SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

Palestine | International

Robert Fisk: A warning to those who dare to criticise Israel in the land of free speech
by Robert Fisk, The Independent
Friday Apr 23rd, 2004 6:40 PM
A subsequent investigation showed that Israeli troops had knowingly shot down innocent civilians, killed a female nurse and driven a vehicle over a paraplegic in a wheelchair [in Jenin]. "Blood libel!" Cooney screamed. TV3 immediately dissociated themselves from this libel. And of course, I got the message. Shut up. Don't criticise Israel.
24 April 2004


Behold Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, would-be graduation commencement speaker at Emory University in the United States. She has made a big mistake. She dared to criticise Israel. She suggested - horror of horrors - that "the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation". Now whoah there a moment, Mary! "Occupation"? Isn't that a little bit anti-Israeli?

Are you really suggesting that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, its use of extrajudicial executions against Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli gunning down of schoolboy stone-throwers, the wholesale theft of Arab land to build homes for Jews, is in some way wrong?

Maybe I misheard you. Sure I did. Because your response to these scurrilous libels, to these slurs upon your right to free speech, to these slanderous attacks on your integrity, was a pussy-cat's whimper. You were "very hurt and dismayed". It is, you told The Irish Times, "distressing that allegations are being made that are completely unfounded".

You should have threatened your accusers with legal action. When I warn those who claim in their vicious postcards that my mother was Eichmann's daughter that they will receive a solicitor's letter - Peggy Fisk was in the RAF in the Second World War, but no matter - they fall silent at once.

But no, you are "hurt". You are "dismayed". And you allow Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University to announce that he is "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak". I love the "due diligence" bit. But seriously, how can you allow this twisted version of your integrity to go unpunished?

Dismayed. Ah, Mary, you poor diddums.

I tried to check the spelling of "diddums" in Webster's, America's inspiring, foremost dictionary. No luck. But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel".

Come again? If you or I suggest - or, indeed, if poor wee Mary suggests - that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal under Israeli occupation, then we are "anti-Semitic". It is only fair, of course, to quote the pitiful response of the Webster's official publicist, Mr Arthur Bicknell, who was asked to account for this grotesque definition.

"Our job," he responded, "is to accurately reflect English as it is actually being used. We don't make judgement calls; we're not political." Even more hysterically funny and revolting, he says that the dictionary's editors tabulate "citational evidence" about anti-Semitism published in "carefully written prose-like books and magazines". Preposterous as it is, this Janus-like remark is worthy of the hollowest of laughs.

Even the Malaprops of American English are now on their knees to those who will censor critics of Israel's Middle East policy off the air.

And I mean "off the air". I've just received a justifiably outraged note from Bathsheba Ratskoff, a producer and editor at the American Media Education Foundation (MEF), who says that their new documentary on "the shutting-down of debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - in reality a film about Israel's public relations outfits in America - has been targeted by the "Jewish Action (sic) Task Force". The movie Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land was to be shown at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

So what happened? The "JAT" demanded an apology to the Jewish community and a "pledge (for) greater sensitivity (sic) when tackling Israel and the Middle East conflict in the future". JAT members "may want to consider threatening to cancel their memberships and to withhold contributions".

In due course, a certain Susan Longhenry of the Museum of Fine Arts wrote a creepy letter to Sut Jhally of the MEF, referring to the concerns of "many members of the Boston community" - otherwise, of course, unidentified - suggesting a rescheduled screening (because the original screening would have fallen on the Jewish Sabbath) and a discussion that would have allowed critics to condemn the film. The letter ended - and here I urge you to learn the weasel words of power - that "we have gone to great lengths to avoid cancelling altogether screenings of this film; however, if you are not able to support the revised approach, then I'm afraid we'll have no choice but to do just that".

Does Ms Longhenry want to be a mouse? Or does she want to have the verb "to longhenry" appear in Webster's? Or at least in the Oxford? Fear not, Ms Longhenry's boss overrode her pusillanimous letter. For the moment, at least.

But where does this end? Last Sunday, I was invited to talk on Irish television's TV3 lunchtime programme on Iraq and President Bush's support for Sharon's new wall on the West Bank. Towards the end of the programme, Tom Cooney, a law lecturer at University College, Dublin, suddenly claimed that I had called an Israeli army unit a "rabble" (absolutely correct - they are) and that I reported they had committed a massacre in Jenin in 2002.

