away. But nobody told the Palestinian people, the Israelis, or the rest of the world. Instead, the "international community" gave Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize.
Gives you a kind of warm feeling inside, doesn't it?
Friday, July 13, 2007
PFLP Leader: 'Arafat Died of AIDS'
Here’s Ahmad Jibril, Secretary-General of the PFLP General Command, on Hizballah’s Al-Manar TV, publicly admitting the truth about Yasser Arafat’s death for the first time. (Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)
Click here to see the transcript (http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1507).
Ahmad Jibril: When Abu Mazen came to Damascus with his team, I asked them: “What happened to the investigation into the death of Abu Ammar [Arafat]? The Israelis killed him. He was my colleague ever since 1965 and used to sleep at my home. He and I followed the same path.” Is it conceivable that when Rafiq Al-Hariri was killed, all hell broke loose, even though he was just a merchant in Saudi Arabia, who later entered politics, whereas the death of Yasser Arafat, who for 40 years had been carrying his gun from one place to another, is not investigate? Is this conceivable?
They were silent, and then one of them said to me: “To be honest, the French gave us the medical report, that stated that the cause of Abu Ammar’s death was AIDS.” I am not saying this, they did. Now they pretend that they miss Yasser Arafat, and complain that [Hamas] entered his house in [Gaza] and so on... I say to every honorable member of the Fatah movement that he should be happy that we got rid of the plague, which had been imposed upon them and upon the Palestinian people. The Fatah movement now has an opportunity to renew itself.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
It’s Live Earth versus Africa
2007-07-08
Kofi Bentil
Few people in Africa will get to see Al Gore and his troupe of rock-star ecologists strutting their stuff during the series of Live Earth concerts this weekend --because most have neither television nor electricity.
That’s just as well, because they would be aghast at LiveEarth’s bizarre message. In Africa, we have much more serious things to worry about than climate change.
Indeed, if they achieve their objective the concerts will have done harm to the people of Africa.
Britain’s former Secretary of State for the Environment, David Miliband, recently said that the rest of the world cannot aspire to the UK’s standard of living because: "If the world were to have the same living standards as we have in the UK, then we'd need three planets to support us."
Presumably Mr Miliband would disagree with Indira Ghandi, who famously said, “poverty is the greatest polluter.” Miliband was replaced by Hilary Benn, who as Minister for International Development ran the Department for International Development (DfID). One might have thought that DfID would have supported economic development as a means of escaping from poverty and pollution.
But in its Rough Guide to a Better World it advocates “Development by Dung” and claims that “As poor countries develop, it is essential that they do not follow the same failed patterns of energy use.” So it’s dung not diesel for Africa--while India and China soar ahead because they are too big, and nuclear-armed, to stop.
Even if we accept that global warming may have a significant effect on our climate, limiting the use of fossil fuels in Africa would be counterproductive. Respiratory infections are the leading cause of childhood deaths on my continent, mainly from inhaling the smoke produced by burning wood and dung in our quaint mud huts.
Why do we burn these “renewable” but very dirty fuels? Not because we have some desire to save the Earth. No, sir. It is because we don’t have access to natural gas or electricity.
The second leading cause of childhood deaths is not malaria or AIDS, it is diarrhoea, caused by drinking dirty water. Why is our water dirty? Mainly because we lack cheap, efficient means of pumping and cleaning it. That requires fossil fuels--either directly or to produce electricity.
An underlying cause of many health problems in Africa is malnutrition. This is a consequence both of inefficient farming and poor food distribution. To rectify this situation will mean using cheap and relatively clean fuels, such as gasoline and diesel.
(Of course we also need better roads--which can only be built using machines that burn… fossil fuels.)
Our already poor and struggling countries are being sucked into a giant movement to save the Earth--with aid money as the carrot and the stick. If we are cajoled into using more expensive “renewable” forms of energy, we will remain uncompetitive and our rates of economic growth will remain low or shrinking.
That would be a tragedy because economic growth has been shown to be the best way to reduce poverty and improve health. Please, Europe and America, spare us! You can cut your own emissions if you want, but don’t tell us what to do. We really have much more serious and urgent threats to deal with.
Unfortunately, our beggarly governments are very susceptible to diktats from on high, especially when they are offered aid (which they use to line the coffers of their bank accounts): don’t encourage them!
Humanity has proven itself hugely adaptable. We survived an Ice Age and a period probably much hotter than today (around 8,000 years ago).
The Dutch salvaged land from the sea and built on it. In Saudi Arabia, they drink desalinated sea water.
The Tuaregs adapted to the blazing heat of the Sahara and the Eskimos adapted to the freezing cold of the Arctic. So why do the pessimists think we won’t adapt to another change in climate? Why are they hyperventilating about what is likely to be a relatively minor environmental shift? Perhaps they dislike the idea of Africans really developing.
But if global warming is real and does change the climate in Africa, then we will need greater wealth and access to modern technologies in order to adapt.
Schemes that bar us from those technologies and undermine economic growth will prevent us adapting to change. What will the ageing politicians and rock-star ecologists do for us then?
The author is a lecturer at Ashesi University, a business strategy consultant in Accra and winner of the World Bank “Ghana Development Marketplace” award for entrepreneurship.
Article Source: The Sunday Monitor, Kampala
Kofi Bentil
Few people in Africa will get to see Al Gore and his troupe of rock-star ecologists strutting their stuff during the series of Live Earth concerts this weekend --because most have neither television nor electricity.
That’s just as well, because they would be aghast at LiveEarth’s bizarre message. In Africa, we have much more serious things to worry about than climate change.
Indeed, if they achieve their objective the concerts will have done harm to the people of Africa.
Britain’s former Secretary of State for the Environment, David Miliband, recently said that the rest of the world cannot aspire to the UK’s standard of living because: "If the world were to have the same living standards as we have in the UK, then we'd need three planets to support us."
Presumably Mr Miliband would disagree with Indira Ghandi, who famously said, “poverty is the greatest polluter.” Miliband was replaced by Hilary Benn, who as Minister for International Development ran the Department for International Development (DfID). One might have thought that DfID would have supported economic development as a means of escaping from poverty and pollution.
But in its Rough Guide to a Better World it advocates “Development by Dung” and claims that “As poor countries develop, it is essential that they do not follow the same failed patterns of energy use.” So it’s dung not diesel for Africa--while India and China soar ahead because they are too big, and nuclear-armed, to stop.
Even if we accept that global warming may have a significant effect on our climate, limiting the use of fossil fuels in Africa would be counterproductive. Respiratory infections are the leading cause of childhood deaths on my continent, mainly from inhaling the smoke produced by burning wood and dung in our quaint mud huts.
Why do we burn these “renewable” but very dirty fuels? Not because we have some desire to save the Earth. No, sir. It is because we don’t have access to natural gas or electricity.
The second leading cause of childhood deaths is not malaria or AIDS, it is diarrhoea, caused by drinking dirty water. Why is our water dirty? Mainly because we lack cheap, efficient means of pumping and cleaning it. That requires fossil fuels--either directly or to produce electricity.
An underlying cause of many health problems in Africa is malnutrition. This is a consequence both of inefficient farming and poor food distribution. To rectify this situation will mean using cheap and relatively clean fuels, such as gasoline and diesel.
(Of course we also need better roads--which can only be built using machines that burn… fossil fuels.)
Our already poor and struggling countries are being sucked into a giant movement to save the Earth--with aid money as the carrot and the stick. If we are cajoled into using more expensive “renewable” forms of energy, we will remain uncompetitive and our rates of economic growth will remain low or shrinking.
That would be a tragedy because economic growth has been shown to be the best way to reduce poverty and improve health. Please, Europe and America, spare us! You can cut your own emissions if you want, but don’t tell us what to do. We really have much more serious and urgent threats to deal with.
Unfortunately, our beggarly governments are very susceptible to diktats from on high, especially when they are offered aid (which they use to line the coffers of their bank accounts): don’t encourage them!
Humanity has proven itself hugely adaptable. We survived an Ice Age and a period probably much hotter than today (around 8,000 years ago).
The Dutch salvaged land from the sea and built on it. In Saudi Arabia, they drink desalinated sea water.
The Tuaregs adapted to the blazing heat of the Sahara and the Eskimos adapted to the freezing cold of the Arctic. So why do the pessimists think we won’t adapt to another change in climate? Why are they hyperventilating about what is likely to be a relatively minor environmental shift? Perhaps they dislike the idea of Africans really developing.
But if global warming is real and does change the climate in Africa, then we will need greater wealth and access to modern technologies in order to adapt.
Schemes that bar us from those technologies and undermine economic growth will prevent us adapting to change. What will the ageing politicians and rock-star ecologists do for us then?
The author is a lecturer at Ashesi University, a business strategy consultant in Accra and winner of the World Bank “Ghana Development Marketplace” award for entrepreneurship.
Article Source: The Sunday Monitor, Kampala
They’re Laughing at You, You Dumb Infidels
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/
_________________________
In an extremely interesting and valuable set of reflections, former Jihadist in Britain Hassan Butt gives us a quick peek at how Jihadis feel about our efforts to appease them with PCP2.
Could one ask for a better description of the interaction of dupes and demopaths than this? And note, the “progressive” useful idiots who repeat this drivel represent exactly the kind of people who have no self-respect. Isn’t it a violation of every “progressive” principle from which we derive our opposition to going into Iraq, to argue that if you don’t like the foreign policy of the country you’re residing in, you can blow up its civilians in protest?
This behavior is precisely the kind of thing we see in Pallywood. After running a fake injured compatriot past TV cameras provided by Western MSM (Reuters, AP, France2) and putting him into an ambulance supplied by Western institutions (Red Cross, UN), Palestinians walk away clapping their hands, smiling, laughing: “And those imbeciles in the West will run this crap on their news programs.” I imagine that the day Enderlin ran the al Durah story, Talal and his buddies were laughing themselves sick.
Read the rest.
_________________________
In an extremely interesting and valuable set of reflections, former Jihadist in Britain Hassan Butt gives us a quick peek at how Jihadis feel about our efforts to appease them with PCP2.
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Could one ask for a better description of the interaction of dupes and demopaths than this? And note, the “progressive” useful idiots who repeat this drivel represent exactly the kind of people who have no self-respect. Isn’t it a violation of every “progressive” principle from which we derive our opposition to going into Iraq, to argue that if you don’t like the foreign policy of the country you’re residing in, you can blow up its civilians in protest?
