I’d like you to watch this 23-minute video to see how Islamic media deals with the Jews when it’s not even minimally constrained by having to operate within a Western country. These clips, compiled by the Middle East Media Research Institute, come from various Arab television stations. (If you can’t see the video, the link is here.)
They are sickening, especially so when children are made to parrot the hatreds of their elders. The old saw that Jews mix the blood of goyim into their Passover matzos is given big play (has anyone ever wondered why those matzos never seem to be red?), and even the Holocaust is justified with glee. Peter Singer’s expanding circle of morality seems to have missed some parts of the world.
Can anyone believe that even a two-state solution in the Middle East will quell this virulent anti-Semitism? Several announcers in fact state that wouldn’t happen. As Anthony Grayling has stressed, this is how religion behaves when it’s not on the back foot.
Presenting this stuff is not fomenting Islamophobia: it’s simply shining a light on a squalid (and not so tiny) corner of that faith that many people would prefer to ignore.
h/t: Sam Harris
Blood oxidizes into BROWN.
I’ve seen cooked blood look anything from light brown to very dark brown and almost black (as in blood pudding). I’ve only rarely seen cooked blood red – sometimes I get a chicken which doesn’t appear cooked no matter how long I cook it because the blood just doesn’t coagulate and turn brown. Not that I think there’s any human blood in matzos (unless someone somehow cut themselves preparing it), but I generally don’t expect cooked blood to be red.
And don’t forget the “children’s TV” which is the same – brainwashing kids to hate Jews. But dem muslims just love peace – and there ain’t no one more peaceful than a dead man. Unless of course the dead man’s a muslim suicide bomber – then they’ll have 72 virgins on their case for eternity. And I thought the catholic version of eschatological justice sucked shit.
“Can anyone believe that even a two-state solution in the Middle East will quell this virulent anti-Semitism?”
Of course not. All you need is clearly a one-state solution. And Jews out of it.
Words fail. The only beacon of sanity was of course the guy holding his own against that arrogant broad in the blue dress. It would have been so nice to see him shove a sock down her throat.
Argh… this is going to be a hard thing to point out, but you shouldn’t take anything MEMRI says seriously.
I would be completely unsurprised if everything in that clip is an accurate depiction of Islamic media. But MEMRI does not have a reputation for honesty, and you should be careful how much you take their word for things.
If nothing else, at least read up on them on wikipedia. Its a minimal effort, and should give you an idea of the state of things.
MEMRI isn’t saying anything. These are not their words. These are clear, unambiguous words of those featuring in these videos. The brazen racism, the sickening demagoguery, the open espousal of violence – all of these wouldn’t instantly claim some validity if some other, noticeably less propagandist, organization were to produce them.
But MEMRI produces the translations, and the translations are what is in question.
I admit I no nothing more of this organization than I just read on Wikipedia.
“no” = “know”
I’ve been asked to post this for a poster who can’t seem to get through on this site. Reply to “Malgorzata,” not to me:
_________________________________________________
In 13 years of MEMRI’s existence nobody could show that the translations were not accurate. The best critics could come with was that something was in plural while it was in singular originally. Accusation of biased choice of pieces to translate (“only the worst) are not accurate either – MEMRI is the biggest forum for liberal and reformist voices from Muslim world. Here are some voices about MEMRI from Islamic countries:
·
Does MEMRI stand accused only because the founder, Yigal Carmon, is an Israeli Jew? And, in such a case, what does it say about the accusers?
@Malgorzata:
There are a number of rather suspicious ellipsises in those purported quotes from Arab media folk. Also, someone talking about ‘lowering the tone’ to deal with the MEMRI might just as likely be saying they’re not going to change their tone to prevent MEMRI causing them problems because the problem is caused by MEMRI distorting what is shown on the program anyway and when someone has bad will they’ll always find something to distort. Your short quote does not in any way rule out the possibility that is the context. Short quotes and ellipsis are not good signs, as any of us familiar with creationists are well aware.
And, even translators engaged in completely non-political work and with the best will in the world and working in languages more similar than Arabic and English (like English and French) will make mistakes more serious than merely confusing a singular and plural in 13 years, so I think that claim doesn’t pass any sort of smell test. At least not with someone who has ever done translation or had it done.
I don’t doubt there is a good deal of virulent anti-Semitism in much of the Arab/Muslim world and the Muslim world’s proclivity for conspiracy theories (well founded in that in repressive countries like most Arab-Muslim countries things really are the result of conspiracy) gives this anti-Semitism fertile ground to grow, but MEMRI isn’t the definitive resource on this.
.
Malgorzata has asked me to post the two replies to “Mike from Ottawa”:
______________________
I am a professional translator since decades and I am translating from English and Swedish into a not very similar language – Polish. So I do know that mistakes can and does occur. But this type of mistakes cannot go so far as to express satisfaction upon seeing naked corpses of murdered Jews. However in those 13 years nobody could show any more serious mistake than the one I quoted. Among MEMRI’s employees and volunteers are people whose native language is Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, urdu. They are always checking and rechecking their translations. Your interpretation about “lowering the tone” is rather strange. I remember seeing this whole discussion and it was absolutely obvious what was meant: we will continue our series but soften the wording about Jews. About anti-Semitism in Arab/Muslim world: read books by Ayyan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, Amil Imani, Tarek Fatah and many others – they write about what kind of hatred towards Jews they were taught at home, in school, in mosque… None of them is an Israeli, none of them is a Jew, all of them express admiration towards MEMRI’s work.
_____________________
Information about Yigal Carmon is on Wikipedia, quoted here and I couldn’t see why I should repeat information from Wikipedia. But I didn’t reveal something much more important: I am a volunteer translating MEMRI’s material from English to Polish. I am not paid to do it, like I am not paid to translate Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson and many others for a Polish atheists’ site “Racjonalista”. I wonder if this makes me totally unreliable.
Malgorzata is highly reliable. She has been translating articles from my site (with my permission of course) for years, and sending me useful links, too.
Based on the Wikipedia article you link to, and the references it lists, I would not be willing to take any position on the accuracy of MEMRI translations.
No position? Nothing on the approbation of the murder of Jews in the camps shown in one broadcast? Are you saying that the translations there are wholly fabricated and that what the announcers are REALLY saying is how horrible it was that all those Jews were murdered?
Oh, absolutely not!! The post of “Friend of Icelos” that I responded to pointed to the Wikipedia article as supportive of his or her caution to consider the source. From the article, I could see a lot of “one side says this” and “another side says that,” so I meant to state that that in itself was not enough to convince me that MEMRI should be unduly suspect.
