Erlanger, Intimidation and the Western Ignorance of the Palestinian Hate Industry

Twelve days after the al Durah footage hit Arab TV screens, a mob of Palestinians shouting “Revenge for the blood of Muhammad al Durah” savagely lynched two Israeli reservists whom the PA Police had taken into custody, and dragged their body parts through the streets of Ramallah. The viciousness of the behavior stunned not only Israelis, but even the most sympathetic journalists then in Ramallah. Israel’s responses, all aimed at property not people, included bombing the transmitters of “Voice of Palestine” which, they claimed, were inciting the violence with their broadcasts.

On October 24, 2000, William Orme covered the issue with a piece entitled “A Parallel Mideast Battle: Is It News or Incitement?” in which he explored Israeli claims that Palestinian incitement was a major source of this sudden and terrible violence that swept away the “Peace process” that the NYT editorial board had so enthusiastically supported.

He quoted a Palestinian spokesman who dismissed these claims out of hand, and presented the Israeli objections as overblown and against free speech:

”This [radio station which the Israelis had bombed] was the voice of the intifada, and people could express their feelings without censorship,” said Ibrahim Milhem, the host of ”Good Morning Palestine,” a popular call-in talk show. ”The only way Israel could stop it was to bomb it… Every word the Israelis hear on the Voice of Palestine they think is incitement… But what they are hearing is Palestinians demanding our rights.”

Then turning to Israeli claims that they bombed the station in the same way that NATO had bombed stations in Yugoslavia where the official media incited violence, he presented the Israeli case:

Israelis cite as one egregious example a televised sermon that defended the killing of the two soldiers [at Ramallah on October 12, 2000]. “Whether Likud or Labor, Jews are Jews,” proclaimed Sheik Ahmad Abu Halabaya in a live broadcast from a Gaza City mosque the day after the killings.

“Huh?” the reader might reasonably exclaim. “This is what the Israelis are kvetching about? That’s the best they can do? Aren’t there Israelis who say, ‘Fatah, Hamas, what’s the difference?'”

To the uninformed reader, this passage seems to support Milhem and more: “any word the Israelis hear they think is incitement.”

But this is the full text of his speech:

“The Jews are the Jews. Whether Labor or Likud the Jews are Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They must be butchered and must be killed… The Jews are like a spring as long as you step on it with your foot it doesn’t move. But if you lift your foot from the spring, it hurts you and punishes you… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them, kill them.” PA TV, October 13, 2000

What has happened here? Did Orme think that these genocidal comments were unimportant? Or did he think that it would be better if his audience — Americans “back home” — didn’t know about such matters? Is this his judgment of what’s the “news that’s fit to print”? And if so, why such a bizarre judgment? Certainly as an historian, if a student offered me a paper with such a quotation, I’d give him back the draft and say, “what’s wrong with you?”

So what’s wrong with Orme, who is no freshman writing his first paper, but a professional journalist who had been writing for the NYT since 1985? There are many possible, overlapping explanations, including the problems this would pose for the “framing narrative” of the conflict to which the press — NYT included — subscribed quite profoundly.

But for now, I’d like to focus on one, perhaps the most insidious because of the heavy pressure not to mention it: intimidation.

Publishing that sermon’s revolting message would have put the Palestinians in a bad light; it would have alienated Westerners from their cause at a time when a great deal — and the most vocal — of Western public opinion supported them enthusiasticly. How would the Palestinians respond?

Well, the events of the previous two weeks had demonstrated quite effectively what news media dynamics were at work. The Palestinians, aware that if the footage got out, it would make them look bad, did not hesitate to confiscate, even batter any journalist who had the nerve to consider this legitimate news.

They were just a few feet in front of me and I could see everything. Instinctively, I reached for my camera. I was composing the picture when I was punched in the face by a Palestinian. Another Palestinian pointed right at me shouting “no picture, no picture!”, while another guy hit me in the face and said “give me your film!”.

I tried to get the film out but they were all grabbing me and one guy just pulled the camera off me and smashed it to the floor. I knew I had lost the chance to take the photograph that would have made me famous and I had lost my favourite lens that I’d used all over the world, but I didn’t care. I was scared for my life.

