Via Matthew Yglesias
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has threatened to sue Professor Juan Cole if he doesn’t retract recent comments he’s made about the organization.
[President of MEMRI] Colonel [Yigal] Carmon’s letter makes three charges: 1) that I alleged that MEMRI receives $60 million a year for its operations. 2) That I alleged that MEMRI cherry-picks the vast Arab press for articles that make the Arabs look bad. 3) That I said that MEMRI was affiliated with the Likud Party.
Cole disputes the "libel" or validity of each of these, but offers a rather biting defense for the second one:
I continue to maintain that MEMRI is selective and biased against the Arab press, and that it highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light. That it also rewards secular Arabs for being secularists is entirely beside the point (and this is the function of the "reform" site). On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated.
He then goes on to take MEMRI to task for their own alleged violations of the laws involving the written word:
I will add another criticism of MEMRI, which is that it systematically violates the intellectual property of Arab writers by appropriating their content without paying for it and storing them on its servers, and then claiming copyright in their work as translated. This is a shameful way of proceeding. Where the source articles are published in a country that is signatory to the major international copyright agreements, it may be illegal. All sites dealing in other languages do quote or translate from time to time, which falls under fair use. But MEMRI has a much more systematic set of appropriations going.
Personally, I find MEMRI rather transparent. The cartoons they post* on their website, for example, undercut the supposed balance in their "research." I’ll stop short of endorsing Cole’s request that folks contact MEMRI (I rarely feel that’s appropriate), but I will note I find Carmon’s complaints "reaching" at best.
*Again, copyright issues seem unclear here.
(from the DeLong thread – more discussion takes place here anyway):
I find Juan Cole informative on Middle Eastern issues but not reliable on Israel-related issues – he seldom manages even a dispassionate tone when talking about “Likudniks” – and here his response seems to be 1) if you don’t tell me your finances I get to make up what I feel like 2) ignoring the substance of the Reform stuff by engaging in unscholarly cherry-picking, as alleged, and 3) ignoring the plain meaning of “PR campaign on behalf of”.
(A recent quote from Prof Cole: “So I guess “things” have been “clarified” in the Mideast, after three years of shows of force on both sides. What is now clear is that there is not going to be a Palestinian state, and that the Israeli “democracy” now owns three million Palestinian plantation slaves indefinitely.”)
Prof Cole is sufficiently high-profile that MEMRI ought to have some right to challenge him if he’s just lying about them (well, seems more like conspiratorially misrepresenting them at worst) in public (though this seems a stupid challenge). What would e.g. Prof DeLong do if Instapundit posted some nonsense to the effect that his blog is funded by some rabid anti-semitic left-wing group or that his posts are aimed at affecting the stock market in ways his corporate sponsors can exploit? What if he did it on Fox News?
That said, I doubt MEMRI is entirely reliable, but what source of information about the Middle East (or anything else for that matter) is? I’ve heard it claimed elsewhere that MEMRI presents both the most virulent anti-Western voices and the most moderate, both out of proportion. Apparently their translations are good – in the likely case that their selection is biased, some researcher ought to demonstrate exactly how and readers of MEMRI should take that into consideration.
In other legal news, as noted elsewhere in that thread, CAIR is suing David Frum and a lot of right-wing news organizations.
I’ve never seen MEMRI charged with being unreliable in the sense of providing bad translations. In terms of cherry-picking, it depends on what you think you want. To they provide a perfect mirror of the Arab press? Almost certainly not. But many of the articles they do translate would never be published in the Western press. The fact that they are published in the mainstream Arab press is revealing, and that is more than enough.
Cole threatens to sue…
I’ve never seen MEMRI charged with being unreliable in the sense of providing bad translations.
Gosh, I’ve never seen anyone murdered in DC either. However, this is more likely due to my not looking for it than the liklihood DC is murder-free.
As for the comment WRT mainstream Arab press: nonsense. One could easily cherrypick the US press and present an image that appears extremist and kooky.
“I’ve never seen MEMRI charged with being unreliable in the sense of providing bad translations.”
This is a source of wide speculation in the blogosphere, so it’s not like nobody has thought about it. Certainly Cole and (the to my mind more broadly reliable Abu Aardvark) have reason to dislike MEMRI and have only come up with one instance where they claim one word was translated wrong (because too literally). If MEMRI’s translations are slanted, there ought to be some authoritative charges out there and they ought to be posted at AA or Informed Consent.
It goes beyond bad translations; I suspect Sebastian understands this. It’s the cherrypicking that’s really the issue.
Suppose I wanted to create a 501(c)(3) whose sole purpose was to show the world what a horrible bunch of scumbuckets Americans are. The way to do it wouldn’t be to mistranslate English into other languages to create a false picture. Instead, the way to do it would be to use selected passages which portray America in a bad light, excluding all other instances which do not.
David Duke understood this; he moved the KKK away from a message of ‘we hate all blacks and Jews’ to one of ‘we just want to preserve and honor our culture.’ But, the messages are essentially the same.
MEMRI does likewise.
I’ve heard it asserted they cherrypick radicals _and_ moderates. Also that it’s hardly necessary to cherrypick to make the Arabic media sound virulently opposed to America, Jews, etc. Anyway, I’d like to see a well-done study on this issue.
jadegold,
I’ve never seen MEMRI charged with being unreliable in the sense of providing bad translations.
Gosh, I’ve never seen anyone murdered in DC either. However, this is more likely due to my not looking for it than the liklihood DC is murder-free.
What a faulty analogy. Surely you have *heard* that DC is not murder-free? Sebastian is saying that he hasn’t even heard of MEMRI being charged with being unreliable – not that he he hasn’t seen their misrepresentations personally.
Surely MEMRI has enough enemies to nit pick through their translations, no?
Sebastian is saying that he hasn’t even heard of MEMRI being charged with being unreliable – not that he he hasn’t seen their misrepresentations personally.
And if Sebastian would do a google search for “MEMRI” and look at the top 10 results, he would see several results dealing with the accusation of MEMRI being unreliable. He could look at, for instance, the highest ranked result that isn’t from a MEMRI-run web site. In other words – if he hasn’t seen the accusation, he hasn’t been looking. Now since Sebastian implies he is familiar with MEMRI’s work, I think Jadegold’s analogy is a fair one.
Sebastian also claims “I’ve never seen MEMRI charged with being unreliable in the sense of providing bad translations”.
Apparently, Sebastian does not read Mr. Cole’s blog – Mr. Cole claims “the widespread impression that MEMRI is accurate but selective may be too generous. Serious lapses in accuracy are also apparent, and so far unexplained”, and goes on to give a link to an exchange detailing exactly such charges:
I mean come on, this is information that one could obtain by reading the web site that is one of the main topics of this supposedly knowledgeable discussion.
So link to what you think is the best case and help enlighten us felixrayman.
The fact that they are published in the mainstream Arab press is revealing, and that is more than enough.
More than enough to suggest what though?
The central issue for me in this is the claim by MEMRI that they’re dedicated to balance on one side but the claim by Cole on the other hand that they’re not dedicated to balance.
For me, the truth, as usual, is found within the humor. The Cartoons MEMRI posts are clearly slanted to prove a widespread anti-Americanism/anti-Israelism, with no attempt at all to provide moderate views, as far as I can see.
I have found Cole himself to be slanted on the subject of Israel. I took an hour once to sift through one of his posts, I think the one about how the sky was going to fall now that Israel had knocked off the “spiritual head of Hamas” (didn’t turn out that way), and found about half a dozen plain errors and several unjustified leaps of logic. I don’t even bother reading Cole on Israel any more; his mind is made up and the facts won’t bother him.
I just googled for MEMRI and the first criticism was from the Guardian. Here’s a part that made me giggle.
The journalist was made uneasy by this:
The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that “they don’t want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning” (Washington Times, June 20).
This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.
Funny stuff there! “somewhat over-the-top precaution”?? He goes on:
The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.
Reflects badly on the character of Arabs? Well, does the shoe fit or not?
Then he quotes Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations:
“Memri’s intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.”
Guardian, ofcourse, doesn’t mention that CAIR Founded in 1994, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association of Palestine, identified as a “front group” for the terrorist group Hamas, according to Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the FBI’s counterterrorism section.
Anyway, the article finally concedes that:
Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri’s translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.
General accuracy is not disputed… But what’s this? Other reasons? What could they be? Next paragraph:
The email it circulated last week about Saddam Hussein ordering people’s ears to be cut off was an extract from a longer article in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Adil Awadh who claimed to have first-hand knowledge of it.
It was the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers would happily reprint without checking, especially in the current atmosphere of war fever. It may well be true, but it needs to be treated with a little circumspection.
Uh oh, right? Scroll down and what do we see? A correction posted 9 days after the original article:
The following correction was printed in the Guardian’s Corrections and Clarifications column, Wednesday August 21 2002
In an article headed Atrocity stories regain currency, page 13, August 8, and in an article headed Selective Memri on the Guardian website, we referred to Dr Adil Awadh, an Iraqi doctor who alleged that Saddam Hussein had ordered doctors to amputate the ears of soldiers who deserted. Dr Awadh has asked us to make it clear that he has no connection with Memri (Middle East Media Research Institute), and that he did not authorise its translation of parts of an article by him. He is no longer a member of the Iraqi National Accord (INA). He is an independent member of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). His reference to orders by Saddam Hussein to cut off the ears of deserters has been supported by evidence from other sources.
There you have it. But do read the full article from the Guardian. Then read the response to the article by MEMRI. Guardian was a good sport to link it.
Oh, yea. This might be relevant:
A survey of the Arab world organized by the Al-Arabia network website after the death of Yasser Arafat, showed 73.72% want a Hamas representative to replace Arafat, ITIM reported. In contrast only 0.7% expect that one of the PLO leaders will take over.
25.58% were in favor of an independent candidate.
113,107 participants from across the Arab world took part in the survey.
The organizers of the survey explained that the Hamas movement and the Islamic Jihad organization stand for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the land of historic Palestine, a concept that the PLO gave up on when the Oslo discussions began.
from the Hamas’ charter:
…the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.”
Note that I am quoting from Hamas’ website, so there’s no doubt about the translation.
73.72%?
MEMRI’s interpretation of the Bin Laden tape was absurd and offensive and almost certainly wrong even if they are correct about the literal translation. Do you honestly believe that Bin Laden won’t kill me because I live in Boston and my family because they live in New York? Yeah, right, because he has historically rewarded New York for its liberal voting habits, and it’s not like the New York area has the highest Jewish population outside of Israel or anything. And it’s not as if he’s said that he wants to kill at least 1 million American children; clearly he thinks some Americans are guiltier than others. And it’s not like a nuclear attack on Manhattan would cause 10-20 times as many casualties as an attack of comparable size on Atlanta or Houston because it’s 10-20 times more densely populated.
I’m actually surprised I haven’t seen the MEMRI translation used as an argument for cutting NYC’s homeland security money still further.
Perhaps I just haven’t looked in the right places.
Abu Aardvark has an entire category devoted to MEMRI.
Katherine,
MEMRI’s interpretation of the Bin Laden tape was absurd and offensive and almost certainly wrong even if they are correct about the literal translation.
Was that your expert analysis?
Do you honestly believe that Bin Laden won’t kill me because I live in Boston and my family because they live in New York?
Irrelevant. The question is whether the translation is accurate or not.
From NY POST:
Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term “ay-wilaya” to refer to a “state” in that sentence.
That term “specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee,” Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a “country” he would have used the Arabic word “dawla.”
Now, I am not an expert on arabic, are you? He’s referring to specific terms here (“ay-wilaya” and “dawla”). Looks easy to debunk. Has it been?
From the same source:
MEMRI also translated an analysis of bin Laden’s statement from the Islamist Web site al-Qal’a, well known for posting al-Qaeda messages, which agreed that bin Laden’s use of the word “ay-wilaya” was meant as a “warning to every U.S state separately.” .
I don’t understand the interpretation of the OBL threat interpretation as offensive – maybe _he_ might be offended for being misrepresented, but reportedly someone once heard OBL discussing the US based on the (99.9%) false assumption that the states have separate foreign policies. Anyway, I fully expect him to say things that are inexplicable to rational analysis, to lie, to try to convey different messages to different audiences, to misrepresent his goals and intentions, to sow confusion.
So link to what you think is the best case and help enlighten us felixrayman.