FWIW, I am an avid reader of Hirsi Ali and others, and find the video appalling but not surprising.
Try translating the words “All Jews should be killed” to almost any language in the world. With all the errors in grammar or inflection, how substantially can you misrepresent the intent of the original words?
I couldn’t agree with you more strongly.
1. I don’t know what’s in that video for real, and it wouldn’t surprise me if MEMRI presented it fairly.
2. But that’s a subtitled video that I’m not qualified to translate on my own. MEMRI supplied those subtitles.
3. They also selected and edited the clips in the video.
4. So, no, that doesn’t mean that MEMRI isn’t saying anything. MEMRI is saying everything. Unless you speak the languages spoken in the video, every single word in there is MEMRI’s voice.
5. And as it happens, MEMRI is an unabashed propaganda outlet that is regularly criticized for quote mining and presenting the results as representative, and for mistranslating arabic, always in a way so as to make it more sinister.
6. In this context, their credibility matters. I’m not convinced of it.
Absolutely. For me to stir a neuron in response to such material it’d have to have been translated and compiled by a non-loathesome organization. There’s plenty of stuff about MEMRI’s loathesomeness online, i.e., not just on Wikipedia, for anyone interested in learning more.
Not to defend anything said in that video, but if you comb through any country’s TV programming long enough you will find the same thing. I’m sure someone could do this with Israeli TV. I guarantee I could do it with Fox News Channel.
Also, MEMRI is pretty much a propaganda arm of the Israeli government, so I imagine they have picked carefully to find the most extreme views possible. Caveat emptor and all that.
Again, not to defend anything said in that video, but I don’t think this is necessarily religiously caused. I bet you could do this with North Korea or China. Hell, I could make a video like this using clips from the American media dealing with immigration, a pretty non-religious issue. You know, all those Mexicans kidnapping innocent Arizonans and beheading them. That sort of thing.
Well, you’re welcome to try it out on North Korea. I’m sure the CIA would be extremely grateful for it. We do know that N.K. “educates” its people with anti-everyone propaganda (well, perhaps not anti-Chinese) and it’s gotten so bad that soldiers in the north have been attacking soldiers from the south then making up stupid stories as if they expected anyone else on the planet would believe them. It’s a bizarre case of an entire nation being delusional (and sensible people must keep their mouths shut or be exdcuted for treason). It really is like something out of Animal Farm.
This post reminds me of the claim that the United States is “a force for good in the world”. Of course, let’s not pay attention to the slaughter of natives, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc etc etc. Let’s just mindlessly repeat that we are a force for good in the world. Islam suffers from the same delusion.
One question that must be raised is how typical this is (typical of Islam? Typical of Muslims? Typical of Arabs?)
Not knowing Arabic, I don’t know how reliable the translations are, but I understand that nonsense like the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are sold fairly widely and even taken seriously in much of the Middle East.
Nevertheless, the behaviour of Israel in recent times is another reason to take with much reserve any material coming from such an obviously biased source. Thanks to the posters who pointed this out.
Now for a favourite peeve of mine. Discussions of “Islam” usually concentrate on the Middle East and ignore the regions containing the majority of Muslims – South and Southeast Asia.
The country with most Muslims in it is Indonesia, but it never rates a mention in these debates! At least in that country, the kind of thing alleged to be in these videos would well away from the majority view. Like any country, it has its share of fanatics and extremists, and they have had some terrorist attacks, but the often hysterical Western press coverage of these events obscures the fact that the extremists are a despised minority, and a big embarrassment for many Indonesian Muslims.
That’s not to say that the majority don’t have the biases you’d expect – a vague sympathy for Arabs and Palestinians as fellow-Muslims, a strong dislike (or worse) for Israel, and some prejudice against Jews (though largely based on ignorance – few Indonesians would have ever knowingly met one).
As a developing democracy, Indonesia has its share of injustices and corruption, including a weak government response to mistreatment of some religious minorities, but it’s a fairly tolerant place overall. The kind of rant in these videos would look rather odd to many Indonesian Muslims – they are not at heart much preoccupied with Middle Eastern affairs.
Yeah, PZ posted this last week and I added it to my Facebook. I was unable to watch past about halfway. Disgusting.
While I too may have reservations about MEMRI translating this, these are the sentiments expressed by muslim schools here in the U.K. as shown by the BBC panorama program this week so it would appear that this attitude is widespread in islam.
Yes and there are quite a few people here in Britain who go out of their way to make excuses for every piece of nonsense that Muslim bigots come out with, there is a nasty undercurrent of covert anti-semitism still in Europe and sadly the UK seems to be increasingly prone to it, especially amongst those who like to think of themselves as ‘progressives’.
Hatred for Israel is certainly widespread in the middle east but from my experience (my first wife was a saudi feminist) the sort of old fashioned blood libel hatred in this video is really the preserve of an extremist minority.
As for the question of a two state solution?
I’ afraid the question is moot. “Facts on the ground” have made it a political impossibility. The most the average Palestinian can hope for is not a nation but rather a kind of permanent apartheid.
Any person that has such pathetic, but unfortunately extremely harmful, views should be condemned in the strongest terms (to be diplomatic). When such views can reach large audiences through religions, schools, governments the case is often one of despair for the human experiment…
But what came first – human stupidity or religion? Or trying to keep a cool head: what is the cause of this: a true belief in some deity or the never ending fight for ‘my’ resources against ‘the other’ claim to a share of them? Wouldn’t such views on ‘the other’ be around even if no ‘religion’ channel would exist to spread them? I have no idea (or time to think about it right now) and I am not sure this is answerable – maybe there are many threads in the site that dealt with this already?
Here we have a case of Islamic media et al dehumanizing the Jews. But you have exactly the same from the other side. And you don’t even need to go to the fringes – personalities on the top ranks of the Israeli government have no problems in calling Palestinians ‘crocodiles’ (Ehud Barak), ‘cockroaches’ (Rafael Eitan, former chief of staff of the Israeli army), in comparing military action against Palestinians as ‘chemotherapy to finish off with a cancer’ (don’t remember the exact sentence proffered by the Israeli army commander Moshe Yalon), etc. Also it is widely known that Israeli school-books are openly racist on their treatment of Arabs.
If one searches wisdom from rabbis, then it is easy to stumble into statements like these (that I quickly got from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel):
* In October 2010, Ovadia Yosef, a former Sephardi chief rabbi, stated that “The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews”. He argued that gentiles served a divine purpose: “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.”
* Rabbi David Batsri called Arabs “a blight, a devil, a disaster… donkeys, and we have to ask ourselves why God didn’t create them to walk on all fours. Well, the answer is that they are needed to build and clean.”
