The Murder of Self-Awareness – Hamas’ abuse of the Palestinian People

The Murder of Self-Awareness – Hamas’ abuse of the Palestinian People: "

This is a guest post by Mitnaged

It is impossible for a journalist not to have biases, but the mark of an ethical journalist is to be sufficiently aware and not to let them enter what he/she reports. If this cannot be avoided then the journalist should state those biases openly so that the reader can make up his/her mind as to the extent they influence what is written.

The Guardian’s journalists, and CiF’s anti-Israel stable in particular, appear not to notice the extent to which their biases influence what they write. Indeed, in many cases it seems that they deliberately allow their biases to influence their work. I have written elsewhere about cognitive dissonance, which I believe is the reason for the persistence of Jew- and Israel-hatred on CiF regardless of the objective and verifiable evidence which refutes all haters’ arguments for holding onto it. However that article merely scratched the surface – there is much much more.

For example, another strand of this rigid and persisting hatred of Israel and its population, and often of Jews generally, might be the over identification by the haters with those who they perceive to be the underdogs, to the extent that the haters adopt the attributions of those underdogs about the causes of their distress.

The perennial belligerent self-pity of successive Palestinian governments has undoubtedly rubbed off on their people, in spite of the fact that Palestinians received in the order of $550 million for 2008 in humanitarian aid from the rest of the world (see also here and here) . Accompanying this, and no doubt carefully stoked by Hamas’ propaganda machine or the fear of Hamas, is the exaggerated sense of entitlement we see exhibited so often by Islamists.

Hamas and Fatah before it, as well as the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, believe that they are entitled to such aid because they are who they are. There is no indication from them that they recognise that they are at least partly (some would argue mostly) responsible for the parlous state of their economy and could do much to improve it. Worse, they seem to be incapable of realising that their current course of action – terror against Israel – not only is not working, but is making matters much, much worse for their people.

What makes such people persist in a view of the world which actually does them harm? Part of their rigidity may well be because they cannot bear the discomfort of having to deal with cognitive dissonance caused by argument and proof that such a world view is wrong, but a good deal of it arises, I believe, from the fact that such people are stuck at the egocentrism stage of their psychological and emotional development.

Egocentrism which endures beyond early childhood may be defined both a moral limitation and a cognitive one. Morally egocentric people are fixed only on their own thoughts and needs and consistently fail to take into account for the needs and intentions of others in making their decisions about how to act. Different from this is egocentrism as a cognitive limitation: people with cognitive egocentrism have neurologically-based difficulty ”reading” others’ mental states and considering events from another person’s perspective. They also lack empathy.

Toddlers and young preschoolers are egocentric because they are not developed enough and lack the cognitive resources to see the world from alternative perspectives. However, successive Palestinian governments have exhibited both moral and cognitive egocentrism as evidenced in their decision-making and their treatment of their own people as well as the cause and effect attributions they make in public about the mess into which they have got their people.

Richard Landes highlights this handicap of the Arab/Muslim mindset. The second link on his page is to an interview with a UN representative of the Arab League whose reply to a perfectly apposite question about why Hamas does not stop shelling southern Israel, looks at first as if it evidences the reaction to the cognitive dissonance I have referred to elsewhere, but of which he appears not to be aware. I also believe that the UN representative could resort to the excuse he gave because he is stuck in the moral and cognitive egocentrism I refer to above, and which, in an adult, is a handicap.

More recently, cognitive egocentrism has been placed within another paradigm, that of Theory of Mind. A person has a fully developed theory of mind when s/he is able to evidence at least the following:

1. That s/he knows that she and other people have minds, ie that they have thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, intentions, and the like.

1. That s/he is able to understand her/his own thoughts and feelings, and infer other people’s thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, and intentions from their behaviour (including what they say) with reasonable accuracy.

1. That s/he is disposed to use this information about other people’s thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, and intentions in making decisions about how to act in social contexts. In particular, s/he is able to see the world from the perspective of other people.

It may be that Islamists and their fellow travellers are developmentally stuck and lack theory of mind. This is certainly evidenced in the video excerpt above of the interview with the Arab League representative to the UN, where he assumed that his excuse for the continued shelling of southern Israel from Gaza would be accepted unquestioningly, although he is not a jihadi.