I mean come on, this is information that one could obtain by reading the web site that is one of the main topics of this supposedly knowledgeable discussion.
“Now, I am not an expert on arabic, are you? He’s referring to specific terms here (“ay-wilaya” and “dawla”). Looks easy to debunk. Has it been?”
If you browse around Abu Aardvark, you’ll find two or three posts specifically debating the use of these words (and another two or three posts on why MEMRI disgusts him). The Aardvark explains in some depth the translation issues, explains why he thinks MEMRI’s is not the best translation, posts the arguments in favor of the MEMRI approach, and generally trashes MEMRI’s approach of selecting a minority approach to translating the message without giving English-language readers any idea that they are doing so.
Here’s his initial post, there’s more detail in a followup post–
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2004/11/memris_disgusti.html
I’m not disputing that “diwala” translates as “U.S. state”, or saying that that translation is offensive.
But the idea that Bin Laden said “vote Bush and you’re on our list, vote Kerry and you’ll be spared” DOES NOT FOLLOW from the use of that term, and is implausible for a long list of other reasons. And I was not, for f***’s sake rilkefan, offended on Bin Laden’s behalf. I was offended on my behalf. The New York Post article is a transparent and slimy attempt to insinuate that Bin Laden wanted people to vote for Kerry, and the blue states were acting out of cowardly appeasement. And MEMRI did the same thing.
Considering that:
1) I believe I and my family are more likely to die in a nuclear explosion because Bush was re-elected
2) I believe that I (in Boston) and my family (in New York City and Washington) are much more likely to die in a nuclear explosion than anyone I can think of in a red state, because of the location of large cities and densely populated cities where an attack would kill dozens more people
3) My state and city are getting screwed over on homeland security funds to prevent and respond to such an attack….
to be told, on top of all that, based on a patently absurd interpretation of an ambiguous translation, that I am voting for Kerry to do bin Laden’s bidding and sell out my fellow citizens in the red states, is adding insult to injury. And I cannot express enough my contempt for anyone who says it.
and translating one message from the Islamist website that supports its view proves almost nothing, and is an excellent example of the “cherry-picking” that Cole speaks of.
abu aardvark makes the same point better than I. (This is not the same post Doh linked to; it’s the most recent follow up, in responde to Cole’s letter.)
A survey of the Arab world organized by the Al-Arabia network website after the death of Yasser Arafat, showed 73.72% want a Hamas representative to replace Arafat, ITIM reported. In contrast only 0.7% expect that one of the PLO leaders will take over.
I am sure one of the more biblical readers knows the right quote about how one reaps what one sows.
One of my biggest fears is that the religious nutcases will take over completely. One of my hopes is that Hamas in Lebanon is trying to become a political player, i.e. Sinn Fein & IRA.
I actually thought the fact that MEMRI was cherrypicking was a more or less established fact these days.
Marjolein
Michael Kramer reminds us that:
When I read Cole’s posting, it reminded me of an earlier threat to sue made by Juan Cole to Daniel Pipes and myself, after the Campus Watch website came online on September 18, 2002.
How ironic…
“I’m not disputing that “diwala” translates as “U.S. state”, or saying that that translation is offensive.”
rephrase: I am not disputing that diwala can be translated as “U.S. state”–though it can also be translated as “sovereign country” or “regime”, and more ARabic sites and newspapers seemed to think that was what bin Laden meant, and it makes much more sense when one considers his previous statements and acts of terrorism. Even if it DOES translate as “U.S. state”, it does not follow that that means that “I will attack states that vote for Bush and spare states that vote for Kerry.” If rilkefan is correct that Bin Laden erroneously believes that states have their own foreign policies, that would be another explanation. I can think of some others too. None are entirely satisfactory, but all are more believable than the claim that bin Laden was telling us that if our states voted for Kerry we would be spared, which is contradicted by other statements in the same video, many previous videos, the terrorist attacks on New York City, and Bin Laden “fatwa” announcing the intention of killing 1 million innocent American children. If he was making such a claim, one would think he would do so clearly. (One would also have to deal with the possibility that 1) he was lying; 2) he knew that such a claim would make people more likely to vote for Bush, not Kerry.)
Anyway, even if it was 50/50 that they were correct–and I would be shocked if they were–MEMRI’s complete failure to note that their translation was controversial settles the question of their trustworthiness.
More from Martin Kramer:
One final point: reading Bin Laden’s speech, I see he twice uses the word wilaya to refer to a U.S. state: first to say that Bush (like Arab rulers) installed his sons (sic) as governors of states (a reference to Jeb Bush), and that he imported expertise in election fraud to the state (wilaya) of Florida. These references to wilaya as U.S. states precedes the disputed reference we’ve been discussing (which only comes at the end). This does not settle the matter one way or another, but it certainly enriches the context.
It’s in Abu’s comments section.
Reflects badly on the character of Arabs? Well, does the shoe fit or not?
Well, Stan, I don’t have a personal budget of $60M annually–but I can easily cherrypick.
“…we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
— US writer, Ann Coulter
“You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How’s that?”
“With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation… The white people don’t breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race”
—US Radio and TV Journalist, Michael Savage
“Ideally, it would have been nice to have a few phalanxes of policemen with machine guns and mow them down.”
–US radio personality Bob Grant commenting on a Gay Pride Parade
“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”
–US TV and Radio Journalist Rush Limbaugh
Well, Stan, does the shoe fit?
When I read Cole’s posting, it reminded me of an earlier threat to sue made by Juan Cole to Daniel Pipes and myself, after the Campus Watch website came online on September 18, 2002.
How ironic…
Ironic? Lord. That bit of tripe was quickly slapped down by Mr. Cole:
Keep plugging your agenda though, it’s amusing.
Well, Stan, I don’t have a personal budget of $60M annually…
Sweet! I was hoping someone would bring that up again.
Martin Kramer puts it in perspective:
Juan Cole has claimed that MEMRI is funded “to the tune of $60 million a year.” Some bloggers have pointed out that MEMRI’s filings show a budget of under $2 million, to which Cole responds: “I deny that I have misstated their funding. It is silly to think that the nearly $2 million that underwrites their Washington office is anything but the tip of their financial iceberg.” You want silliness? $60 million is equal to the budgets of the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation combined. (These premier think tanks, with hundreds of staff covering all aspects of foreign and domestic policy, fill their own office buildings in Washington.) It’s more than a million dollars a week. It’s $165,000 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It’s twelve times the budget of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where I’m camped right now. And it’s one more reason why I can’t take Juan Cole seriously. He hasn’t got a clue.
Well, Stan, does the shoe fit?
The people you’ve quoted work for gov’t controlled media?
Keep plugging your agenda though, it’s amusing.
Naturally, I am honored to converse with such an agendaless person as you. So, linking other people’s articles, when discussing them (much as all bloggers do), constitutes “personal harrasment”? Aw. Do go on.
I do think he should back up the $60 million claim. If he cannot, as seems very likely, he should retract it. I doubt this rises to a level that is actionable for public figure libel, but then, a SLAPP is not the same thing as a libel suit.
Their second and third complaints are crap, though. They do cherry pick, and their unconvincing evidence that they don’t doesn’t make his claim that they do libel. And he never said that they were an agent of Likud–he said they were “essentially a PR campaign on behalf of Likud” which is different. I’d say Fox News and the NY Post are a PR campaign on behalf of the Republican party. That is not an accusation that they are illegally receiving funding from the GOP.
I also think his SLAPP to Campus Watch was not fully justified, if it is true that they did not print his email address or other contact information and did not encourage others to harass him. I do agree that their intent was to intimidate, but if they don’t say so….extended public criticism of someone’s work isn’t stalking, and holding that it was would have a chilling effect on free speech. Was I stalking the Family Research Council when I compiled their nasty statements? Cole is nothing like the FRC of course, and I hope I am nothing like Daniel Pipes, but First Amendment law is content neutral so that does nothing to settle the free speech concerns.
But. First, two wrongs don’t make a right. Second, Cole, unlike MEMRI, was suffering harassment because of Campus Watch’s activities. He and his colleagues were getting thousands of spam emails and worse, people were falsely sending out repellent emails under their names. A cease and desist letter was one of the most readily apparent ways to stop this. I don’t approve, but I find it more understandable. And as I said, threatening a lawsuit is not the same thing as bringing a lawsuit.
Sweet! I was hoping someone would bring that up again.
Of course, if you were going to be fair, you would mention that Cole stands by his statement, acknowledges that MEMRI contests it, has asked MEMRI for evidence that his statement is wrong, and has offered to print such evidence if it is presented to him. So far, apparently MEMRI has chosen not to present such evidence, but rather to threaten to sue him for libel. Thus, the humor.
So, linking other people’s articles, when discussing them (much as all bloggers do), constitutes “personal harrasment”?
No one made such an argument.
So far, apparently MEMRI has chosen not to present such evidence, but rather to threaten to sue him for libel. Thus, the humor.
Hah! As you said Keep plugging your agenda though, it’s amusing.
Amusing indeed! Cole makes a baseless allegation and the burden of proof is on MEMRI? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
MEMRI’s filings show a budget of under $2M.
No one made such an argument.
Cole threatened to sue them for personal harassment, because they linked him.
Sweet! I was hoping someone would bring that up again.
I always aim to please, Stan.
But it appears Martin Kramer’s ‘research’ is somewhat lacking.
When dealing with propaganda outlets–like MEMRI–it is always advisable to “follow the money”–knowing that propaganda outlets are extremely reticent about identifying the sources of their funding.
But MEMRI has given us many clues. I’d refer you to MEMRI’s Schedule A on their Form 990. Specifically, lines 26a, 26b and 26c. These give an indication of funding that comes in the form of gifts; in MEMRI’s case, gifts make up the overwhelming portion of their funding.
The neat thing about gifts is twofold: one, it grants the donor a certain amount of anonymity, and, two, it also conceals–to a degreee–the amount of that gift.
Since you mention the Heritage Foundation and other ‘think tanks’—take a look at how MEMRI compares.
argh! Stop making me take Stan and MEMRI’s side, even temporarily.
“Cole stands by his statement, acknowledges that MEMRI contests it, has asked MEMRI for evidence that his statement is wrong, and has offered to print such evidence if it is presented to him. So far, apparently MEMRI has chosen not to present such evidence, but rather to threaten to sue him for libel.”
This reminds me a little of every right wing blog that justified active support of the Swiftboat Vets’ lies about Kerry, despite overwhelming and increasing evidence that the Swiftboat Vets were telling vicious lies that were contradicted over and over by news reports and government documents, because supposedly Kerry could settle all this by just signing form 180, or whatever it was, and that would put everything to rest.
The fact that there’s additional documentation MEMRI/Kerry could provide does not allow Cole/the Swift Boat Vets to just make up numbers about their budget/allegations about Kerry’s war record in the meantime–especially when all the information we DO have suggests that the charges are false.
I’d also add that MEMRI is, in effect, an international propaganda operation with offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem. So, merely glancing at MEMRI’s 501(c)(3) financial disclosures and concluding they have a budget of no greater than $2M annually is beyond silly.
Amusing indeed! Cole makes a baseless allegation and the burden of proof is on MEMRI? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Other than to point out that Cole stands by his statement and has been presented with no evidence that it is false, I will simply assume at this point you are unfamiliar with US libel law.
As to Katherine’s comparison to “overwhelming and increasing evidence that the Swiftboat Vets were telling vicious lies that were contradicted over and over by news reports and government documents”, I don’t consider a statement that an organization has a budget of $60 million to be “vicious”, Cole’s claim has not been contradicted over and over by news reports and government documents, and Cole has acknowledged MEMRI’s disagreement with his statement and agreed to print a retraction if presented with evidence that his statement is false.
MEMRI’s filings show a budget of under $2M.
For its Washington office only. Are you stating that MEMRI has no budget outside the US?
If the $2 million is Washington only, I stand corrected. I still think you don’t make charges you have no evidence for, and that $60 million is implausible.
I don’t consider Cole’s charges and the Swiftboat vets REMOTELY comparable. Cole’s charge about the $60 million budget is much less serious, much less vicious, and there is much less evidence against it.
But I have seen no evidence for it either, and it is simply not ethical to repeat made-up charges about your opponents until they definitively disprove them. No one has any trouble seeing this when someone on their side is accused.
felixrayman,
Are you stating that MEMRI has no budget outside the US?
