"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region’s media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.
And even if the organization has “ulterior motives” (which certainly cannot be proven by simply saying that Israelis work for it - notice how their headquarters is in DC and their media centre is in Jersusalem, a fact they announce up front), how does that impact in any way on the service they provide?
You don’t have to like or trust them as people, to read their translations.
Because if you did, you may have noticed that this article in fact praises MEMRI, and the work they do!
"But what has gotten MEMRI attention and, in the past two months, a crucial spot in the media food chain, is its translations of articles - particularly unhinged, rabid articles - from the Arabic media. **Whatever you think of its story-selection process, MEMRI is filling an important gap in our understanding of the Middle East. Americans still have little access to important news and viewpoints from the Arab and Farsi media. The Beirut Daily Star provides welcome English-language coverage, but even that fine paper can’t reproduce the range of news and opinion available in Arabic. **The resulting vacuum tends to get filled by D.C.-based Arab journalists like as-Safir’s excellent Hisham Melhem, by Condy Rice-approved snippets from al-Jazeera, or worst of all, by American blowhards explaining how this or that policy is going over in the ‘Arab street.’ Translations of the sort MEMRI provides are essential.
They’re also risible. MEMRI’s window opens on a world where the line between the crazed mob and the reasoning intelligentsia doesn’t exist, where government officials, playwrights and popular dailies all believe in the Blood Libel, a myth of Jewish perfidy that went into decline in Europe around the time of Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale, but still seems to have currency in the Levant.
These translations get around quickly. A juicy MEMRI mailing will get picked up quickly by bloggers, discussion lists and various right-wing journals of opinion. In the case of Dr. ‘Atallah Abu Al-Subh’s recent ode to anthrax, MEMRI was first with a version in English. The story picked up a favorable notice from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial site, ran in the Jerusalem Post, and received the inevitable Drudge link, all within a day. What’s impressive is that the organization, formed in 1998 ’ to study and analyze intellectual developments and politics in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict,’ can put out this volume of translations on a relatively tight budget. MEMRI representatives refused repeated requests for comment, but it’s clear that the organization puts great effort into culling and translating. (Most of the actual legwork and translating seems to be done from the group’s Jerusalem office.) Nearly a quarter of the organization’s half-million-dollar annual budget is spent on translations, and its site asks for interns fluent in Hebrew or Arabic.
MEMRI’s success depends on doing a simple job well, and using a push medium to get it out. The news selections - made at the group’s Jerusalem office - are not a substantially different species from the news provided by World Press Review, but e-mail and fax distribution puts these stories into rapid circulation, and helps ensure this version of Arab media gets prominence.
It’s a service that organizations more sympathetic to the Arabs seem unwilling or unable to provide. ‘We don’t have any money,’ says Andrew Killgore, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. ‘We don’t have the resources to put out translations. Have you ever seen our magazine? Our magazine is a gem by itself, and that’s what we do.’
To be fair, MEMRI’s picture of an extreme, militant and delusional Arabic press allows for a few shadings. One recent article notes the efforts of Kuwaiti professor Ahmad Al-Baghdadi to critique Arab Muslims as ‘the masters of terrorism towards their citizens.’ Another cites a rhetorically deft dismantling of current anti-American and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories by Saudi columnist Hamad Abd Al-Aziz Al-'Isa. But there are enough stories about extremist kindergartens and calls for jihad to attract criticism from the growing Arab and Islamic lobbies. ‘They tend to translate non-representative stories,’ says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, ‘and members of the pro-Israel lobby then use them to club Muslims.’
That MEMRI has a bias against Arab societies can hardly be disputed. Although chairman Yigal Carmon occasionally argues for restraint in Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, he has been fixated on both the failure of the peace process and extremist Arab media for many years. Co-director Wurmser argues at length for blood-and-iron approaches to Israeli nationalism. MEMRI writers stay focused on the Middle Eastern culture of incitement when writing for other publications.
**What is not clear is why this is necessarily an unfair representation of the Arabic media. **‘They look for the absolute worst, most inflammatory rhetoric they can find in the Arabic press,’ says CAIR’s Hooper. ‘It’s kind of like if we translated Franklin Graham’s remarks [condemning Islam as a ‘wicked’ religion], and then went to the Arabic press and said ‘See, this is what they’re saying in America.’’
Well, since Franklin Graham is the son of a prominent U.S. religious leader, and his views are neither unique nor even particularly unusual, it would be quite fair to do just that.
‘Not if you say it’s representative,’ says Hooper. ‘I don’t think those remarks by Franklin Graham represent a large number of Americans.’
