Skip to comments.Why Egyptian hate speech, and ‘NYT’ reporting on it, matter
Posted on 01/21/2013 5:57:55 AM PST by SJackson
Imagine if the 'New York Times' adequately held Palestinian leaders to account, as it did with the Egyptians.
Would it be a problem if a society, following the encouragement its leaders, nursed millions of children on hatred for a religious group? Would it matter if a people was taught that bigotry is a form of worshiping God? Few would deny that such incitement does matter, as it would have a dangerous impact on both those encouraged to hate and on the targets of that hatred.
So it is important that The New York Times reported Tuesday on Mohammed Morsis chilling 2010 entreaty to Egyptians: We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews. The children of Egypt, Morsi said, shortly before anti-regime protests swept him to the presidency, must feed on hatred.... The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him.
In a separate speech, brought to light in recent days by MEMRI, Morsi evoked the anti-Semitic slur casting Jews as the decedents of apes and pigs. It is important that Times correspondent David Kirkpatrick wrote about this because such rhetoric serves as potent fuel that can overwhelm for generations to come attempts to extinguish the Arab-Israeli conflict, along with the suffering and bloodshed it causes.
And it is important because the Times has all too often ignored, at the expense of reader understanding of the conflicts complexities, the ongoing phenomenon of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel indoctrination in Palestinian society and in the wider Arab world.
Indeed, readers have too often been presented with a picture of Arab leaders simply responding to the publics hostile attitudes, leaving them unaware that it is those same leaders who have actively engendered anti- Semitism and anti-Israelism.
Egypts rulers, the Times has explained in story after story, have long had to contend with popular resentment of Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians, or the Egyptian publics overwhelming anger at Israel over the issue of the Palestinians, and anti-Israeli sentiments on the street. And the countrys current president, the newspaper has likewise repeated, faces the same challenge: As Egypts first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi must respond to a public deeply angry at Israel and eager to rally behind the Palestinians.
This, the newspaper has claimed, puts Morsi in a...
UNTIL NOW, the Times has left little doubt about the cause of the anger. The overwhelming feeling here, Kirkpatrick once explained to readers, is that Israel has failed to live up to its end of the Camp David Accords leading to the peace treaty because it has not recognized a Palestinian state and instead allows settlements to continue on territory envisioned as part of that state.
The clash between Palestinians and Israelis certainly plays a significant role in shaping hostile Egyptian attitudes.
But as Kirkpatricks latest article makes clear, anti- Jewish indoctrination also influences attitudes and cultivates prejudices, as relentless propaganda is bound to do.
Yes, Morsi must respond to public anger, as the Times has reported. But that is in large part because the public has itself responded to Morsis glorification of hatred, and similar demonization by other Arab leaders.
If those leaders find themselves in a corner, it is a corner in which they have painted themselves by bombarding the people with stereotypes that long precede the Arab-Israeli conflict.
If it is important to understand that Egyptian hostility is not solely about Israel but is also about Egypt, and not merely about the Jewish states actions but also about its Jewishness, it is all the more important to realize that this dynamic plays a key role in the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Palestinians deny Israels legitimacy not because it is illegitimate, but because they are taught that the Jews have no connection to Zion and told that the idea of two states for two peoples should never be accepted.
They strap bombs on themselves not merely as a reaction to perceived Israeli transgressions, but also in reaction to explicit calls to violence by Palestinian leaders, to clear messages that those who kill civilians are heroes, and to repeated rhetoric no less vile than what we have heard from Morsi.
Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected peace plans, not because those plans would not have led to an independent Palestinian state they would have but in part because those leaders have raised the masses on the idea that the so-called right of return, widely seen as a way to demographically destroy Israel, is holy, and that Tel Aviv, Haifa and other Israeli cities are actually Palestinian cities in need of liberation.
THE TIMES must educate readers about the malevolent role played by delegitimization, demonization and incitement to violence, not only by Hamas but also by Mahmoud Abbass Palestinian Authority.
It matters not only because readers deserve to know the whole story about why the Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues, but also because coverage that looks frankly at these realities can make a positive difference.
Consider what happened with Morsis anti-Semitic rant.
First, MEMRI translated the speech and brought it to light. Then Richard Behar at Forbes called out American press for largely (though not entirely) ignoring the revelation, citing CAMERAs monograph critiquing New York Times coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Atlantics Jeffrey Goldberg referenced the Forbes story when asking why Morsis anti-Semitic formulation had not been covered more widely. And then the Times piece, which asserts that the story was in progress for several days, appeared.