Are you stating that MEMRI’s total budget is $60M?
Are you stating that MEMRI’s total budget is $60M?
It may well be; I can guarantee you it isn’t $2M.
Are you stating that MEMRI’s total budget is $60M?
I have no idea what MEMRI’s total budget is, nor have I either claimed or implied that I did. The only statement I made regarding their budget was that the ~$2M figure you gave was only for their Washington office. You, however did make a claim that could be seen as implying that MEMRI’s total budget was under $2 million dollars, specifically, “MEMRI’s filings show a budget of under $2M”.
So, I’ll ask again, are those filings only for the US, or do they represent the full total of MEMRI’s budget, or do you not know one way or the other?
As for Katherine’s point, “you don’t make charges you have no evidence for”, if Cole simply made up a number and printed it then obviously that would deserve criticism. If he printed a number he believed to be true, was threatened with a libel lawsuit, and countered with, “I acknowledge your statement, show me the right number and I’ll publish it”, that’s something different.
Katherine: “And I was not, for f***’s sake rilkefan, offended on Bin Laden’s behalf.”
Just for the record, it never crossed my mind that you were (or could be) – and I don’t believe I implied in any way that I thought so.
Jadegold, re MEMRI being “an international propaganda operation” – I don’t quite understand where “organization to further a policy” stops, where “partisan ” start and stops, and where “propaganda operation” begins. In our country, where do say the NRA, NARAL, AEI, the DNC fall? Similarly, where does “website analyzing” stop and “blacklist” start?
felixrayman, what’s your view of the limits of “cyberstalking”?
I would still like to see a scholarly analysis of MEMRI’s work. As far as I can tell Prof. Cole is acting as a blogger in this matter and not an academic [see my original post], which is a big part of the reason I’m less sympathetic to him than I would be under other circumstances, despite my negative view of his treatment of Israeli issues.
Try abu aardvark, starting with the links above. He’s spoken to some academics; I’m not sure if he is one himself but he’s certainly knowledgable.
Why on earth does it matter whether Cole is acting as a blogger or as an academic? It’s somehow okay to intimidate the press? It’s not like MEMRI isn’t trying to influence the press.
Again, I ask you: when I say that Fox News is “essentially PR for the Republican party”, am I libelling Fox, or implying a crazy conspiracy, or making an unfounded charge about whether Fox is violating the campaign finance laws? And MEMRI’s second response is even dumber than the third. They have a point about the $60 million charge, but that’s it.
I’ll take your word for what you meant. I was furious and may have misread you. But why is it hard to understand how I would be sickened by MEMRI’s translation of Bin Laden?
They’re attempting to say that Bin Laden endorsed Kerry, and that a vote for Kerry is giving Bin Laden what he wants. Here’s a guy trying to murder me and they’re pretending that by voting for Kerry–the candidate I think is MORE likely to kill Bin Laden or prevent bin Laden from killing me, a friend, or family member–I’m somehow on Osama’s side, or doing his bidding, or giving into his threats.
Is it really so hard to see why this offended me?
They’re attempting to say that Bin Laden endorsed Kerry, and that a vote for Kerry is giving Bin Laden what he wants. Here’s a guy trying to murder me and they’re pretending that by voting for Kerry–the candidate I think is MORE likely to kill Bin Laden or prevent bin Laden from killing me, a friend, or family member–I’m somehow on Osama’s side, or doing his bidding, or giving into his threats.
I think you’re blaming the messenger here.
“Swiftboat Vets were telling vicious lies that were contradicted over and over by news reports and government documents”
other than the fact that alot of the Swiftboat stories were true and that John Kerry never fully released his military documents, which could have truly cleared up the issue.
“Is it really so hard to see why this offended me?”
Still escaping me, but will ponder. Since the interpretation that infuriates you may (as far as I know based on current info) be the correct (in some sense of the word “correct”) one, I’m likely to stay confused though.
Here’s a guy trying to murder me and they’re pretending that by voting for Kerry–”
But, what if they aren’t pretending? I mean, it is safe to say that most Islamic countries and leaders did want Kerry to win… it is an assumption, but it is probably more likely that Bin Laden did also want Kerry to win. The war has been tough on him.
I think it would be more accurate to say that those who supported Kerry don’t support Bin Laden in ideology, but both may have wanted Kerry elected for different reasons.
re MEMRI being “an international propaganda operation” – I don’t quite understand where “organization to further a policy” stops, where “partisan ” start and stops, and where “propaganda operation” begins. In our country, where do say the NRA, NARAL, AEI, the DNC fall? Similarly, where does “website analyzing” stop and “blacklist” start?
Rilkefan, propaganda operations are usually those groups which purport to be about issue advocacy but rely on manipulation of information to appeal to or incite human emotion–as opposed to informed debate and argument.
Let’s take a group we can all (I think) agree is a propaganda organization: the KKK. Their goal or mission is to end diversity and mixing of the races, with the end result being the spremacy of the white race, blah, blah, blah. Of course, the KKK has nothing to offer on why this might be a desirable outcome, so they must resort to the vilification of non-whites and non-Christians.
On the other end of the spectrum would be an advocacy group such as, say, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) or the American Cancer Society. Such groups have clear missions and actively seek to educate the public as to those issues.
Propagandists trade in inciting emotions, by exploiting insecurities, and, in particular, demonizing others.
other than the fact that alot of the Swiftboat stories were true and that John Kerry never fully released his military documents, which could have truly cleared up the issue.
Baloney.
Propagandists trade in inciting emotions, by exploiting insecurities, and, in particular, demonizing others.
Sounds like the Arab press as translated by MEMRI. Ofcourse, you are yet to show us that their translations are inacurate.
“Try abu aardvark, starting with the links above. He’s spoken to some academics; I’m not sure if he is one himself but he’s certainly knowledgable”
He describes himself as “an aardvark who got out of the tunneling and termite game to become a professor of political science, a Middle East specialist, and the father of a beautiful baby aardvark cub. Abu Aardvark speaks more Arabic than the average aardvark, but sadly has no better manners.”
I am sceptical about some of these claims, but he strikes me as an honest blogger who knows his subject.
Stan, the insertion of “US” into the bin Laden tape is an example of an inaccurate translation. Bin Laden simply did not say “US state.” That is inaccurate.
praktike,
Well, that’s open to interpetation.
I am gonna repost my previous comment:
More from Martin Kramer:
One final point: reading Bin Laden’s speech, I see he twice uses the word wilaya to refer to a U.S. state: first to say that Bush (like Arab rulers) installed his sons (sic) as governors of states (a reference to Jeb Bush), and that he imported expertise in election fraud to the state (wilaya) of Florida. These references to wilaya as U.S. states precedes the disputed reference we’ve been discussing (which only comes at the end). This does not settle the matter one way or another, but it certainly enriches the context.
It’s in Abu’s comments section.
When I was live blogging the hostage taking Beslan, I had to translate a ton of material from Russian. I can tell you that pretty often you have to translate certain words based on the context and not necessarely their direct literal meaning.
As Martin Kramer pointed out, Osama used the word “wilaya” twice when referring to US states in that same speech. Thus, MEMRI’s translation seems reasonable to me.
“I can tell you that pretty often you have to translate certain words based on the context and not necessarely their direct literal meaning.”
The insertion of “US” into a sentence where it simply does not occur isn’t honest translation. Abu Aardvark is clearly entitled to put the boot into MEMRI on that score, and he does:
“you presented your highly controversial variant translation in the most partisan way possible, based on a very thin foundation of evidence, without ever acknowledging that weakness or – in the weeks since – responding to your critics or to the increasingly powerful evidence in the other direction. You similarly refused to translate commentaries on the very same sites which did not support your views, which gave your readers a highly warped perspective on the state of Arab argument.”
Baloney.
Too kind.
abc_me: But, what if they aren’t pretending? I mean, it is safe to say that most Islamic countries and leaders did want Kerry to win…
It is safe to say that most of the world wanted Kerry to win, for the very obvious reason that having a competent and intelligent President running the world’s only superpower is much safer for the rest of the world.
it is an assumption, but it is probably more likely that Bin Laden did also want Kerry to win. The war has been tough on him.
It’s an assumption, and it’s an unlikely one. The disaster area that is the Bush administration has been highly beneficial to Osama bin Laden and to al-Qaeda. However, I won’t pretend that I can get behind Osama bin Laden’s way of thinking: all we can say is that factually, Bush’s tactics have tended to benefit al-Qaeda. Which candidate Osama bin Laden wanted to win (and whether he cared) is entirely irrelevant to me, and ought to be so to you, too.
I think it would be more accurate to say that those who supported Kerry don’t support Bin Laden in ideology, but both may have wanted Kerry elected for different reasons.
To argue that, you have to argue that those who support bin Laden in ideology prefer to have someone competent, intelligent, and diplomatic running the US: rather than someone who is an exceptionally good “recruiting sergeant” for al-Qaeda.
Jes,
It is safe to say that most of the world wanted Kerry to win, for the very obvious reason that having a competent and intelligent President running the world’s only superpower is much safer for the rest of the world.
Amusing. Can I play along? How about Kerry vs. Kucinich. Who would “most of the world” want more? I’ll make it even toughter – Kerry vs. Kucinich vs Nader.
Actually, Stan, it’s not up for debate. Bin Laden did not say “US state.”
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa’ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.
He may have meant it, but he didn’t say “US.” So I think it was clearly dishonest of MEMRI to put “US” in there.
Stan: Amusing. Can I play along?
Certainly, if you like. The next game will open sometime in 2007, I believe.
Jes,
Who would the rest of the world pick given these two choices: Kerry or Kucinich?
Who would the rest of the world pick given these two choices: Kerry or Kucinich?
Depends, who is the Republican?
pratike, hate to argue with someone more informed than I am, but AA cites experts who disagree with you (though he’s on your side). I don’t think you can do better than “matter of controversy” on this translation. If you want to say that MEMRI’s failure to flag that bit afterwards as a difficult-to-interpret section is evidence against their impartiality, I’ll go along with you.
For the record, I think there are good reasons OBL might have wanted either Bush (because he’s good for recruiting or because OBL in some “Wrath of Khan” way wants him to be president when al Q’s triumph over the US occurs) or Kerry (because OBL could claim he toppled Bush, or because he mistakenly thinks Kerry would be weak) to be president, and it’s a waste of time trying to convince anybody of one’s preferred scenario.
…and it’s a waste of time trying to convince anybody of one’s preferred scenario.
And more to the point: who cares?
Points 1 and 3 are matters of fact and are easily resolvable. Point 2 is a matter of opinion. I don’t think there’s any question that MEMRI has selectivity bias. But so what. MEMRI provides a valuable service in translating material from the Arab world mainstream press that we would not otherwise hear about.
The copyright infringement that Cole threatened MEMRI with is nonsense. Pure smoke.
The copyright infringement that Cole threatened MEMRI with is nonsense. Pure smoke.
“Threatened”?
“and translating one message from the Islamist website that supports its view proves almost nothing, and is an excellent example of the “cherry-picking” that Cole speaks of.”
The principle that groups affiliated with a speaker might have insight into shades of meaning, is not particularly shocking. This is especially true of groups which claim to be following a leader. This is especially true since how these followers interpret things may be every bit as important as how bin Laden meant them.
The fact that bin Laden talks about states as individual entities earlier in his speech and then uses the exact same word for his threat suggests that the MEMRI translation is not ridiculous. Considering that Western Middle East experts have downplayed the dangerousness of Arab extremism for decades, I don’t think you can stand on Cole’s reputation, such as it is, to show that the translation is ridiculous especially when Al Qaeda affiliated sites seem to agree with that interpretation. Cole is noticeably anti-Israel, and it noticeably effects his interpretation of events. Which frankly is fine, because knowing that fact I can read him and get useful information anyway. But he has downplayed extremism for years, and been proven wrong about it repeatedly. He is deeply invested in his professional reputation in downplaying Arab extremism. Once again, that doesn’t make him useless. It means you should be careful about taking his expertise at face value when, as here, the discussion is about the prevalance and dangerousness of Arab extremism.
As for Ann Coulter, I note that she was fired from the National Review over that article and her response to the fact that they would not run it. Are you alleging that inflammatory Arab writers get fired for trying to publish raving anti-American screeds?