This behavior is precisely the kind of thing we see in Pallywood. After running a fake injured compatriot past TV cameras provided by Western MSM (Reuters, AP, France2) and putting him into an ambulance supplied by Western institutions (Red Cross, UN), Palestinians walk away clapping their hands, smiling, laughing: “And those imbeciles in the West will run this crap on their news programs.” I imagine that the day Enderlin ran the al Durah story, Talal and his buddies were laughing themselves sick.
Read the rest.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Andrei Markovits: How Biased German Media Feed the Cycle of Anti-Americanism
This video featuring Andrei S. Markovits, (the Karl W. Deutsch Collegiate Professor of Comparative Politics and German Studies in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures as well as Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the University of Michigan,) confirms something we reported earlier:
Newspaper editors in Germany are pressuring correspondents in the United States to skew their coverage and feed negative attitudes about the United States:
Unfortunately, the vicious cycle is a self-reinforcing mechanism. As media becomes more anti-American, the public becomes more anti-American - raising demand for even more anti-Americanism. Sadly, neither German nor American leaders in government or media are doing much to address this.
Be sure to watch the full length interview with Mr. Markovits below - this is required viewing:
Also check out this outstanding Markovits article as well as his book: Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America.
____________________________
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/
Newspaper editors in Germany are pressuring correspondents in the United States to skew their coverage and feed negative attitudes about the United States:
Unfortunately, the vicious cycle is a self-reinforcing mechanism. As media becomes more anti-American, the public becomes more anti-American - raising demand for even more anti-Americanism. Sadly, neither German nor American leaders in government or media are doing much to address this.
Be sure to watch the full length interview with Mr. Markovits below - this is required viewing:
Also check out this outstanding Markovits article as well as his book: Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America.
____________________________
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/
Friday, July 06, 2007
Pallywood
Para ver mais sobre Pallywood, incluindo vasto material que revela alguns de seus casos mais famosos, ver The Second Draft’s dossier.
Pallywood: História
Definição
O termo Pallywood (referência a Hollywood, a indústria cinematográfica americana) se refere às cenas armadas por ativistas/jornalistas “palestinos“ como forma de mostrar seu “povo“ como vítima infeliz da brutal agressão israelense. Eles obtêm grande sucesso nessa empreitada, em grande parte devido a credulidade e a ânsia da imprensa ocidental em apresentar essas imagens que reforçam a falsa imagem do David palestino que luta bravamente contra o violento e opressor Golias israelense. Pallywood foi responsável por grandes erros cometidos pela imprensa ocidental, onde cenas grotescamente mal armadas eram regularmente noticiadas como “eventos reais“.
Esse texto tenta explicar como tais falhas ocorreram, provocando a atual situação.
Principais fases da criação e crescimento de Pallywood
Líbano, 1982
Os sinais mais claros da criação de uma indústria ’palestina’ de propaganda em forma de notícias veio da invasão do Líbano em 1982. Lá, pela primeira vez, a mídia parece ter abraçado uma posição abertamente hostil a Israel, o que levou a um artigo amplamente discutido chamado “J’Accuse” (Commentary, Setembro 1983), de Norman Podhoretz, que acusou os principais jornalistas, jornais e canais de televisão americanos de anti-semitismo. A hostilidade foi caracterizada pelos seguintes incidentes:
- - Usando o irmão de Arafat – Fathi Arafat – chefe do Crescente Vermelho (versão islâmica da Cruz Vermelha), fontes palestinas afirmavam que a ofensiva isralense foi responsável por 10.000 mortos e 600.000 refugiados. Sem sequer confirmar quantos habitantes viviam no sul do Líbano na época (aprox. 300.000), a mídia repetiu constantemente esses números (pp. 300-301), até que estes foram amplamente aceitos como verdade.
- - Repórteres comparando o cerco israelense em Beirute com a dos nazistas em Warsóvia.
De todos os cercos de cidades durante períodos de guerra no séc. XX, seria praticamente impossível achar uma comparação mais imprópria. Ainda assim a analogia entre israelenses e nazistas parece ter tido um apelo irresistível entre alguns jornalistas. Entre os repórteres mais agressivos estava Peter Jennings. Para uma discussão sobre seu trabalho veja aqui e aqui.
- - O uso de imagens notadamente falsas por uma imprensa ansiosa em acreditar no pior sobre o exército de Israel – inclusive imagens de destruições resultantes da guerra civil entre ’palestinos’ e libaneses, bebês mortos que não estavam mortos e etc. (pp. 353-389).
- - Cobertura dos massacres de Sabra e Shatilla, que dava a entender que os soldados israelenses eram os responsáveis pelo ocorrido, e a recusa em informar o porque da milícia cristã Falange Vermelha – a responsável pelo massacre – buscar vingança contra os “palestinos“.
Todos já ouviram falar sobre Sabra e Shatilla, mas só recentemente as notícias sobre o que ocorreu/está ocorrendo em Darfur começaram a chegar.
A diferença entre a cobertura das centenas de mortes em Sabra e Shatilla e as centenas de milhares de mortos no mesmo ano em Hama, uma cidade no centro da Síria, ilustra bem a propensão da mídia em focar obsessivamente qualquer ato israelense, não interessando a responsabilidade de Israel no fato, e o poder de intimidação, a cumplicidade e seu silêncio com relação aos árabes (ver Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalém, chap. 4
- - Uso de textos gritantes informando ao espectador que as notícias apresentadas tinham sido vistas por “censores militares israelenses“. Nenhuma indicação semelhante sobre o papel que a “autoridade palestina“ exercia sobre as imagens que saiam de territórios sobre o seu controle era vista. Para uma discussão sobre a diferença do tratamento dispensado pela mídia entre a censura militar israelense (legal) e a censura “palestina“, baseada em intimidação e violência, ver pp. 353-387.
- - Relutância da imprensa – principalmente dos repórteres residentes – em revelar a grande brutalidade da PLO no “Estado dentro do Estado“ no sul do Líbano (ver pp 219-278).
- - Dada a ânsia da imprensa ocidental em sempre noticiar o pior dos israelenses – ao mesmo tempo em que evita fazer o mesmo com qualquer fato que seja desfavorável aos “palestinos“ –, sua suscetibilidade para a intimidação, os assassinatos de jornalistas que desagradavam a PLO e os seus padrões notadamente inferiores quando em territórios árabes, fizeram com que os “palestinos“ entendessem que eles tinham na mídia ocidental baseada no Hotel Comodoro, um valioso aliado – “Chairman Yasser’s Best Battalion” (Chafets, Double Vision, chap. 6).
Envenenamento de meninas “palestinas“, Jenin, Março de 1983
Um anos após o ocorrido no Líbano, Israel se vê novamente no meio de uma extensa e premeditada fraude, na qual várias meninas de uma escola de ensino médio afirmam terem sido envenenadas pelos “sionistas”. A história acabou se tornando um escândalo internacional, onde os noticiários de cada país informam tal quantidade de detalhes, que esse conto acabou se assemelhando a uma versão de Rashoman. Porém, nenhum questionou a veracidade das acusações sobre o suposto envenenamento, nem se a culpa poderia ser atribuída aos israelenses. Só depois de uma prolongada investigação ficou provado que nenhuma das meninas tinha sido realmente envenenada, e que membros da PLO tinham encorajado e obrigado as meninas e os funcionários do hospital a cooperar com a farsa.
O elemento mais importante da história, de acordo com a perspectiva da cobertura da imprensa, revela as seguintes falhas:
- - A imprensa israelense tomou as acusações como verdadeiras, e só após o término das investigações que eles concluíram que as acusações eram falsas.
- - A imprensa “palestina“/árabe, sem esperar por nenhuma confirmação, usou as acusações para incitar ódio e medo de isralenses. Nenhuma das evidências que inocentavam os israelenses trouxe alguma mudança em sua cobertura.
- - A imprensa ocidental (a européia com muito mais agressividade que a americana) apresentou as acusações como prováveis – isso quando não as apresentava como verdadeiras –, e quando evidências sobre a armação foram emergindo, simplesmente deixaram de cobrir o incidente, deixando os israelenses entre a mentira e o silêncio (between libel and silence).
- - As acusações de envenenamento constituem o primeiro caso claro de Pallywood: atrocidades encenadas por ativistas “palestinos“, onde israelenses são mostrados como assassinos cruéis de pobres e inocentes árabes. E tudo isso com o apoio da imprensa – local e estrangeira.
A primeira intifada, 1987 – 1991(?)
Durante a primeira intifada, a mídia transformou os “territórios ocupados“ na “brutalidade israelense contra a heróica ’resistência palestina’“. Aqui, pela primeira vez, nós podemos ver a clara colaboração entre repórteres – que eram previamente informados sobre acontecimentos, ou que pagavam para que eles acontecessem – e os árabes.
Já Israel, seriamente afetado pela campanha de difamação perpetrada pelos “palestinos“ e disseminada pela mídia, e sem meios de conter a violência terrorista, às vezes se via obrigado a recorrer ao fechamento dos territórios para imprensa estrangeira. Essa última, geralmente confraternizando no American Colony Hotel, na parte oriental de Jerusalém, supria os jornalistas “palestinos“ com cameras e outros equipamentos, para que estes fizessem a cobertura por eles. Isso marca a primeira vez que palestinos, usando a equipamento ocidental, supriram com suas imagens encenadas as agências internacionais de notícias.
Para uma interessante análise do comportamento da mídia durante a primeira intifada, onde a narrativa ’David palestino contra Golias israelense’ se tornou dominante, ver Jim Lederman, Battle Lines.
- - Atualmente um número cada vez maior de sites/noticiários vem descrevendo e denunciando a manipulação da mídia pelos 'palestinos', e o forte bias anti-Israel de muitos na grande mídia do ocidente.
- - Recentemente um cineasta “palestino“, produtor do filme “Jenin, Jenin” admitiu a falsificação de cenas pra fazer os israelenses 'parecerem maus'.
- - Jeff Helmreich documentou um padrão de violações dos códigos do jornalismo profissional que domina a cobertura do conflito.
- - Em uma entrevista David Bedein (media analyst) afirmou que, nos últimos 20 anos, os “palestinos“ manobraram a mídia para moldar o conflito na opinião pública mundial melhor que os israelenses.
- - Josh Muravchik denunciou o péssimo trabalho da mídia ocidental na cobertura da intifada e a equivalência moral na cobertura jornalística que só dá apoio a sociedades autoritárias.
- - Stephanie Gutmann, afirma no “The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media supremacy” que Israel tropeçou no campo de batalha das páginas de editoriais, telas de TV e na internet.
A segunda intifada (“Al Aqsa“), outubro de 2000 – 2004(?)
