Hilariously Arrogant Rant of the Week

I often complain that the media polarises the Middle East conflict by giving radicals a platform to spit their vile views. But in South Africa, many editorialists are the janitors of the radical views.

City Press: US and UK make the world an unsafe place for all of us

The editor of the City Press describes the Israel-Hizballah war as the “wanton destruction of Lebanon by Israel.” Wanton means “lacking reason or provocation” - “desiring to do harm.”

The City Press editor sees the conflict in these disturbingly superficial terms. In his fevered mind it’s an uncontested fact.

Unfortunately this diatribe is not the exception amongst South African editorialists and opinion makers. It is the norm. It is the result of the anti-Western spectacles through which this intelligentsia permanently gaze.

The gratuitous tone of this particular editorial stems from an uncompromising arrogance. This is not the cultured and difficult-to-respond-to opinion of an informed man who has studied the conflict. This is the juvenile sticks-and-stones polemic of an arrogant man who is totally and completely intolerant of others with differing worldviews. He doesn’t debate the people who oppose his world view – instead he wages war.

What amazes me is the selective vision of civilians that these anti-Western spectacles cause. The living civilians in the areas from which Hizballah operate cannot be noticed through these spectacles. Civilians are only noticed when they are dead.

THE wanton destruction of Lebanon by Israel confirms one thing - in the cycle of violence in which hate produces more hate, peace is the loser and terrorism the winner. […] With his [Bush's] support, Israel launched a massive air strike on Lebanon arguing that it wanted Hezbollah to surrender two captured Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah argues that Israel has captured hundreds of Lebanese who are in its prisons - they want a swop. Israel refuses and, instead, unleashes random bombings in which civilians have died in their hundreds in Lebanon. In the middle of this war, the US, which is the only power Israel will listen to, has been defending the indefensible. It evokes anger, and while the alleged mid-air strikes may have been timed in remembrance of 9/11, there is no doubt that revenge was in mind for the innocents of Lebanon. Normal people will never justify terror whether it is perpetuated by Israel, Hezbollah or the alleged Pakistani-linked UK citizens. Don't be surprised if some ask what the difference is between the terrorism of bombing children in their homes in Lebanon and that of blowing up planes in mid-air. Under normal circumstances, this question should never arise but Israel, supported by the US and Britain, is contributing to making the world unsafe, to making terror seem like counter-terror. It is a madness that calls for leadership, the kind which realises that humans must put an end to war or war will put an end to humans. Sadly, Bush and his mascot in Jerusalem do not seem to have that kind of wisdom.

A friend of mine put it quite nicely

Blaming Bush, Blaire and Olmert for not rewarding terrorism? That's like blaming the Pope that a rape victim got aids because the rapist didn't use a condom!

Send your letters to [email protected]

Comments

[mike]

Can you believe that this person has the chutzpah to talk about wisdom?

He says unashamedly: ‘Don't be surprised if some ask what the difference is between the terrorism of bombing children in their homes in Lebanon and that of blowing up planes in mid-air.’ Well let me explain it’s actually quite simple. The one is the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the other is accidental.

Its like asking what is the difference between manslaughter and culpable homicide. The former is deliberate (pre-mediated) so you go to jail for a very long time (in theory at least), the latter is accidental and would normally (providing no gross negligence) result in a mere slap on the wrist.

That this imbecile is the editor of a major South African daily should an embarrassment to the entire mainstream media of this country. But sadly even this level of stupidity does not bring the average IQs of SA newspaper editors down by much.

[Lawrence]

changing the subject a bit, I see that the one captured Israeli soldier, Ehud Goldwasser, is originally from South Africa. Durban it seems.

and on a related note, this so-called ceasefire is a disaster and farce, doomed from the start. When the next stage of this war inevitably starts, expect the Jew-hate frenzy of the media to intensify even further no matter what the facts are.

One wonders how the media (local and foreign) and Leftists and the SA govt will respond if Tel Aviv is destroyed by a nuclear missile, probably a combination of 3 kinds of responses - deafening silence, you got what you deserved finger-pointing at the devil Jews, and even open undisguised elation and celebration.

let us not pull any punches here - the fact is South Africa is on the side of the global Islamic jihad, arm in arm with Muslim radical terror, every step of the way. Our media, govt and much of the public, the useful idiots of the jihad.

[Steve]

Mike:

Its like asking what is the difference between manslaughter and culpable homicide. The former is deliberate (pre-mediated) so you go to jail for a very long time (in theory at least), the latter is accidental and would normally (providing no gross negligence) result in a mere slap on the wrist.

True - but he prefaces everything by saying that the destruction is deliberate and random.

so he doesnt agree that its accidental.

Lawrence:

You spot on with many points. I can just imagine the comment pieces and editorials at the M&G saying "we told you so" and "you had it coming" if Tel Aviv was taken out.

The problem here is that there is no alternative voice. In the UK you also have the leftists at the Guardian etc but there at least you still have alternatives like the Telegraph. And in the US you also have alternatives. We dont have anyone like a dennis Prager on radio here. Wherever we look on any media platform we hear the same worldview over and over again.

I need to find out more about Goldwasser - but it seems to be all over the news that he had lived in SA before making aliyah to Israel.

[Mike]

Lawrence, I really enjoyed your phrase ‘useful idiots of the jihad’. I think its very apt. Hope you don’t mind if I borrow it.

