On March 30, Le Monde ran an article by Judea Pearl, the father of the journalist, Daniel Pearl, executed in Pakistan in 2002 by Jihadis specifically for the crime of being Jewish. His murderers produced a sophisticated video of his execution which they put on the web, in which they interwove pictures of Muhammad al Durah into the scenes of Pearl getting his throat slit. Thus, no stranger to the impact that viciously anti-Zionist media coverage can have on inciting Muslim violence, Pearl meditates on the sadistic torture and murder of Ilan Halimi.
Ilan Halimi, and the responsibility of society
by Judea PearlAs public debate of the brutal murder of Ilan Halimi settles into the usual ideological patterns, it is instructive to step back and reflect on the role of society in this tragedy.
In particular it is important to critically examine the role of the media in creating a climate where criminal gangs would target Jews over other preys, and where it becomes possible to torture of a human being in such blatant defiance of natural empathy.
Empathy, or the identification with ‘the other,’ requires that ‘the other’ be deemed equal in human qualities, as reflected in the dignity and respect that society extends to its members. Unfortunately, as a collective, Jews have not enjoyed standard norms of dignity and respect in French society — they have been defamed, villainized and dehumanized as no other group has.
Of course, only Israelis are dehumanized today in the French media, not all Jews, and French Jews are no longer resented for their religious belief, or for killing a deity; they are now villainized for one and only one crime: loving and caring for that “shitty little country,” as French Ambassador Bernard called Israel, a country that according to a 2005 survey, the majority of Europeans consider “the greatest threat to world’s peace”.
Ilan’s misfortune was that the gangsters of Bagneux were able to discover what every child in Europe knew all along — who causes the troubles in the world and who can be bashed with impunity.
By licensing unrestrained assaults against Israel and Zionism — two cherished symbols of French Jewry — and denying the Jewish community a fair opportunity to make the case for Israel, the media has effectively turned French Jewry into social outcasts. This, coupled with classical anti-semitic broadcasts pouring over from middle east channels, offers some explanation for the barbaric and inexplicable inhumanity of Ilan’s abductors.
Indeed, how can the residents of Bagneux respect the life of Ilan, if he cherishes the Magen David (Shield of David) — the most despised symbol in all of Europe, barring the Swastika. A symbol that, for over a decade, French media has refused to associate with any praise-worthy quality.
What empathy could Ilan expect from his abductors when the symbol of his identity evoked nothing but contempt in their Pavlovian brains.
How could they remain deaf, for 20 long days, to his infinite screams, blended with his mother’s pleas over the phone? Unless they convinced themselves that this young man deserved subhuman treatment, either by virtue of belonging to the “despised,” or as a cousin to those “monstrous Israeli soldiers” they repeatedly saw on TV, portrayed as faceless killers of Palestinian children.
Or, perhaps they were reminded of that video (now suspected of being a forgery) of the dying Palestinian child Muhammad Al Dura that France 2 was so eager to air on September 2000. Images that were taken and re-aired everywhere day after day, night after night, with stubbornness and perseverance that only bigotry can sustain. So eager in fact that it found its way to the hands of Daniel Pearl’s murderers in Pakistan, and was used in their gruesome video to justify the murder — a grim reminder of the consequences of irresponsible journalism.
It is safe for us to talk about the gangsters of Bagneux, not so safe to talk about the anti-Israel media. But, if the death of Ilan Halimi is to have a meaningful and permanent mark on our consciousness, it is vital that we examine all sacred pillars of society, especially those that mediate reality to us.
Those who spread combustible fuels knowing that lunatics are running around with lit matches cannot be totally exonerated from responsibility when fire breaks out.
Responsibility entails a conscious effort to stop the demonization of other societies, including Israel, to present their narratives with respect, and to genuinely portray the human face of their peoples. Current media practices are destructive to French society, not because they offend a large community of French citizens, but because the demonization of any collective unleashes the worst in society — barbarity is its first manifestation.
————————–
Judea Pearl is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, named after his son, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was murdered by terrorists in Pakistan, in February, 2002.
It would be harder to get more explicit about the role of the media in stirring up the hatred and violence. Pearl’s analogy is those who spread combustibles while lunatics run around with lit matches; mine is people sipping their anti-Judaic wine while offering an an open bar for 160 proof anti-Semitism. In either case, the French (and European) media deserve a heavy burden of culpability for their deeply irresponsible behavior, and Pearl does not mince words.
That Le Monde, a journal known for its arbitrary assaults on chosen targets, its virulent anti-Zionist coverage (to the point that it was successfully sued for an anti-Semitic editorial that appeared in its pages), would run a piece that excoriates the French media — and without naming it, Le Monde in particular — for contributing to the demonization of Israel, represents a singular event. Le Monde jealously guards its pages from articles (even advertisements) that go counter to the editorial slant they favor. (In France there is no real distinction between news and editorial writing.)
So it is not only a giant step for them to publish this article (which, at least, they translated in wooden prose that blunts the vigor of the author’s English), but even greater for them to even mention that the Al Durah affair is contested.
Why did Le Monde run the article? Could we have a phenomenon similar to what happened to the Dutch press after the murder of Theo Van Gogh, in which opinion that never would have made it into the MSM all of a sudden found expression? Or is a one-shot deal — waking up to the problem, a quick mea culpa followed by a return to slumber?
Just a little footnote about Ambassadeur Bernard.
He was, I believe educated at Lyon 3 UNIVERSITY in the 70s. This is where notorious holocaust denier Faurisson taught and was at the time the centre of Holocaust revisionism in France. Note that students were encouragd to study holocaust revisionism and given incentives to undertake such work.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
He is a classic example of the product of universities that are allwed to follow unchecked political agendas.
As far as I can tell the only people speaking up for poor old European Civilization are the Jews, such as Pascale Bouchner (RL, thanks for the correct name)
that’s Bruckner, and he has a book in translation: The Tears of the White Man: Compassion as Contempt. and i’m not aware that he is Jewish.
and A. Finkielkraut, who caught holy hell from the Korreckt Thinkers a few months ago. It’s all getting curious and curiouser.
there are others who are not Jewish, like Guy Milliere. But it’s easy for the French to dismiss all the warnings as Jewish communitarianism demonizing Muslims to get their way with Israel.
Bruckner. Thanks for the correction. The other day I reread Gibbon on the fall of Constantinople. Plenty of wealth, culture and functionaries, but a fatal shortage in birthrate and soldiers. Also, a perverse refusal to identify the real threat until it was too late. Perhaps blogs like yours will pound some sense into modern Byzantine noggins.