I did not say they committed a massacre. But I should have. A subsequent investigation showed that Israeli troops had knowingly shot down innocent civilians, killed a female nurse and driven a vehicle over a paraplegic in a wheelchair. "Blood libel!" Cooney screamed. TV3 immediately - and correctly - dissociated themselves from this libel. Again, I noted the involvement of an eminent university - UCD is one of the finest academic institutions in Ireland and I can only hope that Cooney exercises a greater academic discipline with his young students than he did on TV3 - in this slander. And of course, I got the message. Shut up. Don't criticise Israel.

So let me end on a positive note. Just as Bathsheba is a Jewish American, British Jews are also prominent in an organisation called Deir Yassin Remembered, which commemorates the massacre of Arab Palestinians by Jewish militiamen outside Jerusalem in 1948. This year, they remembered the Arab victims of that massacre - 9 April - on the same day that Christians commemorated Good Friday.

The day also marked the fourth day of the eight-day Jewish Passover. It also fell on the anniversary of the 1945 execution by the Nazis of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer at Flossenburg concentration camp. Jewish liberation 3,000 years ago, the death of a Palestinian Jew 2,000 years ago, the death of a German Christian 59 years ago and the massacre of more than 100 Palestinian men, women and children 56 years ago. Alas, Deir Yassin Remembered does not receive the publicity it merits.

Webster's dictionary would meretriciously brand its supporters "anti-Semitic", and "many members of the Boston community" would no doubt object. "Blood libel," UCD's eminent law lecturer would scream. We must wait to hear what UCD thinks. But let us not be "hurt" or "dismayed". Let's just keep on telling it how it is. Isn't that what American journalism school was meant to teach us?

Comments  (Hide Comments)

More libel
by Frisking Fisk
Saturday Apr 24th, 2004 3:50 PM
Watch the video.

http://www.bicom.org.uk/cgi-local/go.pl?bt=1&bid=597&u=11160&l=pei.ucc.ie/dara/Agenda_End_Hi.mpg

You can see quite clearly that Cooney is calm and deliberate in his exposure of Fisk's outrageous lies about Jenin, and Fisk is the one "screaming". Also, perhaps tellingly, the Agenda program broadcasting this "disassociates" itself from the blood-libel accusation less than immediately. Fisk has to threaten legal action for that to happen.
Lies about Jenin
by Aussie
Saturday Apr 24th, 2004 8:08 PM
This is an excerpt of a report from Jennifer Loewenstein - an American Jew on 19 April 2002:

"What I saw in the former Jenin refugee camp was the most horrible thing I have ever seen in my life. I will never be able to forget it, or the people whose stories I listened to, or the sounds and smells that accompanied a kind of destruction I didn't know was possible: I now know the smell of death and what it is like to realize that you are standing on top of rubble under which people lie buried, unrecognizable and in many cases unreachable. I now know what tank shells, ammunition rounds, and missiles look like after they've exploded in peoples' bedrooms, family rooms, and kitchens."......

....."Doctors, UN workers, human rights workers (such as from Medicins sans Frontiers and Save the Children) estimate that the Israeli assualt on the Jenin camp killed between three and six hundred people."


Sounds like a massacre to me. Maybe Fisk was right.

More unsubstantiated criticism above
by Tired of this
Saturday Apr 24th, 2004 10:48 PM
The Fisk article mentioned in the video is
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/fisk_powell_jenin.cfm

Note who is hosting the video and their expressed aims.

There is lots of anecdotal evidence that even Shimon Peres regarded Jenin as a massacre. Presumably he must be "anti-Semitic".

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/09/LatestNews/LatestNews.46578.html
How can anti-Semitism be the same as anti-Zionism?
by ANGEL
Saturday Apr 24th, 2004 11:27 PM
>>>But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel". <<<

Common sense tells you that this definition is wrong.
It would be anti Semitic to hate good Jewish lawyers, doctors, film maker, actors, and any other Jewish people including those in Israel who have nothing to do with the atrocities that is occurring in the West Bank and Gaza.
It is not anti Semitic to be against the policies of the Israel (Zionist) government who does commit the many atrocities in the West Bank and Gaza.
Therefore anti Semitism cannot be the same as anti Zionism.
Since you can have one without the other.
The best way to possibly end Anti Zionism is to remove the cause for it.
We need a Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza Now.
We need to look at the Problem as it stands today.

Just like it would be outrages to try and ethnic cleanse some 5,000,000 Jews from the area.
It would also be an equal outrage to try and ethnic cleanse some 4,000,000 Palestinians from the area.

So let Israel have its Country in its pre 1967 Borders and let the Palestinians have their Country in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza.