Arab governments tightly control what the press is allowed to print–in stark contrast with the United States. Anti-american screeds and genocidal anti-Jewish editorials get published in various prominent Arab media all the time. The fact that MEMRI can find them almost every day in very popular media is not encouraging. Call it cherry-picking all you like, but you would not be able to do the same in a survey of high profile US publications on a day to day basis. In fact you had to reach back three years for yours. That may very well reflect a dangerous difference.
And I don’t think anyone here is accusing you of voting for Kerry because of bin Laden’s threats.
Cole is noticeably anti-Israel
There is a difference between being anti-Likud and anti-Israel. Learn it, your argument will benefit from it. Is Cole allied against the large and growing Arab Israeli minority? What does the word “Israeli” mean to you?
As for Ann Coulter, I note that she was fired from the National Review over that article and her response to the fact that they would not run it. Are you alleging that inflammatory Arab writers get fired for trying to publish raving anti-American screeds?
Note that Coulter is still published in hundreds of papers. Are there places where Arab writers would be fired for “raving anti-American screeds”? Of course. And there are places where Coulter’s anti-American screeds – and have no doubt, her screeds are anti-American – are welcome.
Arab governments tightly control what the press is allowed to print
Simply a false generalization. Qatar is not Saudi Arabia.
Anti-american screeds and genocidal anti-Jewish editorials get published in various prominent Arab media all the time
So, they get published, according to you, in the Arab media, but not the American media, and this is evidence of tight control of….which? Is it your position that no Arab in America believes in these positions?
Cole goes beyond “anti-Likud” when he writes, “What is now clear is that there is not going to be a Palestinian state, and that the Israeli ‘democracy’ now owns three million Palestinian plantation slaves indefinitely.” He’s saying that no Israeli govt will ever accept an agreement short of something morally repugnant by 19th C standards. I couldn’t even find a single reference to the Geneva Accord or to Peace Now on his website.
rilkefan, I understand the arguments on both sides of the MEMRI debate, but I believe my position is unassailable. Simply put, bin Laden did not utter “U.S.” in that sentence.
He may have been referring to a state or a nation. That’s a major aspect of the dispute and I can’t shed any more light on it.
But again, he never said “U.S.”
I was dishonest for MEMRI to put that in there.
praktike, it’s a translation – there’s no such thing as a literal word-for-word equivalence (don’t tell my Latin teacher I said so). If they’re faced with a puzzling passage and they decide what the author intended and choose a clear expression, esp. when a synonym is involved, then I don’t think it’s reasonable to call them dishonest. In an academic context they would be required to footnote the US (and certainly putting it in brackets would have been advisable) – but they did cite two Arabic sources for their interpretation, and there was internal evidence for it.
Anyway, as Anarch says, we’re arguing about the translation of a document by someone who fits my definition of a madman.
“What is now clear is that there is not going to be a Palestinian state, and that the Israeli ‘democracy’ now owns three million Palestinian plantation slaves indefinitely.”
Explain which part you disagree with.
OK, rilkefan, I see where you’re coming from. But don’t you agree that something that iffy needs brackets, footnotes, and caveats?
Oh, and FWIW, Osama bin Laden is a horrible guy, but he’s not a madman. He knows exactly what he’s trying to do and his strategy is rational given Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan. We need to try to understand him in order to fight him and his movement. Using his words for political purposes is not helpful in that regard.
Felix, I think cole’s language is inflammatory, but it’s also the case that if you go by the classical Weberian definition of a state, the Palestinians weren’t offered one through Oslo and they aren’t being offered one now.
Oh, and one of their Arabic sources was “Arabic dude on a jihadi website.”
Felix, I think cole’s language is inflammatory
Huh, a spokesman for the Palestinians who speaks perfect English and is coherent, respected, and inflammatory. Who could possibly feel threatened by that?
felixrayman,
Arab governments tightly control what the press is allowed to print
Simply a false generalization. Qatar is not Saudi Arabia.
Al Jazeera is forbidden to discuss Qatari royals or internal Qatari dealings on air. What’s more, Al Jazeera is not an independent news organization.
What’s more, Al Jazeera is not an independent news organization.
Nor is Fox.
Nor is the Moonie Times.
The list goes on and on…
jadegold,
Al Jazeera is gov’t controlled.
Al Jazeera is gov’t controlled.
As is Fox. And the Moonie Times.
Jade, gov’t funded? links?
Since when are Fox/WT gov’t controlled and not pro-Bush-businessman and loony-messiah controlled?
Anyway, praktike, I think OBL is either nuts, a fanatic, or really dumb, as I can easily think of a variety of strategies he could have followed that would have likely been much more detrimental to the US and better for his interests. If alQ-esque entities are stronger today than on 9/10, it’s because of US leadership woeful to a degree not predictable beforehand.
Stan LS: Al Jazeera is gov’t controlled.
There are two answers to that. One is, no, it’s not: yes, it receives public funds from the government of Qatar, but it is explicitly granted complete independence from government control.
Two is: supposing that you disbelieve Al Jazeera’s charter and the government of Qatar when they claim that Al Jazeera is an independent media network, you’re asserting that Al Jazeera is controlled by the government of Qatar, one of the smallest states in the world.
Given that the Qatari government has had to field complaints from every other Arab state (cite) about news reports from Al Jazeera that criticize their governments or allow opposition figures to speak out, you’d think they’d do a better job of “controlling” al-Jazeera, wouldn’t you?
But then, perhaps they’re not lying – and al-Jazeera really is independent of government control. Do you have any evidence to show that the government of Qatar is in violation of Al-Jazeera’s charter, Stan? Or are you just making it up?
Damn.
Fixed?
Jadegold, I’m waiting for Stan LS to provide links showing that the Qatar government has violated Al-Jazeera’s charter which gives it independence from government control, since he’s made that assertion without proof.
jes,
According to this, Al Jazeera is: Owned by the Amir of Qatar. Speaking of which, here’s some news article I dug up:
#
Nov.25,2003: The Amir of Qatar has fired the manager of Jazzier TV Mr. Mohammad Al Ali, on allegation that he was cooperating and working for the ex-Iraqi regime of Saddam Husain. It was reported also that he was receiving money from Saddam government. However the President and Vice presidents kept their jobs although they have some interest with Saddam.
About Qatar’s legal system (from CIA’s world factbook):
Legal system:
discretionary system of law controlled by the amir, although civil codes are being implemented; Islamic law dominates family and personal matters
I think I’ve made my case that Al Jazeera is gov’t controlled.
Stan: I think I’ve made my case that Al Jazeera is gov’t controlled.
No, you haven’t. You’ve demonstrated that the Amir of Qatar retains the right to fire a manager of Al-Jazeera (here’s the news site that ran that story): but you have not demonstrated that the Amir controls Al-Jazeera’s output, since according to the story you cited, the manager was sacked not for what he broadcast, but for “cooperating and working for the ex-Iraqi regime of Saddam Husain. It was reported also that he was receiving money from Saddam government”. Sounds to me (if that story is true) that he was fired for (a) being a traitor to his country, if he was a Qatarian citizen, and (b) for taking bribes. (a) may or may not be a legitimate reason for sacking – I’ve never looked into it. (b) is certainly a legitimate reason to sack a senior manager.
Sorry, Stan. Nice try. Now find some evidence that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled.
Jes,
That’s good stuff right there! I’ve long contended that many on the far left will give a free pass to dictators as long as they oppose our government.
You’ve demonstrated that the Amir of Qatar retains the right to fire a manager of Al-Jazeera (here’s the news site that ran that story): but you have not demonstrated that the Amir controls Al-Jazeera’s output
Fascinating! So if Bush retained the right fire Dan Rather or any other “journalist”, then our media wouldn’t be gov’t controlled either?
since according to the story you cited, the manager was sacked not for what he broadcast, but for “cooperating and working for the ex-Iraqi regime of Saddam Husain. It was reported also that he was receiving money from Saddam government”. Sounds to me (if that story is true) that he was fired for
Nice try, so if Bush retained the right to take CNN off the air because they withheld reporting specific instances of torture and death threats by Iraqi officials ? Or even better:
More stunning is the charge by former CNN correspondent Peter Collins that he was asked to read talking points from the regime’s Ministry of Information on the air and later was chastised for reporting a story about a lie from the Iraqi government while CNN was trying to secure an interview with recently deposed leader Saddam Hussein.
As for being a traitor to his country, if he was a Qatarian citizen
What’s the definition of traitor and how would it apply here if he worked for an independent news agency? And why is this the case: However the President and Vice presidents kept their jobs although they have some interest with Saddam.?
(b) for taking bribes.
Why is it the amir’s business if he’s taking bribes or not if he has nothing to do with the independent news agency by the name of Al Jazeera?
Now find some evidence that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled.
Amir retains the right to fire you at will. You are forbidden to dicuss the Qatari royal family. Amir owns and controls Al Jazeera. What’s not clear?
tone people, please, it’s a holidy.
So if Bush retained the right fire Dan Rather or any other “journalist”, then our media wouldn’t be gov’t controlled either?
I’m sorry, I missed the part where you linked to a news story about the Amir of Qatar firing an Al-Jazeera journalist. Did he? Why didn’t you cite that story? That would certainly be proof that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled.
Nice try, so if Bush retained the right to take CNN off the air because they withheld reporting specific instances of torture and death threats by Iraqi officials ?
I’m sorry, Stan, I missed the part where you linked to news that the Amir of Qatar had taken Al-Jazeera off the air because they’d failed to report a story. Did he? Why didn’t you cite that story? That would certainly be proof that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled.
You still don’t seem to have any proof that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled. Perhaps you should quit throwing this allegation around, since you don’t seem to be able to prove it’s so?
Jes,
That’s pretty funny! Let’s recap and have the folks here decide for themselves. The facts are as follows:
1) Al Jazeera was founded by the Amir of Qatar
2) Al Jazeera is funded by the Amir of Qatar
3) Al Jazeera is forbidden to dicuss the Qatari royal family or Qatar internal happenings.
4) Al Jazeera employees can be fired at will by the Amir of Qatar.
Does the Amir of Qatar control Al Jazeera or not? You decide.
Does the Amir of Qatar control Al Jazeera or not? You decide.
Let’s see, Stan. You’re asserting, not that the Amir of Qatar has the power to control Al Jazeera (which clearly he does) but that he does control Al Jazeera.
But you have yet to cite any instance of the Amir of Qatar actually acting to control Al Jazeera: the only example you’ve found is of the manager of Al Jazeera being fired, and that (apparently) not for any journalistic action or inaction, but for (allegedly) taking bribes from a foreign government.
If you could prove your case, would you need to put it to a popular vote? Evidently, you can’t prove it: you just want the moral support of knowing other people agree with the conclusion that you have leapt to without any evidence to back you up.
Stan LS: Do you consider the BBC to be government-controlled?
“Let’s recap and have the folks here decide for themselves.”
I’m one of the folks here but I’m going to the pub in a few minutes. Here’s my take:
The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by the Government. He is forbidden to interfere in matters which, in the Government’s view, are none of the Bank’s business. He can be fired for misconduct. (A Deputy Governor was obliged to resign a few years ago as a result of a scandal.)
Is the Bank of England independent? The Chancellor says yes, since he does not interfere in the Bank’s performance of its functions. I tend to agree with that view, based on my understanding of British customs.
“Does the Amir of Qatar control Al Jazeera or not?”
We need a better understanding of Qatari customs to determine that.
Kevin,
I wouldn’t compare the Government of England to Amir of Qatar. According to CIA’s World Factbook – Qatar’s legal system is a discretionary system of law controlled by the amir, although civil codes are being implemented; Islamic law dominates family and personal matters
Anarch, can Tony Blair fire BBC’s journalists?
But you have yet to cite any instance of the Amir of Qatar actually acting to control Al Jazeera: the only example you’ve found is of the manager of Al Jazeera being fired, and that (apparently) not for any journalistic action or inaction, but for (allegedly) taking bribes from a foreign government.
Bribes from a foreign gov’t? Was his bribed to spy on Qatar? Can a Brittish citizen work for PBS? Is he then bribed by the US gov’t?
If you could prove your case, would you need to put it to a popular vote? Evidently, you can’t prove it: you just want the moral support of knowing other people agree with the conclusion that you have leapt to without any evidence to back you up.