A explosão da segunda onda de violência “palestina“ contra Israel veio, ironicamente, após as negociações de paz nas quais, de acordo com as fontes mais críveis, os israelenses ofereceram a maior parte da Cisjordânia, Jerusalém Oriental e toda a Faixa de Gaza (inclusive com o desmantelamento dos assentamentos) em troca do fim da guerra com os árabes. Por um breve momento, Barak e os israelenses até conseguiram atrair alguma simpatia da opinião pública, enquanto Arafat passava por um raro período de desaprovação frente à comunidade internacional. Mas assim que a violência eclodiu novamente, e Israel já poderia mais uma vez ser culpado por ela, especialmente com as imagens de Muhamed al Durah sendo mostradas por todas as TVs ao redor do mundo, a opinião se modificou drásticamente e decisivamente.
Talvez a melhor forma de compreender como Pallywood pôde obter tamanho sucesso é examinar o que ocorreu no dia 29 de setembro, o dia seguinte à visita de Ariel Sharon ao Monte do Templo/Haram al Sharif. Naquele dia, agências de notícias noticiavam violentos enfrentamentos entre o exército israelense e “palestinos“ enfurecidos com a visita de Sharon. A AP (Associated Press) publicou a fotografia de um jovem ensanguentado e ajoelhado em frente a um furioso israelense gritando enquanto segurava um cassetete.
Mas havia algo de errado. E não era necessário que nenhum expert afirmasse isso. Não existe nenhum posto de gasolina perto do Templo do Monte, assim, o local estava claramente errado. Mas os ’enganos’ excedem em muito apenas a mera localização, e um olhar mais atento sugere que o soldado israelense está gritando com alguém que está atrás do jovem ensanguentado, e não com ele. Na verdade, o homem ferido na foto não é um palestino, mas um judeu americano – estudante de um seminário religioso – que foi arrancado de seu carro por uma turba enfurecida de árabes, sendo depois espancado e apunhalado quase até a morte (levou meses se recuperando no hospital). Leia o testemunho do próprio Tuvia Grossman aqui.
Mas então o israelense não estava espancancando o rapaz, e sim o protegendo da violenta multidão. Entre muitos outros jornais, o New York Times, sem nem ao menos conferir quaisquer destes fatos, publicou a foto com a legenda errada. (para ver a vergonhosa atuação do NYT durante e após esse episódio, clique aqui)
Nada ilustra melhor o problema de expectativas que influenciam o que nós vemos e a forma como nós registramos isto: Os 'palestinos' são sempre as vítimas e os israelenses sempre os sempre os agressores.
“They’re beautiful, highly trained and deadly. They are the female suicide bombers.” Australia’s New Idea magazine, April 7, 2003.
Pallywood: História
Definição
O termo Pallywood (referência a Hollywood, a indústria cinematográfica americana) se refere às cenas armadas por ativistas/jornalistas “palestinos“ como forma de mostrar seu “povo“ como vítima infeliz da brutal agressão israelense. Eles obtêm grande sucesso nessa empreitada, em grande parte devido a credulidade e a ânsia da imprensa ocidental em apresentar essas imagens que reforçam a falsa imagem do David palestino que luta bravamente contra o violento e opressor Golias israelense. Pallywood foi responsável por grandes erros cometidos pela imprensa ocidental, onde cenas grotescamente mal armadas eram regularmente noticiadas como “eventos reais“.
Esse texto tenta explicar como tais falhas ocorreram, provocando a atual situação.
Principais fases da criação e crescimento de Pallywood
Líbano, 1982
Os sinais mais claros da criação de uma indústria ’palestina’ de propaganda em forma de notícias veio da invasão do Líbano em 1982. Lá, pela primeira vez, a mídia parece ter abraçado uma posição abertamente hostil a Israel, o que levou a um artigo amplamente discutido chamado “J’Accuse” (Commentary, Setembro 1983), de Norman Podhoretz, que acusou os principais jornalistas, jornais e canais de televisão americanos de anti-semitismo. A hostilidade foi caracterizada pelos seguintes incidentes:
- - Usando o irmão de Arafat – Fathi Arafat – chefe do Crescente Vermelho (versão islâmica da Cruz Vermelha), fontes palestinas afirmavam que a ofensiva isralense foi responsável por 10.000 mortos e 600.000 refugiados. Sem sequer confirmar quantos habitantes viviam no sul do Líbano na época (aprox. 300.000), a mídia repetiu constantemente esses números (pp. 300-301), até que estes foram amplamente aceitos como verdade.
- - Repórteres comparando o cerco israelense em Beirute com a dos nazistas em Warsóvia.
De todos os cercos de cidades durante períodos de guerra no séc. XX, seria praticamente impossível achar uma comparação mais imprópria. Ainda assim a analogia entre israelenses e nazistas parece ter tido um apelo irresistível entre alguns jornalistas. Entre os repórteres mais agressivos estava Peter Jennings. Para uma discussão sobre seu trabalho veja aqui e aqui.
- - O uso de imagens notadamente falsas por uma imprensa ansiosa em acreditar no pior sobre o exército de Israel – inclusive imagens de destruições resultantes da guerra civil entre ’palestinos’ e libaneses, bebês mortos que não estavam mortos e etc. (pp. 353-389).
- - Cobertura dos massacres de Sabra e Shatilla, que dava a entender que os soldados israelenses eram os responsáveis pelo ocorrido, e a recusa em informar o porque da milícia cristã Falange Vermelha – a responsável pelo massacre – buscar vingança contra os “palestinos“.
Todos já ouviram falar sobre Sabra e Shatilla, mas só recentemente as notícias sobre o que ocorreu/está ocorrendo em Darfur começaram a chegar.
A diferença entre a cobertura das centenas de mortes em Sabra e Shatilla e as centenas de milhares de mortos no mesmo ano em Hama, uma cidade no centro da Síria, ilustra bem a propensão da mídia em focar obsessivamente qualquer ato israelense, não interessando a responsabilidade de Israel no fato, e o poder de intimidação, a cumplicidade e seu silêncio com relação aos árabes (ver Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalém, chap. 4
- - Uso de textos gritantes informando ao espectador que as notícias apresentadas tinham sido vistas por “censores militares israelenses“. Nenhuma indicação semelhante sobre o papel que a “autoridade palestina“ exercia sobre as imagens que saiam de territórios sobre o seu controle era vista. Para uma discussão sobre a diferença do tratamento dispensado pela mídia entre a censura militar israelense (legal) e a censura “palestina“, baseada em intimidação e violência, ver pp. 353-387.
- - Relutância da imprensa – principalmente dos repórteres residentes – em revelar a grande brutalidade da PLO no “Estado dentro do Estado“ no sul do Líbano (ver pp 219-278).
- - Dada a ânsia da imprensa ocidental em sempre noticiar o pior dos israelenses – ao mesmo tempo em que evita fazer o mesmo com qualquer fato que seja desfavorável aos “palestinos“ –, sua suscetibilidade para a intimidação, os assassinatos de jornalistas que desagradavam a PLO e os seus padrões notadamente inferiores quando em territórios árabes, fizeram com que os “palestinos“ entendessem que eles tinham na mídia ocidental baseada no Hotel Comodoro, um valioso aliado – “Chairman Yasser’s Best Battalion” (Chafets, Double Vision, chap. 6).
Envenenamento de meninas “palestinas“, Jenin, Março de 1983
Um anos após o ocorrido no Líbano, Israel se vê novamente no meio de uma extensa e premeditada fraude, na qual várias meninas de uma escola de ensino médio afirmam terem sido envenenadas pelos “sionistas”. A história acabou se tornando um escândalo internacional, onde os noticiários de cada país informam tal quantidade de detalhes, que esse conto acabou se assemelhando a uma versão de Rashoman. Porém, nenhum questionou a veracidade das acusações sobre o suposto envenenamento, nem se a culpa poderia ser atribuída aos israelenses. Só depois de uma prolongada investigação ficou provado que nenhuma das meninas tinha sido realmente envenenada, e que membros da PLO tinham encorajado e obrigado as meninas e os funcionários do hospital a cooperar com a farsa.
O elemento mais importante da história, de acordo com a perspectiva da cobertura da imprensa, revela as seguintes falhas:
- - A imprensa israelense tomou as acusações como verdadeiras, e só após o término das investigações que eles concluíram que as acusações eram falsas.
- - A imprensa “palestina“/árabe, sem esperar por nenhuma confirmação, usou as acusações para incitar ódio e medo de isralenses. Nenhuma das evidências que inocentavam os israelenses trouxe alguma mudança em sua cobertura.
- - A imprensa ocidental (a européia com muito mais agressividade que a americana) apresentou as acusações como prováveis – isso quando não as apresentava como verdadeiras –, e quando evidências sobre a armação foram emergindo, simplesmente deixaram de cobrir o incidente, deixando os israelenses entre a mentira e o silêncio (between libel and silence).
- - As acusações de envenenamento constituem o primeiro caso claro de Pallywood: atrocidades encenadas por ativistas “palestinos“, onde israelenses são mostrados como assassinos cruéis de pobres e inocentes árabes. E tudo isso com o apoio da imprensa – local e estrangeira.
A primeira intifada, 1987 – 1991(?)
Durante a primeira intifada, a mídia transformou os “territórios ocupados“ na “brutalidade israelense contra a heróica ’resistência palestina’“. Aqui, pela primeira vez, nós podemos ver a clara colaboração entre repórteres – que eram previamente informados sobre acontecimentos, ou que pagavam para que eles acontecessem – e os árabes.
Já Israel, seriamente afetado pela campanha de difamação perpetrada pelos “palestinos“ e disseminada pela mídia, e sem meios de conter a violência terrorista, às vezes se via obrigado a recorrer ao fechamento dos territórios para imprensa estrangeira. Essa última, geralmente confraternizando no American Colony Hotel, na parte oriental de Jerusalém, supria os jornalistas “palestinos“ com cameras e outros equipamentos, para que estes fizessem a cobertura por eles. Isso marca a primeira vez que palestinos, usando a equipamento ocidental, supriram com suas imagens encenadas as agências internacionais de notícias.Para uma interessante análise do comportamento da mídia durante a primeira intifada, onde a narrativa ’David palestino contra Golias israelense’ se tornou dominante, ver Jim Lederman, Battle Lines.
- - Atualmente um número cada vez maior de sites/noticiários vem descrevendo e denunciando a manipulação da mídia pelos 'palestinos', e o forte bias anti-Israel de muitos na grande mídia do ocidente.