And from the front page of the Times, it spread like wildfire: To the White House, where a spokesman termed the comments offensive and unacceptable; to the State Department, where a spokeswoman explained that the rhetoric ran counter to the goals of peace; to an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, which reminded readers that Slurs and stereotypes about Jews arent confined to a political fringe in Egypt and other Arab societies, but are also found in newspaper columns, in political cartoons, in childrens textbooks and in the discourse of many educated elites; to an editorial in the New York Times, which asserted that Teaching children to hate and dehumanizing ones adversaries is just the kind of twisted mentality that fuels the conflicts that torment the region.
And with such heavyweights condemning the rhetoric, the message was heard loudly and clearly in Egypt, where a presidential spokesman was forced to address the scandal. If Morsi had any thoughts of repeating his anti-Jewish attacks, those thoughts are now dispelled.
Because despite his call in the 2010 video for a boycott of the United States (an interesting quote that was left out of Kirkpatricks report), he and his country continue to rely on American aid.
Imagine if the New York Times adequately held Palestinian leaders to account, as it did with the Egyptians.
Might the Palestinian Authority never mind Hamas rethink its practice of celebrating terrorists in West Bank summer camps? Might they cease broadcasts on state-run television celebrating the turning of heartbeats into bombs, announcing that with our rifle we will impose our new life, and describing Jews praying at the Western Wall as sin and filth?
Unless the New York Times begins to treat not only Egyptian hate speech but also Palestinian incitement with the seriousness it deserves, we will never know.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Are we to believe that the NYT and other “progressive” outlets are so self deluded as to not be aware of this reality?
Perhaps they are. It may be that they are that self deluded and wilfully ignorant.
It seems much easier to believe that there is an agenda...
Maybe the agenda is the wilful ignorance, group think, and self delusion.
No, they are not self-deluded or willfully ignorant. Their “problems” with anti-Semitic statements such as those espoused by the Egyptian are a facade. They are meant to provide a fig leaf against charges that they themselves are rabidly anti-Semitic. They are anti-Christian as well.
What is their love for Islam? They don’t have any; however, the majority of violent Muslims are also Marxists and THAT they can find common cause with.
"For many years since the early 1980s, at least Ive noted that Arab parents teach their children hatred in the cradle. Right out of the womb. This is probably especially true of the Palestinians. A million times, Ive written that hatred is their mothers milk, making accommodations extremely hard. The poison never drains out. The dying of one generation doesnt matter. The poison has been passed on."
"Its one thing if I say it, scribbling in my skivvies in New York. But what about the president of Egypt, the most important Arab state? As we read in this report, he has asked his people to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred."
There ya go.
Imagine if the 'New York Times' adequately held Palestinian leaders to account, as it did with the Egyptians... The New York Times reported Tuesday [after waiting nearly three years -- 'Civ] on Mohammed Morsi's chilling 2010 entreaty to Egyptians: "We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews." The children of Egypt, Morsi said... must "feed on hatred.... The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him." ...Egypt's rulers, the Times has explained in story after story, have long had to contend with "popular resentment of Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians," or "the Egyptian public's overwhelming anger at Israel over the issue of the Palestinians," and "anti-Israeli sentiments on the street." And the country's current president, the newspaper has likewise repeated, faces the same challenge: "As Egypt's first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi must respond to a public deeply angry at Israel and eager to rally behind the Palestinians." This, the newspaper has claimed, puts Morsi "in a... bind." ...the Times has left little doubt about the cause of the anger. "The overwhelming feeling here," Kirkpatrick once explained to readers, "is that Israel has failed to live up to its end of the Camp David Accords leading to the peace treaty because it has not recognized a Palestinian state and instead allows settlements to continue on territory envisioned as part of that state." ...Morsi must "respond" to public anger, as the Times has reported. But that is in large part because the public has itself responded to Morsi's glorification of hatred, and similar demonization by other Arab leaders. If those leaders find themselves in a corner, it is a corner in which they have painted themselves by bombarding the people with stereotypes that long precede the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Wow. There seems to be a chilling dynamic working at the New York Times, an inverse relationship between their convoluted, pathological ability to justify just about anything and the desperation in which they realize there’s not very much time left for them until rigor mortis sets in.
Too little, too late.