[At least in this latter case, “the Israeli state prosecution ordered an investigation of the Rabbi, for suspected incitement to racism.”]
Ultimately, in this case, a one-state scenario is the only solution – as it would finally erase the ‘us’ versus ‘other’. It may never happen, even using the bridge of a two-state scenario – but then I doubt the issue will ever be solved.
aargh – out to lunch…
Again, I’m posting on behalf of “Malgorzata,” whose attempts to post haven’t worked. Reply to her, as these are her words, not mine:
______________
Anti-Israel web is full of such “quotes”, most often either false or taken out of context – for example almost all those quotes are referring to terrorists, not Palestinians, but Barak’s quote seems to never have occurred, it was from an aide of his encouraging a peace deal – abstract here:
However should not Martim show evidence for those quotes (original source, context etc.)? Memri, which is so slandered here by some people, always gives original sources and, as I wrote previously and other people concur, when checked by native speakers of those languages, they are shown to be correctly translated.
Martims casual accusation that “it is widely known that Israeli school-books are openly racist on their treatment of Arabs” is beneath contempt. In some circles it is equally widely known that Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document, describing the world conspiracy which goes on for centuries.
Malgorzata says:
“However should not Martim show evidence for those quotes (original source, context etc.)?”
I notice that Malgorzata’s pro-MEMRI quotes above were not exactly rich with context and had bits snipped out of them. Perhaps Malgorzata could set an example by putting those quotes in their appropriate context, restoring the omitted text and citing the source of the translation where the originals were not in English.
“Does MEMRI stand accused only because the founder, Yigal Carmon, is an Israeli Jew?”
Considering Malgorzata slides over the fact Carmon was for 20 years in Israeli military intelligence, I think the mildest possible characterization of Malgorzata’s suggestion that any criticism of MEMRI is due only to anti-Semitism would be “disingenuous”.
I would much prefer to comment always with full references to everything I put forward – and I often don’t comment because I know I have no time for it. Still if any of the citations I put forward are incorrect you could find many others on the same vein.
My point stands:
– We have here two opposing parties; both will do utmost to dehumanize the other. You don’t kill, maim, imprison, humiliate, etc, your neighbours if you recognize in them a human just like you. They must be turned in cockroaches, ants, pigs, donkeys, vermine, etc, etc. This from both sides. It is unavoidable. It cannot be in any other way. If not the situation would be even more scarier: ‘we love you brother and sisters, but we do this for your own good’. Ultimately the warring factions on both sides (often the most loud and vocal) wish the annihilation of the other and will express this in many ways. If religion is the cause or just a useful and pernicious (for its effectiveness) channel to do it I don’t know.
Context issue
– How do you take ‘cockroaches’ out of context? It appears Malgorzata mean that such name was used for ‘terrorists’ and hence that is ok. The problem is that ‘terrorist’ is already a word in the process of dehumanizing the other. ‘Terrorism’ lies in the eye of the beholder. If on our side ‘ freedom fighters’, if against us ‘terrorists’. The US (and other I’m sure) has used both terms for the same organizations depending on how useful they were for its objectives at any given period. The WWII Resistance had to commit actions killing civilians that fit well the ‘terrorism’ definition – Jean Renoir even made a war propaganda film, around 1943?, to present this ethical dilemma and ultimately gather support/understanding for it (great film by the way, must track the title)
Sources
– Schoolbooks. Many studies about this. Actually a very good illustration of my main point. Both sides – at war – will of course not try to explain ‘the other side’, and on the contrary will try to make it as inferior. Palestinians more brazen, Israelis more subtle. Interestingly, when the situation on the ground improves (both parties working on a peace agreement), the manuals get softer; when things get though, the manuals get harsher. Again, nothing surprising here.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/learning-all-the-wrong-facts-1.143018
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html
– the quotes of the two rabbis have their source in the wiki link I sent / I can not vouch for their correctness but you could see that I included the context available to me: I mentioned that one of the rabbis was prosecuted for racism.
– Cockroaches: Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff Israel Army: “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4034765.stm
I am not excusing the anti-Semitic and other disguting views presented in the video by showing that similar expletives also come from the other direction. I find both deeply stupid and do not think that trying to see who is more stupid is constructive. Rather try to find where sanity is hiding and hope it can come forward soon.
Malgorzata has asked me to post this reply to Martim:
______________________________
We agree absolutely that dehumanizing opponents is a first step to killing, maiming etc. I do know that a knee-jerk reaction is: That is precisely what Israel is doing to Palestinians. But is it? Is population in Israel so indoctrinated in hatred towards Palestinians, who are so dehumanized in their eyes, that an Israeli mob is capable of literally tearing Palestinians, who wandered in their midst, into bloody pieces and proudly show those scraps of human flesh to their children in front of cameras and cheering crowds? We all know this happened (not only once) in the West Bank. We know it never happened in Israel, and no Israeli settlers in the West Bank ever did anything like it. Yes, there was a mass shooting of Palestinians at prayer done by an Israeli. Except for a fringe, were any figures from government praising him? Are any streets, plazas, schools, named after him? And we do know how many most prominent figures in Palestinian Authority (not to mention Hamas) are giving the Palestinian suicide bombers as role models. The Gaza War, presented as a crime of the century, was it really that? A few days ago Hamas admitted that some 700 of those killed were their militants. Even if we take Hamas given number of casualties (1,400 while according to IDF 1,166) that means that for every militant 1 civilian was killed. Compare this to 10 civilians for every militant in all other conflicts according to International Committee of the Red Cross. Does it not say that for IDF the opponent is not dehumanized but that there was a huge effort to spare civilians?
Martim’s links to articles denouncing Israeli schoolbooks as equally dehumanizing Palestinians as Palestinians schoolbooks are dehumanizing Israelis did not convinced me. This is always a question of trust. Many people here do not trust MEMRI because the founder was an Israeli intelligence officer (BTW he was also an adviser to two Israeli prime ministers from opposing parties). I trust MEMRI because nobody ever was able to show any falsehood propagated by MEMRI. Studies those two articles are based on were done by Israeli professors who are on the far left, actively anti-Zionist side. Here is a quotation from Haaretz, Sept., 9, 2004: “Although it is hard to find in Israeli textbooks incidences of blatant incitement, as is often found in Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks, Dr. Ruth Firer of Hebrew University, one of the pioneers of textbook research, argues that the indoctrination in the Israeli books is simply more sophisticated. What the Israeli books call “events,” the Palestinian ones call “uprising”; the 1948 war in the Israeli textbooks is the “War of Independence,” and in the Palestinian books, al Nakba”. Is it really comparable to what is taught in Palestinian Authority’s schools? The other article, from 1999, is based on studies of anti-Zionist researchers as well, but what’s more, it is not clear if it is about books approved by the Ministry of Education or about books used in different religious schools outside state control (like those Muslim schools recently researched by BBC Panorama). Crazies, fanatics etc. exist in every society. The question is, are they mainstream? So, like Martim, I am not excusing those rabbis, or Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff Israel Army who called Palestinians cockroaches. What I am saying is that there should be a very energetic denouncement also of Arab/Islamic disgusting propaganda, not only of Israelis.