The failure to develop a theory of mind comes about from stuckness at the egocentrism phase of development. People can become stuck there because of neurological factors, such as brain injury, or because of gross abuse in their formative years. Here one has to ask about the motivation for and the effects of programming children to accept such abuse, a state of affairs adopted wholesale by Hamas in its kindergartens and schools (see here ).

There is a growing body of evidence, which shows that emotional and other abuse can also affect the physiology of the brain and its capability to lay down the synaptic connections which will result in successful cognitive development, including the capability to move beyond the cognitive egocentrism phase. According to Seigel, 1995 and 1996, the child’s sense of the self in interaction with others will be severely impaired in cases, for example, of familial child abuse. For these reasons, the deepest sense of self awareness, of core consciousness, may be profoundly influenced by early experiences in infancy and childhood. (Author’s note: Given this and other research it is reasonable to suggest that this “deepest sense of self-awareness” – from which develops empathy and a theory of mind – are seriously compromised in those Palestinian children exposed to Hamas “death games” and cartoon videos praising martyrdom in Gaza and the West Bank,).

It is almost a given that the abusers themselves lack any theory of mind or capability for empathy and doubtless for the same reasons, otherwise they could not do what they do. They have an instrumental approach to these children and to anyone else they believe they can use to pursue a course which, to them, is self-evidently the right one. That being the case they have no hesitation in deliberately compromising the mental health and cognitive development of future generations of Palestinians, the better to transmit their legacy of Israel- and Jew-hatred, and, because they are unable to locate the source of the abuse to be within themselves, and they lack the self-control to prevent themselves from acting it out, they will invariably blame Israel/Jews for “forcing” them to do that.

Tagged: Cognitive Dissonance, Egocentrism

"

ANOTHER WEDDING PARTY?

ANOTHER WEDDING PARTY?: "BBC reports that 'western forces' have killed at least ten civilians, including eight schoolchildren, during an air strike in eastern part of Afghanistan. This can't be confirmed owing to the presence of Taliban in the area which, I suppose, might just explain the reason for the air strike in the first place. The BBC seems to glide past that minor point in its' desire to paint 'western forces' as bloodthirsty child-killers. Know your enemy.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST: "I've become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about 'climate change'. It isn't simply that the reporting is so biased; it's also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I've been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.

A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he's the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a 'guide' about 'climate change'(masked of course, under the cloak of 'objectivity'). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mr Thomson's activism does not stop there. He's also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover 'climate change'; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with 'the consensus' should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish 'climate change' scare stories.

So, to recap. One of the BBC's most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among 'climate change' alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there's a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC's insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.

Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent - and rather humourless - BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing 'climate change' conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

TRIFFID HORRORS

TRIFFID HORRORS: "Did anyone try watch, as I did, the BBC's new adaptation of John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids? This was one of the favourite books of my childhood, a cracking yarn in the HG Wells disaster tradition, and - more fool me - I was looking forward to it. Guess what? The producers, i.e. the BBC international conspiracists who see AGW as a religion, had tampered with the plot so that it conformed to their worldview. According to these morons, the triffids developed and got out of control because of global warming and because the wicked fossil-fuel oil companies had modified their genes. So, an old-fashioned morality tale about the problems of human nature descended into a zealous brimstone-and-treacle homily about 'climate change' and the horrors of capitalist greed. Brainwashing? John Wyndham, I am sure, will be turning in his grave!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

DO YOU COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER?