If you were to say that it would be wrong, to say to the Jews that even though they were born and have lived in Israel all their lives they had to move to the U.S. and Europe because there are Jews living in the U.S. and Europe.

It would be just as wrong to say to the Palestinian who were born and have lived all their lives in the West Bank and Gaza they had to move to Jordan just because some Palestinians happen to live in Jordan.

"The best way to possibly end Anti Zionism is to remove the cause for it."
by Critical Thinker
Sunday Apr 25th, 2004 2:00 AM
For that to happen, Zionism would have to be discarded in every sense. Some people are anti-Zionists simply because Zionism exists. You don't seriously expect Zionism to be done away with in Israel or the Jewish diaspora.

I just think ANGEL got mixed up and meant to say "Palestinian terrorism" or something in that vein. S*** happens on occasion.
Jenin lies or disinformation?
by ANZAC
Sunday Apr 25th, 2004 4:55 PM
As Jennifer Loewenstein is the author of numerous articles that are hostile to Israel and its government, a statement about her religious affiliation, to verify the claims at Jenin, is both partial and irrelevant. ("She's a Jew, she condemns Israel, so she must be right.")

The inaccurate reporting of Jenin (when the truth was either yet to be determined, or after it appeared) was a blood libel - remember Erekat screaming "1,500 deaths" - no, wait, "1,000 deaths", "500 deaths". Then the results - 52 deaths, at least two thirds were combatants.

Yes, there were deaths of innocent people, and that is deeply regretable. The war crime that caused those deaths was the terrorists fighting from a population centre, shooting and bombing from houses, hiding behind human shields, and using civilian decoys.

As for Deir Yassin (Fisk's contribution), its the same "Jenin massacre" story, but originating 54 years earlier - house to house fighting for a strategic town where the Arab soldiers (without even the excuse that they were "activists" who needed to blend in with the local population) should have evacuated all the civilians under their control.
Fisk is unreliable
by fff
Monday Apr 26th, 2004 7:30 AM
I remember reading an article by Fisk at the start of the war saying how there was no way that the coalition could penetrate the defenses of the Republican Guard. What a nob...
"the coalition could penetrate the defenses of the Republican Guard."
by history buff
Monday Apr 26th, 2004 7:34 AM
They didn't. The Republican Guard stepped aside, and let the coalition troops walk into the trap they're in now. They put up just enough token resistance to make it look plausible. The coalition fell for it, hook, line and sinker. The real war has only just begun. Iraq will bleed America white.
deduction
by cp
Monday Apr 26th, 2004 9:42 AM
I'll have to ask my eagle scout friend who ended up going to Westpoint and being released two years early right before the war?? for having problems jogging(?). But it would seem that many of us who are completely ignorant about military planning and strategy were quite accurate in our indymedia commentary 15 months ago when we pointed out that it would be logical, from the perspective of Iraqis who either support Saddam Hussein or wish to fight americans, to not go running out in front of the initially invading american tank vehicles and get mowed down. It would make sense to wait and slowly pick off their enemy using some discretion. And that's what they're doing - big surprise.
Aparently you read a different article
by fff
Monday Apr 26th, 2004 10:44 AM
No, this article was not about any sort of uprising or insurgency. Fisk claimed that the artillery, tanks, etc. of the Republican Guard would repel the occupation forces. He was quite impressed by the Iraqi military hardware and really thought it would be some sort of deterent to the Marines. It wasn't. I'll provide a link to the article when I get home from work.
Here is the article...
by fff
Monday Apr 26th, 2004 3:10 PM
Iraqi Army’s Defenses Seem Impenetrable
Thursday, April 03 2003 @ 07:11 AM GMT
By Robert Fisk, The Independent

In Al-Mussayib, central Iraq — The road to the front in central Iraq is a place of fast-moving vehicles, blazing Iraqi anti-aircraft guns, tanks and trucks hidden in palm groves, a train of armored vehicles bombed from the air and hundreds of artillery positions dug into revetments to defend the capital. Anyone who doubts that the Iraqi Army is prepared to defend its capital should take the highway south of Baghdad.

How, I kept asking myself, could the Americans batter their way through these defenses? For mile after mile they go on, slit trenches, ditches, earthen underground bunkers, palm groves of heavy artillery and truck loads of combat troops in battle fatigues and steel helmets. Not since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War have I seen the Iraqi Army deployed like this; the Americans may say they are “degrading” the country’s defenses but there was little sign of that here Wednesday.
......
This article clearly shows Fisk for the hackneyed authoritarian apologist that he is. As I wrote above, what a nob...