I might add that if Israelis are so racist how has the Israeli Arab population survived and how can it be represented in the Knesset, why have some gay Arabs sought refuge in Israel, why do Druze and Bedouin volunteer to serve in the Israeli army ?
You could have done a similar statement in the US 50 years ago. Not wrong. Not right.
I never mentioned ‘the Israelis’ (sensu ‘the citizens of Israel’) being racists – I mentioned the more vocal and warring factions, and gave a few examples of public personalities/policies not of ‘the people’ – that I don’t known never having lived there. What I do know a priori is that I would meet many different people with many different ideas on life and their particular complex predicament.
Rights are fought for by the people, not handed in from above – and in this respect Israel has a remarkable tradition of courageous activism.
Again: my point was not to defend anyone – it was to question if such acts as depicted in the video are there because of religion or because of a long-term and extremely bitter conflict with no end in sight. Or a ‘sub-question’: has religion been responsible to inflame and drag this conflict? In a way that religion may constitute an obstacle to the development of rational thought/analysis, I guess so.
Martim, I wasn’t responding directly to you rather making a point about the Israeli record on racial tolerance being a good deal better than that of the Arab states. I do think however that you seem to be suggesting some sort of doctrine of equivalence between Israel and the Arab states, something I would strongly disagree with.
The predicament of Arab Israelis in the last sixty years or so may have been less than perfect but there’s no denying that they have enjoyed more religious freedom as well as a generally higher standard of living under a Zionist constitution than any non-Muslim can hope to under the Sharia.
In fact, Palestinians living in Israel can be quite vocal about their preferences of citizenship despite their dislike of Israel. Many of them believe that the hell of Israel is better than the paradise of Hamas (this actually used to be directed at Arafat but Hamas is obviously no improvement). And while Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel are all-too free to openly criticize their governments policies without fear of reprisal (Avigdor Lieberman notwithstanding), no one is under any illusion regarding the consequences any Palestinian would face for publicly opposing Hamas. It’s almost a first order of business for them.
1. “What I am saying is that there should be a very energetic denouncement also of Arab/Islamic disgusting propaganda, not only of Israelis.” by Malgorzata
Agree 100%. Check my first sentence in this thread – and I mean denouncement by governments/religious authorities and the like. From a public perspective, I think that Arab/Islamic propaganda such as this is quite strongly and rightly exposed and criticised (this discussion as an example).
2. Regarding the lynching case you present: I still think that making comparisons about who harms the other ‘in a more civilised way’ is a dangerous slope and quickly gets rather sickening. (Sorry if my wording is awkward or sounds aggressive – I don’t mean to be offensive).
We have here a case of a mob (doing what mobs do) in an extremely asymmetrical conflict that is lasting for several generations. Hope is lost, powerlessness increases (together with rage) while society crumbles – this includes the education system. Religious fanaticism has its bed made. On the other hand, if you are on the winning side, living in a society that is functional and does manage to meet your needs why would you go about lynching people from the society you already subjugated?
About perpetrators of atrocities being awarded by society – well that is standard fare. Henry Kissinger – Peace Nobel Price is probably unbeatable.
3. I don’t know if you noticed Malgorzata that you consistently frame ‘nasty’ examples from the Israeli side as coming from the fringe, but then go on to present other ‘nasty’ things from the Arab side as representative if not of a people at least of a dominant trend in that people. Maybe you live/lived/have family&friends in Israel and just cannot stand the situation anymore? I understand that ‘wear’, but cannot agree with that vision. It does seem that you no longer see ‘persons’ on the other side. Just a strange and dangerous entity. Surely on the Palestinian side people want the same things as on the Israeli side: live a good life, enjoy time with friends/family, have access to education, a job, go now and then to the beach or cinema… You even go as far as using ‘the good ratio’ of civilian/militant casualties in the Gaza offensive as demonstrating some sort of humanity from the IDF side. Weren’t 700 civilians casualties, 700 too many?
4. Regarding the schoolbooks. I refrained to pick up quotes from the Haaretz article – it is quite a balanced one, showing different shades to the issue. I could have easily have pasted the following: ‘there has been no change [in Israeli schoolbooks] in use of negative stereotypes that present the Arabs as “primitives,” “passive,” “cruel” or “riffraff.”‘
But my point has never been to say that the Israeli are ‘as mean as the Arabs in that video’. It was just to say that when two parties are at war they will not say niceties about the other – as obvious as natural selection… This is clearly stated in the same article by the chairman of the Pedagogical Secretariat at the Ministry of Education of Israel, Professor Yaakov Katz: “No one should expect the democratic Jewish state to suggest during a war that it relate to the enemy’s narrative in egalitarian fashion”.
Of course not. But if the implicated parties could have related to each other before the war in ‘egalitarian fashion’ maybe there would be no war to speak about (not just in this case).
5. Some fresh air: “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” Bertrand Russell, 1925, What I Believe.
I am adding two more comments that Malgorzata has asked me to post. Here is the first:
_________________________
1. Unfortunately denouncement from one or another decent person is not enough. Such discussion as this one is not enough. UN Human Right Council, since its creation in June 2006 has criticized Israel on 33 occasions (Burma merited just one resolution where the word “condemn” was exchange to “deplore”, Sudan got praised.) Not one resolution was criticizing Palestinian violence against Israel, not to mention Palestinian violence against Palestinians (nor Ahmadinejad’s and other head of states incitements against Israel’s existence). There were no demonstration on American or European campuses against suicide bombers and racism expressed in almost all Islamic countries, but “Week against Israeli Apartheid” was organized all over the place.
2. I do not agree that making comparisons is a dangerous slope. There is a huge difference when one side sends its own young people to blow themselves up in the midst of the other side’s civilians (children included) and when the other side is stopping terrorists from shooting from schools, hospitals, residential buildings, and kills civilians in the process. In the first case nobody needs to die if the suicide bombers were never sent; in the second only Israeli civilians would die if the state waived its right to defend itself.