DO YOU COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER?: "....Australia, in particular. Turned on the BBC evening news and caught an item suggesting that this horrendous Climate Change thingy that requires us to pay more tax and subsidise third world kleptocracies is also causing Australians to change their 'no worries' lifestyle and retreat from the ocean due to the coastal erosion! Just another little doom and gloom care of our AGW propagandists at the State Broadcaster. Meanwhile. I'm feeling their outrage of the death of 'cor blimey' true blue Brit Akmal Shaikh. It's just AWFUL when ...erm...heroin traffickers meet justice, just so bloomin' unfair? Mind you, he was 'mentally ill' apparently or so the BBC state as if it were a fact rather than an opinion.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

CHINESE WHISPERS

CHINESE WHISPERS: "So, cor blimey Brit - Akma Shaikh, faces execution by the Chinese for his conviction of 4kg of heroin being found in his possession in the remote north-western city of Urumqi in 2007. I find it curious that the BBC goes on to state that Shaikh will be 'the first EU national' to be executed in China. Does the BBC now view us all as 'EU nationals' first and foremost?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Equality chief threatens BBC after ‘kill gays’ debate

Equality chief threatens BBC after ‘kill gays’ debate: "The BBC has been warned by the government’s equality czar that it could face legal sanctions if comments made by the public on its website fall foul of Labour’s new anti-discrimination laws."

Greg Dyke wants BBC licence fee axed

Greg Dyke wants BBC licence fee axed: "Greg Dyke, the former BBC director-general, has recommended the abolition of the licence fee after almost 90 years, in a report commissioned by David Cameron.

"

BBC gets go-ahead for service to let television access the internet

BBC gets go-ahead for service to let television access the internet: "BBC has been given the go-ahead for a new service to allow people to access websites through their TV

"

BBC charity boss spared jail over online child porn

BBC charity boss spared jail over online child porn: "Former BBC producer who had 'depraved' fantasies about abusing children has escaped jail despite downloading extreme child pornography

"

Ex-BBC producer narrowly escapes jail after downloading 'quite unspeakable' child porn

Ex-BBC producer narrowly escapes jail after downloading 'quite unspeakable' child porn: "
Former BBC sports producer Martyn Smith, 44, who also masterminded the Sport Relief charity was arrested after one of Britain's biggest paedophile investigations."

BBC's Autumnwatch makes 'key errors' in planting tree

BBC's Autumnwatch makes 'key errors' in planting tree: "It is such a respected nature programme that even Sir David Attenborough, the
doyen of wildlife shows, is one of its fans."

How BBC bosses ruined Christmas for Victoria Wood

How BBC bosses ruined Christmas for Victoria Wood: "Victoria Wood 'furious' with BBC after special relegated to Christmas Eve."

Doctor Who producer warns BBC will be 'dismantled' by Tories

Doctor Who producer warns BBC will be 'dismantled' by Tories: "Doctor Who producer Russell T Davies has warned the BBC will be 'dismantled'
by the Conservatives if they win the election."

Matthew Horne apologises on Twitter for his BBC overexposure

Matthew Horne apologises on Twitter for his BBC overexposure: "The actor Matthew Horne has apologised on Twitter for BBC scheduling and his
overexposure claiming, 'even I'm bored of me'."

A Formal Complaint to the BBC

A Formal Complaint to the BBC: "

This is a guest post by Mitnaged

After the Guardian’s Political Editor, Michael White, made ill-judged and scurrilous allegations about the IDF on the BBC Radio London’s Breakfast programme on 14^th December, I felt constrained to make a formal complaint to the BBC. Those who missed what White said can find it verbatim by clicking here.

A copy of the BBC’s reply to me follows, prefixed by “>” and embedded in it, in italics, is my subsequent reply to them:

>—–Original Message—–

>From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk [mailto:complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk]

>Sent: 19 December 2009 10:58

>To: [intentionally omitted]

>Subject: [intentionally omitted]

>

>Thanks for your email about the interview on BBC London 94.9’s

>’Breakfast’ programme on December 14 with the Guardian newspaper’s

>assistant editor Michael White.

>

>Mr White was invited to give his views on the news story of the attack

>on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

>

>Having investigated your complaint, BBC London would like to apologise

>for any offence you might have felt on hearing Mr White’s comments.

>However, we would point out that Mr White is not a BBC journalist, and

>he was clearly introduced to listeners as a commentator from the

>Guardian newspaper.

I am glad that you apologised. It matters little whether or not

Mr White was one of your journalists (given the paper for which he writes his comments were hardly surprising – but most offensive was the fact that he was allowed to make those remarks unchallenged by the BBC hosts of the programme.