I think I did prove my case. And I did list some evidence which I’ll be happy to do again:
1) Al Jazeera was founded by the Amir of Qatar
2) Al Jazeera is funded by the Amir of Qatar
3) Al Jazeera is forbidden to dicuss the Qatari royal family or Qatar internal happenings.
4) Al Jazeera employees can be fired at will by the Amir of Qatar.
Does the Amir of Qatar control Al Jazeera or not? You decide.
Maybe I should break it down for you into terms you can understand. In the above, replace “Al Jazeera” with “Fox News”, and substitute “Amir of Qatar” with “George W. Bush”. Does Bush control Fox News? You decide.
Does the CIA consider the Bank of England independent? Or, since Anarch’s question may be more to the point, the BBC?
Britain has “a discretionary system of law” controlled by the monarch, if you take seriously all the crap about the Queen having the power to dissolve Parliament, declare war etc.; of course everybody knows that’s just ceremonial.
What really matters is whether the ruler has foresworn the right to interfere; that’s the basis of the BBC’s independence, such as it is.
“Anarch, can Tony Blair fire BBC’s journalists?”
With a bit of help fom the likes of Lord Hutton he can fire the Chairman, the Director General and even a reporter for the Today programme. But it’s uphill work.
I don’t know what light that sheds on the question.
Good night, all.
Kevin,
With a bit of help fom the likes of Lord Hutton he can fire the Chairman, the Director General and even a reporter for the Today programme. But it’s uphill work.
Somehow I doubt that the Amir of Qatar would need to pull some string to get people fired. What’s more, unlike Tony Blair, he is not up for re election, hence he could do as he pleases.
Boy, this is a relief. Instead of invading Iran, we can go after Quatar. Sort of like the meal after Thanksgiving where you just want something light. And if we replace Al-J with a real press, driven by monetary considerations above all else, we’ll be another step closer to solving the problems of the ME.
liberal,
Unlike Kevin, it seems that you are already at the pub.
Cheers!
I think I did prove my case.
You asserted your case. You failed to provide any evidence for your case. Proof requires evidence, Stan: you have heard of the concept?
Your case is that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled. Evidence for government control would be proof that Al-Jazeera journalists have been sacked for not toeing the Qatar government’s line, or that Al-Jazeera has run stories (or suppressed stories) at the Qatar government’s request. You have failed to provide any such evidence: indeed, you have not even asserted that any such incidents have occurred.
And I did list some evidence which I’ll be happy to do again:
You listed a series of statements about Al-Jazeera. Sadly, none of them actually prove your case, and you have not yet provided any evidence for (3) or (4). If you can, feel free: but I assume that if you could, you would.
I conclude that you’re just making stuff up off the top of your head, hoping that people will believe you if you repeat it often enough. If I’m wrong in my conclusion, do provide your much-delayed cites to prove your case.
“You failed to provide any evidence for your case. Proof requires evidence, Stan: you have heard of the concept?”
Jesurgislac, Stan clearly thinks he’s provided evidence. I happen to think it’s somewhat meager but such is life – I don’t think it deserves the above degree of snideness.
Stan, I think you’re pushing your case way too hard – why not take a line like “Al Jazeera is not as independent as Western media since its existence is on a shaky foundation” and then show how shaky it is by producing evidence that the Amir is willing to do what’s needed, etc, that there are complaints in other Arab media about al J’s Qatar coverage, …
Rilkefan: Stan clearly thinks he’s provided evidence
Yes, but he hasn’t. His repeated claim that he has, without bothering to look up anything new, is what is getting (I think) a deserved degree of snideness.
Your outline to Stan on how he could try to make a better case for what (from what little I know about it) might well be a more accurate charge against Al-Jazeera is admirable: it would require a certain amount of work to follow it up and make the case, and I do wonder if Stan will. I suspect not.
“Yes, but he hasn’t.”
Well, you ought to have said that (snidely if you think it adds to the discourse). And please let him serenely ignore, dismiss, or follow up on my suggestion – I don’t see how “I suspect not” will help.
General query – did the recent WMD-related court case against the BBC not call its independence into some question?
Jes,
How about:
If Qatar’s gas deposits are the source of its wealth, Al Jazeera is the principal source of its current renown. Launched in 1996, this pioneering Arabic television network has become a phenomenon, breaking down barriers in the Middle East and spawning copycats such as Dubai’s Al Arabia. Yet what the innumerable and breathless books and articles about it tend to overlook is that Al Jazeera is not independent. Qataris like to boast that theirs is the only Arab country to have abolished its Ministry of Information–but their last minister of information, Sheikh Hamid bin Tamir, is chairman of the board of Al Jazeera, Qatar-TV, and Qatar radio. Al Jazeera is not even financially independent. It relies overwhelmingly on government largesse, and only marginally on advertising. “Whoever said we were independent?” asks one Al Jazeera producer. “People just assumed this.”
Like other Arab media, too, Al Jazeera lives within clear red lines: The emir, his family, and events in Qatar are off-limits. Officials in Doha, average Qataris, and Al Jazeera employees all explain away the news blackout. “Qatar is so small,” they say, “nothing of interest to the rest of the Arab world goes on here.” This sounds disingenuous, given the Qataris’ diligent efforts to project a progressive image. In the last few years, Qatar has hosted and funded several high-profile international conferences on democratization, economic reform, and investment opportunities in the region, all intended to spotlight Qatar’s ostensible progress in these areas.
You can add another fact to my list:
5) Al Jazeera’s chairman is Qatar’s last minister of information Sheikh Hamid bin Tamir.
Let’s try this again:
1) Fox News was founded by Bush
2) Fox News is funded by the Bush
3) Fox News is forbidden to dicuss Bush’s family family or US internal happenings.
4) Fox News employees can be fired at will by the Bush
5) Powell is Fox News’ chairman
Does Bush control Fox News?
Stan, how much of Al Jazeera’s coverage is devoted to Qatari issues (to whatever degree) – is it actually 0.0? How much more would there be by an independent al J? I’m likely willing to grant you al J is not independent on Qatari issues – but does that really matter? I don’t really give a damn about Qatar (even if I should).
I’m likely willing to grant you al J is not independent on Qatari issues – but does that really matter?
I think so. Amir of Qatar has absolute power. If he tells them not to dicuss Qatar, then I’ld imagine he also tells them how to slant other news. You don’t find it curious that he abolished the Ministry of Information in 1995, and gave birth Al Jazeera in 1996 with the last minister of information as its chairman?
“I’ld imagine he also tells them how to slant other news.” Maybe, maybe not – how should I know? Does the Amir effectively have absolute power? Does he wield whatever he has without restraint?
There are surely substantial documented critiques of al J out there for those who want to know more or less how independent and unbiased the station is.
rilke,
It’s obvious that I am speculating based on the facts I’ve provided. It’s up to you to see my speculation as a reasonable one or not.
Just saying something truthesque is probably out there available for not too much effort.
Rilkefan: And please let him serenely ignore, dismiss, or follow up on my suggestion – I don’t see how “I suspect not” will help.
I’m right, though, aren’t I? 😉 He isn’t going to follow up on your sensible suggestion.
Stan: Wonderful. Now you think linking to an article in the Weekly Standard about Al Jazeera constitutes “evidence”. Heh.
Rilkefan: General query – did the recent WMD-related court case against the BBC not call its independence into some question?
No. Technically, the court case (if you mean the Hutton investigation) was looking into the death of Dr. David Kelly, the WMD expert who apparently committed suicide on July 17, 2003 after having been outed as the source for Andrew Gilligan’s comments about the British WMD dossier.
David Kelly summary, Hutton inquiry.
Officially, the British government was cleared of wrong-doing, thanks to a neat hand-off between the Hutton inquiry and the Butler Review. In fact, questions still exist as to whether Blair knew the Bush administration was lying about the WMD in Iraq, or whether he had been lied to by them and believed their lies.
However, the Hutton inquiry certainly did not call the BBC’s independence into question: indeed, it rather solidly established the fact that the BBC is an independent service, though wholly funded by the government.
It is fairly clear that Jesurgislac won’t accept evidence of control when he asks about control. Being able to fire employees of a company which you fund is pretty much the definition of executive control. If you want proof that the Amir personally vets every story, you probably won’t get it because he is a member of the idle rich who wouldn’t want to work that hard. But proving that the CEO doesn’t know my name and has never seen my work doesn’t mean that he doesn’t control my job.
This is a false analogy because the Queen does not actually have the right to fire employees of the BBC. If she tried to employ it, her power would be exposed as purely ceremonial. In Qatar however we see that the Amir has actually fired an employee of the TV station. I know you have heard of the chilling effect. US reporters complain about threats to chill free speech all the time. How much more chilling would it be if Bush could fire Peter Jennings? Would that not be a fairly large amount of control over the press? Sheesh.
SH, check out the first comment in the recent haiku thread. Incidentally I’m not unsympathetic to the position in your 11:02 comment, but I still think more info is needed – dictators aren’t necessarily bad rulers.
Jes, it seems to me that when three prominent members of a news organization resign on losing a (widely-considered) govt.-friendly court case, that n.o. has a lappy aura.
How much more chilling would it be if Bush could fire Peter Jennings? Would that not be a fairly large amount of control over the press?
Would you expect an unbiased story on the Moonies in the Washington Times? What would happen to a Washington Times reporter who insisted on writing such articles? Would you expect an unbiased story on Murdoch on Fox?
No.
Would you expect an unbiased story on Qatar’s royal family on Al Jazeera?
No, follow the money.
What you do have is a media outlet that has managed to be an irritant to just about every other government in the region, as well as to the US and other western powers. They’re doing something right – if a news outlet isn’t irritating people in power, it isn’t doing its job. I think my original point stands – Qatar is not Saudi Arabia.
Now I would certainly prefer something like the BBC – Winston Churchill tried to have the BBC shut down during WW2 for reporting critical of his administration, and he failed (contrast that to Bush congratulating the US press for its fawning subservience during the Iraq invasion).
But to paint Al Jazeera and the press in places like Saudi Arabia with the same brush – nonsense. If you use the phrase “tightly controlled” to describe both of the above, you are ignoring the facts.
I think the Qatari regime’s relationship to Al Jazeera is ambiguous at best. Search through the archive under “Qata” and it seems like half the stories are of the Russian assassins, and the others are pretty much unquestioning relays of policy statements by the Qatari foreign minister whose name IIRC is Sheikh Thani bin Thani al-Thani.
This is a false analogy because the Queen does not actually have the right to fire employees of the BBC.
I think she actually does, which is part of why I asked the question in the first place. [Blair, as noted above, has the capacity to destroy the BBC through Lord Hutton, even though he lacks the ability to directly fire an individual journalist AFAIK.] It’d be a very, very interesting question as to what might happen if she tried (see also, dissolving the government &c), though, which is why I suspect the British monarchy never will.
And, for reference, being unable to print bad stories about the current regime isn’t unique to Qatar nor, indeed, to a particular kind of press. Thailand has some of the most draconian lese majesty laws in the world and its press is (currently) pretty free of government control. What rights of speech an individual or entity has relative to the current regime is far more convoluted than a mere question of ownership.
My personal take on this, incidentally, is that the whole “government control” paradigm is inapplicable when looking at monarchic societies in today’s world; it seeks to impose a black-and-white structure on something that is, almost by definition, too grey and nebulous to support it. Which is a much-too-florid way of saying that I think we’re asking the wrong question here, although I’m not sure what the right question would be.
Added in proof: this is one of the worst-written posts I’ve ever submitted here, but I’m too tired to ponce it up. Here’s to hoping it’s still comprehensible.
Good article on AJ/Qatar here:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0006_me2.htm
I find Gambill is one of the best-informed guys around.
Sorry Stan, not at the pub (damn that time difference) I was heading out the door to an aikido embu. I’m biased, but it’s wonderful stuff, using the opponent’s energy rather than your own, moving aside and letting him (or her) do the work. I’d suggest, based on this thread, there might be some lessons in it for you.
btw, If Qatar controls Al-J, I’m just wondering why they weren’t listed on the axis of evil. Clearly, you think that control of the media is a _bad_ thing, so I assume that you are less than thrilled with Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and even Japan. I’d also note that almost every country that has a royal family tends to have ways to shut down the press when they get too close to the bone, but I don’t see you complaining about goverment control there, though I’m sure you are going to tell me that my previously mentioned countries aren’t whipping up hatred against the US.
