A number of commenters at this site have speculated on the possible response by Enderlin (and France2 and all the others for whom Al Durah is a valuable icon) to the claim that this is staged — maybe, but it’s accurate. As Enderlin put it so succinctly in an interview, the reason that he believed Talal was because:
…pour moi, l’image correspondait à la réalité de la situation non seulement à Gaza, mais aussi en Cisjordanie. [For me, the image corresponded to the reality of the situation not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.]
Now anyone who looks either at the footage from Reuters and from France2 (soon) from that day, can see that the Gaza Strip — certainly Netzarim Junction, which was by all accounts the flashpoint) was not in a violent uproar, but rather the scene of extensive, leisurely and joking, staged scenes of fake action. All Enderlin had to do was look at his own cameraman’s evidence to know this was not the case.
But Enderlin had spent so much time using Talal’s work that he couldn’t even see what was going on. Here was Talal, taking shot after shot of fake action, which Enderlin knew happened all the time, and for 12 years he had worked in full confidence for his boss at France2. In explaining why he ran Talal’s version of events Enderlin notes in the same article:
D’abord, parce que, au moment de la diffusion, le correspondant de France 2 à Gaza, Talal, qui a filmé la scène, indiquait que tel était le cas. Là, je dois répéter que, journaliste reporteur d’images, Talal travaille en toute confiance pour notre chaîne depuis 1988. Dans les jours suivants, d’autres témoignages - de journalistes et de certaines sources - sont venus me confirmer les faits.
[First of all, because at the time of the broadcast, the correspondent for France2 in Gaza, Talal, who filmed the scene, said that it (i.e., Israeli fire) was the case. On that subject, I have to repeat that, journalist and reporter of images, Talal works in complete confidence for our channel since 1988. In subsequent days other testimony — from journalists (all Palestinian) and certain sources (UN?) confirmed the facts (sic).]
So this cameraman, who had worked for him for 12 years, and was still sending him 99.44% pure Pallywood footage, worked for him in complete confidence. What kind of a fool is Enderlin?
But let’s return to the question of “fake but accurate” which so many people have raised with me (both those hostile to Israel and those afraid of bringing up the issue again: “So what if it’s a fake? The Israelis have killed hundreds of children.”) This is, by the way, the operating principle of Pallywood. As the PA TV official explained to Esther Schapira, they inserted an Israeli soldier from another day into the footage to make it look like he shot Al Durah in cold blood, because:
These are forms of artistic expression, but all of this serves to convey the truth… We never forget our higher journalistic principles to which we are committed of relating the truth and nothing but the truth.
In addition to the obvious response, that it’s not the journalist’s job to tell us his myth, but to report accurately, the scandal here is that Enderlin didn’t report the news, he made the news.
First, in this specific case, what Enderlin did was not to reflect “reality” but shape it. The riots and rage that this image provoked were immediate — within Israel itself, an unprecedented development — and enduring. Like so much of the PC logic about the “occupation” as the origin of the problem, this PC image of the Palestinian David and the Israeli Goliath, already firmly imbedded in the coverage of the previous day’s rioting in the West Bank, puts the cart before the horse. But don’t expect a man of Enderlin’s callibre to take responsibility for his disastrous error. On the contrary, he ends his response to the criticism of Leconte and Jeambar with the following line:
lors de la réalisation de son reportage, un journaliste doit-il tenir compte de l’usage malhonnête qui pourrait en être fait ultérieurement par des groupes extrémistes ? Une telle exigence signifierait une inacceptable censure à la source.
[When a journalist is preparing a report, should he consider the dishonest use that could be made later by extremist groups? Such a demand would be an inacceptable censure at the source.]
Well, if Charles had reported that reports claimed the firing came from the Israeli side, but that nothing in the footage which he had dutifully examined supported that, he might have a case. But instead he reported Talal’s blood libel: “the boy and his father were the target of fire coming from the Israeli position. For that he had no support but his “trusted” Talal, and if he couldn’t anticipate the use to which it would be put by certain extremist groups (including by Talal), then he doesn’t understand the region about which he has been reporting on for the last few decades.
Enderlin’s book about the Oslo “Peace Process” is entitled Le Rêve Brisé (translated into English as Shattered Dreams. He helped shatter them.
It was just as I expected: These journalists think they’re framing the guilty party. The immediate reportage may be staged, but they reflect real events that happen beyond the cameras.
Of course, if these events were so common, why would there have to be a Pallywood to invent them. I understand that major MSM newsmen won’t be around when individual cases of abuse happens, but there could be private cameramen, acting more discreetly, who could still get a lot of honest footage. Presumably.
I am totally confused about what’s going on in Israel/Palestine, because both sides seem prone to exagerate. The pro-Palestinian side speak of house demolitions, but the Israels say it’s to destroy tunnels or arms depots. The pro-Palestinians say that the roadblocks are oppression, but the Israelis say that they’re essential to security, and that they’re being dismantled whenever possible. The pro-Palestinians mention the wall, the Israelis speak of the fence. The pro-Palestinians speak of the shooting of children and the humiliation of adults, but the Israelis say it doesn’t happen like that.
I just wish I could figure out where the truth lies. Somewhere in between, I suppose, but would that be closer to the Palestinian or to the Israeli version of things.
Comment by Joanne — October 5, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Richard, if the fake is exposed through this court process, I think the world’s response will be entirely predictable. There will be some tut-tutting about the inadvisability of faking the incident, then a great big BUT, and then the line will be ‘well, the Israelis routinely kill Palestinian children [insert figures from B’Tselem here]so while the Palestinians shouldn’t have faked the pictures, you can hardly blame them and anyway, false though it was, it serves to illustrate a greater truth’.
Fake but accurate, as you say.
Not but what efforts should not continue to expose this affair, and kusos to you and the others who have fought for so long to do so. But I’m pessimistic about the outcome. And I doubt it will make the slightest impression in the Muslim world, except as evidence of yet another Zionist conspiracy.
rl: you’re assuming an inert public. i think it’s different today from 2000 when your comments do apply. i even think in the muslim world there are many who now realize that far more muslims are the target of suicide bombings than any other group including (esp) jews, the first major victims. this blood libel exposed could be a weapon in their hands.
i know that sounds utopian (flakey), but in a sense, the shape of the 21st century (3rd millennium) will depend on how well we learn as a civic culture to turn around blood libels. no better and more powerful one to start with than this one.
that’s why i’m so “dogged”.
Comment by Rob — October 5, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
RL,
I agree with every word you wrote in this posting. but the reality is that these are inconvenient facts to acknowledge for both the media and its audience. i suspect that this is a major underlying reasons why enderlin permitte himself to do what he did. he knew that the picture he provided would fit the preconceptions of the audience.
joanne,
you don’t know where the truth is? in the middle? you can’t be serious. on scales of 1-10 where would you position the reliability of the pals and the israelis?
once in a while, given their circumstances, israelis fuck up and even then they don’t always try to cover it up. the pals, otoh, almost always lie.
rob,
exactly my take on it.
Comment by fp — October 6, 2007 @ 12:11 am
Isn’t fake but accurate simply a subspecies and common variant of a pomo narrative qua truth? Yes, essentially, it is. Hence proving ideas matter and they matter at constitutional (informally understood) levels, thus at formidable levels. That, in ways that can only be generally and suggestively articulated, needs to be taken into account when attempting to redress both general and specific (as with Al Durah) instances of the phenomena in question. In can certainly be over-stated and exaggerated, but so much of this does in fact reflect Rortian, Gramscian, et al. initiatives, in the sense that all of that provides critical foundations and backdrop to the details of what is occurring here more specifically with Al Durah.
It isn’t that such sociological and philosophical themes need to be addressed, for example when specific situations such as Al Durah are being addressed, rather it’s more as if those underlying themes need to be “earmarked” and kept in mind, to help enable better informed commentaries and critiques.
Comment by Michael B — October 6, 2007 @ 3:26 am
“fake but accurate” reflects enderlin’s (and the MSM’s in general) sense that the public has decided who the villain is in the conflict and wants the media to confirm that, not to question it.
in fact, the media is an integral part of the society of which the readers are and therefore suffer from the same preconceptions as the public. thus, there is a vicious circle: the media reinforces public attitudes and the public incentivizes the media to do it.
