SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (54762)10/26/2002 1:22:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Wonder of wonders! The New York Times covers the Egyptian broadcast of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I never expected to see the story in the Times. After all, they never covered the Syrian "Matzah of Zion" movie or the Saudi blood libels. The NY Times finally catches a clue.

"Zionism exists and it has controlled the world since the dawn of history." Nice quote huh?

Reminds me of the old Jewish joke: an old Jew finds his friend reading an anti-Semitic rag instead of the Jewish Daily Forward. He cries "Moishe! Why are you reading this filth?" Moishe replies, "I used to read the Forward, but I got so depressed -- all I saw was how we were persecuted everywhere and couldn't do anything to prevent it. But in this paper, I learn that we really control the whole world! I feel so much better now!"
________________________________________________________

Anti-Semitic 'Elders of Zion' Gets New Life on Egypt TV
By DANIEL J. WAKIN

CAIRO, Oct. 25 — The images flash quickly across the television screen. They show a bloody face, Victorian men and women in a drawing room, soldiers wielding rifle butts. And a man in black hat with side curls and long beard.

An Egyptian satellite television channel has begun teasers for its blockbuster Ramadan series that its producers acknowledge incorporates ideas from the infamous czarist forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." That document, a pillar of anti-Semitic hatred for about a century, appears to be gaining a new foothold in parts of the Arab world, some scholars and observers say.

The series, "Horse Without a Horseman," traces the history of the Middle East from 1855 to 1917 through the eyes of an Egyptian who fought British occupiers and the Zionist movement.

It is divided into 41 episodes and will be shown nightly through the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins in about two weeks and guarantees maximum viewership because many Muslims congregate at home after breaking the daily fast.

With Egyptian state television and other Arab channels also broadcasting the series, the potential audience numbers in the tens of millions.

A historical epic with a pulpy look, judging from the commercials, the series is the first production of one-year-old Dream TV.

The channel is one of the country's first two private stations, and has a somewhat freewheeling format compared with state television. It is controlled by Ahmed Bahgat, a prominent Egyptian businessman.

The "Protocols," which purports to depict Jewish leaders plotting world dominion, has long been recognized as a fabrication by the czarist secret police. It was used in early 20th-century Russia and in Nazi Germany as a pretext for persecution of Jews. Still, the show's backers say they are keeping an open mind about its authenticity. They say that in any event, reality seems to bear them out, in that Israel controls part of the Middle East.

"In a way, don't they dominate?" said Hala Sarhan, Dream TV's vice president and feisty personality on the air. "Of course, what we read from the `Protocols,' it says it's a kind of conspiracy. They want to control; they want to dominate. I represent everybody in the street. We will see whether this happened throughout history or not."

Ms. Sarhan is quick to point out that the material about the "Protocols" is only one aspect of a sweeping television panorama. But others who have seen the entire program say that a Zionist conspiracy to control Arab lands is one of the themes running through the series.

At one point, men in the Arab anti-British resistance movement find the "Protocols" and have it translated, said a co-writer, Muhammad Baghdadi. "They discovered that many things in this document were happening in reality," Mr. Baghdadi said, "whether they were written by the Jews or not."

The underlying focus of the drama "is how the Zionist entity was planted in Palestine and in the Arab world," he said. Mr. Baghdadi said the series respected Judaism as a religion. "We only criticize the Zionist movement," he said.

Nevertheless, the program has troubled the United States as well as Israel. American Embassy officials say they raised their concerns with the Egyptian government but received a noncommittal response.

The series is closely associated with Muhammad Sobhi, a popular Egyptian screen and stage actor who is not shy about courting controversy and whose previous works have sometimes poked fun at Arabs. He co-wrote the script and plays the main character.

Mr. Sobhi declined to be interviewed, but earlier this year he told Al Jazeera television that whether or not the "Protocols" was authentic, "Zionism exists and it has controlled the world since the dawn of history."

He said that many of the book's predictions had been borne out and that it would be "stupid" not to consider the possibility that the book was true, even if the chance was "one in a million."

Commentators, like David I. Kertzer, a professor of anthropology at Brown University, have noted an increase in anti-Semitic imagery more typical of Western societies cropping up in the Arab world since the Sept. 11 attacks, along with the canard that Jews were warned of the attacks.