>He was putting forward his own views with his own choice of words, and,

>as with other commentators, the listener is free to make up their own

>mind on the validity of his arguments. The BBC’s advice to its own

>journalists would be to use plain and simple language, rather than make

>value judgements, but we cannot apply the same guidance to interviewees.

See my point above. The BBC has a responsibility to those who pay it to make sure that lies are not promulgated unchallenged. That the hosts remained silent implied that they agreed with those lies. (Additional note, not in the original: I have since been reminded that actually, the interviewer did not remain silent. She made a noise expressing agreement, as if what White said was as obvious as the fact that the sun always rises, and then they went on).

>Mr White’s comments about Israel were a brief aside, along with other

>remarks about Northern Ireland, during the interview about Signor

>Berlusconi. In these circumstances, the presenter had to judge whether

>to divert the interview into a discussion about what Israel calls

>’targeted killing’ or his comments about Northern Ireland rather than

>concentrate on the matter in hand.

I disagree. Brief asides can nevertheless be offensive and inciteful. The presenter could either have challenged White or carefully steered him away from digging himself a hole by a statement that his remarks were beyond the remit of the programme.

>

>Given this background and the incidental nature of Mr White’s comments,

>we believe the presenters were right to concentrate on the substance of

>the interview.

I am not surprised, given the BBC’s record in the past. I however want to remain on record as taking issue with your reasoning.

I intend to take this up to the highest level. Not only did the presenters not concentrate on “the substance of the programme” as the BBC called it, but their presenter actually agreed with what White said, or at least failed to correct it. More predictable, however, was the standard BBC excuse and divesting themselves of all responsibility by reminding me that White was not one of theirs. That makes little difference – indeed I would argue that there is precious little clear blue water between the BBC’s attitude towards Israel and that of Michael White – but the BBC put out the programme, therefore the BBC was responsible for the content of it and for any offence caused.

Tagged: Michael White

"

Self-Criticism

Self-Criticism: "

This is a cross-post by Professor Richard Landes of Augean Stables

SELF-CRITICISM AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Self-criticism stands at the heart of any experiment in civil society.

Only when we can acknowledge errors and commit to avoiding making them again, can we have a learning curve. Only when scholars can express their criticism of academic colleagues, and those criticized are able to acknowledge error, can scientific and social thinking develop. Only when religious believers can entertain the possibility that they may not have a monopoly on truth (no matter how convinced they might be of their “Truth”), can various religions live in peace and express their beliefs without fear of violence. Only when political elites are willing to accept negative feedback from people who do not have their power, only when the press can oppose those who control public decision-making, can a government reasonably claim to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

But self-criticism is difficult, especially if it takes place in public. Public admission of fault can provoke a powerful sense of humiliation, and involves an obligation to cease the erroneous behavior and attitudes. Most people actively dislike admitting error, fault, or failure, and will go to great lengths to avoid public concessions. We all develop elaborate means to protect ourselves from such public shame and obligation, by rationalizing or finger-pointing at some other party whom we try to coerce to take responsibility for the problem, either by manipulating public opinion or using force. The extreme expressions of such efforts to avoid responsibility involve scape-goating and demonizing, in which the sacrifice of the assigned “guilty party” is necessary to cover our own refusal to admit any fault.

And yet, self-criticism can become a valuable acquired taste. All positive-sum outcomes depend on some degree of willingness, if only implicitly, to admit fault, to share the blame, and to make concessions to the other side. Without self-criticism and its accompanying learning curve, there is little progress. Hence progressives rightly emphasize self-criticism.



MASOCHISTIC OMNIPOTENCE SYNDROME (MOS) AND THE PATHOLOGIES OF SELF-CRITICISM

In some cases, however, self-critical progressives can take this strategy so far that they fall into the trap of taking most or all of the responsibility for something when it is not primarily of their doing. To some extent, this unusual generosity reflects the notion that it takes a “big man” to admit fault, and that if we progressives are stronger, we should make the first, second and even third moves of concession and apology, in order to encourage those with whom we find ourselves in dispute.” Combining inflated rhetoric with a therapeutic notion that the disadvantaged should not be held to the same exacting standards (moral equivalence) leads one to fall into self-critical pathologies.