- - Recentemente um cineasta “palestino“, produtor do filme “Jenin, Jenin” admitiu a falsificação de cenas pra fazer os israelenses 'parecerem maus'.
- - Jeff Helmreich documentou um padrão de violações dos códigos do jornalismo profissional que domina a cobertura do conflito.
- - Em uma entrevista David Bedein (media analyst) afirmou que, nos últimos 20 anos, os “palestinos“ manobraram a mídia para moldar o conflito na opinião pública mundial melhor que os israelenses.
- - Josh Muravchik denunciou o péssimo trabalho da mídia ocidental na cobertura da intifada e a equivalência moral na cobertura jornalística que só dá apoio a sociedades autoritárias.
- - Stephanie Gutmann, afirma no “The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media supremacy” que Israel tropeçou no campo de batalha das páginas de editoriais, telas de TV e na internet.
A segunda intifada (“Al Aqsa“), outubro de 2000 – 2004(?)
A explosão da segunda onda de violência “palestina“ contra Israel veio, ironicamente, após as negociações de paz nas quais, de acordo com as fontes mais críveis, os israelenses ofereceram a maior parte da Cisjordânia, Jerusalém Oriental e toda a Faixa de Gaza (inclusive com o desmantelamento dos assentamentos) em troca do fim da guerra com os árabes. Por um breve momento, Barak e os israelenses até conseguiram atrair alguma simpatia da opinião pública, enquanto Arafat passava por um raro período de desaprovação frente à comunidade internacional. Mas assim que a violência eclodiu novamente, e Israel já poderia mais uma vez ser culpado por ela, especialmente com as imagens de Muhamed al Durah sendo mostradas por todas as TVs ao redor do mundo, a opinião se modificou drásticamente e decisivamente.
Talvez a melhor forma de compreender como Pallywood pôde obter tamanho sucesso é examinar o que ocorreu no dia 29 de setembro, o dia seguinte à visita de Ariel Sharon ao Monte do Templo/Haram al Sharif. Naquele dia, agências de notícias noticiavam violentos enfrentamentos entre o exército israelense e “palestinos“ enfurecidos com a visita de Sharon. A AP (Associated Press) publicou a fotografia de um jovem ensanguentado e ajoelhado em frente a um furioso israelense gritando enquanto segurava um cassetete.
Mas havia algo de errado. E não era necessário que nenhum expert afirmasse isso. Não existe nenhum posto de gasolina perto do Templo do Monte, assim, o local estava claramente errado. Mas os ’enganos’ excedem em muito apenas a mera localização, e um olhar mais atento sugere que o soldado israelense está gritando com alguém que está atrás do jovem ensanguentado, e não com ele. Na verdade, o homem ferido na foto não é um palestino, mas um judeu americano – estudante de um seminário religioso – que foi arrancado de seu carro por uma turba enfurecida de árabes, sendo depois espancado e apunhalado quase até a morte (levou meses se recuperando no hospital). Leia o testemunho do próprio Tuvia Grossman aqui.Mas então o israelense não estava espancancando o rapaz, e sim o protegendo da violenta multidão. Entre muitos outros jornais, o New York Times, sem nem ao menos conferir quaisquer destes fatos, publicou a foto com a legenda errada. (para ver a vergonhosa atuação do NYT durante e após esse episódio, clique aqui)
Nada ilustra melhor o problema de expectativas que influenciam o que nós vemos e a forma como nós registramos isto: Os 'palestinos' são sempre as vítimas e os israelenses sempre os sempre os agressores.
O quadro ilustra bem o JP (Jihad Paradigm): “palestinos“ agressivos que iniciam a violência contra civis israelenses em Israel, e a moderação israelense (onde o policial sequer usa uma arma de fogo para se defender e proteger a vítima de uma multidão assassina).
Já a legenda descreve a fotografia, para que assim ela fique de acordo com o PCP (POLITICALLY CORRECT PARADIGM): israelenses agressivos atacam covardemente “palestino“ desarmado no ’terceiro lugar mais sagrado para o islam’ (e que vem a ser o mais sagrado para o judaísmo, mas que nunca é comentado).
Levou 4 longos dias para que o NYT reconhecesse o erro, identificando a vítima como ’Tuvia Grossman de Chicago’, e uma semana para que refizesse a história sobre o espancamento. Mas aí já era tarde demais, o dano já tinha sido feito. Não era apenas o PCP sendo confirmado, mas a imagem já tinha se transformado num emblema da vitimização dos “palestinos“. Apesar da retratação subseqüente, à partir daí, assim como foi com as venenosas acusações de 1983, as mídias árabes/palestinas e seus partidários no PCP2 (POLITICALLY CORRECT PARADIGM 2) continuaram usando a imagem como parte de sua narrativa de vítima dos “palestinos“. Até os dias de hoje, a foto de Tuvya adorna um cartaz que pede que todos boicotem a Coca Cola como meio de impedir os israelenses de matar mais palestinos como esse homem.
Com um enredo tão poderoso, que afeta (e transforma) a própria natureza das evidências que nos foram apresentadas pela MSM (Mainstream Media) durante a explosão da violência no outono de 2000, causa pouca (ou nenhuma) surpresa que no dia seguinte a mídia se apressou em apresentar outro pedaço de evidência já desqualificado que apoiava suu narrativa de PCP – O caso Muhamed al Durah.
Os motivos pelos quais é importante denunciar Pallywood
- - Pallywood distorce a opinião pública ocidental e do Oriente Médio
- - Agrava ainda mais a narrativa dominante da vítima inocente/agressor brutal, prolongando ainda mais o conflito
- - Perpetua a narrativa do Davi (“palestino“) contra o Golias (israelense)
- - Contribui para a demonização de Israel e o aumento do anti-semitismo
- - Uma MSM justa e confiável é essencial para uma sociedade civil saudável
- - Por causa de sua dramaticidade, Pallywood sofreu um processo de romantização no Ocidente, onde a “ resistência palestina“ é vista como heróica, e onde há uma eterna justificação e apologia dos métodos mais cruéis e desumanos para alcançar seus objetivos.
Levou 4 longos dias para que o NYT reconhecesse o erro, identificando a vítima como ’Tuvia Grossman de Chicago’, e uma semana para que refizesse a história sobre o espancamento. Mas aí já era tarde demais, o dano já tinha sido feito. Não era apenas o PCP sendo confirmado, mas a imagem já tinha se transformado num emblema da vitimização dos “palestinos“. Apesar da retratação subseqüente, à partir daí, assim como foi com as venenosas acusações de 1983, as mídias árabes/palestinas e seus partidários no PCP2 (POLITICALLY CORRECT PARADIGM 2) continuaram usando a imagem como parte de sua narrativa de vítima dos “palestinos“. Até os dias de hoje, a foto de Tuvya adorna um cartaz que pede que todos boicotem a Coca Cola como meio de impedir os israelenses de matar mais palestinos como esse homem.
Com um enredo tão poderoso, que afeta (e transforma) a própria natureza das evidências que nos foram apresentadas pela MSM (Mainstream Media) durante a explosão da violência no outono de 2000, causa pouca (ou nenhuma) surpresa que no dia seguinte a mídia se apressou em apresentar outro pedaço de evidência já desqualificado que apoiava suu narrativa de PCP – O caso Muhamed al Durah.
Os motivos pelos quais é importante denunciar Pallywood
- - Pallywood distorce a opinião pública ocidental e do Oriente Médio
- - Agrava ainda mais a narrativa dominante da vítima inocente/agressor brutal, prolongando ainda mais o conflito
- - Perpetua a narrativa do Davi (“palestino“) contra o Golias (israelense)
- - Contribui para a demonização de Israel e o aumento do anti-semitismo
- - Uma MSM justa e confiável é essencial para uma sociedade civil saudável
- - Por causa de sua dramaticidade, Pallywood sofreu um processo de romantização no Ocidente, onde a “ resistência palestina“ é vista como heróica, e onde há uma eterna justificação e apologia dos métodos mais cruéis e desumanos para alcançar seus objetivos.
“They’re beautiful, highly trained and deadly. They are the female suicide bombers.” Australia’s New Idea magazine, April 7, 2003.
Mahmoud Abbas: "One of the oldest churches in Palestine, which stood long before our arrival [in the region], was looted"
Special Dispatch-Palestinian Authority
June 22, 2007 No. 1632
Esse é o tipo de pronunciamento que eu tenho certeza que não vou ver nos noticiários de lugar algum.
Anos da propaganda esquerdista-islâmica disseminando a mentira de que os palestinos são o povo indígena de Israel acabam de ir privada abaixo.
Mahmoud Abbas, líder do grupo terrorista “moderado” Fatah, num momento de desespero e raiva direcionados ao Hamas, admite que os árabes conhecidos como “palestinos” chegaram em Israel durante as invasões árabes/islâmicas.
June 22, 2007 No. 1632
Esse é o tipo de pronunciamento que eu tenho certeza que não vou ver nos noticiários de lugar algum.
Anos da propaganda esquerdista-islâmica disseminando a mentira de que os palestinos são o povo indígena de Israel acabam de ir privada abaixo.
Mahmoud Abbas, líder do grupo terrorista “moderado” Fatah, num momento de desespero e raiva direcionados ao Hamas, admite que os árabes conhecidos como “palestinos” chegaram em Israel durante as invasões árabes/islâmicas.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Middle East Rules #2
Rule 2: Any reporter or U.S. Army officer wanting to serve in Iraq should have to take a test, consisting of one question: “Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?” If you answer yes, you can’t go to Iraq. You can serve in Japan, South Korea or Germany not Iraq.
There’s a telling story about a conference of post-modern historiography in Germany between the new historians and the old guard. In the wrap-up session, one of the older participants noted, “all this [new-fangled stuff] is fine, just so long as you get the story straight.” “Oh no,” responded one of the new historians, “the whole point is to get the story crooked.” As the reporter of this exchange commented, all the new historians laughed knowingly at this snappy witticism, although most of them weren’t quite sure why.”
Now on one level, the meaning of this story has to do with “unintended consequences.” Historically speaking, most developments do not arise because someone plans them, but because someone, in pursuing a goal, sets in motion something that leads to an entirely different, often opposed result. The Magna Carta is a good example: the barons who put together the document never could have imagined that 600 years later, English-speaking peoples would see that as the earliest document in the creation of a constitutional democracy that gave equal rights to commoners.