Comment by fp — October 6, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
I am totally confused about what’s going on in Israel/Palestine, because both sides seem prone to exagerate. The pro-Palestinian side speak of house demolitions, but the Israels say it’s to destroy tunnels or arms depots. The pro-Palestinians say that the roadblocks are oppression, but the Israelis say that they’re essential to security, and that they’re being dismantled whenever possible. The pro-Palestinians mention the wall, the Israelis speak of the fence. The pro-Palestinians speak of the shooting of children and the humiliation of adults, but the Israelis say it doesn’t happen like that.
This is one time I can appreciate fp’s frustration.
Joanne, please go and read up on the facts. Many commenting on this site have replied time after time with facts and links to them in the hope that readers would take notice.
Obviously you are in a quandary because you appear to have relied strictly on the “False but Accurate” lame stream media.
Did you not pay attention when the Israelis stopped a young kid at a roadblock and removed an explosive belt he was wearing only to be castigated by the media for the indignities the Palestinian suffered? The explosives in baby strollers detected at roadblocks?The ambulances with explosives under stretchers/gurneys, at roadblocks, and so on ad nauseum?
The Israelis speak of the fence becuase only some 10% is a wall to prevent sniper fire from the other side.
Did you not pay attention when the Palestinians were using the upper floors of houses in Christian towns to fire into Jewish homes in Jerusalem?
And how many Israeli soldiers were killed in one incident in Jenin when they went to attend to a crying Palestinian 10 year old who was rigged with explosives?
And the houses that were booby trapped with women and children inside in the “great Jenin massacre”?
because both sides seem prone to exagerate.
What, the Israelis have produced the equivalent of Pallywood?
Comment by Cynic — October 6, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Cynic, I’ve paid attention to all that. But I’ve paid attention to the counter arguments, as well. Something that maybe you should try.
Comment by Joanne — October 6, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
joanne,
excuse me, but this is pure bullshit. you just don’t get it.
the point is that when one listens to the other side one hears and sees constant lying. thats what you refuse to accept because in your western mind this cannot really happen. but it does in the middle east. and unless and until you learn to follow the evidence to where it leads you. you’re grinding water.
Comment by fp — October 6, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Joanne, the side you cite as the Israeli version provides the ‘facts’ as I understand them, except your last point:
‘The pro-Palestinians speak of the shooting of children and the humiliation of adults, but the Israelis say it doesn’t happen like that.’
Where the Israelis detect children AND adults engaged in terrorist activity or launching Qassams against civilian targets,they do shoot them. The Israelis don’t deny it. As for humiliation, yes, the Palestinians complain of humiliation at the checkpoints, but those are established to prevent terrorists, especially suicide bombers, getting into Israel. You may have seen the story a few weeks ago about two women, one of them pregnant, who were prevented from carrying out a suicide mission in Israel.
Comment by Rob — October 6, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
the core root of the conflict is humiliation. it is the humiliation that arabs suffer from the fact that against the odds, israelis have managed to wipe the floor with them AND create a successful society in the bargain, something which the arabs do not possess anywhere.
the sheer existence and success of israel causes them shame. their whole narrative is driven by their shame: their leaders ran away in 1948 and then most did. this is such a huge shame that they invented the naqba to cover up for that shame — a lie with which current generations were so indoctrinated that they believe it to be the truth.
fundamentally the problem is that arab/muslim culture and religion do not allow them to modernize and progress (even when they have tons of money). that causes acute envy and cognitive dissonance, because while islam tells them they’re superior and must dominate, the reality is that they are a pathetic failure. hence islamism, jihad and all their crap: they cannot compete with the west, so they must destroy it.
it is not israel that brought them to the point of humiliation. they did it themselves and systematically. but their culture and religion does not let them realize and accept that, draw the proper conclusion and change course.
Comment by fp — October 7, 2007 @ 12:58 am
Yes, I think that’s right, fp. Even Arab liberals look around the ME, see failed or failing Arab states, see stagnant economies, tyrannical governments, and lack of political freedoms in their backyards - then they look over the border and see Israel has achieved everything they have failed to accomplish, and more. And Israel did it against all odds, in the teeth of would-be annihilating wars and sustained waves of terrorism not experienced by any other country. Yet it still remains the most successful enterprise in nation-building since WWII, surpassing (I would argue) even Singapore. That’s what the Arabs will never forgive Israel for: their own failure.