In the most extreme cases, we encounter Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome (MOS): “it is all our fault; and if we can only be better, we can fix anything/everything.” This hyper-critical attitude can be seen with particular clarity in the response of some progressives and radicals to both the 9-11 attack in 2001 in the US, and the 7-7 attack in 2005 in London. For many, “What did we do to make them hate us?” trumped “What are they telling themselves that makes them hate us so?” In a sense, the very preference for the former question underlines our desire to be in control. Maybe we can fix what it is that we do to them, so they’ll not hate us so. Maybe even, they’ll like us.

At some level, this hyper-self criticism operates as a kind of prophetic rhetoric: by inflating the sins, by self-flagellating, one hopes to whip the offending Western party into changing their behavior, a kind of public shaming designed to provoke so much outrage and guilt as to change the situation. When the head of Amnesty International compared Gitmo to the Gulag, the comparison was of course grotesque in its moral equation of Gitmo with one of the most repressive and murderous regimes on the historical record, but Irene Zubaida Khan justified the comparison on rhetorical grounds:

“What we wanted to do was to send a strong message that … this sort of network of detention centers that has been created as part of this war on terrorism is actually undermining human rights in a dramatic way which can only evoke some of the worst features of human rights scandals of the past,” she said. “I don’t think people have got off the hook yet.”

While one can debate the value of such rhetorical moves designed to create a sense of drama, one must at least become aware of the significant distortions in perception it can lead to. The tendency to hyper-self-criticize leads to a kind of moral self-absorption in which one loses any sense of the other side of any conflict as moral agent. Any attempt to put matters in perspective by comparing gets dismissed: “I refuse to judge myself (us) by their standards.” This kind of thinking undergirds both PCP1 and PCP2, indeed one can gauge the passage from the more moderate to the more extreme thinking precisely in terms of the degree to which self-criticism becomes, like Freud’s tyrannical super-ego, vindictive and destructive.

But the real tragedy here comes with the unconscious racism involved in such a moral argument. The proponents of such thinking fail to grant the “other side” any moral agency. “Their behavior is entirely reactive, a response to our bad deeds. If only we would stop, they would stop.” This approach, which gives us, among other things, the current policy of appeasement in the West, also operates on assumptions that the “other” — in this case, the global Jihadis and the Muslim cultures from which they draw their recruits — are not autonomous moral agents. In other words, they, like animals, can’t help themselves. Hence, we make no moral demands on them, indeed, we lower ourselves to their moral level with our equivalences.

THE DISTORTIONS OF NOT FACTORING FOR SELF-CRITICISM

However one feels about this hyper-self-critical discourse, one should at least acknowledge the role of a therapeutic inflation that makes for extremely bad history. When one looks at all the forms of imprisonment that cultures have designed for people they identify as enemies, Gitmo is not the Gulag, not even in the same league, not on the same planet. Similarly, the only traits that Israel and the Nazis share, every other sovereign culture in the recorded history of mankind also shares… indeed, when viewed in the context of history, Israel is unquestionably the least Nazi-like state in the long history of cultural conflicts resolved by violence. As a result, the last thing that a sober analyst — as opposed to an enthused activist — wants to do, is read the situation in the light of this rhetoric of therapeutic inflation.

Observers trying to resolve matters to everyone’s advantage, should, when examining evidence from the Middle East, always consider the source. They should never forget how much, normally, people dislike self-criticism and how much they will do everything to avoid it. All zero-sum outcomes depend to some degree on the ability of one side to impose its blame on the other (they deserve to lose). In tribal warrior cultures, there is no need for such arguments since the basic understanding of all the tribes is “my tribe is right or wrong,” and “plunder or be plundered.” But even the most educated, evolved, and enlightened people can fall into the game. No one likes criticism, a fortiori, public criticism.

This purely human reluctance to self-criticize highlights an element of Jewish culture that most outsiders do not really understand, and that leads to a marked misreading of the Middle East conflict. In the comparative history of self-criticism, Jewish culture is probably the most self-critical. Jews are commanded to rebuke each other and to listen to that rebuke. Jews invented prophetic rhetoric. The Ethics of the Fathers (compiled ca. 200 CE) invoke as one of the traits of a great Torah scholar, “lover of rebukes” (6:6).

The ability to both give and take criticism — admittedly one of the most difficult acts of dialogue in the human repertory — constitutes one of the keys to Jewish survival through millennia of oppression, to Jewish self-deprecating humor, and to the dramatic success of Jews once modern civil societies adopt fair rules: equality before the law. One might even argue that Jews, unlike any other culture, so thrive on their ability to self-criticize that some Jews actually can become addicted to self-criticism.

And so, not surprisingly, among nations, the Jewish nation — Israel — has produced among the most self-critical sovereign cultures on record, certainly when one takes into account the behavior and attitude of its neighbors. Under conditions that lead other sovereign entitites to shut down dissent and move to “martial” law, Israel has maintained an extraordinarily vibrant discourse of self-criticism. Post Zionist historiography is impossible to understand without this framework.

Nothing contrasts more with Israel’s culture of self-criticism than its belligerent neighbors, especially the Palestinians. Here we find one of the most aggressive zero-sum political cultures on record. They accept no responsibility for the war they wage, and justify all their behavior — including how they treat their own people — as a response to the Zionists. They demonize the Zionists with conspiracy theories and blood libels drawn from the most delirious of European anti-Semitic fears to inspire their victimized people to take arms against this malevolent enemy. Who could self-criticize when being assaulted by such merciless and powerful forces? Self-criticism under such conditions is unthinkable, and dissent is treachery. The exceptional number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians suggests a culture in which intimidating dissenters and eliminating traitors is the norm.

Our understanding of the Middle East conflict suffers from a peculiar twisting of the dynamics of self-criticism. As a result, many people do not understand the nature of the rhetoric they hear and, assuming it all comes from the same “place” — no one likes to self-criticize — mis-interpret the information they get. In the case of the information coming from Israel and the Palestinian or Arab media, for example, much “even-handedness” has insisted that the Arab media is every bit as reliable as the Israeli, and vice-versa, that Israeli media can be as dishonest and propagandistic. From one perspective it would seem obvious and straightforward to distinguish between the unusually self-critical Israeli press willing to air its disagreements publicly and the exceptional reluctance of the Palestinian press to express serious criticism of their own side, to allow any dirty laundry to go public. And yet, a wide range of highly intelligent and well-informed people tell us the exact opposite.

Even-handedness demands that we give both sides a hearing. If the Palestinians start shouting about tunnels under al Aqsa and rioting, and the Israelis deny that there are any tunnels, the media presents this in terms of what each side claims. No mention of the ridiculous nature of the accusations — that would be to judge! — nor of the violent contempt with which Muslim building projects in Solomon’s Stables violated every norm of civilized behavior and destroyed precious sites of knowledge.

As a result, for uninformed observers, the Middle East conflict may seem bewildering. If one presents the “refugee problem” in terms of “both sides,” and you get your typical self-critical Israeli to speak, you get Israelis taking 50% of the responsibility, while the Palestinian spokespeople will put 98% of the responsibility on the Israelis, largely using and citing the self-critical Israelis to make their points. The uninformed comes out thinking, “Okay, so Israel’s about 75% responsible/guilty.”

In order to understand this problem, one must understand a critical cultural issue: civil societies thrive on self-criticism, and authoritarian ones thrive on scape-goating and demonizing. To take the “narratives” from both sides as equally legitimate (or worse, to primarily trust the demonizing narrative from the authoritarian side because they are “losing” the battle with civil society), is to make critical category errors. In the battle between a totalitarian society and a democracy, “even-handed” approaches will always favor the totalitarian state. Rather than appreciate the value and difficulty of self-criticism, reward it, and encourage it on the other side, it punishes the self-critical and rewards the demonizers.

Instead, one needs to factor in the role of demonizing and refusal to self-criticize not only in producing the narratives we hear about the problem, but also in the creation and exacerbation of the problem itself. In the history of nations and ethnic disputes, normal response of a culture faced with the behavior of Arab elites and their genocidal discourse and war plans in 1948, would have been massive return massacres by the victorious enemy against whom they had declared so merciless a war. Thus, if one places the Palestinian refugee problem on the vast the panorama of such ethnic disputes — even ones contemporary to it (like India and Pakistan, 1948) and ones contemporary to us (Balkans, Rwanda, Sudan) — the blame for its insolubility seems to reside primarily, overwhelmingly, with the Arab elites.

By not holding them responsible, by approving their lethal narratives, by affirming their boundless sense of entitlement, by justifying their rage and violence, the West has nurtured a monster… Global Jihad. Only by understanding the dangers of their hyper-self-criticism will Westerners at once learn to respect themselves, and show respect for Arab and Muslim culture by demanding minimal levels of self-criticism from them. Only then will the destructive combination of demopaths and their dupes be broken.

_____________

To explore this subject of Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome further Professor Landes has a highly recommended post here.

Tagged: Richard Landes

"

BBC MOURNS THE GAZA FALLEN

BBC MOURNS THE GAZA FALLEN: "God, did you catch the BBC TV news at 6pm? We were treated to a full-on love-in for all those killed in Israel's 'bloody war' against the poor innocents of Hamastan. It seems that those evil Jews just wantonly slaughtered at will and little wonder the BBC seems determined to not let the moment pass. The shocking lack of any balance of this topic requires comment. Your thoughts?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC TRUST PROPAGANDA ROLE REVEALED

BBC TRUST PROPAGANDA ROLE REVEALED: "The BBC remains predictably silent about the allegations against Dr Ravendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, despite further revelations about his conflicts of interests (to put it mildly) in the Sunday Telegraph and around the world. Meanwhile, the BBC World Service Trust, a body that soaks up cash from the UK Foreign Office and is the cosy-cosy gatekeeper to the UK's international aid efforts, continues its frenzied efforts to spread Pachauri's moonshine about 'climate change'. This page says it all. In fact, the so-called Trust's role is formally to spread such lies:

We aim to:
* Help people protect their food supplies and incomes as the climate changes
* Train and strengthen local media to raise environmental issues and stimulate debate
* Prepare local media to provide life-saving broadcasts during natural disasters; and
* Make sure all our work considers the effect on the environment

For 'environment', of course, read 'climate change'. In the BBC's eyes, the two are interchangeable.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BENN FIGHTS FOR INTOLERANCE...

BENN FIGHTS FOR INTOLERANCE...: "The admiration is all too evident in the tone as the BBC breathlessly reveals that 'Minister Hiliary (sic) Benn fights to keep hunting ban' Class warrior Hillary Benn is obviously in synch with BBC sensitivities on this issue hence his presentation as the scourge of the bloodthirsty hunting toffs.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

PEACE ON EARTH - ISLAM STYLE

PEACE ON EARTH - ISLAM STYLE: "So, even as some of us gathered to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, the Religion of Peace itself was planning another act of mass murder in our skies. I refer to the aborted 'terror attack' (As the BBC puts it) on a Delta flight into Detroit. I notice that the BBC is less than enthusiastic in revealing the background to this Nigerian student at University College London (Where else?) but I am sure that all those top BBC investigative reporters will now be swarming all over this story detailing the terror threat posed by Islamic Nigerian students resident in this country.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BETWEEN THE LINES....

BETWEEN THE LINES....: "Breaking my Christmas silence because of this BBC item. 'Six Palestinians killed in West Bank, Gaza attacks' Oh really? Just killed as they walked about their daily business, eh? You have to read down to discover that those killed were 'militants' or, to be more accurate, murderous Palestinian terrorists. The BBC does mention in passing that the IDF had responded following the 'killing' of an Israeli father of seven by Palestinian 'militants' but lest we start to feel even slightly sympathetic towards Israel it finishes with a flourish reminding us that the violence comes a day before the anniversary of the Gaza war that killed some 1400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. Dont'cha love the way that BBC deliberately conflates the number of Hamas Jihadists with genuinely innocent civilians to get to their magical Hamas approved 1400. Always good to bash the Jews at Christmastime, right? Revolting.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