“Hope is lost, powerlessness increases”… There was hope from 1947 on, if only Palestinian Arabs could accept a Jewish state as well. But since many years Palestinian Authority is semi-autonomous and Israeli control is growing and diminishing to the beat of violence from Palestinian side. Israel totally retreated from Gaza and if not those rockets (over 8,000!) it could have been a thriving place. It is not Israel who subjugated those people – it is their own leaders.
I think that Nobel Peace Prize to two terrorists with blood on their hands: Jassir Arafat and Menachem Begin beats Henry Kissinger’s Prize by many lengths (BTW, why did you omit Le Duc Tho? He did not accept the Prize but he was awarded one, together with Kissinger, and was even a nastier figure.) But all those four unworthy Laureates did something else in their lives than kill other people. How distasteful it may seem there are things about each of them you can present to young people and say: “Look, this is something to emulate”. But what about Dalal Mughrabi? She blew herself up in a bus killing 37 civilians, inclusive 13 children. And PA President, Prime Minister, different ministers are giving her name to town squares, schools, praising her and putting her as a role model for children so they would emulate her heroic deed of killing other human beings.
3. Yes, I did notice that. What is more, I think I have facts which support my hypothesis that this type of “nasty” behavior is a fringe in Israeli society and representative on the Arab side. No, I never lived in Israel so your idea that I personally cannot stand it any longer is wrong. I have daily contact with Arab press, TV, blogs etc. And I assure you, not only from the fringe, mostly mainstream. I have also daily contact with Israeli press (admittedly, only two mainstream newspapers in English). There just is no comparison.
Your idea that I do not see people on the other side is also wrong. When I translate TV programs in which beautiful, intelligent children recite their wish to die while killing Jews, to die while liberating Jerusalem, to die while serving Allah, I – a sentimental woman – have trouble seeing their faces through tears. Those kid could have such a wonderful life – as scientists (preferably evolutionary biologist), doctors, engineers, but also bakers, hairdressers – whatever, but no, they are taught that the greatest happiness is to kill and to die in the process. Yes, I have very nasty feelings towards those dirty old imams who are teaching them that. Unfortunately, your claim that “surely on the Palestinian side people want the same things as on the Israeli side: live a good life, enjoy time with friends/family, have access to education, a job, go now and then to the beach or cinema…” is not always true about people and for sure is not true about their leaders. But there are enough people on the Palestinian side who do want it and who are persecuted by Hamas, by PA, and who are not helped by the West. The West prefer to lionize Tarik Ramadan, who can’t even unequivocally condemn stoning of women. MEMRI is publishing those dissident voices so that we in the West would know about them and I am translating them into my native language, feeling hope growing with each one.
About the ratio of civilian/militant casualties: if the “normal” ratio is 10/1 and Israel managed, in a very difficult situation, when the militants are deliberately choosing civilian places to shoot from, to lower this ratio to 1/1 so yes, I would go as far as stating that they were doing their utmost to minimize the civilian casualties. And even one death is too much for me, but that counts on both sides. If a state has to defend its own citizens who are under attack then, casualties notwithstanding, it has to do it.
Poland had experience with both Hitler and Stalin. I do not know where you live and what wonderful people are surrounding you, but here we know that no amount of love from our side would in any way diminish horrors inflicted on us by Hitler, Stalin and their willing henchmen.
_____________________
Here is the second from Malgorzata:
The true story of unrequited love
1. A young girl from Gaza gets hot oil from her cooking all over herself. Transfered to Israeli hospital. Israeli doctors save her life but want to resore her looks. She gets a special “medical pass” to go between Gaza and Israel. At one crossing soldiers can see that the girl is exceptionally nervous. They take her for a strip serach. She has explosives plastered all over her body. The idea was to detonate herself in the hospital’s waiting room. She is now in Israeli prison.
2. A 4-year old girl from Gaza is diagnosed with cancer. She is taken to an Israeli hospital where she gets treatment and her life is saved. A few weeks into the treatment her father is arrested by Israeli police while trying to plant a bomb in Israel.
3. There were over 8,000 rockets from Gaza onto Izrael. From Oct. 31 to Nov. 20 this year there were 36 rockets. During the last year 180,000 Palestinians (from West Bank and Gaza) got medical treatment in Israeli hospitals.
IIRC, an Arabic speaker at Pharyngula vouched for the accuracy of the translations of the video.
While MEMRI has undoubtedly shown us a “worst of” of Arab media, it is unsurprising given the Nazi roots of Islamist anti-Semitism
It is easy to cherry pick clips of nutcases. Example:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbaD5vxY4Yo]
I am not pro-Islam; in fact it is my opinion that Islam has yet to distance itself away from its more noxious teachings in the way that other religions have (though there ARE some moderates who speak out against extremism…there aren’t enough of them).
I also agree with “keeping religion on the back foot” though I wish we could dispense with it all together.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbaD5vxY4Yo]
There can be no doubt that this hate speech is accurately translated and represented. I have seen it myself in person, in public and in private, while traveling in the ME.
It is a major mistake to attribute the source of this hate speech and the significant problem of Muslim antisemitism primarily to Islam, even with full recognition of the major supporting role that Islam can play. The entirety of this clip is political hate speech aimed directly at Israel, framed using readily available religious arguments from the Qur’an. The purpose is twofold: (1) attack Israel; (2) deflect internal criticism from failed, autocratic states toward an external, hated enemy.
For example, the very first clip is taken from the cable network “الاقصى” == Al-Aqsa == Hamas Cable Network. This is Hamas and Iran speaking. You will find similarly hateful speech on Hezbollah’s channel, “المنار” == Al-Manar. You will not find hate speech on their Sunni March 14 rival’s tv network
“المستقبل” == Future TV. You can be nearly certain that other networks in the clip above are similarly extremist, though this ugly stuff is pervasive in the ME now and can also be found in polite speech and non-extremist networks.
On the occasion of Pope JPII’s first papal visit to Syria, Bashir al-Assad urged him to make common cause against the Jewish “killers of Christ.” al-Assad is Alawite Muslim, and most certainly an atheist—his hate speech was certainly politically motivated, not religiously motivated. In the case of Syria, hate speech is almost entirely politically motivated, even when expressed entirely in religious language. In the case of Iran and its proxies in PS and LB, hate speech has a dual religious and political motivation. Attacking Israel serves both Iran’s religious and geostrategic interests.
To ignore this political context and focus entirely on religion is to fundamentally misunderstand the problem of Muslim anitsemitism.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I was hoping you would.
Cheers,
b&
But religion always exists within a political context. To use the political context as a way of mitigating the religious content is a misunderstanding of how religion functions.
