Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

I was actually astonished at how this column was even more valid than it was when it was first written. See if you agree:

Underlying any other factor regarding attitudes toward Israel in the Media-University-Government (MUG) complex  is the programmatic and ideological problem faced in honestly understanding and explaining Israel’s behavior.

To report truthfully would require comprehending and communicating the following two paragraphs:

 –Most Israelis believe, on the basis of their experience during the 1990s’ Oslo era and with the “peace process” generally, that Palestinian leaders cannot and will not make peace, and that most Arabs and Muslims still want to destroy Israel. As a result, they explain, past Israeli concessions have made Israel’s situation worse, risks to show that Israel wants peace have not persuaded onlookers, withdrawals from territory have only led to that territory being used to launch attacks on Israel. 

–In justifying their stance, Israelis cite the extremism of Iran; the advances of Hamas and Hizballah; the growing radicalism and Islamist influence in the Egyptian revolution, and other such factors. In addition, they worry that the Obama Administration policy is undermining Israel and enabling a growing extremism in the region. This is a prevailing viewpoint across the political spectrum.

I could have chosen to make additional points but this shows the main factors. Since the Israeli argument is so cogent and backed by facts and observable realities, it would be dangerously persuasive to those who  actually get to hear it. 

 Instead, the muggers of MUG must insist:

–Peace would be easily and quickly obtained if not for Israel’s policies.

–Settlements and not Arab/Muslim positions are the factor preventing peace, even though it could be pointed out that if the Palestinians made peace all the settlements on their territory would be removed.

–If Israel only had a different government the peace process would rapidly advance.

 –Obama and his supporters want to save Israel in spite of itself and they, not Israel’ own leadership, knows what’s best for the country.

 –Israelis “know” that Obama is right which is why public opinion polls, statements, and evidence to the contrary is suppressed or spun away. American Jews can support anti-Israel policies in the firm belief that they are really “pro-Israel” policies.

–They have only replaced demonizing the “other” with romanticizing the “other.” Never underestimate the importance of ignorance or of its common form—believing that other people think and act just like themselves. The “great experts” really know very little about the issues. (I could give you a long and amusing list on that point.)

–It is far more pleasant to believe that conflict can be made to disappear, hatreds quenched. If they are all our fault than we can easily fix them.

(No sooner did I write this that up pops a great example of the genre! It’s all Israel’s fault, Netanyahu never showed he wanted peace, blah, blah, blah.)

 Or, in short, “Why do they hate us?” because we’ve behaved so badly but we can fix it by behaving properly.

 Consequently, the systematic misrepresentation isn’t because these people are mean or that they hate Israel as such (well, actually, a lot of academics but relatively few journalists or government officials do) but because their worldview and political line–including 100 percent support for Obama–requires it.

Equally, their systematic view that revolutionary Islamism isn’t a real threat but just a marginal movement of those who misunderstand Islam and want to hijack it, requires it. Equally, their systematic view that to portray certain peoples as hardline, intransigent, “irrational,” etc., is a form of racism and Islamophobia.    

I constantly receive letters from Iranians, Turks, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Syrians about their despair at losing their country, being oppressed, or seeing so much bloodshed in their struggle for democracy and to avoid being crushed by Islamist or radical nationalist dictatorships.

Genuinely moderate Muslims in the West have similar complaints and experiences. One case that typifies many is of a courageous man who is shunned by the politicians, virtually barred from the two mosques in his small city, and sees those who threaten him being praised in the media and feted by local politicians.

These people often have similar symptoms. They are depressed, often close to tears, deeply frustrated, and bewildered. What makes their lot even more bitter is the lack of sympathy for the Western MUG that praises their enemies (and all of ours) at the same time. They, too, are victims of the same syndrome that Israel suffers from.  

One of the worst things in life is for someone to wake up and discover he’s been supporting evil. Indeed, not only an evil in the abstract but forces and ideas that threaten his own freedom and happiness. A lot of people in the West have already woken up but many more need to do so.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"We" here in the West are not fond of history (or facts for that matter). "We" prefer our newly acquired "secular humanist" points of views and obfuscations. "We" like to impose our current "value system" upon places and eras and events to which they do not apply. Sort of like >> Isa 30:10 >> (WE) say to the seers (historians, purveyors of facts and truth), See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:. . . .
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment

Israel is different. Israel has been the front line on the bloody borders of Islam, both Sunni and Shi'a, in the clash of civilizations, for some time now. Most Israelis have not read Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis, nor Winston Churchill. Their insight is purely empirical. But it makes them see where others are blind.