Part of the crooked story that makes the Middle East so Byzantine is not only how many unintended results there are to people’s actions, but the ways that they insist on reading those results as intended, often by people who didn’t actually produce those results (see conspiracy theory below). But here, briefly, the reason why the straight line does not operate in the Arab world comes from the particularly remorseless way the Arabs play their zero-sum honor-shame games. In other parts of the world where honor-shame rules predominate — China and Japan come readily to mind — one can still count on a certain amount of rational self-interest. If one can make the choice palatable, it’s possible to arrange a positive-sum outcome.
But in the Middle East, a different dynamic is at work, one in which self destruction plays an unwontedly prominent role. The old joke runs:
Normally, when people choose a hard zero-sum game (like war) and lose, and their conquerors offer them a positive-sum outcome, they take it (like Germany and Japan). But in the Arab world, the choice following failure is more likely a negative-sum game — we both lose. This problem existed long before the arrival on the scene of Jews who talked back (Zionists), but since then it has become profoundly aggravated by the total psych-out of having a few million Jews beating hundreds of millions of Arabs (see #11). It is the logic of everything from the Palestinian refugee camps scandal to the Three No’s of Khartoum to the big No of Camp David and the suicidal Oslo Intifada. Until you realize that Arab leaders want Palestinians to suffer, you can’t understand anything.
Iraq, of course, has its own particular problems.
and you have a recipe for consistent irrationality by any standards –honor-shame or modern reason.
Shortest distance between two points? You can’t get there from here.
But if you give up, things will be even worse.
There’s a telling story about a conference of post-modern historiography in Germany between the new historians and the old guard. In the wrap-up session, one of the older participants noted, “all this [new-fangled stuff] is fine, just so long as you get the story straight.” “Oh no,” responded one of the new historians, “the whole point is to get the story crooked.” As the reporter of this exchange commented, all the new historians laughed knowingly at this snappy witticism, although most of them weren’t quite sure why.”
Now on one level, the meaning of this story has to do with “unintended consequences.” Historically speaking, most developments do not arise because someone plans them, but because someone, in pursuing a goal, sets in motion something that leads to an entirely different, often opposed result. The Magna Carta is a good example: the barons who put together the document never could have imagined that 600 years later, English-speaking peoples would see that as the earliest document in the creation of a constitutional democracy that gave equal rights to commoners.
Part of the crooked story that makes the Middle East so Byzantine is not only how many unintended results there are to people’s actions, but the ways that they insist on reading those results as intended, often by people who didn’t actually produce those results (see conspiracy theory below). But here, briefly, the reason why the straight line does not operate in the Arab world comes from the particularly remorseless way the Arabs play their zero-sum honor-shame games. In other parts of the world where honor-shame rules predominate — China and Japan come readily to mind — one can still count on a certain amount of rational self-interest. If one can make the choice palatable, it’s possible to arrange a positive-sum outcome.
But in the Middle East, a different dynamic is at work, one in which self destruction plays an unwontedly prominent role. The old joke runs:
A scorpion approached a crocodile and asked him to take him across the Nile.“But you’ll sting me and I’ll die,” protested the croc.“Why would I do that? I you die, I drown,” responded the scorpion.Accepting this irrefutable logic of self-interest, the croc takes the scorpion on his back and starts to swim the Nile. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the crocodile.“Why did you do that?” the croc asked plaintively as the poison spread through his body. “Now we’ll both die.”
“It’s the Middle East.”
Normally, when people choose a hard zero-sum game (like war) and lose, and their conquerors offer them a positive-sum outcome, they take it (like Germany and Japan). But in the Arab world, the choice following failure is more likely a negative-sum game — we both lose. This problem existed long before the arrival on the scene of Jews who talked back (Zionists), but since then it has become profoundly aggravated by the total psych-out of having a few million Jews beating hundreds of millions of Arabs (see #11). It is the logic of everything from the Palestinian refugee camps scandal to the Three No’s of Khartoum to the big No of Camp David and the suicidal Oslo Intifada. Until you realize that Arab leaders want Palestinians to suffer, you can’t understand anything.
Iraq, of course, has its own particular problems.
- Start with tribal politics of vendetta sharpened and (temporarily) frozen by a Stalin-admiring dictator,
- bring in Western troops who free Iraqis of their hated ruler thus highlighting the impotence of the Arab world to handle their own monsters (and hence making gratitude nearly impossible),
- add apocalyptic Muslim ideologies (in which the prevailing rule is “my enemy’s enemy is my enemy”), who use suicide bombing aimed at civilians as a major tool of “resistance,” and
- top off with Western commentators so riddled with Western Derangement Syndrome (aka Post-colonial theory) that they have to call Sunnis who blow up Shiite Mosques “insurgents”, and blame the West for the civilian casualty toll,
and you have a recipe for consistent irrationality by any standards –honor-shame or modern reason.
Shortest distance between two points? You can’t get there from here.
But if you give up, things will be even worse.
Entrevista com o Rage Boy: “I can’t resist injustice. I protest for all the oppressed Muslims"
Jihadista caricato? Parece piada pronta.
Bhat, também conhecido como Islamic Rage Boy, num raro momento de descontração (o que?! não existem mais aldeias pra incendiar nem contra quem protestar?!)
Bhat, também conhecido como Islamic Rage Boy, num raro momento de descontração (o que?! não existem mais aldeias pra incendiar nem contra quem protestar?!)Segue uma entrevista com o islâmico favorito da imprensa. Nela o onipresente manifestante indiano, que aparece em TODAS as fotos de protesto – desde revoltas pelas caricaturas de Maomé, manifestações em defesa dos "palestinos", ataques contra declarações do papa e em ameaças públicas de assassinato contra o escritor Salman Rushdie – admite que, entre outras coisas, já fez parte de um grupo terrorista ("militante de um grupo armado" pró-Paquistão, de acordo com a France Press), que não suporta a injustiça e que protesta por todos os muçulmanos oprimidos na "palestina", no Iraque e no Afegasnitão.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Detalhe interessante:
O combatente da injustiça e defensor dos oprimidos afirma que seu maior exemplo e fonte de inspiração é o aiatolá Khomeini, o líder supremo da revolução islâmica no Irã.
Aqui vai uma pequena amostra de quem foi o aiatolá Khomeini, e abaixo alguns dos muçulmanos não-oprimidos do seu paraíso islâmico no Irã.
O combatente da injustiça e defensor dos oprimidos afirma que seu maior exemplo e fonte de inspiração é o aiatolá Khomeini, o líder supremo da revolução islâmica no Irã.
Aqui vai uma pequena amostra de quem foi o aiatolá Khomeini, e abaixo alguns dos muçulmanos não-oprimidos do seu paraíso islâmico no Irã.
Pictures of Murdered Shoaneh Ghaderi
WARNING: Contains Violent Graphic pictures - Iranian pro-democracy secular activist tortured to death by Islamic state's security forces
WARNING: Contains Violent Graphic pictures - Iranian pro-democracy secular activist tortured to death by Islamic state's security forces
Brutalities in the name of Islam
The tortured body of Ms. Zohreh Eizadi, 25, student of Medical Science University in Tehran, who had a major role in the recent anti dictatorship demonstrations ____________________________________
Muslim ‘Rage Boy’ says he’s really angry.The tortured body of Ms. Zohreh Eizadi, 25, student of Medical Science University in Tehran, who had a major role in the recent anti dictatorship demonstrations ____________________________________
Shakeel Bhat, 31, has been displaying his teeth and shaking his fist over anything from Salman Rushdie’s knighthood to Danish cartoons, becoming a photographers’ favourite and earning himself the nickname “Rage Boy” in online columns and blogs.
One American columnist has dismissed him as a “professional Muslim protester,” while other bloggers have also held him up for ridicule as a person who appears to be very easily enraged about anything. But Bhat, the man behind the angry face, said he could take any kind of criticism in his stride.
“Whatever I do, I do for Allah and the Prophet Mohammed,” said Bhat, who admits to having been an armed militant between 1991 and 1994 with a pro-Pakistan rebel group. “I can’t resist injustice. I protest for all the oppressed Muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan,” he told AFP.
Bhat dropped out of school in his early teens, and quickly found his way into the armed struggle against New Delhi’s disputed hold over part of the scenic Himalayan region. After escaping scores of police raids, Bhat finally spent three years behind bars — a lucky escape from the Indian army’s “catch and kill” tactics of the 1990s.
While he no longer carries a weapon, Bhat said he was still fuming about the Indian army’s often suffocating presence in Kashmir — where there is one soldier for every four civilians — and what he sees as a wider international conspiracy against Muslims.
“If my photographs get published across the world, it is because my emotions are real and my looks are not deceptive. The photos show the anger inside,” said the full-time demonstrator, who when off the street looks distinctly modest and a little shy. ...
“Police have registered 40 cases against me for taking part in the protests and I have to shuttle from one court to another to defend myself. I’ve been in almost every police station,” he laughed, clutching a plastic bag full of court papers.
Although not a Shiite Muslim, he says his inspiration is Iran’s late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
“I sometimes leave my home and return days later after being in police lock-ups,” said Bhat, whose family run a handicrafts business. “My family members are very supportive. They know I am not doing anything wrong. I am doing what every Muslims needs to do.”
Apart from drawing ridicule from bloggers, Bhat has even inspired one American neoconservative website to push “Rage Boy” merchandise — including T-shirts, beer mugs, mouse pads.
“I don’t believe this! I have no knowledge about all this. Why do they do it?” demanded Bhat, who says he has no idea how to use a computer and the Internet.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Thomas Friedman’s Mideast Rule of Reporting # 1
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/
Last December, Thomas Friedman published an updated version of his rules of Middle East reporting. It is a brilliant, witty piece that takes aim at and hits our liberal cognitive egocentrism right on the head. This alone justifies Friedman’s having such a big ego: he deserves his swollen head. No dupe or cognitive egocentrist he! (Hat tip: Desert Brown, Israpundit)
I apologize in advance for adding a clunky, comparatively humorless, academic commentary to these fifteen points. But all really profound and pithy material deserves commentary, and since so many of the tragi-comic paradoxes Friedman outlines relate to honor-shame culture, I thought it worthwhile to unpack them. (Predictably, of course, voices of political correctness have attacked Friedman: “his racism and condescending attitude towards Arabs that has long been implicit in his writing comes out full guns blazing..”
__________________________________
Mideast rules to live by - Thomas Friedman
International Herald Tribune
For a long time, I let my hopes for a decent outcome in Iraq triumph over what I had learned reporting from Lebanon during its civil war. Those hopes vanished last summer. So, I’d like to offer President George W. Bush my updated rules of Middle East reporting, which also apply to diplomacy, in hopes they’ll help him figure out what to do next in Iraq.
Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn’t count. In Washington, officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Middle East, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.