One crew of journalists, from a private Italian TV station defied the Palestinians and smuggled out the footage which they gave to the Israelis. They were forced to flee Israel and go into deep hiding in order to escape the wrath (and long reach) of the Palestinians. And lest one think they might have panicked, the behavior of Riccardo Cristiani, the head of Italy’s public TV station sheds a bright light under this particular rock. Afraid that his own journalists might be attacked in a case of mistaken identity, he wrote a letter of clarification to Yassar Arafat that must rank high on the list of revelatory sycophancy in the history of a free media:

Special Clarification by the Italian Representative of RAI, the Official Italian Television Station

My dear friends in Palestine. We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah. One of the private Italian television stations which competes with us (and not the official Italian television station RAI) filmed the events; that station filmed the events. Afterwards Israeli Television broadcast the pictures, as taken from one of the Italian stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RAI) took these pictures.

We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way, because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work.

We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We do not (will not) do such a thing.

Please accept our dear blessings.

Signed,
Ricardo Christiano
Representative of RAI in the Palestinian Authority
(the official Italian station)

As a historian, this letter, with its cloying tone (“dear friends… congratulate you… dear blessings”), it’s ludicrous contradictions (“credible in our precise work”), and it’s euphemistic capitulation (“always respect journalistic procedures), has the sure ring of the obsequious world of pre-modern courts, where bowing and scraping for favor are the only way up. (So much for “speaking truth to power.”)

Nor were the Palestinians ashamed of their behavior. On the contrary, they took the triumphant gesture of one of the lynchers — bloody hands aloft at the window —

MIDEAST-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN

and turned it into the a kindergarten graduation ceremony!

bloody hands girl

They’re not ashamed of this within their own culture; for them it was a moment of triumph. What they don’t want, is for us westerners to know about it.

Which gives us an insight into the just what are these journalistic procedures that govern work in Palestinian-controlled territory?

  • Above all, do not report things that make the Palestinians look bad. No shots, for example, of Palestinians celebrating 9-11. (Pierre Rehov reports that after shooting footage in the PA, reporters are expected to show it to their “handlers” who confiscate anything “inappropriate.” Had he not slipped out in the middle of the night, he could not have made The road to Jenin.
  • And shoot things that make them look good, even if they’re faked. Many shots of Yassar Arafat faking giving blood in response to 9-11.
  • And do report things that make the Israelis look bad, like Pallywood footage. Asked by an Israeli journalist why he had said that the fire came from the Israeli position when he had no evidence for it, Charles Enderlin responded, “If I didn’t say that the father and son were victims of fire coming from the Israeli position, people in Gaza would say, ‘How is it that Enderlin doesn’t say that this is the IDF?'”

How is that an answer? Why would that question, asked in Gaza, override journalistic caution (and ethics) in so volatile a report?

The only answer is that in the daily negotiation between the journalist’s loyalty to his sources and loyalty to his audience, Enderlin here betrayed the latter for the sake of pleasing the former. And the ease with which he answered, apparently considering that answer adequate, suggests that this is not a one-time affair. On the contrary, as Cristiano’s letter makes it clear, this is the normative practice, the “the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine.” So what they say in Gaza has a critical say in what we hear in the West.

All of this is a preliminary discussion meant to help the reader understand what just happened last week, when Steven Erlanger finally wrote his long-awaited article on the incitement to hatred in the Palestinian Authority. In the three years that Erlanger lived in Jerusalem as the NYT correspondent, he never dealt with this critical dimension of the conflict — the preaching of genocidal hatred and the glorification of violence in every aspect of Palestinian culture: mosques, schools, newspapers, TV, radio, even sport’s clubs. Even when he wrote a long piece on the “Children of the Intifada: The Lost Generation” — victims of a almost decade-long Intifada that had destroyed their childhoods, he somehow couldn’t find room for a discussion of the poisonous teachings these youth got in their schools.

Challenged by Lori Lowenthall on her radio show, he responded (rather dubiously) that “well, that’s an entirely different article.”

So now, more than a year later, Erlanger has delivered, with details on children’s programs and all.