It is important to note the use that is made of the Qur’an in the examples of antisemitism in the MEMRI clips. The roots of Muslim antisemitism — as well as its denunciation of other religions — are to be found in sacred text, in the same way that some Jewish anti-Muslim, even anti-goy sentiment, can be (though rather more remotely) sourced in the Tanach. That politics has a way of bringing such things to the fore is a reason to deprecate religion, not to excuse it.
The same goes for Christian scripture. Antisemitism is present in much of the New Testament. The politics of the crusades brought this forward, and led to massacres of Jews along the route to the “Holy Land”. Other things have arroused it from sleep. But this doesn’t change Christian antisemitism into politics; it just means that there is a latency there to be exploited in certain political situations.
So, while it is no doubt true that there are relationships between contemporary Muslim antisemitism and the Nazis, it was arguably Muslim antisemitism that made Nazism attractive to some Muslims in the first place. Don’t forget that, during the imperial period of Islam (which so many Islamists now look to with longing), Jews and Christians were periodically exterminated, enslaved and exploited. It’s simply part of the religion, in the same way that antisemitism is a part of Christianity. Christian antisemitism may be, to a large extent, in abeyance now, but it’s there, in the texts, awaiting use. Religions, especially religions of the book, do not change. Features of them may go into hibernation, but they’re always still there, waiting for the political springtime to occasion a new awakening.
The roots of Muslim antisemitism — as well as its denunciation of other religions — are to be found in sacred text
No, this is absolutely incorrect and ahistorical. Here is the actual historic record of Islamic toleration, from the beginning. Norwich on the Islamic conquests:
And here is Gibbon on the Muslim treatment of non-Muslims in Jerusalem. Jews thrived here, until slaughtered wholesale by Tancred’s crusaders.
And another one: When the “Catholic Monarchs” Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain purged the peninsula of Jews, the Ottoman sultan welcomed them with a formal invitation and supposedly declared: “Ye call Ferdinand a wise king he who makes his land poor and ours rich!” Indeed, the greatest of Jewish philosophers thrived in Córdoba.
I’ve just provided three separate historic accounts of Muslim toleration and even respect for Jews and Judaism, separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles in vastly different Islamic dynasties. At the very least, these should give pause to anyone who wishes to argue that Muslim antisemitism stems from Islam. Rather, the rise of Muslim “anti-Semitism” is tied directly to the rise of Israel, and really has nothing at all to do with Islam. Muslims imported all the crazy Protocols and blood libel stuff from the Christian west; it did not develop organically from Islam as it did in Christianity, in spite of the Qur’anic passages about monkeys and pigs.
I’m sorry. I don’t think I said that Muslims have never been tolerant. But I am saying that the seeds of intolerance are there in the Qu’ran, just as they are in the Tanach or the Christian Bible, and it is really silly to try to argue that they are not. It’s got nothing to do with history, except to the extent that, from time to time, and not seldom, these sorts of intolerances have been practiced by Muslims, Christians and Jews, and they will go on doing so so long as there is a sacred text in which these things are encouraged or demanded.
If we’re going to take this serious problem seriously, we must understand what it is and where it comes from. The idea that Muslim antisemitism is comparable to Christian antisemitism in that it is derived from the religion itself simply isn’t supported by the historical record. The idea that Muslim antisemitism is derived from political opposition to Israel, however, is quite easy to support.
Reply from Malgorzata:
______________
There are historians who do not agree. Both Jews and Christians, if they refused to convert, were tolerated only if they paid submission tax – jizya – and obeyed many different prescription concerning their way of living (what to wear, where to live, what kind of house to build, what animal to ride etc.). All this differed in different countries and different times but they were always not only second category citizens, but often no citizens at all, easy to kill and often killed. Agreed, there was never anything on the scale of Hitler, but from time to time real pogroms went through one or the other Muslim country, Jews were expelled here and taken there, the whole story is very complicated and equally impossible to describe in a short post as the history of European anti-Semitism. But all this was happening long innan anybody thought about the state of Israel. To those who are interested in Islam’s attitudes towards Jews I would recommend Bat Ye’or, “The Dhimmi. Jews and Christians under Islam”, Martin Gilbert, “In Ishmael’s House. A History of Jews in Muslim Lands”, Andrew G. Bostom (ed.) “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism”.
Jews and Christians, if they refused to convert, were tolerated only if they paid submission tax – jizya – and obeyed many different prescription concerning their way of living
All true—and conquered peoples were expected to pay tribute as part of the negotiation of not being sacked. But this isn’t antisemitism as we understand it. The fact of 2d class existence of Jews under Islam isn’t a refutation of the assertion that Muslim antisemitism is founded on opposition to Israel, not on Islam.
“The fact of 2d class existence of Jews under Islam isn’t a refutation of the assertion that Muslim antisemitism is founded on opposition to Israel, not on Islam.”
And what exactly was the motivation to treat Jews as second class citizens? Their money-lending habits?
They had second class status because they were non-Muslims, the same status as the Christians. But being ‘People of the Book’, their status was *much* higher than other non-Muslims.
So determining the appropriate status for everyone was strictly non-religious and had nothing to do with Islam?
Of course the status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule was determined completely by religion. But that’s not relevant to the problem being discussed: Muslim antisemitism. The hate speech in the clip above was completely alien to Islam until the last century, when it was imported from the west.
I’m no expert, but I am aware of only one significant incident in which Muslims targeted Jews and Christians explicitly: their expulsion from the Hizaj by `Umar. Compare your knowledge of western antisemitism and the hate speech above to Bernard Lewis’s description of this event:
This actual history should reinforce the fact that antisemitism as we know it too well in the west was in fact nonexistent in Islam throughout its history until the rise of Israel and the expulsion of the Palestinians. I dare say that I can take hammer and tongs to Islam better than anyone here, but I won’t do that using what I know to be baseless and therefore ultimately empty criticism.
“This actual history should reinforce the fact that antisemitism as we know it too well in the west was in fact nonexistent in Islam throughout its history until the rise of Israel and the expulsion of the Palestinians.”
The history that you cite only illustrates the simple fact that Muslims as individuals as well as groups have had comparatively better interactions with Jews than most contemporary Christians in the aforementioned periods owing to various socio-economic and political factors. It is no reflection on the antisemitism (and by extension, a pathological hatred of non-believers) espoused by Islam. If you say that the exemplary actions of certain Muslims at certain moments in history absolve the doctrinal intolerance inherent in Islam, you’re either being naive or being willfully ignorant. Muslims change, Islam doesn’t. No religion ever does.