And praktike, thanks for that link, if Al-J is a state controlled media, I’d certainly like a bit more of that here in Japan.
Sebastian: It is fairly clear that Jesurgislac won’t accept evidence of control when he asks about control.
Oh, come off it, Sebastian. Stan LS has repeatedly (and unsurprisingly) failed to provide any evidence that Al-Jazeera is government-controlled. (Rilkefan has outlined a good argument that Stan or you could borrow – for which there is probably evidence, if you cared to do the work.)
Being able to fire employees of a company which you fund is pretty much the definition of executive control. If you want proof that the Amir personally vets every story, you probably won’t get it because he is a member of the idle rich who wouldn’t want to work that hard. But proving that the CEO doesn’t know my name and has never seen my work doesn’t mean that he doesn’t control my job.
Actually, in journalism, it doesn’t. As the situation of the BBC demonstrates. The Queen (or rather, the Crown) does have the right to fire senior BBC executives for extreme misconduct (and accepting bribes from the Iraqi government, when Iraq had one, would certainly have qualified). Neither the Crown nor the government of the day, however, controls what the BBC broadcasts. Stan LS has been repeatedly challenged to provide proof that his assertion that Al Jazeera is “government controlled” and has been unable to do so.
Britain has “a discretionary system of law” controlled by the monarch, if you take seriously all the crap about the Queen having the power to dissolve Parliament, declare war etc.; of course everybody knows that’s just ceremonial.
An extreme misunderstanding. The monarch’s powers are represented by the Crown. The Crown’s powers in the system are very real: Blair, Prime Minister, wields the power to declare war independently of Parliament, and absolutely does – and has twice exercised – the power to dissolve Parliament. It’s not at all ceremonial.
This is a false analogy because the Queen does not actually have the right to fire employees of the BBC. If she tried to employ it, her power would be exposed as purely ceremonial.
It’s a pretty good analogy. As I said, I think you should take Rilkefan’s advice: there is certainly a lesser case you (or Stan LS) could make with considerably more success.
In Qatar however we see that the Amir has actually fired an employee of the TV station.
Yes: the manager was fired for what appears to be criminal misconduct. It is not, from what little we know about it, alleged that he was fired for what stories he was running, or any journalistic stance he was taking.
I know you have heard of the chilling effect. US reporters complain about threats to chill free speech all the time. How much more chilling would it be if Bush could fire Peter Jennings? Would that not be a fairly large amount of control over the press? Sheesh
Tell me, Sebastian; If it were proved that Peter Jennings had been taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, wouldn’t you expect Jennings to be fired for criminal misconduct? Or would you feel that in order to demonstrate that the US has a free press, he ought to be allowed to keep his job?
Rilkefan: SH, check out the first comment in the recent haiku thread.
Heh.
A useful article on the powers of the British monarchy, if anyone’s really interested: wikipedia, though I admit that the twisty and odd relationship the monarch of the United Kingdom has with the UK government is probably not worth going into in much detail. 😉 But, no: really not “just ceremonial”, no more than the POTUS’s powers are “just ceremonial”.
This is really good stuff here. By the way, someone refresh my memory – what was that thing about Cheney & Haliburton? What was the evidence?
By the way, someone refresh my memory – what was that thing about Cheney & Haliburton? What was the evidence?
With regards to what?
Is there a word for the strategy of bringing up a completely unrelated topic out of the blue (as Stan just did, and as Sebastian did in one of the Ukraine threads) as if it had a bearing on the subject at hand, but without showing any linkage?
I think of it as the “oh look! a spaceship!” strategy, but it would be interesting to know if it has a name in rhetoric.
“I think of it as the “oh look! a spaceship!” strategy, but it would be interesting to know if it has a name in rhetoric.”
I don’t know if it’s an official rhetorical term, but “red herring” comes to mind.
I see that that one went over your head.
“I see that that one went over your head.”
The shark, she has jumped.
Much more interesting: a touching monologue and a scribbler (check out the galllery) and no doubt lots of other cool stuff.
The Scribbler is quite, quite fascinating – thanks for the link!
A new ObWi logo?
Those are awesome, rilkefan! Thanks! 🙂
“What is now clear is that there is not going to be a Palestinian state, and that the Israeli ‘democracy’ now owns three million Palestinian plantation slaves indefinitely.”Explain which part you disagree with.
I disagree with all of it. None of it is true, and all of it is inflammatory. placing quotes around “democracy” when referring to Israel is also dishonest and inflammatory. Anyone who can write that paargraph has problems with Israel that well beyond disagreeing with Sharon.
There is a difference between being anti-Likud and anti-Israel. Learn it, your argument will benefit from it.
Physician, heal thyself.
preview is your friend
preview is your friend
Sorry. Tag in haste, clarify at leisure.
To clarify: Paragraphs 1,2, and 4 are quoted from Felix Rayman. Paragraphs 3 and 5 are my responses.
I disagree with all of it. None of it is true, and all of it is inflammatory. placing quotes around “democracy” when referring to Israel is also dishonest and inflammatory. Anyone who can write that paargraph has problems with Israel that well beyond disagreeing with Sharon.
To the contrary. Calling Israel a ‘democracy’ is beyond ridiculous. Perhaps we need to clarify what is meant by ‘democracy’ as it seems to be tossed around with wildly varying degrees of inaccuracy.
The idea of ‘unilateral disengagement’–the notion of restricting of limiting Arab access to Israel in order to maintain a Jewish majority is the antithesis of what most reasonable people would term ‘democracy.’
And it’s not foes of Israel who claim this–it comes from voices within Israel like Uri Dromi of the Israel Democracy Institute and Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset.
The notion of restricting or limiting Chinese access to the US in order to maintain a non-Asian majority is the antithesis of what most reasonable people would term ‘democracy.’
The notion of restricting or limiting Chinese access to the US in order to maintain a non-Asian majority is the antithesis of what most reasonable people would term ‘democracy.’
That would be a well-taken point were it not for the fact we also restrict or limit access to the US many members of other nationalities and faiths. It’s not as if we’re exactly giving, say, white Belgians free access to preserve the white majority of this country.
Israel, OTOH….
Jadegold, I think you missed my point – which is that your purported reason for the exclusion of Arabs is mostly wrong. Countries have many reasons for restricting immigration. Perhaps you’d like to argue that the developed world has a moral obligation to accept a much greater rate of influx from the undeveloped world – in which case more power to you, as long as the charity begins at home.
(Incidentally I think your argument is in itself wrong – I believe it’s a lot easier for a Belgian to get a toehold here than someone from the better-melanined parts of the world, probably to some small degree due to our country’s residual racism.)
I disagree with all of it.
Well, It’s nice that you think there is going to be a Palestinian state, that’s a pretty lonely position to take.
As for the issue of democracy, apparently either you think that the situation in the West Bank or Gaza can be described as democracy or you think that the situation in those places is not the responsibility of the nation occupying them. Both of these are wrong.
“It’s nice that you think there is going to be a Palestinian state, that’s a pretty lonely position to take.” [em. added]
From my perspective this is a) just wrong and b) irrelevant.
“apparently either you think that the situation in the West Bank or Gaza can be described as democracy or you think that the situation in those places is not the responsibility of the nation occupying them.”
Not relevant to the argument, esp. given that the Israeli govt has been in lengthy negotiations to turn over territory to the Palestinians in question, the stated policy of the govt.
Or perhaps you have some definition of democracy under which the vast majority of govts fitting the usual definition of the term are excluded. Maybe Canada’s a real democracy by that definition – well, actually, probably not.
Well, It’s nice that you think there is going to be a Palestinian state, that’s a pretty lonely position to take.
Lonely? Am I missing something?
you think that the situation in those places is not the responsibility of the nation occupying them.
While I agree with rilkefan on this, I also think, as a matter of fact, that the situation in those places is to a large extent the responsibility of the people who live there, and especially their leadership.
Jadegold, I think you missed my point – which is that your purported reason for the exclusion of Arabs is mostly wrong. Countries have many reasons for restricting immigration.
Agreed–except in Israel’s case, it’s not a matter of immigration. It’s about denying fundamental rights to those already living there; some who have lived there for many, many generations.
I could learn to be a lot more upset about Israel’s restrictions on Arab and Palestinian immigration if the effective Jewish population of all Arab- and Muslim-majority states combined was not effectively zero. And if it wasn’t impossible to enter Saudi Arabia at all if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport or are Jewish. I grow weary of the sickeningly racist Muslim states pointing at Israel and yelling, “Racists!”
“Tell me, Sebastian; If it were proved that Peter Jennings had been taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, wouldn’t you expect Jennings to be fired for criminal misconduct? Or would you feel that in order to demonstrate that the US has a free press, he ought to be allowed to keep his job?”
I would expect that he would be fired by his network, not by President Bush because President Bush does not control ABC News nor does he fund it. Al Jazeera is controlled by the Amir because he can order the firing of employees and because he funds it.
I suppose that is irrelevant to Jade that many Jewish and Christian populations have had to leave just about every Arab country for fear of thier lives.
I blame the Israeli immigration policy for this!
Eww, I suppose it’s irrelevant to you that it’s unjust to punish Palestinians for actions committed by other Arab countries. (Indeed, it seems not even to have occurred to you or to Phil that it’s unjust.)
Sebastian, no one is disagreeing that the Amir of Qatar owns Al-Jazeera. What Stan’s untenable argument is that Al-Jazeera’s output is government controlled. He has yet to provide any evidence that it is so, and nor have you: instead both of you keep dwelling on the fact that a manager was fired for criminal misconduct by the main shareholder, and offering that as “proof” of government control. Surely if you want to prove Al-Jazeera is government controlled, you see that you must find actual evidence that the Amir of Qatar has interfered with what Al-Jazeera is and is not broadcasting.
As neither of you have done this, I conclude you’ve looked, found no evidence, and decided to keep slandering al-Jazeera regardless.
Jadegold: The idea of ‘unilateral disengagement’–the notion of restricting of limiting Arab access to Israel in order to maintain a Jewish majority is the antithesis of what most reasonable people would term ‘democracy.’
Agreed. The concept that Israel has a right to keep its artificial Jewish majority by forced exile, apartheid, and restriction of immigration, is antithetical to democracy. But I fear you will never get people who have been reared on the idea that Israel does have an absolute right to do that, to see that it’s so. “Givens” based on religion are the hardest “givens” ever to give up.
But I fear you will never get people who have been reared on the idea that Israel does have an absolute right to do that, to see that it’s so. “Givens” based on religion are the hardest “givens” ever to give up.
Exactly. And it’s not lost on many Israelis (such as Domri and Burg) who understand Israel faces a choice: democracy or a state based upon racism.
To Phil and Ewwww; please note that comparing Israel to Saudi Arabia or other Middle Eastern theocracies doesn’t help your contention that Israel is a model of democracy.
I didn’t say it wasn’t unjust, Jes. But we all have hierarchies of things that we rage against, and that one happens to be low on my list in comparison to the way Jews are treated throughout the Middle East. Call me crazy, but I’m just not all that interested in seeing millions who share part of my cultural heritage — some of them my blood relatives — subject to cultural and perhaps physical annihilation for the second time in 100 years.
Jadegold: Please cite where I contended that Israel is a model of democracy. Then apologize for putting words in my mouth. Thanks in advance.
Phil: As I noted earlier, it’s not so much an issue of immigration as an issue of apartheid and racial exclusion. And pretending the excesses of dictatorial theocracies in other ME countries somehow excuses Israel’s own excesses is to guarantee the physical strife of your blood relatives continues unabated.
I am curious, though; what do you mean by ‘cultural annihilation?’
As I noted earlier, it’s not so much an issue of immigration as an issue of apartheid and racial exclusion. And pretending the excesses of dictatorial theocracies in other ME countries somehow excuses Israel’s own excesses is to guarantee the physical strife of your blood relatives continues unabated.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I sort of have to insist that you stop it. Unless you can cite where I said that the treatment of Jews throughout the Middle East “excuses Israel’s own excesses.” If you can’t argue honestly, I really don’t have any interest in having a discussion with you.
I am curious, though; what do you mean by ‘cultural annihilation?’
What do you think? It appears that what I actually say has little bearing on what you hear, so make up whatever you suppose is least flattering.
Have it your way, Phil. I wouldn’t relish attempting to defend your remarks, either.
I take it, then, that no apology is forthcoming for claiming publicly — twice — that I said things which I explicitly did not say? OK, then. If you’re comfortable with that standard, then we’ll proceed. I hope you understand that it’s a two-way, street, though. As long as I can make up stuff that you didn’t say and attribute it to you, I’m cool with talking about whatever you want to talk about.
Phil: Call me crazy, but I’m just not all that interested in seeing millions who share part of my cultural heritage — some of them my blood relatives — subject to cultural and perhaps physical annihilation for the second time in 100 years.
Being neither a Middle Eastern Jew, nor a Middle Eastern Arab, I can care about both, and not feel that I have to dismiss one to say that the other is unjust.
I have sympathy for people with blood relatives on one side of the conflict who have no space in them for sympathy with people on the other side of the conflict. So you’ll understand, I take it, why so many Arab countries are so fiercely anti-Israel: there are many people in them who hold exactly the same beliefs you do: that loyalty towards “millions who share part of my cultural heritage — some of them my blood relatives” should priority over acting with justice and working for peace.
I have sympathy for this stance, but I don’t and can’t support it, since it’s one reason why the conflict over Israel and Palestine has lasted so long and been so bitter.
While Phil stamps his feet, it’s worth noting Juan Cole points to a timely NY Review of Books Essay by Henry Siegman.
Jadegold: While Phil stamps his feet
I really think that comments like that aren’t helpful in a topic that’s proving so contentious. Be civil.
My apologies, Jesurgislac.
why so many Arab countries are so fiercely anti-Israel: there are many people in them who hold exactly the same beliefs you do: that loyalty towards “millions who share part of my cultural heritage — some of them my blood relatives” should priority over acting with justice and working for peace.
Are you seriously suggesting that other Arab countries are motivated by sympathy for the Palestinians and fears that they are going to be annihilated? That’s plain silly, jes. Most obviously, Palestinians have not been welcome to immigrate to those countries. And, contrary to your suggestion, they are in no danger of physical annihilation.
I suppose it’s irrelevant to you that it’s unjust to punish Palestinians for actions committed by other Arab countries.
I suppose it’s irrelevant to you that what has happened in Arab countries is likely to happen again in an Arab-majority Israel. I also note that for the 982,784 billionth time Israel is being criticized for its behavior by those who never peep over Muslim governments’ mistreatment and expulsion of Jews.
Israel can be a democracy or an ethnic state, but not both.
Jade, you need to apologise to Phil, not to me. I’m merely exercising the privilege of a long-time commentator to point out that it really helps in a discussion of this kind to stringently refrain from personal comments about people whose ideas you deplore: such is (if I may be so bold) the Inner Meaning of the posting rules.
Bernard: Are you seriously suggesting that other Arab countries are motivated by sympathy for the Palestinians and fears that they are going to be annihilated?
Phil said (November 29, 2004 09:07 AM) that he supported Israel because he had blood relatives there (I summarise, and apologise if that’s inaccurate) and because it was part of his cultural heritage. That motivation – to side with those you perceive as your kin and part of your cultural heritage, and against those you perceive as the Other, without regard for justice or for peace – is indeed what motivates many Arabs against Israel: the country that created an artificial Jewish majority by forced exile of several hundred thousand Palestinians, and has maintained this artificial majority by violence, oppression, apartheid, and religious discrimination with regard to immigration.
I suppose it’s irrelevant to you that what has happened in Arab countries is likely to happen again in an Arab-majority Israel.
Such fears were expressed by many white South Africans with regard to giving black South Africans equality under the law. That no white pogroms have happened in South Africa since equality was granted is proof that equality under the law can be granted to previously-oppressed majorities without it having to result in pogroms against a minority. I grant you it would be difficult: but the current situation is untenable long term.
I also note that for the 982,784 billionth time Israel is being criticized for its behavior by those who never peep over Muslim governments’ mistreatment and expulsion of Jews.
How often must I say that I object to mistreatment and expulsion on religious/ethnic grounds in any state, to satisfy you? I’m wondering this quite seriously: it’s such a routine complaint on the part of either side “You don’t say anything about what THEY’VE done!”
I will say that the mass expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews to Israel in 1948-50, while I do not support it, did have positive benefits for Israel: not least making it a genuinely Middle Eastern country, rather than (as it was founded) a colonialist venture by Europeans/Americans.
While I agree with rilkefan on this, I also think, as a matter of fact, that the situation in those places is to a large extent the responsibility of the people who live there, and especially their leadership.
You’re wrong. The responsibility rests with the same people who control the airspace, the infrastructure, and the natural resources, the same people who have the legal powers of arrest (as well as the legal powers of assassination) and the same people who, on their whim, can destroy the home of an Arab in order to make room for the home of a “settler” – nice piece of agitprop, that last bit.
Morally, legally, and in actual fact, the situation in the West Bank and Gaza is the responsibility of the state of Israel because the state of Israel occupies and controls those areas and has for over 30 years. Of course you could claim that the responsibility has rested with someone who was under house arrest for years, but that wouldn’t pass the laugh test.
Phil said (November 29, 2004 09:07 AM) that he supported Israel because he had blood relatives there (I summarise, and apologise if that’s inaccurate) and because it was part of his cultural heritage.
You missed the part about cultural and physical annihilation. That was, I suspect, an important part of his point.
That motivation – to side with those you perceive as your kin and part of your cultural heritage, and against those you perceive as the Other, without regard for justice or for peace – is indeed what motivates many Arabs against Israel
Too bad it hasn’t motivated them to help the Palestinians.
That no white pogroms have happened in South Africa since equality was granted is proof that equality under the law can be granted to previously-oppressed majorities without it having to result in pogroms against a minority.
This argument is ludicrous beyond words. What next? Arafat as Mandela? or Gandhi perhaps? You want history? Jews have an ample history of being a disliked minority. It often hasn’t worked out very well. Still, it’s awfully sporting of you to be willing to take the risk.
How often must I say that I object to mistreatment and expulsion on religious/ethnic grounds in any state, to satisfy you?
How often have you criticized Israel? How often have you said that Arab states should compensate those they expelled, despite the fact that it had “positive benefits” for Israel? How often have you criticized the Palestinian leadership for its mistreatment of the Palestinians? Or does stealing billions of dollars from them not count?
has maintained this artificial majority by violence, oppression, apartheid, and religious discrimination with regard to immigration.
This is a rant. what are you talking about? The West Bank and Gaza? Are you claiming there were no problems in the region prior to 1967?
There are many claims about how being anti-Likud is not the same as being anti-Israel. True. But these positions you take are anti-Israel. Maybe that doesn’t bother you, but let’s be clear about it. Now, I understand that you don’t object to the existence of a state named “Israel” on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, but in every other respect you are anti-Israel, because the state you want to see there would have few of the characteristics of Israel as it exists today. And if you think that would be good then we have no further room for discussion.
Phil said (November 29, 2004 09:07 AM) that he supported Israel because he had blood relatives there (I summarise, and apologise if that’s inaccurate) and because it was part of his cultural heritage.
More or less, although not really. What I said was that I am not nearly as upset about Israel’s treatment of its Arab minority or its restrictive immigration policies as I am about the Arab world’s treatment of Jews in general. Are there injustices? Yes, there are. Is Israel the only safe haven for Jews in the entire region? Yes, it is. I am not interested in a solution that results in Israeli Jews having their culture, or their lives, destroyed. And I’m not going to be distracted by the Arab world’s pretending to care about the plight of the Palestinians, when they have done little or nothing to help the Palestinians themselves, and tend to use the issue as a pretext for anti-Semitic, anti-Western attacks.
a colonialist venture by Europeans/Americans.
Sure. If you were going to put a colony in the Middle East that’s exactly where you’d put it. A place with few resources, no oil to speak of, lots of desert. That makes sense.
History again. After WWII there were displaced Jews, lots of them. Where exactly were they supposed to go? The western countries didn’t want them, and eastern Europe was not exactly a good option (see Kielce, for a well-known example). According to you, they weren’t supposed to go to Israel either. Where then? What was supposed to happen? Think about real history, jes.
Of course you could claim that the responsibility has rested with someone who was under house arrest for years, but that wouldn’t pass the laugh test.
He managed to endorse a lot of checks while under house arrest. What doesn’t pass the laugh test is the notion that the Palestinians are innocent victims of the Israelis, utterly without reponsibility for their own misfortunes.
Bernard: You missed the part about cultural and physical annihilation. That was, I suspect, an important part of his point.
The Palestinians have been at risk of cultural and physical annihilation since their country was taken over, by terrorism, of a group of European/American colonists who asserted a religious right to own the country. Where is your sympathy for them? Phil asserts that he has a right to ignore them because he has blood relatives on the other side: as I said, I sympathise with that stance, but must oppose it.
Too bad it hasn’t motivated them to help the Palestinians.
Well, it has – just not in the form of help that either you or I would consider advisable, though for different reasons.
This argument is ludicrous beyond words. What next? Arafat as Mandela? or Gandhi perhaps? You want history? Jews have an ample history of being a disliked minority. It often hasn’t worked out very well.
This argument is also ludicrous beyond words. Shall all Jews have a right in perpetuity to inflict whatever injustice they please because injustice has so often been inflicted on them?
How often have you criticized Israel? How often have you said that Arab states should compensate those they expelled, despite the fact that it had “positive benefits” for Israel?
Shall we argue, then, that Arab states ought to give all Jews who were expelled between 1948-50 the right of return, in exchange for Israel giving all Arabs who were expelled in the same time period the right of return to Israel?
I do not make a point of counting up what I write and making sure I’ve written equivalent wordage for subjects A, B, C, and D. If you do, I admire your organisation and your persistence. Well done. So, how often do you criticise Israel, and how often do you criticise Arab states? I assume that you can provide this information, in a neatly tabulated form. Yes?
what are you talking about? The West Bank and Gaza?
No, I’m talking about how Israel was founded. There have been “problems in the region” since long before 1967: I have a historical summary somewhere which I should put up on my journal. But in short form, “has maintained this artificial majority by violence, oppression, apartheid, and religious discrimination with regard to immigration” is not a rant: it’s an accurate summary of how Israel has managed to retain its artificial Jewish majority.
True. But these positions you take are anti-Israel. Maybe that doesn’t bother you, but let’s be clear about it.
I see the positions I take as pro-Israel. Israel has four possible directions to take:
1. Give up the Occupied Territories: either move all the Israelis in the illegal settlements back into Israel proper, or declare that anyone still living there after the deadline becomes a Palestinian citizen. Make a real Palestinian state , with a landbridge between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, access free to Palestinian citizens.
2. Declare the Occupied Territories part of Israel, and everyone in them Israeli citizens. The illegal settlements and roads become legal: all Israeli citizens have free access to them. Israel would cease to become a state with an artificially-created and bloodily-maintained Jewish majority.
3. Declare the Occupied Territories part of Israel, without granting citizenship to all its citizens: Israel becomes a formal apartheid state, with a permanent underclass based on race/religion. This worked for white South Africa for well over forty years.
4. Take the default course of killing a few hundred Palestinians a year by various means, accepting that a few dozen Israelis will be killed each year, and try to make life as difficult and dangerous as possible for the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories in the hope that they will give up and go somewhere else.
I hope for option 1. I profoundly hope for it. Next best would be option 2. I think that option 3 would merely store up long term and horrific trouble for Israel: and option 4 is building a house of straw in the midst of a whirlwind.
I do not see that option 4 can be maintained forever. Yet it does appear to be the default choice of Israeli governments over the decades: a hope that because it has worked for so long it will continue to work forever.
I do not see that hoping for a successful long-term future for Israel and Palestine is being anti-Israel.
jes,
Oddly enough, I also favor option 1, or something quite similar, adjusting for security needs. Do you honestly believe that Israeli obduracy is, or has been, the only obstacle to achieving it?
But I did not get the impression from your previous comments that that’s what you want. I got the idea that only option 2 would satisfy you. And that option, frankly, would be a disaster.
As far as ludicrous arguments go, I’m glad to see you implicitly concede the point wrt the South Africa analogy. I was not maintaining, as you put it, that a history of mistreatment justifies mistreating others, Rather, I was pointing out that while you were offering one, far-fetched, historical analogy in support of a Jewish-minority state, the actual history of Jews in countries where they are a disliked minority is not a happy one. That is, I maintain that it is wildly unlikely that your option 2, for example, would be a pleasant situation for the Jews.
Where is your sympathy for [the Palestinians]?
Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy for them. I think they should have a state. But my sympathy does not extend to overlooking the fact that much of their misery is self-inflicted. And the notion that they are in some danger of annihilation is absurd.
— I have not posted on this thread before, first because I knew nothing about MEMRI’s funding, then because I knew nothing about the degree of control the Amir of Qatar exercises over al Jazeera. However, on Israel:
In general, I think that very little is gained by trying to figure out whether the Palestinians or the Israelis are most at fault; in my view, the leadership of both groups has been dreadful on the issue of relations with the other group. I agree with Jes’ statement of the basic options. Back when I lived in Israel (for a year, 1982-3: I arrived the day before the invasion of Lebanon, oh joy), it seemed to me that Israel truly did not know what to do about the West Bank — it did not want to give up the territory; it didn’t want to grant citizenship to the Arab inhabitants; it didn’t want to expel them, though I think that had all the residents been spirited away in the night by fairies, the Israeli government would have been relieved; it did not want to become another South Africa. And I thought that on some level Israelis were imagining that they could simply put things on hold while they figured it all out — as though you could pause time, like a VCR — without recognizing that generations of kids were growing up in the West Bank under occupation, and that options that had once existed were vanishing. — It reminded me of a certain kind of bad relationship, in which one party relies on the other party being constantly emotionally available but is completely unwilling to make any sort of commitment, and allows years to go by while imagining that this is not at all unfair and that time is not passing. Except, of course, that in such relationships the other party can break it off.
Also, as far as double standards go: I don’t want to say that anyone here has them; like Jes, I don’t keep score. But I have met lots of people outside this blog who held Israeli Jews to a higher moral standard than Arabs. The standard explanation for this in Israel was anti-Semitism (or, if the person with the double standards was a Jew, that he or she was a “self-hating Jew”.) I would not for a moment want to deny the existence of anti-Semitism, but most of the people I met who did have double standards seemed to me to have them for a different reason. I think they thought that Israeli Jews were people like themselves (American or European), who should be held to the same moral standards as the rest of us; while Arabs were, instead, curious exotic people such as one might see depicted in National Geographic, whose peculiar customs get classified as ‘picturesque’, not as moral or immoral, even when, for instance, they involve killing people. Personally, I thought this was a crazy way to think, and deeply offensive; but it was offensive to the Arabs (and all the other ‘exotic’ peoples), not the Israelis. Holding people to moral standards is a form of respect.
I do think that people from outside tend to underestimate the difficulty of figuring out what to do if one is Israeli. But in most cases this seemed to me sort of like the (widely held) view I encountered in France in the 1970s, that American racism was so clearly abhorrent that a truly civilized country like France would never ever be capable of harboring any such phenomenon itself. I agreed about the abhorrent part, but thought they were much too sanguine about what they would do in similar circumstances, and unfortunately this turned out to be true. Which is to say: it’s a specific instance of the general human tendency to underestimate the difficulty of doing the right thing, or even (in the Israeli case) of figuring out what the right thing to do is.
“I am curious, though; what do you mean by ‘cultural annihilation?’
Probably the almost non-existent Jewish culture that used to exist in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq.
The “Jewish Culture” has survived far longer than nearly any other culture in all of recorded history. It has survived every single attempt to wipe it out in the last four-thousand years. Thousands of cultures are footnotes in ancient history because they were wiped out by stuff that the Jews lived through. One can put forward many anthropological and cultural reasons for the Jewish culture being so incredibly hardy, and one can also say that it’s because they’re God’s Chosen People if one believes that. None of the reasons matter, though, because the “Jewish Culture” is something I am not worried about annihilating any time soon.
“Israel” is not “Jewish Culture,” nor is it Judaism, nor the Jewish people. Similarly, one can point to many cases in which “cultural annihilation” has taken place and this has been a GOOD thing. The west used to have a culture based on slavery and the trafficking in human beings. Europe used to have a long and noble tradition of feudalism, aristocracy and serfdom. India and Hinduism had an entire system of law based around caste and birthright. Our feudal culture is destroyed, and this is a good thing. The slaveholding culture is destroyed, and this is a good thing.
The American culture of 1904 is an ancestor of the American Culture of 2004, but they are not the same thing — in a mere century there have been significant changes which would render Rockefeller an alien in his own country. All this is a good thing, simply a sign that societies, like the human beings they are constructed from, change and grow. Would it be a good thing for our culture in, say, England to be the same as it was when Shakespeare was penning his sonnets? If it were, we’d have achieved nothing in four hundred years. Is that something we could be proud of as a nation? The culture has changed to something barely recognisable, partially because of technology, partially because of the influx of new ideas brought by immigration, partially because that’s what happens. And, of course, at every point there have been people claiming that it would “destroy our way of life.” Eventually, they were right, but living in the culture that has emerged from the annihilation of Shakespeare’s culture, I ain’t got no complaints, and Shakespeare’s dead so I don’t care what he thinks.
Upshot? Israeli culture will change, big fat hairy deal. Jewish Culture probably won’t, even if it moves (I dunno, another five hundred years without the Messiah turning up and they may even find they’re not taking up all that real-estate in the “Holy Land” any more. Who can tell what half a millennium will bring?). Either way, “cultural annihilation” is not something I would give two hoots about.
Fear of physical annihilation is something I can sympathise with. There is a loud voice in the Arab world that wants to kill all the Jews. I don’t deny this, and I think it is worrying. On the other hand, there is a loud voice in the White Western world that believes a nuclear armageddon in the middle east will bring about the coming of Christ, and also incidentally they just voted some guy into power over one of the biggest Big Red Buttons in the world. There is also a loud voice in Israel that says all the Arabs should die, and Israel, as it happens, is also a nuclear power (the world’s biggest open secret). And, of course, the US is in Iraq, so it’s not like they [i]wouldn’t[/i] invade some country in the region on a whim. So, while I would be worried about my security were I a Jew living in Israel, I don’t give any more special sympathy to their plight than to the comparable plights. I don’t think it’s at all fair to say that the Arab states should have no fear of being wiped off the face of the planet. It’s not something I think is likely to happen, but it’s about as likely as global nuclear holocaust in the years 1954-1989, and, given the huge amount of support Israel actually has from the West, even the supposedly anti-semitic EU, about as likely as the Arab states rising up against Israel and winning.
I don’t think people in Israel are stupid or unreasonable or unjustified for worrying about the danger that they’re in, what with living in the tiny part of the world that every religious yahoo wants for their very own to love and squeeze and all that. Hell, if it were me, I’d goddamn up and leave the place and say “know what, you want this that much, you freaking have it, you crazy people!” I just don’t think that their concern should weigh on me any more or any less than the concern of the other people in the region when balancing the political concerns of the Middle East.
Back when I lived in Israel (for a year, 1982-3: I arrived the day before the invasion of Lebanon, oh joy)…
My mom and her first husband went on a road trip in Israel a long time ago. Off the beaten path, feckless and fancy free, all that good stuff. Everything was fine until they ran into an Israeli patrol, who tersely informed them that they’d be better off in a secure area…
…because, while they were incommunicado, they’d wandered into the path of the newsprung Six Day War.
Anarch — yikes! I sort of knew it was coming — I had been reading the papers, and besides that my previous job had involved getting to know, slightly, a then-member of the Soviet Central Committee (I had met his son, and whenever an argument seemed to loom about why we refused to use Soviet statistics, I would bound up to him and say “So tell me, how is Alexei?”, at which point pictures would come out (his) and reminiscences would start (mine) (always the same ones, since I had only met the son briefly), and things would die down.) Anyways, I hitched a ride with him on the last day of the meeting where all this took place, and he asked what I planned to do next, and I said I thought I might go to Israel, and he said “Don’t go there. There will be a war. I do not want to think of you in a war. (Better with the accent.) He seemed quite convinced, and I was sure he had better sources of information than any I was likely to encounter on my own.
Ah, my misspent youth…
Classic false analogy. There are voices that say all of those things. But the voices in the Arab world are much louder and there are many more of them. And the ‘US should start a nuclear war to bring about the Second Coming’ crowd is a lot smaller. A lot smaller. And Bush isn’t one of them or he would have already tried it.
And Bush isn’t one of them or he would have already tried it.
That’s one of the most ringing endorsements that I’ve had the privilege to read…
lj: That’s one of the most ringing endorsements that I’ve had the privilege to read…
True. OTOH, we have no more reason to suppose that Bush is any more sincere in his Pharasaical touting of his “Christianity” than he is in anything else he says to get elected.
First time I’d heard of this is was here in this very thread. Being out of touch with the pseudo-religious whacko world, though, I’m not all that surprised that someone, somewhere, thinks that. I haven’t seen anyone voice this opinion in the major media, though, not even in the so-called Moonie Times.
I see. We ought to fear his eccentric religiosity, except where it’s overruled by his insincerity. One can indeed have it both ways, provided one is sufficiently flexible, logically speaking.
Slarti: One can indeed have it both ways, provided one is sufficiently flexible, logically speaking.
You’d have a hard time trying to prove that I want to have it both ways with regard to Bush’s eccentric religiosity.
His behavior is certainly Pharasaical. But I have no reason to think that Bush is a sincere Christian, and I do not. For this reason, I do not fear that Bush will start a nuclear war to bring about the Second Coming: he may start a nuclear war for stupid reasons, but I doubt if it’ll be that reason.
First time I’d heard of this is was here in this very thread.
I thought this was relatively common knowledge. I punched in [Second Coming Israel] (what is the proper form for citing google searches? You don’t want to use quotes, right?) and these were the first two links
here and here
I just pass these links on as information, but I do think that there is something there.
By ‘something there’, I don’t mean that I’m a believer in pre-millenialism, I just mean that this isn’t some ultra fringe belief as Slarti suggests. I personally think it has something to do with the Cubs and the World Series (since it obviously wasn’t linked to Boston)
First, both sets of links were written by the same guy. Second, I didn’t wade through the entire thicket, but I didn’t see any calls for nuclear war to hurry along the Rapture, even secondhand. The state of Israel being necessary to fulfill prophesy is old stuff, but there’s plenty of disagreement amongst theologians as to whether there being a state of Israel today means in terms of the proximity of the last days. If I remember my Bible properly, there’s something in there about no one knowing when it’s coming. So, if you’re a strict-interpretation type, and you think you’ve got some idea that the end times are near, you’re by definition wrong.
If you’re talking about Christian interest in the end times, that’s not new (see: the Left Behind series, if you can stand reading them). Calling for nuclear intervention in the ME to hasten them around is, at least to me.
Slart, I did exactly what I said I did, which was take the first two links that came up in a Google search. I’m not arguing that any man knows the day or the time of His coming, as it were, so trying to point out the problems in the biblical interpretation is really a waste of your time cause I’m not arguing for any of this. Promise.
If you type in Second coming Israel nuclear, the third link you get has this
followed by this
Now, I know that you can find anything with Google so this doesn’t stand as proof of anything, but if you are going to parse all this (no, no, no, those guys are not talking about nuclear weapons, they are talking about conventional weaponry) I think you are missing the point. Sebastian says that that the US should start a nuclear war crowd is _smaller_ not non-existent, so I think he is understanding the point, which is that there are people for whom the end times are something that they think can be managed, planned for and arranged. How big is the group and to what lengths are they willing to advocate? I don’t think anyone (at least at this blog) can really know, but it is a bit ostrich in the sand to claim ‘gee I’ve never heard that before, I’ve just heard the more logical point that the foundation of the state of Israel indicates the starting of the end times’
The “that” I was referring to was the nuclear option. Even deliberately starting a conventional war to kick off the end times I hadn’t heard. Call me an ostrich.
But I think the larger point is this: for any wacky belief you can imagine, Google will find at least one person that will swear it’s true. Just a conjecture, mind you. Still, just look how many people who even now persist in believing you can get energy from nothing, or that exit polls are a reliable indicator of who’s going to win the election.
“WW III & ISRAEL’S FINAL VICTORY AT ARMAGEDDON America’s military support of Israel has been God’s plan, but only when America suffers economic collapse, nuclear devastation, and military invasion (see Gen. George Washington’s vision)”
I think the constituency for us to cause America to suffer nuclear devastation is even smaller than the nuke the middle East crowd.