But that’s the catch. Just how unrepresentative are the comments the Middle East Media Research Institute highlights? Anybody who has spent any time in the Middle East, or even stayed alert to Arab politics, knows that MEMRI doesn’t need to travel very far to cherry-pick offensive comments. Indeed, after listening to enough college professors who believe Jews blew up the World Trade Center, priests who say the Holocaust never happened, business executives who tell you McDonalds donates all its Saturday profits to suppressing the Palestinians, burghers who contend that the CIA assassinated Bashir Gemayel, and college students who argue that a rabbinical cabal is suppressing the message of Pat Buchanan, you begin to recognize MEMRI’s picks not as extreme outliers but as very common Middle Eastern sentiments, the very air of political discourse in the Arab world.
MEMRI is enjoying some success. (Steve Stalinksy, the organization’s executive director, now brags at National Review Online that awareness of extremism in the Egyptian media has begun to penetrate Capitol Hill). ** But that success is also a measure of the failure of moderate pro-Arab thinkers to get ahead of this story, to debate, or even acknowledge the existence of, the abundant lunacies that hold sway in the Arabic media. ** To listen to the many followers of Edward Said’s increasingly irrelevant Orientalist critique, you’d think the problem is American misperceptions about Middle Eastern culture. CAIR’s Ibrahim, for his part, doesn’t confront the issue but simply counterattacks, using the tried and true ‘I know you are but what am I’ tactic. Meanwhile, it’s left to the Arabs’ enemies to explain for an American audience why so many people seem to believe that Jews blew up Egyptair 990 and that the U.S. is dropping poisoned food packets on Afghanistan.
The Web and particularly the kinds of mailing-list approaches that work well for instant news are vital tools for getting a broader picture of opinion in the Middle East. So far, the champions of Arabic and Islamic thought have markedly failed to use those tools. The picture of Arab media presented by MEMRI is a slanted, ridiculous cartoon. But it is not an entirely inaccurate picture. It’s also a vital service at a time when Americans are starved for other viewpoints. And at the moment, it’s one of the only shows in town."
Anyway, we could argue about MEMRI forever, but again I will say to you an American (?) science journal recently released a study of suicide bombers and their motivation in it’s social science section, I advise you to get your hands on this as it is much more objective.
The only thing I can remember from it is that suicide bombers actually have a higher level of education than the average population, which is perhaps contary to what you would of thought. But I’ve only had a chance to browse it briefly.
And you seem entirely immune to the obvious irony employed in the “teaser” paragraph.
The whole quote:
“At a time when interfaith dialogue groups are opening around the country, when Islamic histories make the bestseller lists and bookstores can’t keep the Koran in stock, when the nation is following the President’s lead in working toward a fuller and more amicable appreciation of Islam and the Arab world, the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute spreads hate speech, baseless conspiracy theories and vicious calumny in a blatant effort to discredit Arabs and stir up malice toward Muslims. ** And they’re providing a pretty valuable service in the process.**”
Correct me if I am wrong, but to me at least the intent of this paragraph is as a “teaser” to get readers interested in the apparent contradiction - how can “spreading hate speech” be a “valuable service”? - answered in the rest of the article: because it happens to be the Arab Media’s “hate speech” and “baseless conspiracy theories”, and without MEMRI, we would not even know it existed.
I am starting to seriously wonder why this is not clear to you.
It was I who said you were playing a victim, not McDuff. This just shows that you dont really pay any attention to the arguments, you are just a gainsay automaton. No-one other than you has said"You yids call any criticism of Israel anti-Semitism".
You are doing a good job of creating a distraction from rational debate - i will hand you that. Must remember dnftt.
Surely, a partial hijack of yet another anti-Israel rant thread is no great crime, though they turn up with such regularity that it’s obvious that, for some people, there is an insatiable hunger for them and the ritualized ‘arguments’ that take place - often more theater than ‘debate’.
candida, if you could come down off that cross (oops) for five minutes, maybe you could contribute to the many debates that are actually taking place here.
The irony, of course, is that the blind hatred you are accusing many here of having is exactly what you yourself are revealing. If a supporter of Palestine were partaking in the same sort of baiting, I’m sure you would find many objecting as well, rather vocally I imagine. In fact, anti-Semitism is not tolerated on these boards, and the accusation of such is an insult to the many interesting and intelligent debaters/debates here.
You are not the only Jew here, and acting like the world is persecuting you will get old very fast.
The point is that ‘supporters of Palestine’ are doing just that (baiting) and you have no idea whatsoever what my position on the issues involved actually is (believe it or not, very anti-Sharon, and pro the setting up of a viable Palestine).
Meanwhile, I’m allowed to raise the question of the motivations behind the obssessive criticism of Israel and the language used.
candida - you can raise it, but that’s another thread. Preferrably a Pit thread, if you want to use the sort of terms you’ve been using.