Comment by Rob — October 7, 2007 @ 1:48 am
I’d like to think that it was only that Israel is humiliating the Arabs by doing so well, but I doubt it. As much as the Palestinians pose a genuine danger to the Israelis–and I readily subscribe to that view–I’m not ready to believe that all claims of oppression under the occupation are lies. That’s simply wishful thinking.
The examples given in comments #5 and #8 are all well-taken, but I’m sure that (Pallywood aside) there are plenty of examples that are just as compelling of abuses suffered by the Arabs at the hands of the Israelis. I wish it weren’t so, but you cannot dismiss the fact that the occupation is a tragedy. The ultimate tragedy is that it is impossible for Israel to extricate itself without putting itself in danger, because of the eliminationist ideology of Hamas and the PA. It’s a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Comment by Joanne — October 7, 2007 @ 1:55 am
Joanne, the problem is that “the occupation” encompasses the simple fact of Israel’s existence. To Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah, that fact constitutes “the occupation”. They don’t just want the territories back (they got them, at least administratively, under Oslo anyway). They want ISRAEL back.
Comment by Rob — October 7, 2007 @ 2:14 am
Yeah, Rob, but you’re sidestepping the issue. I know that Hamas, the PA, etc. see all of “Palestine” as occupied. I realize that they want to use the issue of human rights, not to win human rights, but as a ploy to get all the land.
But in the area that the world defines as being occupied, i.e., the West Bank, there are abuses. I understand that a lot of claims of oppression are made in bad faith…but that doesn’t mean that no such incidents occur.
Comment by Joanne — October 7, 2007 @ 2:36 am
Joanne, the West Bank PA-administered electoral boundaries are shown <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palestine_election_map.PNG” here.
The West Bank remains subject to IDF incursions for security reasons. The Gaza Strip, of course, has been free of IDF presence for two years, apart from Operation Summer Rains (sparked by Gazan cross-border attacks and soldier kidnappings).
What occupation?
I’m happy to be corrected on this score.
Comment by Rob — October 7, 2007 @ 2:59 am
here.
Comment by Rob — October 7, 2007 @ 3:01 am
Sorry, I stuffed up the HTML.
Comment by Rob — October 7, 2007 @ 3:02 am
rob,
you got it.
joanne,
i don’t think I ever said that there are no examples of oppression by israel. but:
1. relative to what the arabs do to themselves, they are nothing
2. israelis would be insane if after 60 years of constant hatred and murder they would not feel once in a while the need to respond in kind. what’s amazing is that they manage to keep it to such a minimum. no other nation, including the US, would manage such a feat. in fact, that’s why the left hate it: because they realize that what Israel did they could not ever.
3. Even in most cases where pals are humiliated it is mainly a consequence of their own behavior. without the daily terror they would not be in the circumstances in which they find themselves.
what you are doing, without realizing it, is applying double standards. let me ask you: what do you think would have been the consequences had the two sides switched positions? the genocide would be blamed on the israelis who “brought it on themselves”. wanna bet?
No Joanne, you sidestep the issue, because you refuse to accept the notion that there is blame mainly on one side and that NO MATTER WHAT THE ISRAELIS DO, they wwill never be accepted. The more they compromise and are nice, the more it is interpreted as weakness. which invites more attacks and rejection. Your western mind is simply incapable of comprehending the arab/muslim culture, no matter how much evidence you are faced with.
In fact, there is no such thing as pals. They never existed as a nation and no arab country accepted that notion. The arabs had the territories before they were taken by israel and they had no intention to create a pal state. most of the arabs who lived in israel before 1948 were arabs from the arab countrie who immigrated to the area of israel to take advantage of the jewish development. the notion of a pal people is an arab invention to use against israel.
israel has been blackmailed into recognizing the pal people for a state. it is a total lie. the territories were taken from attcking ARAB COUNTRIES, not from palestinians. they are not occuppied, they are won in a self-defense war. to the winner the spoils. any other occuppier would have done MUCH, MUCH worse.
so pls spare me the western liberal equivalence crap. the pals get MUCH, MUCH less than what they deserve as genocidal maniacs.
Comment by fp — October 7, 2007 @ 11:54 am
fp, I don’t agree at all that the public’s prejudices dictate the content of reporting. In fact, an anti-Israel psychological warfare campaign has been going on against Israel since 1948, especially since 1967. This is a Western –mainly British– led campaign. Reporters are sent to the Middle East [not only to Israel] after having been indoctrinated [maybe not every single one].
Joanne, the very notion of a “palestinian people” is a psywar construct planned, conceived –in my informed opinion– first of all by British psywar experts. The aim of psywar is to shape or even reshape public opinion –or to create a public view of a certain issue or situation where no view existed before. This was going on back in the 50s, although the superficial observer may have felt that the Media of that time were pro-Israel. All sorts of anti-Israel themes were being played –introduced into “news” coverage– even then.
The Arabs can be very talented folks. So they learned psywar techniques from their Western supporters and sponsors. Consider the courses in PR in behalf of the Arab cause which are given at the PASSIA institution in Jerusalem, with the help of BBC journalists, by the way. As far as I know, Sa’eb Erikat & Hanan Ashrawi were trained there [also see David Bedein’s website on this]. Pallywood is a rather sloppy operation, so it was easily exposed once some serious people [including RL, Luc Rosenzweig, etc] started to look into it. Yet the PLO/PA knew that they could get away with almost any fraud because the Western MSM [the old USSR is not around anymore] would accept almost any fraud, when they were not involved in the hoaxes themselves. Consider the BBC’s [especially the bbc’s] acceptance of the Jenin massacre hoax, as well as the Al-Durah Affair.
So to fp I deny that the “public” dictates to the MSM. What happens is that psywar operatives must shape their messages to what the target public already thinks or believes. Do you recall the old pro-Nazi line of the ACLU [american civil liberties union]? I remember hearing an ACLU spokeswoman explain on the radio [circa 30 years ago] that “persons calling themselves Nazis” are trying to get a permit for an assembly in a public park. Note, they aren’t really Nazis, they only “call themselves Nazis.” That is an example of a psywar tactic, which seems to succeed to take in some people. The example does not directly involve Israel, but does have implications for all Jews and Israel. The same tactic is used by walt-mearsheimer. In their new anti-Israel tract, they admit that “some” Arab leaders were saying back in 1947-48, “We will throw the Jews into the sea.” But then, w-m claim that they really didn’t mean it because they [Arab leaders] knew that they couldn’t defeat Israel. Not even in 1948 when the Arab states belonging to the Arab League were established states, able to buy heavy weapons and import them, whereas Israel was prevented by British forces still in the country from bringing in heavy weapons, unless they could be smuggled past the British. See link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/gem-of-absurdity-from-walt-mearsheimer.html
This is just one reason for seeing w-m’s book as ridiculous, as rather transparent propaganda. But here I agree with fp. In the last 40 years, the standards of public education, of general historical knowledge [and about Jewish, Israeli & Arab history in particular], of reasoning ability, etc. have gone down drastically in “civilized” Western countries. This too is much the result of policy. And this lowered intellectual capacity in Western countries, including the USA, makes masses of people more susceptible to even shallow propaganda.
Joanne, I suggest that you closely evaluate almost all “news” coming your way from outside your country, which I presume is the USA. The fact that most Americans are not personally familiar with events abroad and don’t know how to read any language but English, makes them susceptible to constant fraud on all sorts of world issues.
By the way, are you aware, Joanne, that just about everybody in Israel has to wait in line, to wait at checkpoints, to be physically examined with a metal detector? Supermarkets have guards checking customers with metal detectors. It’s an every day inconvenience for everybody, not just Arabs. But it’s because of Arab terrorists and their supporters abroad.
Comment by Eliyahu — October 7, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
pls point out where in my comments do I use or even imply that the public “dictates”. Nonsense.
What I did say is that MSM talks to an audience and they are sensitive to what the audience wants to hear. for all sorts of reasons — ignorance, lazyness, anti-semitism, multiculturalism, ideology, careers, asymmetry in access and response to their work — they hold certain attitudes towards the conflict. if and when they sense that it matches public attitudes, they feel free to expose their own in their work. that’s the vicious mutually reinforncing cycle i was referring to.
as to the talents of the arabs, please spare me. what exactly have they achieved given all their talents? Death, destruction and lies are easy, particularly when you have an ignorant, gullible and scared audience.