________________________________
David Makovsky tells the story about a US envoy to Arafat coming with a letter in English from Mubarak telling him to take a certain “moderate” action (like negotiate with Israel or denounce terrorism), and Arafat laughing in his face and saying, “when I get it in Arabic, I’ll take it seriously.”
The reason the gap between public and private is inverted relates to the impact of honor-shame culture. In private, anything goes because it’s perfectly legitimate in private to tell people what they want to hear, and there’s no price to pay since no one from the peer group hears it. When it’s in public, it’s not necessarily more honest, but it does reflect the critical factor when it comes to what real commitments are — what the peer group thinks and knows. Not that you can’t lie in public too, but that poses a different set of problems. To say publicly that you accept Israel – even if you don’t mean it – is a public humiliation for the collectivity.
In Western (integrity-guilt cultures), a whole range of positions that would be considered dishonorable — like public apologies — are not only permissable, but advantageous. What you say in public — on the record — may be diplomatic, but what you say in private has bearing on your integrity and credibility. This is not to say that Westerners do not lie in public and private, just that there’s a different center of gravity which produces the characteristic skew that Friedman notes here.
This helps us understand the difference between Hamas and Fatah. The only honorable public stance in the Arab world vis-à-vis Israel since 1948 has been the rejection of any contact with Israel that might legitimate it. The very “occupation” of the territories conquered in 1967 derives directly from this Arab refusal to recognize or even negotiate publicly with Israelis — the “Three No’s of Khartoum.” (What’s ironic there is that the Arab League said that “the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States” — which could have been done by negotiations.)
Sadat paid with his life for violating that principle of “no negotions, no recognition, no peace.” Until 1967, Palestinian and Arab leaders refused even hypothetically (and in English) to grant publicly that Israel had a right to exist. Afterwards, with some prompting from PR advisors in the West, they toned down some of their genocidal rhetoric, but it was a long hard road to get them even in English to make even hypothetical concessions in public.
Many Western supporters found their refusal to mouth the right formulas frustratingly irrational — just think of the advantages of “swallowing your pride” and thereby gaining major, even fatal concessions from the Israelis. But, at least when honor is at stake, the Arabs had to be more honest than their Western advisors counseled. Present themselves as a “secular, national liberation movement” aimed at liberating Arab land from the occupying colonialist, imperialist Israelis, even if that’s not what they were about…? No problem. As long as one could talk about occupied Palestine and mean “river to the sea,” there was no shame in letting eager cretins in the West believe that one meant the “Green line.”
The Oslo process forced Arafat to at least mouth in English and in public his willingness to accept Israel’s existence. There was a formal statement – the signing and hand-shaking on the White House lawn – that publicly accepted (from the Arab point of view) a humiliating stance. With Sadat’s fate in mind, Arafat was quick to reassure his Arabic and Muslim public that he didn’t mean this – the Trojan Horse speech in South Africa only months after the White House ceremony, in which he assured his public that this was only a ruse.
“We” — and here I mean people like Peres, Rabin, Ross, Clinton et al. — were equally quick to ignore this critical revelation.
From the honor-shame perspective, Arafat had shamefully accepted a public compromise even though it meant he could better launch the promised offensive… the staged assault. Hamas represented the stance of the old PLO – point of honor: we won’t accept the right of Israel to exist, we will only destroy her. Part of what was so pathetic about the advent of Hamas to power in the elections was how eager the West was just to have Hamas mouth the “moderate” words in English that would allow them to turn on the funding and diplomatic spigots. They virtually handed Hamas the speech necessary to satisfy a Western community desperate to revive the “peace process.” And still, that was too much.
In a sense, the Arab sense of humiliation and the ersatz “honor” they “preserve” by rejecting Israel — which explains many of the pathologies of the Arab world today — makes much of their behavior irrational, even from the point of view of their own “interests.” They could have gotten far more in the way of fatal concessions from Israel had they been willing to “swallow their pride” even temporarily. But they could not do that publicly before the “Arab street.”
And so the major lesson from all of this — one learned and implemented by organizations like MEMRI and PMW — is that only what Arabs say in public and in Arabic matters. Private promises are useless; the “peer group” matters above all.
Last December, Thomas Friedman published an updated version of his rules of Middle East reporting. It is a brilliant, witty piece that takes aim at and hits our liberal cognitive egocentrism right on the head. This alone justifies Friedman’s having such a big ego: he deserves his swollen head. No dupe or cognitive egocentrist he! (Hat tip: Desert Brown, Israpundit)
I apologize in advance for adding a clunky, comparatively humorless, academic commentary to these fifteen points. But all really profound and pithy material deserves commentary, and since so many of the tragi-comic paradoxes Friedman outlines relate to honor-shame culture, I thought it worthwhile to unpack them. (Predictably, of course, voices of political correctness have attacked Friedman: “his racism and condescending attitude towards Arabs that has long been implicit in his writing comes out full guns blazing..”
__________________________________
Mideast rules to live by - Thomas Friedman
International Herald Tribune
For a long time, I let my hopes for a decent outcome in Iraq triumph over what I had learned reporting from Lebanon during its civil war. Those hopes vanished last summer. So, I’d like to offer President George W. Bush my updated rules of Middle East reporting, which also apply to diplomacy, in hopes they’ll help him figure out what to do next in Iraq.
Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn’t count. In Washington, officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Middle East, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.
________________________________
David Makovsky tells the story about a US envoy to Arafat coming with a letter in English from Mubarak telling him to take a certain “moderate” action (like negotiate with Israel or denounce terrorism), and Arafat laughing in his face and saying, “when I get it in Arabic, I’ll take it seriously.”
The reason the gap between public and private is inverted relates to the impact of honor-shame culture. In private, anything goes because it’s perfectly legitimate in private to tell people what they want to hear, and there’s no price to pay since no one from the peer group hears it. When it’s in public, it’s not necessarily more honest, but it does reflect the critical factor when it comes to what real commitments are — what the peer group thinks and knows. Not that you can’t lie in public too, but that poses a different set of problems. To say publicly that you accept Israel – even if you don’t mean it – is a public humiliation for the collectivity.
In Western (integrity-guilt cultures), a whole range of positions that would be considered dishonorable — like public apologies — are not only permissable, but advantageous. What you say in public — on the record — may be diplomatic, but what you say in private has bearing on your integrity and credibility. This is not to say that Westerners do not lie in public and private, just that there’s a different center of gravity which produces the characteristic skew that Friedman notes here.
This helps us understand the difference between Hamas and Fatah. The only honorable public stance in the Arab world vis-à-vis Israel since 1948 has been the rejection of any contact with Israel that might legitimate it. The very “occupation” of the territories conquered in 1967 derives directly from this Arab refusal to recognize or even negotiate publicly with Israelis — the “Three No’s of Khartoum.” (What’s ironic there is that the Arab League said that “the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States” — which could have been done by negotiations.)
Sadat paid with his life for violating that principle of “no negotions, no recognition, no peace.” Until 1967, Palestinian and Arab leaders refused even hypothetically (and in English) to grant publicly that Israel had a right to exist. Afterwards, with some prompting from PR advisors in the West, they toned down some of their genocidal rhetoric, but it was a long hard road to get them even in English to make even hypothetical concessions in public.
Many Western supporters found their refusal to mouth the right formulas frustratingly irrational — just think of the advantages of “swallowing your pride” and thereby gaining major, even fatal concessions from the Israelis. But, at least when honor is at stake, the Arabs had to be more honest than their Western advisors counseled. Present themselves as a “secular, national liberation movement” aimed at liberating Arab land from the occupying colonialist, imperialist Israelis, even if that’s not what they were about…? No problem. As long as one could talk about occupied Palestine and mean “river to the sea,” there was no shame in letting eager cretins in the West believe that one meant the “Green line.”
The Oslo process forced Arafat to at least mouth in English and in public his willingness to accept Israel’s existence. There was a formal statement – the signing and hand-shaking on the White House lawn – that publicly accepted (from the Arab point of view) a humiliating stance. With Sadat’s fate in mind, Arafat was quick to reassure his Arabic and Muslim public that he didn’t mean this – the Trojan Horse speech in South Africa only months after the White House ceremony, in which he assured his public that this was only a ruse.
“I don’t consider the [Oslo] agreement any more than the agreement which was signed by our prophet Mohammed and the Qurayish,” he said.
“We” — and here I mean people like Peres, Rabin, Ross, Clinton et al. — were equally quick to ignore this critical revelation.
From the honor-shame perspective, Arafat had shamefully accepted a public compromise even though it meant he could better launch the promised offensive… the staged assault. Hamas represented the stance of the old PLO – point of honor: we won’t accept the right of Israel to exist, we will only destroy her. Part of what was so pathetic about the advent of Hamas to power in the elections was how eager the West was just to have Hamas mouth the “moderate” words in English that would allow them to turn on the funding and diplomatic spigots. They virtually handed Hamas the speech necessary to satisfy a Western community desperate to revive the “peace process.” And still, that was too much.
In a sense, the Arab sense of humiliation and the ersatz “honor” they “preserve” by rejecting Israel — which explains many of the pathologies of the Arab world today — makes much of their behavior irrational, even from the point of view of their own “interests.” They could have gotten far more in the way of fatal concessions from Israel had they been willing to “swallow their pride” even temporarily. But they could not do that publicly before the “Arab street.”
And so the major lesson from all of this — one learned and implemented by organizations like MEMRI and PMW — is that only what Arabs say in public and in Arabic matters. Private promises are useless; the “peer group” matters above all.
Mitos e Fatos - A verdade sobre o conflito árabe-israelense
Em 1957, Si Kenen começou a escrever e editar um boletim de notícias – Near East Report – para informar o público sobre os acontecimentos relacionados ao Oriente Médio. Grande parte daquilo que publicou era conhecido, mas ele sentiu necessidade de esclarecer ainda mais os leitores sobre o conflito árabe-israelense, com a finalidade de desfazer alguns mitos fabricados por aqueles que pretendiam reescrever a História com o objetivo de acomodá-la aos seus propósitos. Com esse objetivo, o Near East Report passou a divulgar pesquisas especiais a respeito dos temas pertinentes. Gradualmente, essas análises ganharam a dimensão de um livro intitulado Mitos e Fatos.