Of course, like a good PCPer, it’s all about Hamas incitement. You’d never know that the same stuff appears daily in the “moderate” Fatah-run PA media. On the contrary, Erlanger insists:

Such incitement against Israel and Jews was supposed to be banned under the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2003 “road map” peace plan. While the Palestinian Authority under Fatah has made significant, if imperfect efforts to end incitement, Hamas, no party to those agreements, feels no such restraint.

CAMERA has documented the fallacy extensively. But at least Erlanger is still “okay” with Fatah. He may not be going back to Gaza (where Enderlin still wants to be able to go and receive a warm welcome), but he can still go back to Ramallah.

But there’s something even more interesting about this half-measure of restitution, run three years too late. Despite the Gaza by-line, Erlanger wrote the piece after leaving the Middle East, from the (relative) safety of Paris:

Interestingly, Erlanger wrapped up his tenure in Jerusalem last month and left for Paris. In his nearly four years as Jerusalem bureau chief, he gave scant attention to the key issue of Palestinian hate indoctrination against Israel and Jews. In fact, not even when he covered the “lost generation of Palestine: its most radical, most accepting of violence and most despairing” on March 12, 2007, did he discuss incitement as a factor in their radicalization. (In the 3,400-word feature, he devoted only one sentence to indoctrination, presenting it as an Israeli “claim.”) Thus the obvious question: why now? Why did the Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times wait until he was no longer in the region to address this deep-rooted problem in Palestinian society? Did he not feel safe to report on incitement while he was working in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Note that Erlanger has loudly announced that he was never intimidated, just like Enderlin does. That’s one of the most important contributors to the MSM’s Augean Stables — to save face, they can’t admit that the stuff they give their audience is the product of intimidation. And to save face to themselves, they tell themselves all sorts of stories about how they are just “speaking truth to power” (in this case Israeli might), as a way to remain in denial about why their coverage avoids offending the Palestinians as much as possible. All the news you don’t get.

23 Responses to Erlanger, Intimidation and the Western Ignorance of the Palestinian Hate Industry

  1. Cynic says:

    RL,

    Why do you keep looking for some explanation to excuse the behaviour of the MSM and their journalists without considering the “possibility” of them being bloody minded and just wishing to see the Israelis/Jews taken down.
    The Enderlins and Erlangers never needed to go into Gaza for news but could get their verbiage from the mouths of stringers, taxi drivers et al.
    Had they really wanted facts and good analysis they could also have approached the Arab desks of Israeli TV channels or the press. (No! What comes out of the mouths of Jews is questionable, unreliable …not to be believed)
    At a press gathering in Jerusalem just after the Lebanon fracas Erlanger admitted that the IDF had invited him to go along and see what they were doing on the humanitarian front for the Lebanese but he refused as it was not the story he wanted.

    One AP guy said:
    The Associated Press’ Chief Jerusalem Correspondent, Ravi Nessman said the casualty count in Lebanon was impossible to confirm: “All we can do is report what everyone’s telling us.”
    “We don’t know, even now, the death toll (in Lebanon), still weeks later, it’s totally disparate. Did 800 people die, did 1,200 people die. We still don’t exactly know,” he said.

    Why was it left to some bloggers to elaborate on the difficulty of getting facts out of Lebanon?
    Why only tell this to a Jerusalem audience and not to the world
    Now why are they not as “honest” when it comes to Palestinian claims? At least give the viewer/reader some insight.
    No, that would not conform to their agenda.
    In the same manner they white (oops) wash Southern Africa and hide the terrible situation that exists there today.
    As you wrote above, but with some license on my part, to save face, they can’t admit that the stuff they give their audience is the product of intimidation their bias against and innate dislike or hatred of one of the “sides” involved. Facts be damned!

