.jpg)
A.P. photo/ Bebeto Matthews -- Ahmadinejad, "blood libeler-in-chief"
I quoted one source, ZOA, and cited its source, MEMRI, about a new Arab blood libel against Israel: ‘Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV ‘that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians.’” Since the inner quotation starts with the word, that, a reader should be able to tell that it is my source’s paraphrase of the broadcast, and I am not claiming it is a direct quote of the broadcast, with all its flowery verbosity, but just reporting the news.
The rest of my article discussed other Arab blood libels against Israel and the Jewish people.
A critic of mine replied that when I acknowledge membership in ZOA, it doesn’t mean anything except beware of my prejudice. He does not understand that journalists acknowledge what, if they did not, might seem like concealing a potential conflict of interest. As some phrase it, it is “In the interest of full disclosure.” I have found these sources accurate, though I sometimes reach different conclusions from theirs.
The critic called my article “lies.” He calls it a “deception” by my sources and me, on the grounds that the original report [not sure if he means the Arab broadcast, reporting of it, or MEMRI) did not mention the word, “sexual.”
I had noticed that the source did not use that word in the text, just in the title. I examined the quotation form the original Arab broadcast alleging brutal discrimination against women, in an alleged attempt to break up the family. It was clear enough to me that this was sexual harassment. Even without the sexual angle, what the Palestinian Arab statement that some of his, as he put it, “lowly” people were recruited to do, shames them and, because of its undocumented accusation, is a shameful broadcast. The critic’ logic, even if it were correct, is like the tail wagging the dog.
That broadcast joins broadcasts and press releases by Abbas, Arafat, Egyptian clerics, a Syrian Foreign Minister, Ahmadinejad, et al that constitute a library of blood libel of Israelis and the Jewish people. I have reported accusations that Israel sends prostitutes to impair Arab families, attempts to inflict sexual and other diseases upon Arabs, leaves poisoned candy for Arab children to find, poisons Arab water supplies, and more, giving sex a prominent role. As to that, the critic totally spares his indignation over lies, harmful ones, at that. The critic ignores the mass of evidence, in behalf of quibbling. Strange ethics!
On the libel that Israel tries to poison the Palestinian Arab water supply (which uses the same aquifer), I reported years ago that Arafat’s first terrorist mission was a failed attempt to poison an Israeli water source. On the accusation that Israel tries to deprive them of water, more recently, I reported that Israel restored Gaza’s failed water supply twice, and continues furnishing Gaza with some water. On the libel that Israel tries to sicken them, I reported only a fraction of the incidents in which Israel’s competent medical researchers who try to work with regional counterparts to eradicate diseases, but some Arab governments refuse to cooperate. As for the charge of Israel attempting to break up families, I reported that Israel has let many Arabs immigrate for family reunification, though the Arabs constitute a hostile minority largely sympathetic to their fellow, outside Arabs. You can see which side is obsessed with religious/ethnic/racial hatred. This is like a case of the pot calling the white kettle black.
The critic accuses me of hating Muslims, to explain his accusation that I regularly lie. Since I use the same sources as for the libel article almost every week, sources he claims engage in deception, then perhaps he thinks that they, too, hate Muslims. In other words, disagree with him, and you must hate Muslims and lie about them. Although the critic talks about responsible journalism, he accuses people of hatred, without showing hatred. How responsible is that?
I think that hating people because of their religion, nationality, or race is very immoral. I report on actions and doctrines that do and act on it. Some cultures are largely given over to such hatred. In such instances, one may generalize about its society, it being understood that there are some individual exceptions but that they do not govern or influence that society, for which the bigoted rulers speak and polls and actions confirm.
The critic of this issue, like several others, keeps harping on the same points, sometimes repeating the same exact comment immediately after the prior one. That is making a nuisance of oneself. It reminds me of an element of the big lie technique, repetition.
I recommend he consider the reliability and the characters of the many Arab leaders who engage in the documented stream of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish blood libel and of the Jewish leaders falsely accused of it but who do not libel the Arab people. There is the mass hatred and mass lying in this era of the big lie technique.
(To reach the original article, click here To see the next one in the series, click here )
Comments