Is there a "horrid truth" anywhere?
A Canadian columnist demonstrates how to inadvertantly support an argument by doing just what others are accused of in that argument. He states, for instance, that we should be "indebted to George Orwell in our understanding of how corruption of language lies at the basis of corrupt and life-denying politics" - and then proceeds to embed an arguably narrow, conservative outlook in an analysis of issues that requires a very open mind.
The writer reduces the Palestinian Intifada for instance, to "a pathology of tribal politics and religious fanaticism" - deeply coloured words that over-simplify and gloss over the essential nature of the problem.
Now, this is not about justifying terrorism: the issue is the language we use to discuss and exemplify a conflict that is a stain on all sides. Yet overwhelmingly the most "colorful" language is used against the Palestinians, to detract, dismiss, prejudice, deny. The language used by mainstream press in discussing the Israelis is almost universally aggrieved, righteous, and rarely encompasses the same brutality employed against their adversary.
For instance, in that column the phrases "spews hate", "pulverizes the teachings of a transcendent faith", "Afro-Asian majority regularly mutilates the enshrined principles" are used in the context of the Palestinians and their UN supporters. But in describing Israelis, one hears only of a "diabolical effort to exterminate them". There are no words of 'horror' or brutality applied to the assassination of leaders, shooting of children, destruction of homes that are perpetuated by the Israelis.
Indeed, the columnist would have us believe "it is scarcely credible anymore... to insist that Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is sufficient explanation for corrupt Palestinian politics." Yet there is demonstrated corruption in Israeli politics also, currently threatening their PM; where is the credibility?
Is it not a "corruption of language" to vilify a people so consistently and blatantly, while masquerading as 'editorial opinion'?
As for the "boy bomber" - while any attempt at taking human life and revenge is contemptible, it remains to be demonstrated that this "boy" (last reported as being 16 - not much younger than some Israeli reservists) was actually sent by a Palestinian terrorist group. The incident was a very successful propaganda coup for the Israeli government. Only a few media outlets, such as the BBC seemed to want to actually investigate the matter. They reported on "Israel's cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes". The charges of "anti-Semitism", as issued in response to the BBC, are an accusation used frequently and liberally to silence critics of Israeli policy.
But is it also not a "corruption of language" to shift emphasis, and denigrate the critics, by charging a racist ethnic bias every time the actions of a government are called into question? It is unsatisfactory that criticism of policies attracts a response charging racism, it attempts to prevent debate rather than engage.
The Bulletin tackles 'anti-semitism' in its most recent issue, yet fails to even offer a definition of the word. It is interesting that one of the most blatant attempts to demonise is aimed at the left: "in the extreme left-wing scene, anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies". The nature of these "remarks" is of course unspecified. There is no mention of neo-Nazism at all, curiously.
Update: A recent revelation from the Guardian reveals serious concern for editorial independance in coverage of Middle East issues:
"CNN sources say the network has bowed to considerable pressure on its editors. Israeli officials boast that they now have only to call a number at the network's headquarters in Atlanta to pull any story they do not like."
A parallel
item proposes the 'left' as a bigger threat than the 'right' in terms of 'anti-semitism'. Describing anti-Israeli protest as a "veneer" for "anti-semitism" that is "coming from the Left", the interviewee maintains a curiously similar line to The Bulletin's peice last week.
Certainly the 'left' is being singled out for the large degree of support for the Palestinian cause from within its ranks, by a deliberate campaign to de-legitimise criticism of Israeli behaviour.
Item posted by AutoEditor at 12:52 pm ::