Michael A. Sells, a professor of comparative religion at Haverford College, said, "With each new wave of war and anger, the European-imported brand digs itself deeper into society."

Indeed, the "Protocols" lately appears to be gaining more attention in the Arab media and more space on bookshelves. Yet the extent of its impact in Egypt is questionable. Egyptian observers say that most people in this country of limited literacyhave not heard of the book, although those who have probably accept it as real.

"Once it goes on television it enters everyone's living room, and that's where the danger is," said Samir Raafat, a writer and chronicler of Cairene life who is critical of the series. "You are spoon-feeding them more hate propaganda. This is not conducive to tolerance of the other or knowing the other. There's a price going to be paid."

The "Protocols" spread through Europe in the 1920's, and has had a presence in the Middle East for decades, said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

He said he had asked European governments and the United States to press Egypt to ban the broadcast.

Mr. Foxman and experts say anti-Semitic writings and images are on the rise in the Arab world. Some here say anger at Israeli actions against the Palestinians is being expressed in anti-Jewish terms, with the line sometimes blurred. Perhaps that is not surprising when the words Jews, Zionists and Israelis are often interchangeable in the Arab media and official discourse.

Scholars of the Islamic world, which historically has had a closeness with Judaism, say demonization on both sides is inevitable after such long conflict in the Middle East.

An Egyptian government spokesman, Nabil Osman, rejected criticism of "Horseman Without a Horse." "It's the same old gimmick, to raise the issue of anti-Semitism when it's convenient," he said. "To prejudge something you didn't see underlines some ulterior goals, which I'm not in a position to decipher."

Mr. Osman disputed that there was an increasingly anti-Jewish strain in Egyptian society. "There is a world of difference," he said, between anger at Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.

He said the program had been reviewed by the government broadcasting committee, which vets all television programs for things like pornography or the "desecration of religion." It was approved, he said.

nytimes.com



To: Ilaine who wrote (54762)10/26/2002 3:05:03 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Noonan always shows class...Paul Wellstone: An Appreciation
A good guy dies an untimely death.

opinionjournal.com
Friday, October 25, 2002 3:50 p.m. EDT

Liberals don't appreciate conservatives enough. Conservatives don't appreciate liberals enough either. Here's an appreciation of Paul Wellstone, who died a few hours ago in the middle of a great battle in the heart of the great democracy.

I met him only once, in Washington, in 1996. I wish I'd taken notes and could refer to them now. We met in the halls of the Senate, introduced by a mutual acquaintance, and what I remember is Wellstone was funny and modest and shy, and I thought: Good guy. It was an instinctive response, an instinctive read, and I trusted it.

A few minutes ago on CNN, Candy Crowley, a reporter one of whose gifts is an obvious sense of humanity toward those she covers, said that Wellstone was "a pure liberal"--meaning he wasn't kidding; his liberalism wasn't a jacket he put on in the morning to fool the rubes and powers--he meant it. He seemed to be a politician who was not a cynic, who was not poll driven, who was not in it just for the enjoyments of power. He operated from belief. And as beliefs do, his sometimes cost him. It's possible, perhaps likely, that his belief that an American invasion of Iraq was wrong was costing him in Minnesota, his state, which he was furiously stumping, hop-scotching over the snow banks in a chartered plane, in an effort to hold on to his Senate seat.

It's good to have men and women of belief in Congress. It's tragic to lose one. It's amazing to live in a time when these Allen Drury-type "Advise and Consent" plot twists yank the drama of the coming election off its predictable tracks. And it seems to me more and more in our country that we're getting these dramatic and unpredictable and novelistic plot changes, whatever that means and for whatever it's worth.
But here's what I really want to say. Democracy requires warriors. It requires leaders. It requires people who will go out there and fight for their vision of a better country in a better world. It requires men and women who will go into politics, and who will, in going into politics, in a way lose their lives. Or lose the relaxed enjoyment of daily life.

