Sabbah Report » anti-arab

Voices for peace?

Paul J. Balles — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:55:56 +0000

By Paul J. Balles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

When Time Magazine carried an article on "Why Israel Doesn't Care about Peace", a whole coterie of American Zionist supporters reacted as if Time had become anti-Semitic.

For any writer to cast the slightest aspersion on Israel's claim to wish for peace is tantamount to alleging that there never was a Sermon on the Mount.

Author of the Time article, Karl Vick, writes, "Asked in a March poll to name the 'most urgent problem' facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty."

Referring to the same poll, Vick adds, "Israeli Arabs placed peace first, but among Jews here, the issue that President Obama calls "critical for the world" just doesn't seem - critical."

Time's cover and story on life in Israel prompted more than 1,000 letters, mostly in protest. Several of those letters allege the usual canard that the article is anti-Semitic.

They berated Vick for lacking reliable support for his claim. However, they ignored a journalist with impeccable credentials who writes for the influential daily journal Ha'aretz.

"The good life in Israel is real, while all the rest is somehow blurred, says Ari Shavit who writes a regular column for Ha'aretz."

Here are some of the ludicrous, though typical, comments made by readers:

"So Time Magazine is really sucking up to their Arab bosses. Without those petro dollars, Time would have folded years ago. We Jews have a long memory & will get even in the future."

A typical anti-Arab writer says, "'Never Again' only applies to the Jews. Not the Goy vermin. How much are you getting paid to post here, Arab?"

The type of comment by those who believe that Israel can do no wrong goes like this:

"This story and the cover graphic are worthy of a supermarket tabloid. Time has lowered its standards by using provocative and misleading graphics on its cover, and stooped even further by publishing an article better suited to a blog than a news magazine."

If they find nothing else wrong, they complain about the timing, "This is disgusting! On one of the holiest days of the Jewish calendar Rosh Hashanah, I am greeted by an inexcusable cover story by Time magazine."

One commentator simply said, without support, "What an unfounded article !!!!"

If a publication doesn't say what you want it to say, cancel your subscription. You may have to explain how you happened to read the offending article. This one doesn't:

"Hurrah for all of those who were nauseated by this latest piece of crass and untrue journalism by Time Magazine. I cancelled my subscription long ago and can only recommend that, if you are interested in what is going on in the Middle East, Time is not the place to find out."

Here's the gold-medal winner. "Wow! What's next? An update to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

Calling "the article and its arguments wrong, inappropriate and offensive," Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman repeated the age-old propaganda line about Israel's desire for peace:

"Ignored is the decades-long yearning of Israelis for peace and the tremendous efforts successive Israeli governments have made in pursuit of reconciliation."

Both the Israelis and the American Zionists have been lying and brainwashing others for so long they believe the propaganda themselves.

If there's any sincerity in the minds of those who say that Israel wants peace, they need to stop believing that Israel can do no wrong.

Israel needs to stop being a propaganda machine refusing to accept criticism and failing to indulge in self-criticism.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

Hollywood-inspired anti-Muslim prejudices

Paul J. Balles — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:41:38 +0000

By Paul J. Balles

Paul J.Balles considers the chronic mindset of Americans which, thanks to the racial prejudices of Hollywood, vilifies Arabs and Muslims as "'rag heads', jihadists, Islamic extremists, terrorists and womanizing sheikhs".

Many people in America have their minds set against Arabs and Muslims. That's not simply because of the identification of Arab hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. Arabs have been vilified by Hollywood for more than half a century.

As Lee Bailey noted in The National (Abu Dhabi, 16 October 2008), "Jack Shaheen, a Lebanese-American academic, has published two books documenting the representation of Muslims and Arabs in American film. One, Reel Bad Arabs, dealt with the period before 11 September, and the second, Guilty, considered films made after the attacks."

Bailey added, "...Of approximately 1,000 films that depicted Muslims and Arabs before 2001, [Shaheen] estimated that only 65 portrayed them in a positive or even-handed manner..." In other words, Americans have been brainwashed by anti-Arab propaganda for decades. More than 9/10ths of Hollywood's productions involving Arabs have made them ugly in the minds of viewers.

On 11 October 2008, James Zogby was reported as saying,

"We are disturbed by the degree to which 'Arab' has become the metaphorical mud to sling against your opponent. This week, for example, the Republican Jewish Coalition released a document in which they use the term pro-Arab as a pejorative accusation. For his part, Rush Limbaugh has joined in by declaring that Obama is in fact an Arab American. Then, on Friday, after a supporter called Senator Barack Obama 'an Arab', Senator John McCain came to the defence of his political opponent by saying, 'No, ma'am. He's a decent family man and citizen...' From this we are left to infer that an Arab man is less than a decent family man."

Zogby's right. It was the first thing that came to mind when I saw McCain remove the mike from the woman. However, Zogby missed my next thought: if McCain was the honourable maverick he claims to be, he would have said to the woman: "He doesn't have an Arab heritage but so what if he had?"

But then McCain was brought up on more than half a century of Hollywood's vilification of Arabs, so the images of "rag heads", jihadists, Islamic extremists, terrorists and womanizing sheikhs has been implanted as deep in his mind as in 250 million or more other mentally programmed Americans. Jack Shaheen's Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People and Guilty: Hollywood's verdict on Arabs after 9/11 should be required reading in the schools.

Another place where mindsets hold sway can be seen in two-party election campaigns like those going on in the US currently. Anyone following the commentators from either political party responding to moderators' questions must observe just how intractable party members are.

The malady, previously diagnosed as a case of "My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts", continues to affect our thinking. If someone like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez doesn't bow down to his northern lords and masters and is unafraid to criticize the US government, he becomes the object of continuing disdain and mind-setting propaganda campaigns.

A moderator, like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews of MSNBC, can ask a question about either McCain or Obama, and the answers can make a viewer wonder if there's anything that could make the supporter respond more objectively. In American politics, there's no such thing as objectivity. It's either "my way or no way!"

Impenetrable American mindsets inform American designation of terrorist organizations. To the blind supporters of Israel at all costs, Hamas isn't comprehended as Palestinians helping other Palestinians and resisting occupation. To resist is tantamount to terrorizing. Americans never see the occupiers who terrorized millions of Palestinians as Israeli terrorists. Clear the mind!

Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.