Comment by fp — October 7, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
joanne,
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123824
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2007/10/christmas_rockets_and_killing.html
there’s more, but i doubt it’ll change your mind.
Comment by fp — October 7, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
fp, I believe that in comment #4 above you do imply –in so many words– that the media say what the public wants. Now, I believe that most “news” broadcasts dealing with Israel and with the Arab-Israeli conflict are tendentious, that is, they serve a political purpose. Even when they tell truths, they may have psywar messages in them serving a larger political purpose. Psywar operatives must take account of what the target audiences believe and think at any given time, although their purpose may be to change the audiences’ beliefs and thinking, even by 180 degrees. Psywar is a process. The anti-Israel messages of the 1950s are not those of today. In the 50s, Israel was depicted in US media –often by insinuation– as pro-Communist, if not Communist. Today, Israel is seen as “right-wing.” In both periods, Israel is often seen as oppressing poor Arabs, although the Arab refugees of the 1950s are now the “palestinians.” So, fp, in my opinion, psywar operatives change public opinion by slipping in little messages, semantic tricks perhaps. The Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in the 1950s, perhaps because of their own fault [as you rightly perceive the arguments to be used] have unquestionably become Nazis, although this message was present in the 1950s too, though not as prominent as now. My father told me that about the time that Israel declared independence, Henry Luce of Time-Life preached that Israel should not be like the Jews’ own Nazi persecutors.
I agree of course that there never was a “palestinian people,” and that in fact this “pal people notion” is an obstacle to peace and was meant to be from the time that it was created. However, I cannot agree that it was an Arab invention.
the notion of a pal people is an arab invention to use against israel in your words.
I believe that it was invented by British psywar experts, rather than by Arabs.
Now, I believe that plain Judeophobia plays a big role in big power diplomacy [including Miss Condi’s, Signorina Riso Amaro’s, international “peace” conference]. The peace in the “peace process” is peace of mind for antisemites. The “peace process” is an expression of Judeophobia since it always means Israeli concessions to the murderers of Jews.
fp is right that massacres of Jews are blamed on Jews. But it is not only Jews that suffer in such a way. In the summer of 1987, during the Haj pilgimage, Saudi police in Mecca beat to death between 400 to 1500 Iranian pilgrims. This was because they had pulled out signs and were demonstrating in favor of Khomeini. The press coverage of this event in the US press was that “the Saudis had to do it.” In other words, the victims were to blame. On the other hand, as we all know, when Israelis kill violent terrorist murderers, then the terrorists are innocent.
Comment by Eliyahu — October 8, 2007 @ 6:26 am
Enderlin say, “…pour moi, l’image correspondait à la réalité de la situation non seulement à Gaza, mais aussi en Cisjordanie. [For me, the image corresponded to the reality of the situation not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.”
If the image corresponded to reality, there would be no need to fake it.
BTW, many Palestinian children were killed after, and in response to, the al-Dura ‘killing’, thus making Mr. Enderlin culpable in the deaths of Palestinian children, not to mention the thousands killed and wounded when Enderlin threw gasoline on the fire.
If this man has an ounce of honor, he would take a pistol and blow his brains out.
Comment by Joel — October 8, 2007 @ 7:48 am
fascinating debate. can’t comment on it all right now. some brief remarks.
as readers of the blog know, i think honor and shame is critical, that israel’s very existence as a successful civil society makes it an existential threat to arab honor, and that until the arab world redefines its honor, it can’t cope with israel (or the west as a civil society).
as for the problem of who is “exaggerating,” it’s very much a comparsion of incommensurate phenomena. the israeli media is either significantly more honest than the western media, or dishonest in its self-criticism. the arab media is significantly more dishonest that the western media (which largely “follows” them in its arrogant dhimmi fashion) or outright demonizing. there really is no comparison, and the desire to “humanize” the arab media by treating it as somehow similar to israeli media — ie split the difference — is to make a fundamental error in judging “reality.” it’s the pc flaw that makes pallywood’s role in our news cycle possible.
unquestionably there are terrible things that israelis do to palestinians. they’re at war. but it’s the height of hypocrisy for the arabs to complain about it given how awful they are not just to israelis (when they can) but to their own people (which they can at will). and its sheer stupidity for the west to get angry at the israelis for doing it. as for israeli self-criticism, it’s ultimately a grand moral drive, if only the rest of the world wouldn’t “get it wrong” and take it seriously as a reflection of reality, rather than a reflection of a moral perfectionism.
i do believe there are morally serious arab muslims who really care about human rights and freedom and respect for others — like Bassam Eid, whose statistics i quote in my response to GL — (and many more who would move in this direction if they could — call it my liberal streak). but under current conditions, these people are systematically betrayed by western cowardice (and the consequent taste for scape-goating blood libels) and the stupidity of jewish flagellants like gideon levy who, filled with their own “prophetic righteousness) feed the hungry beast.
Comment by Richard Landes — October 8, 2007 @ 8:35 am
rl,
looks like we agree on almost everything at the base.
what gives you hope, if any, that arab society will change its shame/honor nature and what exactly will cause it to do so? and if, as I suspect, it will not in the foreseeable future (such societal changes, if they happen, take decades if not centuries), what does it say about the future of conflict, particularly in the context of western decay and cowardice?
joanne is a good example of PC, as I was trying to point out.
and I made the very same point you make about the GENUINE but rare human right arab activists: the western fake human rights groups, like most of the west, undermine them constantly.
Comment by fp — October 8, 2007 @ 11:54 am
even more to the point: if the west keeps propping islamists up and undermines any reformist/modernizing arabs, if it dhimmifies itself, how and why exactly should the honor-shame culture change?
Comment by fp — October 8, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
liko so:
A Dutch Retreat on Speech?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701031.html
Comment by fp — October 8, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
“But let’s return to the question of “fake but accurate” which so many people have raised with me (both those hostile to Israel and those afraid of bringing up the issue again: “So what if it’s a fake? The Israelis have killed hundreds of children.”) ”
I’m in a third category. I brought up the issue (in another post) because I’m committed to your winning this argument, and to ensure you’re on guard for likely defenses — even lame ones — by your opponents. I didn’t realize just how prepared you were!
Comment by Phil — October 9, 2007 @ 1:14 am
fp, you’re right that the West props up Islamic fanatics, Islamofascists [in comment #26]
The State Dept was in favor of letting the Islamic fanatic extremists take ove Algeria back in 1991, since they had won a democratic election. Likewise, we now hear many voices calling for recognition of the Hamas since it was democratically elected, represents the majority, etc.
On the other hand, I suggest that if the masses in Gaza are as fanatic and hate-ridden as their supposed support for Hamas indicates, then they should be seen as incorrigible enemies and treated accordingly.
Question: Is democracy no more than majority rule? Any majority? How about the Germany majority in the referendum of 1933 that voted to confirm hitler in power?? And incidentally, voted –if only by implication– for murdering Jews??
Comment by Eliyahu — October 9, 2007 @ 9:21 am
we both know what SHOULD be done and that it won’t be done.
when the US was supporting islamists in their theory that they can protect from communism they had an excuse. it was, of course, a huge mistake, but at least they had SOME reason,, bad as it was.
today it is sheer ignorance, stupidity, decadence and cowardice.
Comment by fp — October 9, 2007 @ 11:17 am
joel,
if he had any honour he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place.
Comment by fp — October 9, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Dear Joanne,
You may express your opinion but first,take a flight to tel aviv,spend 2-3 weeks there
Talk to everyone,explore the whole country (so tiny) and AFTERWARDS,FORGE YOUR OWN OPINION !!!!
Stop being a robot by listening to politically correct media trash….
Comment by trumpeldor — October 15, 2007 @ 3:33 am
Related News Stories
Fresh Find: Cookbook celebrates Chicago icon, family …Blogged about at “Fake but Accurate” — Enderlin’s escape clause - augean stables, Carlyn Berghoff grew up in two kitchens — her mother&1;s and that of The Berghoff Restaur…
Trackback by Connecting News, Commentaries and Blogs at NineReports.com — October 18, 2007 @ 1:48 am