  2. lgude says:

    I don’t read RLs discussion of the intimidation factor as an excuse for the bad behavior, but as an analysis of one factor that contributes to systematic and gross MSM distortion in a way that is almost never discussed. Antisemitism is clearly another factor, but I agree that RL’s larger thesis that both PCP paradigms are the main cause of the strange alliance between terrorists and the MSM. Central is the idea that the Palestinians are the victims when seen through the lens of post colonial theory and that ideological belief system is so strong in Western academic and press circles that contradictory information is routinely censored. I think it is this ideological hypnosis that explains this bizarre behavior and even extends to a segment of the Jewish population like Enderlin. It is worse than bloodymindedness – it is ideological self delusion. I found this article valuable because it looked unflinchingly at the intimidation which is used to ensure that the self delusion stays in place. I believe that at a deeper level both PCP paradigms are caused by the inability and consequent refusal of modernism to face the continued existence of pre modern world views. Hence the attempts of western leaders left and right, Clinton and Bush, to try to make peace. The pre modern obsequiousness of Mr. Christiano was particularly illuminating in this regard.

  3. oao says:

    About ideological self-delusion: when exactly do people indulge in such? When they experience congnitive dissonance, that is, when reality is inconsistent with their wellbeing and views.

    Western journalists are focused on their careers, status and popularity. Satisfying those needs runs smack into the reality of arab/palestinian culture/religion. To be loyal to reality would force them to go against those needs. Ideological self-delusion is the technique with which they rationalize twisting reality for selfish purposes. It’s a classical form of coping with cowardice and selfishness.

    There is, of course, anti-zionism and anti-semitism. But my guess is that it is induced by this conflict between what they probably recognize, at some probably subconscious level, as failure. I would not be surprised if, sensing their own failure at, they transpose their discomfort at their own weakness from the palestinians (which force it on them) to Israel for not fitting the picture that they paint because of it. Had the jews just been what the palestinian propaganda says they are, the journalists wouldn’t have been in this cowardly position. Similar to how hostages often embrace their capturers.

    In short, given the arab behavior for which they have no answer, Israel simply stands in the way of their true success, forcing them into a fake one. Such fakery requires rationalization.

  4. oao says:

    I believe that at a deeper level both PCP paradigms are caused by the inability and consequent refusal of modernism to face the continued existence of pre modern world views.

    This is the critical core. The west simply cannot accept at face value what the arabs/muslims say, so that even when they say it, it is ignored. And it cannot because of the implication: all out ideological and military war. Cannot be contemplated.

    This is precisely what the jihadists and demopaths exploit and why they are so successful.

    oao
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  5. oao says:

    btw, i’ve changed my signature from fp to oao, to be consistent with all other blogs i participate on.

    oao
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  6. Eliyahu says:

    let’s not forget the role that governments play, in that both BBC and France2 are govt agencies.

  7. oao says:

    eliyahu,

    absolutely. but i don’t think that there is much difference between MSM and govt in france and the uk anyway.

  8. Richard Landes says:

    RL (answers in italic – rl),

    Why do you keep looking for some explanation to excuse the behaviour of the MSM and their journalists without considering the “possibility” of them being bloody minded and just wishing to see the Israelis/Jews taken down.

    as lgude points out, i’m neither excusing the msm, nor reducing their motivation entirely to this issue. what’s impt about intimidation, tho, is that unlike the bloody-mindedness that you point out and is unquestionably there in some reporters (esp in the NGOs), intimidation affects everyone, no matter how well-inclined or even fair-minded they might be about Israel.

    The Enderlins and Erlangers never needed to go into Gaza for news but could get their verbiage from the mouths of stringers, taxi drivers et al.

    true. and as long as they did so, fine. but heaven help them if they started to ask difficult questions.

    Had they really wanted facts and good analysis they could also have approached the Arab desks of Israeli TV channels or the press. (No! What comes out of the mouths of Jews is questionable, unreliable …not to be believed)

    as in the case of shlomi eldar or gideon levy

    At a press gathering in Jerusalem just after the Lebanon fracas Erlanger admitted that the IDF had invited him to go along and see what they were doing on the humanitarian front for the Lebanese but he refused as it was not the story he wanted.

    ?
    thanks for that. it hardly surprises me. heaven forbid he should be taken for a ride by israeli “propaganda” (no matter how real the events he was asked to witness).

    One AP guy said:
    The Associated Press’ Chief Jerusalem Correspondent, Ravi Nessman said the casualty count in Lebanon was impossible to confirm: “All we can do is report what everyone’s telling us.”
    “We don’t know, even now, the death toll (in Lebanon), still weeks later, it’s totally disparate. Did 800 people die, did 1,200 people die. We still don’t exactly know,” he said.