Politicians live lives of constant movement and effort, lives in which days are broken up into pieces that don't always cohere--up at 5, first breakfast at 6:30, run all day, on the plane, on the bus, into the van, to the fund-raiser, to the speech, to the dinner for the union supporter, to the late-night meeting with reporters; and don't forget to sound confident, to have the facts, to seem engaged. The exhaustion of constant extroverting; the fatigue of the modern politician. The only good reason to live like that is the desire to pull forward and push into being your vision of How Things Ought to Be. Those who do it for other reasons--well, as George Orwell said, they wind up with the faces they deserve.

It takes commitment and hunger to live a political life. But when the person living it brings other qualities--a sincerity, a seriousness of purpose, a respect for the meaning of things--and when it is accompanied by a personal style of natural modesty twinned with political confidence, well, it's a moving thing to see. It's inspiring. It reminds you that there are good people in politics. And modern democracies need all the reminders they can get.

When conservatives disagree with liberals, and they're certain the liberal they're disagreeing with is merely cynical, merely playing the numbers, merely playing politics, it's a souring experience. When liberals disagree with conservatives and they're sure the conservative they're disagreeing with is motivated by meanness or malice, it's an embittering experience. But when you disagree with someone on politics and you know the person you're disagreeing with isn't cynical or mean but well meaning and ardent and serious--well, that isn't souring or embittering. That's democracy, the best of democracy, what democracy ought to be about.
Paul Wellstone was a good guy. His friend Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, spoke at some length this afternoon about his "caring and belief." When tough old Pat Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, spoke of Wellstone this afternoon on CNN, he began to weep. And when Pete Domenici, tough old Republican of New Mexico, followed Mr. Leahy on CNN, he too began to weep, and had to beg off the interview.

Senators ain't sissies. They can be one cold crew. But Wellstone touched them in a way that was special, and that I think had something to do with democracy, and those who grace it.

It's sad to lose a good man. Good for America for raising him; good for Minnesota for raising him to the Senate; good for Wellstone for being motivated by belief and the desire to make our country better.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her most recent book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," is published by Viking Penguin. You can buy it from the OpinionJournal bookstore.



To: Ilaine who wrote (54762)10/26/2002 6:33:41 AM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
>>I think we should wish to rid ourselves of that kind of parochial approach to discussions.<<

Curious as to why?

One of the things that puzzles conservatives is the blinders that liberals wear towards their liberalism.


Hmmm, so far as I know we weren't discussing liberalism. The author of that piece drew on the left-right distinction. A bit different.

As for as blinders and liberals being less willing to acknowledge blinders than conservatives, you would have to help me a bit with that one. The point I was trying to make is not about those distinctions but rather about the need to discuss issues as issues.

Let's say on US foreign policy right now, one wished to make some sort of distinction between liberals and conservatives or left and right. Where would the division be placed? Where would Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak go since each is opposed to an Iraqi invasion? Or where would John Kerry, John Edwards, and the good friend of labor, Dick Gephardt etc. go since they favor one.

It's been my experience that the folk who insist on those divisions draw the lines in their own favor--something like here are the sensible ones and over there are the less than sensible.

Or would you do the division in terms of voting for Gore or Bush? In that case, the US is a liberal not a conservative country. A liberal who ran an absolutely miserable campaign won the popular vote. Whoops. Doesn't fit the paradigm. Clearly 9-11 changed a good bit of that. Right now it's difficult to make a case for a clear division.

It's plain as day that modern liberalism and 19th century liberalism are different things, but I am perfectly willing to concede that many present day liberal institutions are well intended, for example, the ACLU.

A tad patronizing but I get your point.

Increasingly, my perception of discussing things with you is that when I say, I see the world this way because my spectacles are blue, you are not willing to say, I see the world this way because my spectacles are red. Instead, you seem to argue that your spectacles are clear.

Hmm, again. I have precisely the same experience with you. But that's not strange. When you and I discuss things, we try to make persuasive points, we try to find some sort of grounds on which we can agree in order to persuade the other. If we say your glasses are different from mine, therefore that explains our positions, politics becomes only power; not persuasion. It becomes the kind of "gotcha" that Nadine does all too often.

The glasses metaphor is a bit overdetermined to me. I prefer the lower level notion that Bill and I seem to have reached, largely at his urging, that there are simply some things we will just have to disagree about. Having said that, we find, at least to me, a surprising number of things we can discuss and, occasionally, agree about.