And just a suggestion - do you think the “obsessive” (ie extremely strong) criticism of the Sharon administration’s current actions (most of us aren’t actually condemning Israel itself, ie innocent Israeli people who may have no clue what their military is really up to - may be a result of the abominable, inexcusable behaviour of that administration?
What I mean is, could you for one moment consider that our motivation is that we actually have a point? That our criticism in this case, at this current time, actually has some validity?
But then, I have a bit of a philosophical problem with claiming “a nation” has a responsibility for something anyway. Individuals have responsibilities. Leaders of nations have authority over the people in a nation, and the responsibilties that go with that authority. I am not responsible for Tony Blair’s actions, and Tony Blair is not responsible for mine, unless he has enacted a policy or given an order which influences my behaviour (and by this, I do not mean "he made a law which I had to break, I mean giving a law that I had to keep).
Likewise, I don’t blame “Israel” for any actions by the IDF, or “Palestine” for any actions of the suicide bombers. In both cases, there are clear lines of responsibility, and all individuals are to be considered fully responsible for their actions at any time. If they aren’t, then they have no business being out on the streets withot a minder and a hard hat, let alone a gun.
All that said, no. Things are wrong or they are right. Every nation in the world has had the same problems arise over the last century. Actions which people considered justifiable during war or peace in 1900 or 1950 are not considered so today. Negotiating the treacherous paths of declaring people “war heroes” or “war criminals” is made doubly perilous because of the fact that they can, as you have pointed out, be one in 1950 and the other in 1980. Are there any “right” answers? Is it preferable to let sleeping dogs lie, or to right past wrongs? Each case has to be considered on its merits; there is no general answer for this type of case.
On the other hand, when discussing actions taking place this week or in the future, we can make viable comparisons. I’m keeping as close an eye as I can on British activity in te Gulf, because I want our army (which takes orders from my elected representative Mr A Blair and is therefore, ultimately, accountable to me and the rest of the British public) to behave in a way which is right, or at the very least, legal under British law. If any member of our army breaks the law, I want him arrested and tried fairly. It might sound harsh, but it is only by creating rules for our own conduct that we ensure we do not create more My Lais or concentration camps.
Which is why Arafat and Hamas should be sidelined in favour of people and organisations who are concerned with the welfare of the Palestinians, rather than being given the megaphone and the responsibility to speak for them.
And, again, people on both sides need to accept reponsibility for this.
Istara
No, I disagree.
What I think is happening is that both sides* are dehumanising the other side, and refusing to countenance the possibility that things could be any other way. The Israeli government refuses to believe that there could be a way to co-exist without the Palestinians bombing their buses, and the PLO refuses to believe that there could be a way to co-exist without the risk of houses being knocked down. Whether or not this belief is justified by either side is a matter for debate, but I don’t believe that any side is deliberately goading the other side into acting inhumanely, I just think they’ve stopped believing there can be any other way.
And, again, I think it’s a misnomer to call it “terrorism”. I think the technical term for such things is “excessive / disproportionate use of force”. “Terrorism” doesn’t really leave grounds for a counterargument to defend the actions, wheras that term leaves room to argue that the use of force is NOT excessive or disproportionate. It’s little legal niceties like this that gives a State an advantage over a group like the PLO.
*just so this doesn’t get overlooked, let me remind everyone: both sides. Ta.
Monty
Please, Monty, enlighten us. What ARE the facts? Given our poor, fragile minds are tainted by biased media sources, full of anti-semitic bile spewed by the Media (that’s the same media that we anti-semites believe is controlled by the Jews, I think, but let’s not worry about that for now), please, tell us the truth. I, for one, await your enlightened answer explaining exactly WHY you are right and we are wrong, which gives you such absolute intellectual authority to post, thus far, nothing except “unless you agree with me you are wrong and can’t tell the truth from the lies.” Please, educate us.
Hamas criticizes the IDF’s actions. Hamas calls Israel a “Nazi” state.
I criticize the IDF’s actions. Therefore, I am calling Israel a “Nazi” state.
Pretty piss poor rationalisation.
Firstly: I am not Hamas.
Secondly: I do not support Hamas.
Therefore: Hamas’ actions or opinions cannot be taken as being evidence of or influencing my actions or opinions.
That’s because you didn’t TELL me, did you? Nor, to be honest, does it have anything to do with the issues.
a) I am not “anti-Sharon,” per se. I have no pressing need to see him prosecuted for anything he did in the past, I have a pressing need to see the situation in the Occupied Territories calm down. His policies strike me as short-termist ad do not seem to me to do anything about the problem, and his reponsibilities for the actions of the individual IDF soliders are self-evident because of his position, but that is as far as it goes.
b) I don’t believe that “a viable Palestine” will necessarily solve the problem, although it depends, I suppose, on exactly what you mean by “a viable Palestine.” I have no idea what you mean by that, because, up to this point, you haven’t said anything whatsoever about it.