Os mitos sobre o Oriente Médio não se originaram na década de 1950 nem deixaram de ser divulgados. Os acontecimentos tumultuosos da região parecem estar invariavelmente acompanhados de toda sorte de novas distorções dos fatos relacionados ao conflito árabe-israelense. Com a permissão do Near East Research (Centro de Pesquisas do Oriente Próximo) e atendendo a numerosos apelos, a Organização de Cooperação EUA-Israel (AICE – American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) produziu uma versão atualizada desse texto clássico, cuja vantagem, com sua versão de apoio online na internet, é estar conectada via hiperlinks à vasta rede de recursos disponíveis em nossa Biblioteca Virtual Judaica e ser atualizada com os novos acontecimentos.
A resposta à nossa versão eletrônica tem sido fantástica e as pessoas passaram a solicitar exemplares impressos do texto; conseqüentemente, publicamos este livro como uma referência rápida e fácil. Recomendo que você adquira uma cópia para ter em mãos quando não puder ter à disposição o acesso online. Novos mitos que surgem após cada publicação do livro serão incorporados imediatamente, com os fatos correspondentes no site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
“A verdade”, afirmou Lord Acton, “é o único mérito que dá dignidade e valor à História”. As páginas que se seguem apresentam a verdade sobre o conflito árabe-israelense.
Esta é a melhor arma que temos contra os divulgadores de mentiras.
Mitchell G. Bard
Dezembro de 2002
http://www.uploading.com/files/1RAGYQGM/mitos_verdades_israel_palestina.pdf.html - Versão em português do Mitos e Fatos (download)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7VPFFRID - Versão em português do Mitos e Fatos (download)
Os mitos sobre o Oriente Médio não se originaram na década de 1950 nem deixaram de ser divulgados. Os acontecimentos tumultuosos da região parecem estar invariavelmente acompanhados de toda sorte de novas distorções dos fatos relacionados ao conflito árabe-israelense. Com a permissão do Near East Research (Centro de Pesquisas do Oriente Próximo) e atendendo a numerosos apelos, a Organização de Cooperação EUA-Israel (AICE – American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) produziu uma versão atualizada desse texto clássico, cuja vantagem, com sua versão de apoio online na internet, é estar conectada via hiperlinks à vasta rede de recursos disponíveis em nossa Biblioteca Virtual Judaica e ser atualizada com os novos acontecimentos.
A resposta à nossa versão eletrônica tem sido fantástica e as pessoas passaram a solicitar exemplares impressos do texto; conseqüentemente, publicamos este livro como uma referência rápida e fácil. Recomendo que você adquira uma cópia para ter em mãos quando não puder ter à disposição o acesso online. Novos mitos que surgem após cada publicação do livro serão incorporados imediatamente, com os fatos correspondentes no site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
“A verdade”, afirmou Lord Acton, “é o único mérito que dá dignidade e valor à História”. As páginas que se seguem apresentam a verdade sobre o conflito árabe-israelense.
Esta é a melhor arma que temos contra os divulgadores de mentiras.
Mitchell G. Bard
Dezembro de 2002
http://www.uploading.com/files/1RAGYQGM/mitos_verdades_israel_palestina.pdf.html - Versão em português do Mitos e Fatos (download)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7VPFFRID - Versão em português do Mitos e Fatos (download)
Monday, July 02, 2007
Colleges Score Perfect Grade In Liberal Bias
(Outing the Conservatives: Search Committees and the Failure of Academia in the 21st Century)
by Timothy R. Furnish
Investor’s Business Daily
June 29, 2007
I was cautiously optimistic that my quest to move from a community college to a four-year school might succeed this time. The gatekeepers at the annual conference of the American Historical Association, where thousands are interviewed but few are chosen, had seen fit to let me pass, and I was now on the campus of a large state university for round two.
Everything had gone well: my 75-minute PowerPoint lecture to a class studying early Islamic history, subsequent interviews with the department chair and dean — I was on a roll.
Then I was outed. During a meeting with the search committee, a professor produced irrefutable evidence that I “appeared to be more conservative than others in my field.”
Worse, the evidence gave him the weapon he needed to deliver the coup de grace: “You sounded like Daniel Pipes!”
Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, a think tank that seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East, and a widely published scholar on Middle East issues.
The professor had in hand a two-year-old article, titled “7 Myths about Islam,” that I wrote for the History News Network, a Web site run by George Mason University at which professional historians and history buffs read, write and debate myriad topics.
In the article, I argued against seven pious falsehoods about Islam that the mainstream media treat as historical facts: Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion; Islam was spread only through peaceful means; poverty produces Muslim terrorists; jihad does not mean holy war.
The committee member took particular offense at another myth I described as “a politically correct mendacity,” namely Tony Blair’s statement that on 9/11 Islam had been “hijacked by terrorists.” He even delivered a brief lecture on the definition of “mendacity” for my edification.
I pointed out the Quranic roots of violence and jihad and insisted that jihadists have firm Islamic roots for their lionization of violence. And I stated plainly (as I had in my lecture earlier that day) that the vast majority of Muslims don’t support a seventh-century interpretation of jihad.
In response to the offended academic’s demand that I fess up and call Christianity violent, I answered that Christians had indeed practiced violence throughout their history, but that to do so they had to contradict their founder, whereas Muslims had only to emulate theirs.
Further, I adduced my Middle East Quarterly article, “Beheading in the Name of Islam,” which traces the Quranic, Hadith and historical precedents for jihadist decapitations of non-Muslims.
Challenged by me to refute my work, the objecting professor sidestepped academic evidence — further indication that he lacked the ability to disprove my research. He did, however, betray his political agenda when he said, “Most of our students are conservative Christians who already hold a view of Islam and Muslims similar to yours.”
Was he suggesting that the role of the history professor is to disabuse his students of their religious beliefs — to transform them into reliable fellow travelers — rather than to engage them with solid research and teaching? If so, he needn’t look far for allies.
For another committee member objected that my research into Mahdist (Islamic messianic) movements presented Muslims as imperialists — never mind that the Ottomans were seen as such by co-religionists in Africa and Arabia. Her worldview, shaped by Edward Said’s notorious book “Orientalism,” would admit of only one kind of imperialism: Western.
No one involved in the selection process objected to the accusations that I was too conservative — too much like Daniel Pipes — to join their faculty. At this university, as at so many others, such charges are seen as rational objections to professional weaknesses, not as politicized protests against candidates who fail to pay proper obeisance to reigning pieties.
Before heading home I met again with the search chair, who tried in vain to assure me that the ideological litmus test I’d just failed in fact had never occurred. I asked her if she had ever heard a committee member accuse a candidate of being “more liberal than others in the field.” Of course she answered “never.” When the rejection letter arrived, it was hardly a shock.
I now have a personal story that backs up all the empirical studies documenting the bias against conservatives in the academy. If getting a Middle East or Islamic history job at a college or university means converting from following Bernard Lewis to the false messiah Edward Said, I won’t be changing jobs anytime soon. I only wish search committees would stop pretending that the diversity they seek is anything other than skin-deep.
Furnish is an assistant professor of history at Georgia Perimeter College in Dunwoody, Ga., and the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden (2005). He writes occasionally for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. His website is http://www.mahdiwatch.org/.
________________________________
What Me Worry? Buruma Tackles the Islamofascist Threat Darwish on Gaza: A Poet Looks into the Abyss »
by Timothy R. Furnish
Investor’s Business Daily
June 29, 2007
I was cautiously optimistic that my quest to move from a community college to a four-year school might succeed this time. The gatekeepers at the annual conference of the American Historical Association, where thousands are interviewed but few are chosen, had seen fit to let me pass, and I was now on the campus of a large state university for round two.
Everything had gone well: my 75-minute PowerPoint lecture to a class studying early Islamic history, subsequent interviews with the department chair and dean — I was on a roll.
Then I was outed. During a meeting with the search committee, a professor produced irrefutable evidence that I “appeared to be more conservative than others in my field.”
Worse, the evidence gave him the weapon he needed to deliver the coup de grace: “You sounded like Daniel Pipes!”
Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, a think tank that seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East, and a widely published scholar on Middle East issues.
The professor had in hand a two-year-old article, titled “7 Myths about Islam,” that I wrote for the History News Network, a Web site run by George Mason University at which professional historians and history buffs read, write and debate myriad topics.
In the article, I argued against seven pious falsehoods about Islam that the mainstream media treat as historical facts: Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion; Islam was spread only through peaceful means; poverty produces Muslim terrorists; jihad does not mean holy war.
The committee member took particular offense at another myth I described as “a politically correct mendacity,” namely Tony Blair’s statement that on 9/11 Islam had been “hijacked by terrorists.” He even delivered a brief lecture on the definition of “mendacity” for my edification.
I pointed out the Quranic roots of violence and jihad and insisted that jihadists have firm Islamic roots for their lionization of violence. And I stated plainly (as I had in my lecture earlier that day) that the vast majority of Muslims don’t support a seventh-century interpretation of jihad.
In response to the offended academic’s demand that I fess up and call Christianity violent, I answered that Christians had indeed practiced violence throughout their history, but that to do so they had to contradict their founder, whereas Muslims had only to emulate theirs.
Further, I adduced my Middle East Quarterly article, “Beheading in the Name of Islam,” which traces the Quranic, Hadith and historical precedents for jihadist decapitations of non-Muslims.
Challenged by me to refute my work, the objecting professor sidestepped academic evidence — further indication that he lacked the ability to disprove my research. He did, however, betray his political agenda when he said, “Most of our students are conservative Christians who already hold a view of Islam and Muslims similar to yours.”
Was he suggesting that the role of the history professor is to disabuse his students of their religious beliefs — to transform them into reliable fellow travelers — rather than to engage them with solid research and teaching? If so, he needn’t look far for allies.
For another committee member objected that my research into Mahdist (Islamic messianic) movements presented Muslims as imperialists — never mind that the Ottomans were seen as such by co-religionists in Africa and Arabia. Her worldview, shaped by Edward Said’s notorious book “Orientalism,” would admit of only one kind of imperialism: Western.
No one involved in the selection process objected to the accusations that I was too conservative — too much like Daniel Pipes — to join their faculty. At this university, as at so many others, such charges are seen as rational objections to professional weaknesses, not as politicized protests against candidates who fail to pay proper obeisance to reigning pieties.
Before heading home I met again with the search chair, who tried in vain to assure me that the ideological litmus test I’d just failed in fact had never occurred. I asked her if she had ever heard a committee member accuse a candidate of being “more liberal than others in the field.” Of course she answered “never.” When the rejection letter arrived, it was hardly a shock.
I now have a personal story that backs up all the empirical studies documenting the bias against conservatives in the academy. If getting a Middle East or Islamic history job at a college or university means converting from following Bernard Lewis to the false messiah Edward Said, I won’t be changing jobs anytime soon. I only wish search committees would stop pretending that the diversity they seek is anything other than skin-deep.
Furnish is an assistant professor of history at Georgia Perimeter College in Dunwoody, Ga., and the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden (2005). He writes occasionally for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. His website is http://www.mahdiwatch.org/.
________________________________
What Me Worry? Buruma Tackles the Islamofascist Threat Darwish on Gaza: A Poet Looks into the Abyss »
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Palestine - Partition and Propaganda
By David Singer
President Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stubbornly and foolishly continue to push for the creation of an independent Palestinian State between Israel and Jordan, as Hamas and Fatah turn the proposed site for such a state - Gaza and the West Bank - into battlegrounds of blood, misery and privation for the Arab populations caught in their deadly crossfire.
The 70th Anniversary of the Peel Commission Report released on 7 July 1937 presents a unique and impartial insight into understanding what the so called "Palestinian problem" was - and still is today - really about.
The Peel Commission recognised there was an insoluble conflict in Palestine between the Arabs and Jews necessitating the partition of Palestine into two independent sovereign states.
There was no mention of a third interested party - the "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people" - who also deserved a separate state. This "people" was the subsequent creation of skilful Arab propaganda in the 50's and 60's in response to Israel's creation in 1948.
The Peel Commission Report succinctly summed up the nature of the conflict in the following words:
In 1937 there was no independent State called Jordan. It was then called Trans-Jordan, it comprised 77% of the territory administered by Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - the operation of which was specifically the subject of inquiry and consideration by the Peel Commission .
The right of Jews to settle in Trans-jordan pursuant to the Mandate had been "postponed or withheld" by Britain with the consent of the League of Nations from 16 September 1922 thus restricting the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national homeland in only the remaining 23% of Palestine.
The Peel Report records that:
That concord never eventuated and Trans-Jordan remained an exclusively Arab reserved territory in 77% of Palestine - free of any Jewish settlement - until independence was granted by Great Britain in 1946 with the approval of the League of Nations at its last sitting before dissolution. No Jew resides there today.
The Peel Commission proposed partition into two independent Arab and Jewish sovereign States.
The Arab State was to be in all of Trans-Jordan - where no Jews and an estimated 300,000 Arabs lived - united with a further part of Palestine in which only about 1250 Jews lived among about 750000 Arabs. This would have given the Arabs a sovereign State in about 90% of the territory of the Mandate.
The remaining 10% was to become the sovereign Jewish State where about 400,000 Jews and 225,000 Arabs then lived, whilst a new Mandate was to be enacted "for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, to remove all anxiety lest the Holy Places should ever come under Jewish control."
Transfer of the minority population in each State was also proposed to follow the precedent set by the exchange between the Greek and Turkish populations following the Greco-Turkish War of 1922.
The Peel Report noted:
The Arabs rejected the proposal and therein sowed the seeds for the continuation of the conflict that still remains unresolved in 2007 in just the West Bank and Gaza - only 6% of Palestine - where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews .
President Bush and Mr Olmert need to recognise that the proposal to create a State between Israel and Jordan - the product of the totally discredited 1993 Oslo Process - has turned out to be a dismal failure and that it flies in the face of the conflict and its history, geography and demography.
Looking back 70 years can be the catalyst and inspiration for a new direction in 2007 which consigns the idea of a third State in former Palestine to the garbage bin and substitutes for it the partition of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel to finally complete what the Peel Commission had recommended.
Failure to change course will have only two assured outcomes - continued death and suffering for both Jews and Arabs and a continuing threat to world peace.
President Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stubbornly and foolishly continue to push for the creation of an independent Palestinian State between Israel and Jordan, as Hamas and Fatah turn the proposed site for such a state - Gaza and the West Bank - into battlegrounds of blood, misery and privation for the Arab populations caught in their deadly crossfire.
The 70th Anniversary of the Peel Commission Report released on 7 July 1937 presents a unique and impartial insight into understanding what the so called "Palestinian problem" was - and still is today - really about.
The Peel Commission recognised there was an insoluble conflict in Palestine between the Arabs and Jews necessitating the partition of Palestine into two independent sovereign states.
There was no mention of a third interested party - the "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people" - who also deserved a separate state. This "people" was the subsequent creation of skilful Arab propaganda in the 50's and 60's in response to Israel's creation in 1948.
The Peel Commission Report succinctly summed up the nature of the conflict in the following words:
"An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them.
Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State."
In 1937 there was no independent State called Jordan. It was then called Trans-Jordan, it comprised 77% of the territory administered by Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - the operation of which was specifically the subject of inquiry and consideration by the Peel Commission .
The right of Jews to settle in Trans-jordan pursuant to the Mandate had been "postponed or withheld" by Britain with the consent of the League of Nations from 16 September 1922 thus restricting the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national homeland in only the remaining 23% of Palestine.
The Peel Report records that:
"The articles of the Mandate concerning the [Jewish] National Home do not apply to Trans-Jordan and the possibility of enlarging the National Home by Jewish immigration into Trans-Jordan rests on the assumption of concord between Arabs and Jews."
That concord never eventuated and Trans-Jordan remained an exclusively Arab reserved territory in 77% of Palestine - free of any Jewish settlement - until independence was granted by Great Britain in 1946 with the approval of the League of Nations at its last sitting before dissolution. No Jew resides there today.
The Peel Commission proposed partition into two independent Arab and Jewish sovereign States.
The Arab State was to be in all of Trans-Jordan - where no Jews and an estimated 300,000 Arabs lived - united with a further part of Palestine in which only about 1250 Jews lived among about 750000 Arabs. This would have given the Arabs a sovereign State in about 90% of the territory of the Mandate.
The remaining 10% was to become the sovereign Jewish State where about 400,000 Jews and 225,000 Arabs then lived, whilst a new Mandate was to be enacted "for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, to remove all anxiety lest the Holy Places should ever come under Jewish control."
Transfer of the minority population in each State was also proposed to follow the precedent set by the exchange between the Greek and Turkish populations following the Greco-Turkish War of 1922.
The Peel Report noted:
"There was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to concede little Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia were free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now. In less than three years' time all the wide Arab area outside Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean will be independent, and, if Partition is adopted, the greater part of Palestine will be independent too. "The Report stated the advantages to the Arabs and the Jews of Partition in the following terms:
"The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be
summarized as follows:--(i) They obtain their national independence and can
co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in
the cause of Arab unity and progress.(ii) They are finally delivered from
the fear of being swamped by the Jews, and from the possibility of ultimate
subjection to Jewish rule.""The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be
summarized as follows:--(i) Partition secures the establishment of the
Jewish National Home and relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected
in the future to Arab rule.(ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest
sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish
State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they
themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of
Zionism--a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same
status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to
live a minority life."
The Arabs rejected the proposal and therein sowed the seeds for the continuation of the conflict that still remains unresolved in 2007 in just the West Bank and Gaza - only 6% of Palestine - where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews .
President Bush and Mr Olmert need to recognise that the proposal to create a State between Israel and Jordan - the product of the totally discredited 1993 Oslo Process - has turned out to be a dismal failure and that it flies in the face of the conflict and its history, geography and demography.
Looking back 70 years can be the catalyst and inspiration for a new direction in 2007 which consigns the idea of a third State in former Palestine to the garbage bin and substitutes for it the partition of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel to finally complete what the Peel Commission had recommended.
Failure to change course will have only two assured outcomes - continued death and suffering for both Jews and Arabs and a continuing threat to world peace.
Hitchens on Islamic Rage Boy
http://www.slate.com/id/2169020/
If you follow the link, you will be treated to some scenes from the strenuous life of a professional Muslim protester in the Kashmiri city of Srinagar. Over the last few years, there have been innumerable opportunities for him to demonstrate his piety and his pissed-offness. And the cameras have been there for him every time. Is it a fatwah? Is it a copy of the Quran allegedly down the gurgler at Guantanamo? Is it some cartoon in Denmark? Time for Rage Boy to step in and for his visage to impress the rest of the world with the depth and strength of Islamist emotion.
Last week, there was another go-round of this now-formulaic story, when Salman Rushdie accepted a knighthood from her majesty the queen, and the whole cycle of hysteria started up again. Effigies and flags burned (is there some special factory in Karachi that churns out the flags of democratic countries for occasions like this?), wounded screams from religious nut bags, bounties raised to suborn murder, and solemn resolutions passed by notional bodies such as the Pakistani “parliament.” A few months ago, it was the pope who was being threatened, and Christians in the Middle East and Muslim Asia who were actually being killed. Indeed, Rage Boy had a few yells and gibberings to offer on that occasion, too.
I have actually seen some of these demonstrations, most recently in Islamabad, and all I would do if I were a news editor is ask my camera team to take several steps back from the shot. We could then see a few dozen gesticulating men (very few women for some reason), their mustaches writhing as they scatter lighter fluid on a book or a flag or a hastily made effigy. Around them, a two-deep encirclement of camera crews. When the lights are turned off, the little gang disperses. And you may have noticed that the camera is always steady and in close-up on the flames, which it wouldn’t be if there was a big, surging mob involved.
If you follow the link, you will be treated to some scenes from the strenuous life of a professional Muslim protester in the Kashmiri city of Srinagar. Over the last few years, there have been innumerable opportunities for him to demonstrate his piety and his pissed-offness. And the cameras have been there for him every time. Is it a fatwah? Is it a copy of the Quran allegedly down the gurgler at Guantanamo? Is it some cartoon in Denmark? Time for Rage Boy to step in and for his visage to impress the rest of the world with the depth and strength of Islamist emotion.
Last week, there was another go-round of this now-formulaic story, when Salman Rushdie accepted a knighthood from her majesty the queen, and the whole cycle of hysteria started up again. Effigies and flags burned (is there some special factory in Karachi that churns out the flags of democratic countries for occasions like this?), wounded screams from religious nut bags, bounties raised to suborn murder, and solemn resolutions passed by notional bodies such as the Pakistani “parliament.” A few months ago, it was the pope who was being threatened, and Christians in the Middle East and Muslim Asia who were actually being killed. Indeed, Rage Boy had a few yells and gibberings to offer on that occasion, too.
I have actually seen some of these demonstrations, most recently in Islamabad, and all I would do if I were a news editor is ask my camera team to take several steps back from the shot. We could then see a few dozen gesticulating men (very few women for some reason), their mustaches writhing as they scatter lighter fluid on a book or a flag or a hastily made effigy. Around them, a two-deep encirclement of camera crews. When the lights are turned off, the little gang disperses. And you may have noticed that the camera is always steady and in close-up on the flames, which it wouldn’t be if there was a big, surging mob involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)