    Why was it left to some bloggers to elaborate on the difficulty of getting facts out of Lebanon?
    Why only tell this to a Jerusalem audience and not to the world?
    Now why are they not as “honest” when it comes to Palestinian claims? At least give the viewer/reader some insight.
    No, that would not conform to their agenda.

    you’re right. but i would say that a major element of their agenda is to avoid retaliation. the palestinians are okay with them saying this to a jewish audience in jerusalem. it’s when the rest of the world knows about it, that it’s a problem. at another meeting about press coverage of the lebanon war, erlanger defended the journaists’ right to pass judgments like “excessive retaliation” on the israelis, even as he had to admit that their casualty figures (upon which they based much of this judgment) were weak. (Tamar Sternthall of CAMERA took him to task quite publicly.)

    In the same manner they white (oops) wash Southern Africa and hide the terrible situation that exists there today.

    As you wrote above, but with some license on my part, to save face, they can’t admit that the stuff they give their audience is the product of intimidation their bias against and innate dislike or hatred of one of the “sides” involved. Facts be damned!

    i actually think, in reading your and other comments in this thread, that there’s an interesting relationship between these two issues: the journalists find in their PCP1/2 “take” on the conflict, the ideal justification for giving into palestinian/arab intimidation. Enderlin can tell himself he’s popular with the Palestinians — a badge of honor for many journalists — because he’s brave enuf to tell their story and criticize the israelis. so in his mind, he’s not only ideologically progressive, but also courageous — a stark inversion of the actual situation.

  9. Richard Landes says:

    oao, this is one of the most analytical of your comments. a pleasure to read.

    About ideological self-delusion: when exactly do people indulge in such? When they experience congnitive dissonance, that is, when reality is inconsistent with their wellbeing and views.

    Western journalists are focused on their careers, status and popularity. Satisfying those needs runs smack into the reality of arab/palestinian culture/religion. To be loyal to reality would force them to go against those needs. Ideological self-delusion is the technique with which they rationalize twisting reality for selfish purposes. It’s a classical form of coping with cowardice and selfishness.

    i think this is a very sharp analysis. as one of the characters (Michael) says in “The Big Chill”: “I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.” in order not to deal with the uncomfortable truth, they rationalize… “Pallywood productions are the weapons of the weak…” and given how rationalizations are, by necessity, superficial, they have no problems with superficial (and loony) arguments like “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” as if the two were mutually exclusive categories, as if calling them “freedom fighters” meant they were therefore no longer terrorists.

    There is, of course, anti-zionism and anti-semitism. But my guess is that it is induced by this conflict between what they probably recognize, at some probably subconscious level, as failure. I would not be surprised if, sensing their own failure at, they transpose their discomfort at their own weakness from the palestinians (which force it on them) to Israel for not fitting the picture that they paint because of it. Had the jews just been what the palestinian propaganda says they are, the journalists wouldn’t have been in this cowardly position. Similar to how hostages often embrace their capturers.

    there’s another level on which this takes place as well. when people like Cherie Blair or Jenny Tonge explain suicide terror by saying “they have no hope” they make the israelis responsible for their atrocious behavior. it is part of the larger pattern of appeasement in which you get angry with the people who provoke the people you’re trying to appease.

    In short, given the arab behavior for which they have no answer, Israel simply stands in the way of their true success, forcing them into a fake one. Such fakery requires rationalization.

  10. Cynic says:

    as in the case of shlomi eldar or gideon levy

    No. But Zvi Heskeli (spelling)- Ch 10 – and Ehud Ya’ari, guy from Ch 22, for starters. There are others on the first channel also worth listening to.

    Igude wrote:
    Central is the idea that the Palestinians are the victims
    Who made them into victims? Why cut out the context of who caused their “catastrophe”? Why the revisionism, why the dishonesty if not because of hatred towards that bunch of upstarts who also threatened the applecart of British Jews with the signing of the Balfour declaration and the checkpoint on the road to the Ochs and their ilk disappearing into the mists of assimilation. Obviously the Nazi experience did not awaken them from their dreams.