We’re discussing the roots of Muslim antisemitism, not absolving Islam! Anyone who cares about this problem should understand what it is. If you can cite any history that demonstrates traditional Muslim hatred of Jews prior to the last century, please do so.
Muhammad’s wife Safiyya was a Jew from Khaybar with the title ‘Mother of the Believers’, so antisemitism rooted in Islam is a very tough argument given the historic facts.
stvs. Mohammed himself murdered all the men of a Jewish tribe, and marries a Jewish woman, and you think that makes Islam not antisemitic?! Come on! Islam has been anti-infidel since the beginning, and regularly massacred non-Muslims, including Jews, Christians, animists and polytheists. There is anti-semitic raving in the Qu’ran. Early Caliphs were forced to use the expertise of Jews and Christians, and, in many cases, were tolerant, especially of Jewish and Christian elites. But the general trend of Islam since Omar has been towards intolerance of other believers. Dhimmi status was humiliating and insulting, victimising those of other religions, though perhaps especially those who had received the scriptures before Mohammed. By means of the creation of the status of dhimmitude, Islam turned into one of the greatest protection rackets ever, and even with dhimmi status the position of non-Muslims was not secure. They were often subject to indiscriminate violence, murder and enslavement. The position of Jews in wider Muslim society since 1948 has been a glaring scandal in Muslim-Jewish relations, but it is not qualitatively different from the uncertain relationships that obtained before that. Yes indeed, let’s take the problem seriously. Religion is a human disaster over all, and threatens to become even more of a disaster. Muslim antisemitism, which has certainly been influenced by Christian antisemitism, but which has sources in the Qu’ran, the Hadith and the Sunna, is one of the most serious danger points today. I find it hard to understand why you should want to defend so strenuously aspects of religion which are in the public record.
You say that “[t]he expulsion of religious minorities is extremely rare in Islamic history.” That’s true, religious minorities were usually assimilated by force, exterminated by murder and enslavement, marginalised by dhimmitude, so that conversion was the only way to survive. The myth of peaceful, tolerant Islam, is just that, a myth. Christians used Islam as a foil to criticise the Christian dispensation, which was not model of good behaviour either, but in doing so promulgated a myth which shows not sign of dying, and which Muslims today have every reason to maintain. History does not show it to be right. The waves of anti-infidel violence which swept the Muslim empire (colonialism was arguably a Muslim innovation adopted later by a resurgent Europe) were frequent and devastating. The same violence was visited upon Christian Europe, and several hundred thousand, if not millions, of Europeans were stolen and sold as slaves in Muslim lands. Let’s not pretend that Muslims civilisation was any more peace-loving or equitable than others. It wasn’t, and the pretence that it was simply shrouds the threat that Islam still represents in today’s world.
You say that “[t]he expulsion of religious minorities is extremely rare in Islamic history.”
The historian Bernard Lewis wrote this, not me. Please read my comments again. Addressing the vile hate above by going on a tear about evil Islam accomplishes nothing. Killing one’s enemies and their children is universally practiced. Aristotle recommended this action to Alexander, and his application of it doesn’t make Alexendar antisemitic any more than it makes the Muslims antisemitic or the Romans antisemitic.
It may lso accomplish nothing but at least is a step in the right direction to respond to antisemitic hate from Muslims by pointing out that this is a contravention of their own history and even their religion, and that the Prophet himself had a Jewish wife.
It also may not hurt to point out to Congress that Israel’s settlement and other policies lend popular support to Iran and their nutcase allies seen in the video.
Well, yes, Lewis said it, and so did you. That’s what happens when you quote someone approvingly.
And of course Lewis is right to this extent, that Islam was never obsessive about the Jews as Christianity was. Islam was simply anti everything that was not Islam, and this included Jews and Christians, who were held in similar contempt as infidels. The fact that Islam held infidels in such contempt, and treated them that way, is enough to be going along with so far as antisemitism is concerned. Islam simply treated Christians and Christianity in the same way. This still doesn’t let Islam off the hook.
And as for Mohammed’s Jewish wives, Safiyah was taken as wife the same day that her father, husband and relatives were killed. His other Jewish wife, Rayhana, was the wife of a man who may well have been killed by Mohammed himself, apparently. He was a member of the Banu Qurayza, and it was Mohammed himself who cut off their heads, one by one, in a ditch, some 7 to 800 of them. Then he took Rayhana as part of his share of the booty. These are not convincing cases of toleration.
Notice, however, what I am not saying. I do not disagree that modern antisemitism (which is influenced by, but not wholly Christian), has played a large part in contemporary Muslim antisemitism. However, there is a strong basis for the adoption of this antisemitism in the foundation documents of Islam, just as there is similar foundation for anti-Christian bias. Many Muslims had Christian wives and concubines too, taken in battle, and shared amongst them as booty. This doesn’t make Islam pro-Christian either.
Religion is intrisically divisive and dangerous. Islam is no different in this respect, and I am unwilling to distort the history in order to make it so. I think Bernard Lewis is altogether too generous to Islam. In many cases, it is true, Jews had it better living amongst Muslims than amongst Christians, for Islam is not obsessively anti-Jewish; it is just obsessively anti everything which is not Muslim, and has been so since the beginning. Jews were a part of this, and there is enough evidence in the Qu’ran, no doubt verses inspired by Mohammed’s early contentions with Jewish tribes, to show that anti-Jewish aspects of Islam are intrinsic, not mere accidents of historical associations with Christians.
Can anyone believe that even a two-state solution in the Middle East will quell this virulent anti-Semitism?
This reads to me like there is an assumption here that advocating for the two-state solution is primarily motivated by the desire to reduce anti-semitism (and therefore if we think it won’t then why bother). Please let me know if I’m wrong.
Not on my part. I advocate a two-state settlement because I think it’s a good and fair solution, regardless of its effects on anti-Semitism. But of course I hope it would have that effect.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
I can vouch for the accuracy of the short farsi part of the clip.
I believe the translations are reliable enough. The mistranslations of Memri are on minor points, not things that can distort such clear speaking.
However, the real question is how prevalent such speech is. Does it have a respectable space in respected public media, or is it shown as extremist-speech and delegated to obscure channels?
It was mentioned that the first two segments were from Hamas and Huzbullah. It is worth remembering that these organizations have millions under their control, millions of viewers, and this kind of speech appears acceptable in these stations – this is not some obscure station. Likewise, when Assad, the president of Syria, mentions the “killers of Christ” in his speech – this is telling of widespread acceptance of antisemitism.
I have no doubt there are many muslims that don’t share these views. And there is always a political context. But the fact that these antisemites can rely so explicitly and easily on the Koran means that the “religion of peace” is a bad influence here.
