By Robert Fisk, 17 April 2001, When Journalists Refuse to tell the Truth

[bloom]

When Journalists Refuse to tell the Truth about Israel
'Fear of being slandered as "anti-Semites" means we are abetting terrible deeds in the Middle East

By Robert Fisk
17 April 2001
From: Independent.co.uk

What if we had supported the apartheid regime of South Africa against the majority black population? What if we had lauded the South African white leadership as "hard-line warriors" rather than racists? What if we had explained the shooting of 56 black protesters at Sharpeville as an understandable "security crackdown" by the South African police. And described black children shot by the police as an act of "child sacrifice" by their parents? What if we had called upon the "terrorist" ANC leadership to "control their own people".

Almost every day that is exactly the way we are playing the Israeli-Palestinian war. No matter how many youths are shot dead by the Israelis, no matter how many murders – by either side – and no matter how bloody the reputation of the Israeli Prime Minister, we are reporting this terrible conflict as if we supported the South African whites against the blacks. No, Israel is not South Africa (though it happily supported the apartheid regime) and no, the Palestinians are not the blacks of the shanty towns. But there's not much difference between Gaza and the black slums of Johannesburg; and there's not much difference between the tactics of the Israeli army in the occupied territories and that of the South African police. The apartheid regime had death squads, just as Israel has today. Yet even they did not use helicopter gunships and missiles.

Rarely since the Second World War has a people been so vilified as the Palestinians. And rarely has a people been so frequently excused and placated as the Israelis. Israeli embassies are now buttonholing editors around the world, saying that it's not fair to call Israel's Prime Minister "hard-line". And the reporters are falling into line.><

As that brave American writer Charley Reese said in his regular US column, the Israelis "have created their own unconquerable enemy". They have made the Palestinians so crushed, so desperate, so humiliated that they have nothing to lose. We, too, have done this. Our gutlessness, our refusal to tell the truth, our fear of being slandered as "anti-Semites" – the most loathsome of libels against any journalist – means that we are aiding and abetting terrible deeds in the Middle East. Maybe we should look up those cuttings of the apartheid era and remember when men were not without honor.

http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/54/

--------

If that was the case in April of 2001 - how much more is that the case now. In fact, you rarely hear about Israel & the Palestinians anymore. With Iraq and all.

Only now it's, "Rarely since the Second World War has a people been so vilified as the <people from the Middle East>".

[H5N1]

1. Fisk is one of the very best!

[question everything]

2. Interesting, nothing about the pre-1867 Palestinians ever raised

anyone conscience. The fact that they lived in conditions similar to the " black slums of Johannesburg." No one ever complained about the huge amount of UN funds spent on the refugees of the West Bank and Gaza - for nothing. And, of course, nothing about the Jewish refugees from the Arab Countries who chose not to remain refugees but to become regular citizens in the new state.

And nothing about the Palestinian terrorist activities going back to 1929 before, as some claim, the "learned it" from the Israelis. What a preposterous, twisted claim.

And why now? Why when Sharon did acknowledge that Israel cannot rule over other people against their will; at least he learns from his mistake. Why now, when Israel is getting ready to withdraw from Gaza. What kind of twisted mind do some people have here that they cannot shit in peace without regurgitate their bile on Israel?

I don't remember who Robert Fisk is. Was he the one who, like Lawrence of Arabia, felt some hidden pleasure when was strip searched in Afghanistan?

[bloom]

4. I'm assuming you mean 1967?

I probably wouldn't have thought about it except some people have been so adamant about nobody mentioning Israel - getting threads deleted and and insisting sites not be referenced if they ever have mentioned anything about Israel that they didn't like.

And then there is the recent wave of anti-Muslim-semitism. And we are not supposed to reference sites that are sympathetic to Muslims (according to some people).

Maybe it's like not discussing politics with your relatives because if you did you would all hate each other.

So here we are and we can't discuss politics or propaganda.

[geek tragedy]

5. I don't recall anyone saying that anti-Israel sites are off-limits.

Just ones that don't like "the Jews."

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Sources

I have yet to see anyone calling for no mention of Israel. Many posts about Israel and her problems are legitimate, but some are not. Should the latter be allowed?

What is "anti-Muslim-semitism?" Are you talking about anti-Muslim 'sentiment?' Anti-Semitism only refers to discrimination against Jews. It has noting to do really with the etymology of the word "Semitic." The term was coined in the late 1800's to specifically discuss prejudice and bigotry directed at Jews. By all conventional definitions, anti-Semitism only deals with prejudice against Jews. I find it interesting that you suggest it is de riguer to reference sites sympathetic to Muslims, I find it is the same when referencing sites sympathetic toward Jews.

Also, propaganda does not only come from one side. So why is it verboten to point it out when the propaganda is aimed at Israel or Jews?

[question everything]

12. Yes, sorry, 1967.

And here are reports about how the European media has been reporting about Israel, some of it, clearly, is old-fashioned European anti-Semitic that found a new outlet. Yes, from a recent WSJ report however the specifics can be checked and validated:

The libels and distortions about Israel in some British media are by now fairly well known: the Guardian's equation of Israel and al Qaeda; the Evening Standard's equation of Israel and the Taliban; the report by the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, on how "the Israelis stole Christmas." Most notorious of all is the Independent's Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, who specializes in such observations as his comment that, "If ever a sword was thrust into a military alliance of East and West, the Israelis wielded that dagger," and who implies that the White House has fallen into the hands of the Jews: "The Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens... very sinister people hovering around Bush."

The invective against Israel elsewhere in Europe is less well known. In Spain, for example, on June 4, 2001 (three days after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 21 young Israelis at a disco, and wounded over 100 others, all in the midst of a unilateral Israeli ceasefire), the liberal daily Cambio 16 published a cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with a hook nose he does not have), wearing a skull cap (which he does not usually wear), sporting a swastika inside a star of David on his chest, and proclaiming: "At least Hitler taught me how to invade a country and destroy every living insect."

In October 2001, the Web site of one of Italy's most respected newspapers, La Repubblica, published the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in its entirety, without providing any historical explanation. It did suggest, however, that the work would help readers understand why the U.S. had taken military action in Afghanistan.

In April 2002, the Italian liberal daily La Stampa ran a front-page cartoon showing an Israeli tank, emblazoned with a Jewish star, pointing a large gun at the baby Jesus in a manger, while the baby pleads, "Surely they don't want to kill me again, do they?"

In Corriere Della Sera, another cartoon showed Jesus trapped in his tomb, unable to rise, because Ariel Sharon, rifle in hand, is sitting on the sepulcher.

If the misreporting and bias were limited to one or two newspapers or television programs in each country, it might be possible to shrug them off. But they are not. Bashing Israel even extends to local papers that don't usually cover foreign affairs, such as the double-page spread titled "Jews in jackboots" in "Luton on Sunday." (Luton is an industrial town in southern England.) Or the article in Norway's leading regional paper, Stavanger Aftenblad, equating Israel's actions against terrorists in Ramallah with the attacks on the World Trade Center.

[bloom]

13. The WSJ

supports torture and Bush and all of that - so what they say doesn't carry any weight with me.

From what I hear - people in Europe do tend to have a less favorable view of what has been going on in Israel than people in the US - so I expect that they do get far different coverage. Of course people in Europe have a different view about Iraq as well. They also seem to be more aware about what the WTO and the World Bank and other such entities are doing elsewhere in the world - so that is not a surprise.

Democracy Now had on their show today - "Three Women, Palestinian Christian, Muslim and Israeli Jew on Life Under Occupation". I find these discussions to be interesting. I went to a forum with 3 different women from the area a year or two ago. It's nice to hear Jewish people sympathetic to Palestinians. You don't get that in the US media much.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/18/136258

[question everything]

14. Thank you for the link. I am familiar with the radio and TV stations

that carry the programs but was not aware of the specific time slots.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. You hear correctly

The ADL just released a report on surveys done here in the US and in 10 European countries. The opinions are very different. The survey is here...http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4752_62.htm . You can view the actual breakdown and questions and more analysis on the right-hand side bar.

[geek tragedy]

3. I agree that there is a lot to criticize about Israel's treatment

of the Palestinians. I also think that it's not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for this activity--so long as it is measured and reasonable (as opposed to Holocaust comparisons).

The South Africa comparison is a bit inapt, but forgivable considering that the Israeli right wants Israel to be like South Africa.

He may have a point regarding Israel in the English language press, but on the other hand it's equally difficult for journalists in places like Pakistan or Egypt to be anything but rabidly anti-Israel and ignore the complexities.

[sendero]

6. "a lot to criticize"..

... is the understatement of the century.

And the U.S. is following firmly in Israel's footsteps, and will get the same lesson and the same results.

[bloom]

10. "He may have a point regarding Israel in the English language press..."

I think it seems to me like the press does not so much act like Israel is the victim anymore - like when so many thought that more Israelis were victims than Palestinians. (I think that is what surprised me to see people trying to limit criticism of Israel - do some people still think that Israel is the victim now?)

Now we hear of the suicide bombers in Iraq and we don't hear about how many the Americans are killing.

What seems different to me from other situations in other parts of the world is that the US is being asked to accept what we are doing in Iraq - just like the US has been expected to accept what the Israelis have been doing.

There are many situations going on around the world where indigenous people are being displaced. But we aren't asked to accept it as much as we just don't hear about it.

------

I did a search for news in Israel and (besides news about Gaza and the pullout problems) - this came up (going back to Fisk's point) ->

"...In the week before the Netanya bombing, Noor Faris Njem, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, was killed by Israeli occupation forces in an unprovoked attack on the Balata refugee camp on the outskirts of Nablus. Njem was shot in the head when Israeli troops entered the refugee camp on July 6 and began firing on unarmed civilians.

Two days later, two teenage boys from Balata were also shot by Israeli troops, including 16-year-old Khalid Mohammed Msyme, who later died from his injuries.

According to a report issued by the Palestinian State Information Service on June 8, during the first four months of Israel's “cease-fire”, Israeli occupation forces killed 38 Palestinians and wounded 411 others, while another 988 Palestinian civilians were arrested.

In direct violation of the cease-fire, Israeli occupation forces had also conducted almost 2000 incursions into Palestinian cities and villages, as well as at least 1100 raids on Palestinian houses. During the same period, 1306 checkpoints and roadblocks were also set up and at least 3380 hectares of Palestinian land was seized by the Israeli occupation forces...."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/634/634p18.htm

[bloom]

7. Juan Cole does a good job

of explaining the Likud apologists - I don't have to agree with his conclusions. I don't think it's any random coincidence that Israel and the Palestinians have been less of a focus since Bush&Co. took office.



"AIPAC's Overt and Covert Ops"

August 30, 2004

by Juan Cole

"...The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel, and used to give money evenhandedly inside the U.S. My perception is that during the past decade AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political Right in the United States. In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director, Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and "associates" (Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are among the latter).

WINEP, being a wing of AIPAC, is enormously influential in Washington. State Department and military personnel are actually detailed there to "learn" about "the Middle East"! They would get a far more balanced "education" about the region in any Israeli university, since most Israeli academics are professionals, whereas WINEP is a "think tank" that hires by ideology.

I did some consulting with one U.S. company that had a government contract, and they asked me about WINEP position papers (many of them are just propaganda). When I said I would take them with a grain of salt, the guy said his company had "received direction" to pay a lot of attention to the WINEP material! So discipline is being imposed even on the private sector.

Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the U.S. and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not. And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigoted against Latinos...."

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

[geek tragedy]

9. Cole understands the difference between Likudniks on one hand

and Zionists/supporters of Israel on the other.

Too many on both the right and the left lack such clarity.

[Jim Sagle]

11. Fisk is a bitter partisan. He is no journalist.