  11. Cynic says:

    About ideological self-delusion: when exactly do people indulge in such? When they experience congnitive dissonance, that is, when reality is inconsistent with their wellbeing and views.

    Just read of the reactions of British Jews to the promise of establishing a Jewish state.

    you’re right. but i would say that a major element of their agenda is to avoid retaliation.

    Now I’m not inciting anything but I have to ask: “So if there is a hit against Erlanger in Paris this would change?”

  12. oao says:

    victimization has always been the central pillar of the arab strategy against israel. indeed, it’s been the most effective weapon given the gullibility of the infidels. it’s taken 60 years to start seeing results, and took the rise of islamism and jihad to aid it, but it’s finally working.

    the pals get criticized a lot for their self-inflicted suffering without anything to show for it. however, this is also a western projection on reality: it interprets the status of the pals in western terms. judging in the pals’ own terms the only source of wellbeing for them is the destruction of israel. whatever the suffering on which the west focuses, the existence of israel is a source for much more suffering.

    add to this the hope kept alive via indoctrination that one day they’ll take over the riches of israel and even 60 years of hardship becomes worthwhile. it’s much easier to rob the jews than to build a state when you never had one. it’s been the arab/muslim strategy since time imemorial.

  13. oao says:

    cynic,

    the phenomenon of jews trying to “prove themselves good jews” is a well known one and has continued to this day. in this sense there is a serious difference between the israeli jews who have a state, and those in diaspora who don’t and act very similar to the jews in europe in the 30’s. when you strive to assimilate in the context of anti-semitism coming out of the walt and mearsheimer woodwork, the tendency to assure your social environment that you’re a “good jew” cannot be resisted.

    Wieseltier has an excellent NRO reaction to Judt which
    says that when Judt’s social environment blames all jews for actions by israel he feels obligated to criticize israel in order to prove them wrong, which means that judt is actually internalizing and reproducing anti-semitims, instead of fighting it.

  14. oao says:

    Why cut out the context of who caused their “catastrophe”?

    One reason was explained by RL: the context is in conflict with what their careers and safety demand. Another is that context requires knowledge and ability to reason, which are disappearing fast. If you don’t know the context it is much easier to swallow the pal propaganda lock stock and barrel without feeling too much of a coward.

  15. […] put up an earlier post on the role of intimidation in the reluctance of the Western media to publish material on hate-speech and other forms of […]

  16. […] that span the spectrum from ideological to venal to cowardice, to reveal to their audiences the moral depravity of the Palestinian side. The best current example of the obsession of the Western press with every blemish of the Israelis […]

  17. […] So they can, in all good conscience, look you straight in the eye and say, “There’s no intimidation here.” Try writing some stories on the culture of genocidal hatred that has pride of place in […]

  18. […] And this unconscionable piece of journalism right at the beginning of the Oslo War (October 2000), set the pattern until this day. Most Westerners, especially those with emotional commitments to PCP have no idea how vicious the […]

  19. […] not about the evidence, it’s about the peer pressure, pressure that despite denials, Erlanger still apparently feels still makes Palestinian provocation and incitement […]

  20. […] need to please in order to get along, and they, in turn, of course, are all  concerned with pleasing the folks on the Palestinian side who can be either very generous friends or very unpleasant foes). So it’s not hard to […]

  21. […] And this unconscionable piece of journalism right at the beginning of the Oslo War (October 2000), set the pattern until this day. Most Westerners, especially those with emotional commitments to PCP have no idea how vicious the […]

  22. w.w.wygart says:

    “Is it news or is it incitement?” That statement can only have meaning in a society advanced enough for the two concepts to have differentiated themselves.

    Just for the record.

    W^3

  23. […] The dominant (hegemonic?) Western discourse in the early aughts read matters very differently. Apocalyptic was out, suicide terror was in, very “in”. Cockburn’s profession of journalists so badly misinformed the West about the most successful movement of jihadi suicide terror (Hamas, Hizbullah), that when it popped out of the Trojan Horse in October 2000, he and his colleagues identified their use of suicide terror as an act of resistance: One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Could it have something to do with genocidal preaching? “No. Why do you ask?” […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *