Journalist Robert Fisk about criticising Israel

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 16:42

The noted journalist Robert Fisk sounds off about the abuse he's had for daring to criticise Israel in the western press

'The abuse being directed at anyone who dares to criticise Israel is reaching McCarthyite proportions'

13 December 2000

In the Middle East jungle, a journalist has to expect a few sticks and stones. A Bahrain newspaper cartoonist once depicted me as a rabid dog (fit, of course, for extermination), and Cairo's most lickspittle columnist called me "a crow pecking at the corpse of Egypt". But the degree of abuse and outright threats now being directed at anyone academic, analyst, reporter who dares to criticise Israel (or dares to tell the truth about the Palestinian uprising) is fast reaching McCarthyite proportions. Take Edward Said, the brilliant Palestinian academic who is a professor at Columbia University.

He has been facing unprecedented abuse from the Zionist Organisation of America, which last year demanded that he be fired from the Modern Language Association and which now demands on an almost daily basis his dismissal from his professorship at Columbia solely because he points out, with clinical ferocity and painful accuracy, the historical tragedy of Palestinian dispossession, the brutality of Israel's continued occupation and the bankruptcy of the Oslo "peace" agreement. Columbia University has issued an unprecedented public defence of Said and "the fundamental values of a great university", quoting John Stuart Mill and adding that to give way to the Jewish lobby's demand would be "a threat to us all and to academic freedom".

Too true. Noam Chomsky himself Jewish is one of the most profound philosophers of our age, but his scathing reviews of the Israeli occupation and America's blind, unquestioning support for Israel now earn him ever more ruthless abuse. In the United States, he wrote recently, a whole population is kept in ignorance of the facts because "the economic and and military programmes (of Israel) rely crucially on US support, which is domestically unpopular and would be far more so if its purposes were known." Ignorance of the Middle East is now so firmly adhered to in the US that only a few tiny newspapers report anything other than Israel's point of view. You won't find Chomsky in The New York Times. It was put very well by Charlie Reese in a recent issue of the Orlando Sentinel note the boondocks location when he wrote that "Palestinians won't get their independence until Americans get theirs".

But the attempt to force the media to obey Israel's rules is now international. We must say that Israel is under siege by Palestinians (rather than occupying Palestinian land), that Palestinians are responsible for the violence (even though Palestinians are the principal victims), that Arafat turned down a good deal at Camp David (though he was offered just over 60 per cent of his land, not 94 per cent), and that Palestinians indulge in child sacrifice (rather than question why the Israeli troops have shot so many Palestinian children).

Israeli ambassadors and Israel's lobbyists have never been such frequent visitors to European newspaper offices, to complain about reports or reporters, sometimes in a quite disgraceful manner. The Johannesburg Star a sister paper of The Independent which carries my own Middle East reports was confronted by one pro-Israeli group this year which claimed that I was in some way assisting the right-wing historian David Irving someone I have never met and never wish to meet. They subsequently withdrew their allegation.

Then an odd thing happened in Ireland at a prize-giving ceremony in memory of a Belfast journalist. Mark Sofer, Israel's ambassador in Dublin, had been invited to talk about reporting in conflict zones to journalism students under the auspices of Co-operation Ireland, a charitable movement dedicated to North-South relations. But at one point he chose to use the opportunity to attack my own reporting of the Middle East, to suggest that it should not be read or believed. Mr Sofer is, of course, entitled to his views but not to air his prejudices in a charitable forum without allowing a right of reply. The charity has since announced that it "totally dissociates itself" from the ambassador's remarks. So it should.

And yet it goes on. In South Africa, in Europe, in Australia I still treasure the five pages of abuse in an Australian lobby group's magazine headlined "The Ignoble Scribe" and accusing me of a "stupor of self-deception". Oddly, you can now learn more from the Israeli press than the American media. The brutality of Israeli soldiers is fully covered in Ha'aretz, which also reports on the large number of US negotiators who are Jewish. Four years ago, a former Israeli soldier described in an Israeli newspaper how his men had looted a village in southern Lebanon; when the piece was reprinted in The New York Times, the looting episode was censored out of the text.

So here's just one final question. If Arab ambassadors and lobbyists behaved like their Israeli opposite numbers, would we listen to them? Would we respect them? Would we run for cover and print only one side of the story? Would we hell.

GePap · February 27, 2003, 16:52

While I do not fully agree with how Far Fisk goes, and any talk of "Jewish conspiracies" is crap, unless someone is writing things that are either patently false (ie, they know is false) or are being libelous, there is no reason to attack them or insist that they not be allowed to write. There are plenty of conservative collumnists that i think print utter crap, but would I ever applaud them of the newpapers and organizations that give them time and space stopped or pulled thme of the air? No. Having both sides of the story, even both of the extremes, is curcial to a good debate.

I do find the reporting about Israel to be more frank on the Israeli press than the American press, which speaks volumes about the freedoms in Israel itself, and the weaknesses of the American press.

Arrian · February 27, 2003, 16:52

Fisk has just as much of an agenda as the people he's *****ing about. And his "interpretation" of the "facts" is just as underhanded.

-Arrian

Ming · February 27, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
13 December 2000

Just one man's opinion... and that's all he ever writes... his opinion and nothing more.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Just one man's opinion... and that's all he ever writes... his opinion and nothing more.

While I can agree with that (every article, including yours and mine, is just one person´s opinion), I´d like to ask you two questions:

1) What about the article is dated- no longer true?

2) Why do we read opininons like his so rarely in mainstream media? Coincidence?

Arrian · February 27, 2003, 17:02

Didn't notice the date. Since Fisk's writing never changes, it didn't strike me as particularly relevent.

-Arrian

Ming · February 27, 2003, 17:02

Its OLD NEWS... and not really news, just a rehash of the fact that everybody knows already... that this is one VERY BIASED guy.

So if you think he's good... fine. But don't attack others for thinking what they think... that he sucks.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Fisk has just as much of an agenda as the people he's *****ing about. And his "interpretation" of the "facts" is just as underhanded.

-Arrian

It´s not about being right or wrong. It´s about equal time.

Do opponents of Israel get equal time, as compared to, well, opponents of Iraq?

Or even opponents of France?

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
But don't attack others for thinking what they think... that he sucks.

Whom did I attack?

Ming · February 27, 2003, 17:06

You imply by posting this that you think his treatment is unfair...

Well... it isn't. He reaps what he sows.

You are welcome to like his form of totally biased editorialism... Many people find him annoying and full of it.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
You imply by posting this that you think his treatment is unfair...

Well... it isn't. He reaps what he sows.

Are you aware that the Iraqi Baby Killer Story (before the last war) was pure fiction (and not even printed in good faith)?

Compared to Fisk: Was that better journalism? Worse?

Ming · February 27, 2003, 17:17

Two wrongs don't make a right.

His stuff is still pure editorialism. I give him as little credibility as his counterparts on the other side.

The guy has proven over time that he has an ax to grind... and he does it, over and over again.

It's not news or even a good story that some people don't like him for it.

So again... if you believe like he does, I'm sure you find him a wonderful read... Your choice. Many don't.

rah · February 27, 2003, 17:23

The Chicago Tribune is pretty good. While I have to agree that in general it's Pro Israel. Two of the editorial reporters that they use frequently present the other side. One moderate and the other more fanatical. (and I know both of them are syndicated) SO the coverage (on the editorial page) is probably 60-65% in favor versus 35-40% against. IMHO this reflects the approx percentage of how people feel in the Chicago area.

So it's hard for me to accept anybody's opinion when it's includes the generalization that ALL US press is hard core PRO-Israel, because I see the other side in print all the time. I wouldn't call it blind support.

RAH

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
His stuff is still pure editorialism.

Granted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
The guy has proven over time that he has an ax to grind... and he does it, over and over again.

Like, say, Richard Perle? Why, then, do you think, is Perle given so much more airtime?

Az · February 27, 2003, 17:27

Because he's one of us, and we control the Media. duh.

Arrian · February 27, 2003, 17:28

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
SO the coverage (on the editorial page) is probably 60-65% in favor versus 35-40% against. IMHO this reflects the approx percentage of how people feel in the Chicago area.

So, do I get you right here, you are saying there´s a %correlation between media bias and how people feel in Chicago. There remains the question then: Which of those two is the cause... and which is the effect?

Ming · February 27, 2003, 17:30

As I said... I don't give any more credibility to his opposite number.

As rah pointed out, you can find both sides being reported fairly in the American press... just as you can find both sides being editorialized.

In general, more amerians support Isreal... so it's no surprise to me that you see more pro isreal support in the american press.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Because he's one of us, and we control the Media. duh.

You doubtlessly have a much better answer; I am extremely curious.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
As rah pointed out, you can find both sides being reported fairly in the American press... just as you can find both sides being editorialized.

There could probably be made a case that it is (statistically, nation-wide) not so.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
In general, more amerians support Isreal... so it's no surprise to me that you see more pro isreal support in the american press.

Yes... but see my post directly above yours.

Az · February 27, 2003, 17:37

Before we plunge into a debate, do you agree with what I've said?

Ming · February 27, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
So, do I get you right here, you are saying there´s a %correlation between media bias and how people feel in Chicago. There remains the question then: Which of those two is the cause... and which is the effect?

Probably 100% of most editorials in the Arab world are anti Isreal... which is the cause, and which is the effect..

Arrian · February 27, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

There could probably be made a case that it is (statistically, nation-wide) not so.

How, exactly, do you do a statistical analysis of OPINION? What, specifically, would identify one article as "pro-Israel" and another as "pro-Pal?"

-Arrian

rah · February 27, 2003, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
So, do I get you right here, you are saying there´s a %correlation between media bias and how people feel in Chicago. There remains the question then: Which of those two is the cause... and which is the effect?

Kind of. But my point is, if the % is about the same as people actually feel, then I consider the coverage reasonably fair and wouldn't say that the people are BLINDLY supporting the position.
You do raise a good point when you state there may be corralation, but there are limits to that. If 50% of all US coverage was pro NAZI, yes I would expect the % of people that would support would be impacted and it would probably rise from the current 1% (pure guess on current percentage, but I think you'll accept it for the sake of the argument).
But as influential as the press may be, I doubt Nazi support would ever rise to 50 %. Granted this example may be a bit extreme. But most of the NAZI positions would not seem reasonable to a lot of people, so they would be harder to influence. So, if people are being more influenced either way on the Israel question, then the arguements must seem more reasonable.

RAH
I don't think the US press or the population BLINDLY support Isreal. There is a healthly discourse going on despite what you may believe based on the action of a few of our leaders.

lord of the mark · February 27, 2003, 17:46

If fisk has freedom of speech, why shouldnt other people have freedom of speech to complain about Fisk. Not like the newspapers he writes for have to listen to it or do anything about it. Seems he has a problem with other people's freedom of speech.

And GEpap, you really think are more pro-Israel than the Israeli media - I read ha-aretz regualrly, and while they have some leftist columnists, they are on the whole balanced center left- i would suggest you compare them to the NYT, Christian Science Monitor, or NPR. You seem to think that Foxnews represents the mainstream of american journalism.

And of course for bias that reaches to the vile you have to read the Guardian and the Independent.

Arrian · February 27, 2003, 17:50

LotM,

I agree w/respect to the Guardian, but I wouldn't go that far w/respect to the Independent. The Independent makes a stab at being balanaced, from what I've read.

-Arrian

lord of the mark · February 27, 2003, 17:55

Perle is given airtime when they want someone to speak for the admin, but who isnt constrained to sound diplomatic like the folks actually in govt. and hes smart, and contorversial.
Plenty of doves get plenty of air time as well.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Before we plunge into a debate, do you agree with what I've said?

No, because it´s a classic strawman.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Probably 100% of most editorials in the Arab world are anti Isreal... which is the cause, and which is the effect..

Are you trying to distract?

I didn´t state the media in Iraq are balanced. But, are yours?

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

How, exactly, do you do a statistical analysis of OPINION? What, specifically, would identify one article as "pro-Israel" and another as "pro-Pal?"

-Arrian

How about pro-Israel/anti-Israel/neutral?

Should be easy to judge.

I´d expect: 85% pro-Israel/15% neutral/0% anti-Israel.

Give or take a few.