[Mike]

Steve, if he is accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilians than that is slander. I am going to forward it to the Israeli embassy. I think they should let their legal team handle it.

He wouldn’t make a very good lawyer. He would have had a much better case if he had gone for gross negligence.

[brett chatz]

Let's take a look at Middle Eastern media bias which heavily influences the SA media antagonists

Media bias is a very real problem in society and it is especially true of nations where the suppression of society’s voice is crucial to maintaining autocratic rule. Propaganda has long held sway in countries where citizen freedoms are limited and media reporting is state-sanctioned. Herein lays the problem: how do we promote honest reporting when the truth would bring these regimes to their knees?

There are a handful of renegade nations whose borders with the international community are sealed, countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea and China. Oddly enough, these states have imposed highly restrictive measures on what gets reported and the nature of the message to be received by their audience. Is it any wonder that the idea of a free press is seen as the greatest threat to the regimes dominating the executive legislatures in these nations? Is it any wonder that the leadership of these nations funnels copious amounts of financing into maintaining a state sanctioned media which tows the party line?

Journalism really doesn’t exist when reporters are ‘free to roam within prescribed boundaries’; Credibility is lost when the bias is so blatantly obvious. How do we combat this disinformation service in these nations and why should we even bother? These are important questions and it is imperative that they are answered correctly. For starters, the world is a global village. No longer can we assume that what happens in some faraway land is limited to that region: the world community is affected by the activities of its components. This concept is known as synergism, which is similar in principle to systems theory. We can no longer afford to turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to what goes on in Iran or Syria.

As we have recently witnessed, a catastrophic war in the Middle East is able to bring the dreaded Armageddon scenario ever closer. There are very few people who don’t believe that what we are witnessing isn’t in some way a portent of the end of days – so we are morally obligated to take a stand. This is no longer an issue of imposing Western ideals on Arab nations; this is about freeing the minds of the Middle East; liberating them from the oppressive shackles of state-sanctioned press and suppressive rule. This very concept is so terrifying to so many leaders that they are willing to go to war to prevent press freedom from taking root.

To put it another way, consider this: How would a suppressive regime such as that of Iran or Syria garner public support of its terrorist policies if it didn’t continually indoctrinate the masses with hate-speech against the West; with inflammatory sentiment against moderate Islamic states; with continual disinformation services? These propaganda tactics are employed to drum up nationalism among the impoverished masses. When a country can unite its citizenry against a common enemy then the leadership of that country is able to avoid taking responsibility for the societal ills plaguing that nation. It is akin to a ‘deflection technique’ and it works like a charm. There are deep divisions within the Arab media world with regards to perceptions on Hezbollah and Hamas for example. To the untrained observer in the West, the notion which preponderates is that all Arab states tacitly support terrorist activities against America, Israel, England and France. However that perception too is radically flawed.

There are widely differing views among the Arab states regarding the recent war in the Middle East. For example Abd Al-Rahim 'Ali, director of the Arab Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Cairo, wrote in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram that Iran was using Hezbollah to distract the world from its nuclear initiatives and that Iran seeks to destabilize the Middle East through its provocative actions. Other writers such as

Lebanese columnist Fuad Matar wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Hezbollah has placed the Arabs in a questionable situation, since its operation was meant to serve Iran's interests, as is apparent from its timing: on the very same day that the five permanent Security Council members and Germany referred Iran's nuclear dossier back to the Security Council. These are not fabrications of my imagination, but these are documented reports from the Arab media world.

The Arab world does in fact see what is going on, as indicated by numerous reports which are available in the press. There are of course the radicalized few who claim that Israel is following American and British instructions. According to Syrian broadcasts:
“This means that the war in Lebanon is not just Lebanon's war of independence, but is the [the independence war] of all the Arab masses, from the [Atlantic] Ocean to the Gulf. [They] must now [wage] their real war of independence in order to prove to various Western forces - which have instructed Israel of wage this war against the Arabs and against Islam - that the Arabs and Muslims are entitled to live in dignity upon their land, and that Israel's terrorist crimes, and the support it receives from the superpowers, will not keep the Arabs from expressing their rage...”

The Egyptians however have adopted a different stance, as reflected by the Egyptian Government daily: “…the next struggle in the Arab world will be a struggle between two axes or camps - the Iranian [axis] and the American [axis] - and Lebanon seems to be the first instance of a struggle between the two... These two axes are seeking to wage war on their own behalf, or by employing proxies so as to not dirty their own hands. These wars will deepen the rift between the movements and the states [in which they operate], or between the insurgents and the Arab regimes - or, to be explicit, between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah [on the one hand] and the Arab governments [on the other]. The proof of [the truth] of my statement is the demonstration at which Sheikh Mahdi 'Akef, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, called for jihad against Israel. This is an Iranian jihad, which aims to destroy Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan from within by turning them into [a battleground] for various militias, as is occurring in Lebanon.”

The polarization of opinions within these countries is evidence of the obscurity of the truth. It appears that the truth is something so terrifying to many of these regimes, but in all honesty does that surprise you given the facts?

Information sourced from MEMRI – The Middle East Media Research Institute (Special Dispatch series number 1249) www.memri.org

[Lawrence]

Mike, the phrase useful idiots of the jihad is hardly my invention. I wish I had thought of it myself! You will find such phraseology and similar has been employed for some time now by the few sane and intelligent commentators on global political affairs, esp in the blogosphere. that's probably where I picked it up in the first place.