Imagine if the Koran would have said instead “Love the Jews, for like you they are the people of God, and make no war with them” – that would have made it much harder for these muslims to harbor antisemitic sentiments to them. The Koran actually comes close at times, but never so explicitly, and it includes verses to the contrary too.
And, as I understand it — though I stand to be corrected, of course — the gentler verses are abrogated by later, more uncompromising ones.
I have watched the film clips again. The quibbles about MEMRI’s accuracy are missing the point. The point is that this sickening anti-semitism is just a given in most (all?) countries of the Middle East. MEMRI is only too happy to find moderate voices among ME opinion makers, it’s just that there is a lot more of this stuff. It may well be that the existence of Israel has given it a new focus, but the contempt for Jews has a long, long history among Muslims. Remember, the Nazi yellow badge derived ultimately from Islamic practice.
Hi,
I’m just curious how you came across the clip in the first place. It is cropping up all over the internet now and whilst I’m a big fan of your blog, PZ Myers and the RDF site I don’t know who Henrik Clausen the creator of the video is.
To me it would add credibility to those that claim MEMRI is engaged in propaganda if it turned out that a Middle Eastern Media Watchdog is sending best of compilations to Evolutionary Biologists known for their Atheist activism.
While I’m curious as to why so many commenters here are more concerned with the source of the comments than the substance of the comments (the translation of which has not been disproven).
Nor do I get your point–are ‘known atheist [note–no capital A needed] activists’ more Judaism-friendly than Islam-friendly? If it’s just that they can be relied upon to speak out against the hatred spewed in the name of any religion, isn’t that a good thing?
I don’t understand the comments that MEMRI is engaged in propaganda, unless “propaganda” is understood as meaning exposure of unpleasant but true things. These various sheiks and mullahs say these things on television beamed at their ME audiences. Now and then there is a sane person who says Jews are human after all, and that is also reported by MEMRI. I am grateful to MEMRI for giving us this glimpse of what is being said in languages I don’t understand by people who are fuelled by such incredible hatred. Who could imagine, without MEMRI, how little children are indoctrinated with that hatred? It happens, it is chilling, but don’t dismiss it as “propaganda”.
No thank you. And however atrocious, you can find bad stuff *everywhere.* Until you pass into Godwin land.
Pointing out such stuff, if it is not directly threatening anyone and need to be responded to specifically, is only generally inflammatory. You are not helping (on the politics), and all that jazz.
I find it quite revealing that there are a number of people here who are willing to find as many reasons as possible not to treat this with the seriousness it deserves, resorting to quibbles about translation and sophistic arguments about Muslim anti-semitism not really being anti-semitic. If I were Jewish I would be rather concerned about that, hell I’m concerned about it even though I’m not Jewish.
Sorry that was meant as a general comment not a specific reply.
I agree completely. Dismissing these not-so-implicit threats by saying that “there’s bad stuff everywhere” and anyway it’s “not directly threatening anyone” (WTF? of course it is!), and, besides, it’s “inflammatory” to post these clips is just bizarre. What’s inflammatory is the announcers calling for the destruction of Jews, accusing them of killing Christians to mix their blood into matzos, and looking upon the Holocaust with approbation. How can anybody just sit by and go “ho-hum” while the dead bodies of Jews at Auschwitz is singled out as something good?
Worth repeating–my thoughts exactly, including the last clause of your last sentence.
Whether or not this is a more recent political phenomenon as opposed to an historic one, the rhetoric itself is much more dangerous couched as it is in the divine imprimatur of Islam and ‘the prophet.’ Note that Eitan did not say “the Torah tells us all Palestinians are cockroaches.”
I agree that the content of the video is alarming and inexcusable. My only point of objection to the video is that those who collected the clips and are distributing it are not interested in encouraging rational thought or debate but want to scaremonger and promote fear/hatred of Islam. Below I have reposted my RDF comment re Henrik Clausen and Europe News who are pushing this video round the internet…
I’ve been looking into Henrik Clausen the guy who has been distributing this video and he does not look like the kind of person anyone interested in rational debate would be interested in sharing a platform with.
He is editor of EuropeNews a site that focuses on covering Islam and its interactions with Europe.
He deemed the following appropriate for the humor section of his website:
An out-dated cartoon presenting if not racist certainly distasteful presentations of Arabs:
http://europenews.dk/en/node/34721
A story about a Spanish ban on a video game hosted on a conservative website that featured a character whipping immigrants out of the country. Which did he think was funny the game or the fact it was banned?
http://europenews.dk/en/node/37501
You can see the ‘humor’ section of this guys site for yourself here:
http://europenews.dk/en/taxonomy/term/155
You should also be able to navigate to the homepage from the humor section.
Henrik Clausen’s Europe News has a clear anti-immigration agenda, the site provides links to extreme far right orgnisations without criticism or comment.
This article on the French Defense League:
http://europenews.dk/en/node/37672
Linked directly to a blog Gallia Watch:
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/french-defense-league.html
Which provided a promotional clip for the Racist FDL and uncritically posted chunks of their agenda
Atheist bloggers need to look at who they are getting into bed with when they publish content from the likes of Henrik Clausen and Europe News. We should not allow rational debate on Atheism and Secularism to be high-jacked by anti-immigration, far-right extremists. Aside from the fact that any rational person would surely want to avoid promoting the cause of these people association with such groups will damage the Atheist and Secularist movement by association.
Remember what George Orwell said about some things being true even if The Daily Telegraph says they are. Just because right wing extremists use this as an excuse for their bigotry doesn’t mean that anyone else has to hold back from condemnation, if this anti-semitic bile wasn’t being churned out by Muslim preachers and state sponsored Arab propagandists there wouldn’t be anything for the far right to make hat with.
…anything for the far right to make HAY with.
tomt, thank you for your response.(Which, BTW, I’m sure you meant to follow my comment @ # 22 rather than here…)
Thornavis has beat me to it and answered exactly as I would have, only more succinctly and clearly.
I would not consider simply posting this vid anywhere near “getting into bed with” the its distributor. (Not to mention the fact that it’s rather clear Europe’s anti-immigration sentiment has arisen in response to the disinclination of Muslim immigrants to assimulate culturally…)
To Tomt: I understand what you are saying, but I think you are confusing the source of the material (MEMRI) with a compilation of it made by someone else. The film clips of raving mullahs are of course a gift to the scaremongers and right-wingers you mention, but that does not mean that the clips are invalid in any way. They are primary source material and may be used to draw various conclusions depending on one’s own predilections.