Dear Cape Times
I sometimes wonder if you ever worry that your credentials with the anti-Israel activist community may be slipping, even though it seems highly unlikely?
After all, ever since the dissemination of the “Truth in Middle East Reporting” (TIMER) Report (of which I am, incidentally, the proud chief author) dealing with your creative selection and presentation of news and commentary on Israel and the Middle East, you have done your best to reassure your followers.
First you published that Haaretz piece by Gideon Levy on Israel, the “sick”, “apartheid” state. When it was shown that, poor as the original research was, Mr Levy had twisted it a bit further to suit his agenda, you refused to publish his admittedly weasely retraction. This showed your admirable resistence to the intimidatory tactics of the powerful South African Zionist/Jewish Lobby. Such heroism should not go unrecognised.
A brief scrutiny of the Cape Times news content over the past 2 months or so also reveals that any allegation against Israel, no matter how unlikely, subjective or blatantly partisan, by any individual or organisation will be sure to find a prominent spot in your news pages.
And surely any careful observer cannot help but note how you meticulously select the “right” New York Times and Reuters items necessary to reinforce the image of mindless Zionist intransigence in the Middle East. Were it not for that, as all right-thinking individuals know, the Middle East would be a serene oasis of peace and progress instead of… well perhaps we can leave it at that.
Indeed the New York Times itself was the subject of a recent expose by Honest Reporting which demonstrated precisely the same statistical and qualitative, ahem, “pattern” as as was established in the TIMRER Report for the Cape Times a couple of months back? And was not the New York Times the very same newspaper which suppressed reports during WW2 on the Nazi-inspired slaughter of European Jewry so as not to appear too pro-Jewish and further disturb the tranquillity of the good folk of New York.
And surely it was Reuters whose systematic anti-Israel bias was scrupulously established in a scholarly study by Silverman published inThe Journal of Applied Business Research – November/December, 2011 Volume 27, Number 6?
Given this evidence, the Cape Times cannot seriously be accused of excessive preoccupation with such outmoded journalistic values as impartiality, context and “truth”. It would be churlish to doubt the commitment of the Cape Times to the anti-colonial, anti-Zionist etc, etc struggle in the Middle East.
But every now and again the Cape Times does show in the Letters page a distressing reversion to the essentially bourgeois and reactionary values of “giving both sides of the story”. Granted, this only comes after the “approved narrative” has appeared and re-appeared in news reports and articles and a certain discretion is apparent regarding the prominence and size of such insidious Zionist “rebuttals”.
Nevertheless one can never be too careful. Disturbing doubts can arise with such small but unfortunate deviations from strict adherence to “the doctrine”. For instance, some readers may want to know more as to why Israel (not to mention the USA and much of Western Europe) has responded to Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme with such hostility. Or, given that Israel is a mighty military, imperialist, racist, etc, etc… State, albeit on the smallish side, it seems contradictory to have contented itself with “occupying” a small portion of a small stretch of rather arid Middle East territory called the West Bank lacking any known resources. Or they may want to know about previous conflicts between the Jews and their neighbours in the Middle East or the implications of the phrase “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” – and so on…
It cannot serve the cause of progressive righteous indignation to allow such questions to disturb the ardour of the masses or the faithful. One antidote to excessive independence of thought is to continually flood the minds of the populace with new evidence of the hideous extent of Zionist machinations. This can be difficult and a certain political creativity and licence is required.
I have thus taken the liberty of assisting with this thankless task by offering the following small contribution from the glorious Iranian media: ‘PressTV quotes Harris (an Arizona businessman) as saying: “The facts are now becoming obvious. This is another case where Israel has chosen violence and terrorism where their bullying in Washington has failed. Israel believes the U.S. ‘threw them under the bus,’ particularly after the recent Gaza war, allowing Israel to be humiliated in the United Nations. Their response was to stage a terror attack (on the Sandy Hook primary school), targeting America in the most hideous and brutal way possible, in fact, an Israeli ‘signature attack,’ one that butchers children, one reminiscent of the attacks that killed so many children in Gaza?”
Harris also pinned other massacres by lone gunmen on Israel: “This is exactly what Israel did in Norway; the political party that voted sanctions against Israel was retaliated against by a ‘lone gunman’ who killed 77 children. This is what Israel always does, they go after the children. It is what they do in Gaza every day. It is what was done in Norway. It is what happened at Sandy Hook. Nobody buys the ‘lone gunman’ story anymore, not with the Gabby Giffords’ shooting, not with the Aurora ‘Batman’ shooting, certainly not with Breveik, and certainly not in Connecticut.’
Now perhaps some silly Western readers may dismiss such allegations as implausible or even absurd. That would only show the naiveté of Westerners when faced with the limitless evil and supernatural cunning of the Jewish/Zionist cancer. And even if not strictly “true” in every (indeed any) detail, the story captures the essential brutality of the IDF and its innumerable agents.
Faced with such “facts” continually presented in the media, we need no longer worry about the Zionist diversionary tactic of asking exactly who is attacking who or who has turned down offers of statehood repeatedly or who is democratic or who is more committed to women’s rights and the protections of minorities and other such Eurocentric, pseudo-democratic shenanigans.
The Cape Times needs to step up its game, continually re-pin its colours to the mast and show greater revolutionary daring and Islamist vitality. I am only too happy to offer my occasional support to such noble causes.