That is why Israel’s message to the world is - we are not going to get killed because of your stupidity and indifference. We will act. We have no other choice except the choice to defend ourselves or be incinerated.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
The foresight this article project goes a long way certainly. When it concerns justice, correctness and propriety in reporting, it could simply be, analytical credibility. However it requires much more than information, rationalization is the outstanding factor to deliver, still, this is abused ... or? ):
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Prof. Rubin: The headline to your column reads: Why Most of the Mass Media Can’t Report Honestly on Israel—or Other Middle East Issues. I think you should have stopped at the word, Honestly. The bottom line is that the mass media has become so venal that it cannot report any issue honestly, let alone Israel.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
My enthusiastic, yet sorrowfully demanded by the circumstances, AMEN! to Jack's comment.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I do want, alas, to add a note from my point of view in Germany. When Mubarack was overthrown, Germans were served endless interviews with Egyptians and other Middle Easterns plus German experts--all contending that the Muslim Brotherhood was but a social organization, somewhat like the Catholic "Caritas" is here in Germany. Now that Morsi is away and there are still signs of unrest, violence and conflict between the military and police forces with resisting, agitating and violence prone MBers and followers. That there is also a persecution of Christians is, well, not mentioned in German tv, at least in my memory. So the news reporting goes, unless the MB and follwers are in someway reintegrated into Egyptian political life, true peace cannot be had. Indeed, Middle Easterners are being once again interviewed just like after the fall of Mubarack. A grand déjà vu!!! Oh yes, a bit of "democracy" demands it, for afterall so many people excluded cannot be good for democracy. In short, such a large, albeit minority, must be integrated into the polictial life. This bothers me terribly. Why?

In the 1930s large contingents of Brown Shirts acting in name of the Nazi party could become quite violent. At any rate, the same "bring back the MB" argument would be 100% valid for those times and did pop up. Well, Hitler did, with much less twisted democracy than Morsi, become a minority Chancelor in a gov. with more non-Nazies who thought they could control Hitler in short time. We all know that the combination of democratic ploys and violence on the streets with ever more concentration on Jews, a concentration not really thematized (as there is concentration on the Copts now in Egypt) that significant MINORITY and folllowers gained via "democracy" access to power and set out with success to neutralize opposition (as Morsi was doing). Why does this bother me so much?

The relationship of Nazi and radical Arabs, particularly the MB took place at that time. Had Rommel won the N. African campaign and moved into Egypt, therere were, as always, SS groups who were planning to eliminate with the aid of MBers the Jews in Egypt. (Alas, there is a drive today to rid the Middle East of Christians--about as noticed as the augmenting violence against Jews then. But, if the military surpresses the MB, is that not UNdemocratic. Yeah!!

After WW I the German military remained politically neutral. That military could have terminated the Brown Shirts and did not. Alas, there was no successful Gen. Sisi (though Gen. Beck and few others plotted). Yes, crush, as the Nazies should have been, the MB movement.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think your explanation of the parallels between German history and the current situation in Egypt reflects my own view. What I would add from my perspective as an English speaking American is something I learned from William Shirer's Berlin Diary. As an American journalist who had lived in Europe since the 20s he got to observe first hand the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler and the course of his government all the way to Pearl Harbor at the end of '41. What he reports about the German public is that although many enthusiastically supported Hitler they, like the rest of Europe, did not want another war. I think it is difficult for non Germans to believe that all the enthusiasm for Hitler did not mean that Hitler didn't have to lie to his own people as much as he did to Chamberlain and the rest of Europe about his real intentions. Shirer directly observed that Berliners did not send the troops off to Poland by throwing flowers at them as they had in 1914. They stood in silence. In the vegetable market a false rumor spread that there was not, after all, to be war with Poland. A woman selling cabbages was so elated that she threw her cabbages in the air and went off to celebrate at the pub! My point is this - after WW1 Europeans , Germans included, needed to believe Hitler when he told them that he was a man of peace. Today, many people need to believe that the jihadis who have broadcast their intentions as openly as Hitler in Mein Kampf are really moderate peace loving people just like ourselves. Psychologically it is a defence mechanism called projection where people delude themselves into seeing what they want to see to avoid seeing the true situation. In hostage situations it arises as Stockholm syndrome where the prisoners take on the goals and beliefs of the terrorists to try to avoid being killed. Our Media, University Government complex has got a case of Stockholm syndrome like the black plague. They will go to any lengths not to do anything to offend them. As long as the MUG complex is in charge the jihadis will continue to attacks us.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow, we are of accord. After WW I the general German population, like the British or French, wanted NO more war! The ploy of Hitler (carried out effectively by Goebels in some sensational interviews) was to pose for the public as a man of peace. But Hitler, even before his political ascendency, wanted war and much of the top military knew that. Gen. Beck and Co were no democrats (in this way like Gen. Sisi) , rather nationalistic Germans that wanted restoration from the circumcision of the German military had experienced after WW I. But, Beck did not want a war that Germany could not win, not to speak of another world war. He wanted to arrest, kill if necessary, Hitler at the time of Munich. But when Hitler returned, Chaimberlain having gained "Herr Hitler's" signature on a piece of paper that he waved to the British upon return to England, the man of peace (sic) was cheered by the German population, never so popular before as at that point. All worries about a war Chancellor gone, the plot by Beck and friends collapsed. If only Gen. Beck had been able to block the results of democracy, what a different world we would have to day. (By the way, Beck tried to kill Hitler several times during the war and, if my memory is correct, shared the same fate as Graf von Stauffenburg after the failed July 20, 1944 attempt to kill Hitler.) --Please excuse any Germanic length that might have entered into my sentences. A German thinker is a man who will write a thick ten volume work on simplicity with one long sentence. O.k., a bit extreme.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All