By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel — So constant are the lies told in mass media coverage of Israel-Palestinian issues that it is hardly worthwhile to critique individual articles any more.
Following the horrendous murder of the Fogel family, a number of Internet—but not print—writers have pointed out that various mass media institutions have either not reported the killings at all, only minimally did so, didn’t gives the ages of the children killed, or buried the story amidst a much longer explanation that the settlements are terrible and the settlers are bad people (who deserve it?).
Equally dismaying is the disinterest in getting right even the most basic facts. Consider this AP story, remembering that AP now provides most international coverage for almost all American newspapers today.
When you read something like this the conclusion is inescapable that the reporters involved are pushing a specific political agenda, deliberately twisting or leaving out material. Part of the evidence for this is that every distortion, mistake, and example of slanting is always entirely against Israel.
The article claims:
“Palestinian opposition to settlement construction on lands they want for a future state has brought negotiations to a virtual standstill over the past two years, with Palestinians refusing to negotiate directly with Israel as long as it persists.”
In fact, the Palestinian Authority walked out of talks in January 2009 over the Israel-Hamas war that began after Hamas abandoned the ceasefire and attacked Israel with a barrage of rockets and mortars. Construction was not an issue until President Barack Obama made it his central theme. Then, Israel froze construction on settlements for nine months yet during that period—until conveniently a few days before the end—the PA still refused to talk.
So it is Palestinian opposition to negotiations that has brought negotiations to a virtual standstill.
The phrase “settlement construction” is also misleading. Many (most?) readers probably believe that Israel is still building new settlements—I know this because people keep claiming this to me–something not true since 1993, before today’s first-year college students were even born. The construction of apartments on existing settlements–which is the issue–is not the same thing as expanding the size of existing settlements or building completely new ones.
Finally, a minor point for some but one that made my blood boil, is this statement:
“The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a mostly defunct Palestinian militant group, took responsibility for the killings. But it was not clear if the group really was responsible because it frequently takes credit for attacks it didn’t commit in a bid to raise its profile.”
So, even if the Brigades did take responsibility, the AP goes out of its way to assure us that they are probably innocent. Moreover, by not mentioning that the Brigades are an integral part of Fatah, which runs the Palestinian Authority, is dishonest. Reading about some unknown or “independent” terrorist group is not the same for a reader as being informed that terrorists who proudly said they murdered three infants are members of the same party as Palestinian Authority “president” Mahmoud Abbas.
And, of course, the Brigades are in no way “mostly defunct.” That is something merely made up in this article.
One reason this makes me angry is that I was just involved in a court case as a consultant. The Palestinian Authority, which was the defendant, claimed that it had nothing to do with the Brigades and thus in no way responsible for its terrorism. I researched this and came up with much proof to the contrary.
But the item I thought most cogent is this: If you go to the Brigades’ official site it says in Arabic that the Brigades are part of Fatah.
Not too hard to find out the truth, is it?
**
BENTLEY [American journalist]: What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war [World War One]?
LAWRENCE: They hope to gain their freedom.
BENTLEY: They hope to gain their freedom? There’s a sucker born every minute!
LAWRENCE: They’re going to get it, Mr Bentley. I’m going to give it to them.
–From “Lawrence of Arabia”
An Egyptian Christian (Coptic) group has put up a superb six-minute video of a speech by the late (more on why he’s dead in a moment) President Anwar al-Sadat about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is very timely.
Sadat makes clear why this group is so radical, dangerous, and inevitably at some point violent. He ought to know.
Some ironies: Of course, Sadat was the leader who let the Brotherhood operate again after two decades of being banned. Even then, in the 1970s and until just about today, it has remained illegal but the group still operated and even ran candidates in elections albeit not under its own name. (Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Syrian, and Iranian dictatorships didn’t let their opponents run under any name, which tells something about the comparative harshness of dictatorships.)
I haven’t seen a single mention in the Western media as to the reason given by Egyptian governments for keeping the Brotherhood from running candidates in the past. It was this: no party should be allowed to claim a monopoly on “proper” Islam. Remember that point because it is going to be important in future, although the Brotherhood’s new party–to make itself less scary–doesn’t have the word “Islam” in its name either.
The second irony is that Sadat was assassinated by Islamists. It is important to correct an error many have made recently. The terrorists were not Brotherhood people. But many of those terrorists who killed Sadat, joined al-Qaida, or carried out massive terrorism in Egypt in the 1990s (people now being released from prison to renew their activities) are former Brotherhood members. Radicalized and learning Islamist ideology in the Brotherhood they then went on to form or join separate radical Islamist groups.
The Brotherhood has not committed terrorism within Egypt directly (though it has, at times, endorsed terrorist murders of those deemed to be too secular) but it has been the cradle of terrorism in Egypt and even (al-Qaida; Hamas) abroad.
Finally, if you watch the brief film, keep in mind one poor piece of translation. At just before the two-minute mark, Sadat refers to the Brotherhood as viewing governments and societies as pre-Islamic. The significance of this–not explained–is that “pre-Islamic” societies are viewed by Islam as pagan and evil.
While that standpoint is definitely mainstream Islam, political Islamism’s has also produced a dangerous concept of its own at variance with traditional Islam: It claims the right to declare pious Muslims as heretics and then kill them. That is precisely what it did to Sadat, who was a very pious Muslim personally, and is the basis for their overthrowing every government (including that of Saudi Arabia) that doesn’t meet their interpretation of Islam.
Part of the problem with the Islamists is that even when they deviate from mainstream Islam, their positions may become popular and change Islam as it is practiced by many or most people. Thus, twenty years ago if you had told a mainstream Muslim cleric in the Middle East that suicide bombing was martyrdom he would have thrown you out of his office saying that such an idea was obviously heretical. Today, many mainstream clerics endorse this standpoint.
A legalized, large, and active Muslim Brotherhood (especially if it gains control of the key religious posts in Egypt, Jordan or–through Hamas–among the Palestinians) redefines mainstream Islam in a more extremist and radical direction. Sadat knew that also.
[PS: Note that the Enlightenment and Renaissance began in Europe precisely because very pious Christians there were ready to incorporate pre-Christian Classic Greek and Roman culture and philosophy into their societies. ]
*
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org He may be contacted at barry.rubin@sdjewishworld.com