The fact is, if you claim “Ahh, you don’t understand ANYTHING ABOUT ME”*, I can turn around and point out that you have been guilty of the exact same thing. You know nothing about me whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that you are making judgements about me based not on my post but on the contents of the Hamas website, and on prior arguments you have had with OTHER PEOPLE.
Sorry to break it to you, dear, but you, personally, are just a series of posts on a message board to me. All I have to go on to inform me about you are the contents of these posts. To argue that I am a) uninformed and b) anti-semitic, because I am not telepathic is yet another fallacy.
Everything I see from you so far consists of ad hominems and inductive or syllogistic errors of reasoning, and all of it has been about the people making the arguments, not the arguments themselves. You want to convince me that you actually HAVE an argument and some degree of ability to argue it rationally, then post it here. If you don’t, how in the name of Buddha Q Fitzgerald am I supposed to answer it?
“You are wrong, I am right” is not an argument. “You are wrong, I am right, and here is why” is an argument. (Unless, of course, the “here is why” is some variant of “because you are a poopyhead neener thbbbt!”)
I apologize (well, not really) for interrupting The Performance.
By “obsessive”, I don’t mean “extremely strong”, I mean pathological and demonizing; the constant assumption, pre-judgement, of evil motivations and evil behavior, where Israel never acts in self-defense, only in ‘revenge’ and where the IDF, presumably taking time off from collecting Palestinian babies and BBQ-ing them to eat with favva beans and a nice (kosher) Chianti, chases saintly peace demonstrators around with bulldozers.
The thing is, you see, you want to see Israeli and IDF actions as ‘abominable’ and ‘inexcusable’ but are you prepared to say the same about the actions of the PA and suicide bombers? Is turning the ‘Protocols’ into an Egyptian TV Soap Opera ‘abominable’ and ‘inexcusable’, or not?
You see, Istara, I think that ‘abominable’ and ‘inexcusable’ are part of the problem, they allow us to dehumanize one another and where dehumanization is the norm, politics is impossible.
Because if you do understand why fallacies are called such, and you understand them far better than I (because as an unimportant, intellectual midget, I only understand them to “philosophy 101” level, although I wasn’t aware that when you did a PhD on Plato’s Cave you were suddenly allowed to start using them…), then it means that you’re making bad arguments deliberately.
I congratulate you on what I consider a balanced, fair and well-thought response.
Such is rare on (I admit it) either side, and so it is worthy to point it out when it is made.
I agree that a “nation”, as an abstraction, cannot take responsibility - that is the perogative of individuals. To the extent that I seem to have been advocating this, I mis-stated. Though in the context of my post, I was actually trying to critisize this type of generalization, on re-reading it was not as clear as it should have been.
That being said, clearly the important point is to draw lessons from history so as not to repeat the gruesome bits – not to pin blame for historical events, and certainly not to brand whole nations as “non law abiding” or otherwise inferior based on past disasters, of which each nation has its share…
[Though on a side note, on the topic of responsibility on individuals, I myself would give much more leeway to the Brits in the dark days of WW2 than in today’s war - given that they were fighting for survival against a powerful enemy then, and have an overwhelming perponderance of power now. But that is another quite seperate issue.]
Absolutely. My problem with the Israeli government is not what it has done in the past but what it does now. Should it change, I would not have a problem with it.
I agree with you there, but I would add that it is not just the balance of power. Even if we were fighting off an invasion from the Evil Iraqi Empire, firebombing Baghdad would not be justified. [/tangent]
It’s ok, you served your purpose (no, I didn’t get a Phd, never said I did) but. with people currently dying, there seem to be more important things to think about than squabbling with you.
Having read several of your posts, I am beginning to think this is actually true.
It generally isn’t, you know.
And this is why I think the above is true. Because it appears to come from a moral sense which is applied consistently [again, a rareity].
I disagree with the moral basis, because my sense of morality is somewhat different - again a side issue. But it is different across the board.
In other words, I understand (even if I disagree) with why you disapprove of Israeli actions, and it has nothing to do with concious or unconcious prejudices. It has to do with the specific application of a general moral theory.
Therefore, it seems likely to me that any disagreement we may have is not really over Israel per se, but rather results from the different way in which we approach the issues of war and peace.
The problem with this specific example is that the issue of Israel is riven with lots of deep-seated prejudices and fears, that your POV will be mistaken for apologetics - for one side or another. I can see several examples of that on this thread, and no doubt you could spot a couple aimed in your direction.
In their defence, often it is very difficult to tell a strong (if mistaken ) moral sense from prejudice, because in reality the one is often used as a mask to disguise the other. Not that anything excuses the rudeness you have suffered.