MORE BBC HOT AIR

MORE BBC HOT AIR: "The BBC, as we well know, will bust a gut to report anything that supports AGW. It is now also resorting to staging ludicrously simplistic rigged scientific experiments on Newsnight to persuade viewers that its 'climate change' crusade is legitimate. A What's Up With That correspondent explains:

Here’s something I found shocking and that you don’t see every day: the British government’s former chief scientific adviser Professor Sir David King flagrantly lying on national television to boost the dubious idea that some foreign agency (the Russian secret service?) was behind Climategate.

This was in the context of BBC 2’s Newsnight staging a peculiar experiment, with a politically-correct black female “space scientist” heating two bottles – one containing “air” (last time I looked, that included carbon dioxide anyway) and one containing “atmospheric air with a greater concentration of carbon dioxide” (they didn’t say how much they were adding, of course, but I’d bet it was substantially more than 0.000388%!). Surprise, surprise — the latter bottle grew hotter… Of course it did. A greater amount of carbon dioxide will be warmer when heat is applied. This is not a surprise! The proportions are key, of course, as you know.

Newsnight itself characterised the effort right at the start as a “very unscientific experiment” — so why do it at all?! In fact the “science” as presented was misleading and selective to the point of deception.

The WUWT entry goes on to explain in detail why the experiment is an indicator only of the complexity and pitfalls of setting up such scientific experiements. Deception? The BBC misrepresentation of 'climate change' goes well beyond that. It's systematic fraud.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

GOD BLESS OBAMA...

GOD BLESS OBAMA...: "The BBC continues to provide comment on Obama by using hard left commentators such as Dennis Kucinich. Today @ 7.52am. In essence, the line peddled by Kucinich is that the US needs an 'NHS' model of health-care and so the Obamacare model does not go far enough. It's amazing how the BBC is only prepared to provide a forum for those who seek to attack Obama from the far left. Mind you, in an attempt at 'balance', Mark Mardell was on at 7.13am to sing the praises of Obama. Fair and balanced, as ever.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

SONJA SEES RED AT THE BBC

SONJA SEES RED AT THE BBC: "Excellent letter here from the Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen to the BBC detailing just how subtle but pernicious it propagandises on behalf of the AGW lobby has become.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

SO, HOW IS OBAMA DOING?

SO, HOW IS OBAMA DOING?: "Obama's plunging approval ratings HAD to be eventually covered by the BBC and so it came about this morning, at 8.33, that in a sublime example of BBC bias, Today trundled on Arianna Huffington of the left wing Huffington Post. Her take, unsurprisingly, was that Obama had not been radical enough and all that pesky 'compromise' (?) had disillusioned some supporters. IF the BBC was serious about balance - which it is not, of course - it should also have allowed someone from say National Review or indeed even some one like Ann Coulter to deliver an alternate take on Obama. But, from the BBC perspective, having a radical leftist pronounce judgement on the leftist President seems very logical.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

A HIGHER LEVEL OF BIAS

A HIGHER LEVEL OF BIAS: "Did you catch the item on Today @ 7.50am concerning planned government cutbacks in higher education? What struck me was the sympathetic attitude Naughtie took when interviewing Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University College Union and this contrasted with the outright hostility then shown towards Andrew Haldenby of Reform. Not a trace of bias there, right?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

"world" "news"

"world" "news": "The BBC is now promoting the cold weather in Europe to one of the top stories. What about the fact that more than half the entire USA is under snow at the moment? In any case the worst period for cold is over for most of central Europe at least (I know whereof I speak- in Prague where I am the daytime temperatures were minus 12 celsius or so only a couple of days ago; I'm lucky my ears didn't freeze off). The Beeb typically refer to this as Europe's 'cold snap', implying that it's a little aberration. Well, they'll soon be able to catch up with the weather and report a warming, as is their wont. But it seems to me that more than half the USA under snow (average depth across this area 3.8 inches) is a much bigger story, yet it has been relegated to the status of a freak east coast winter storm. The BBC tend to concentrate on the effects regardless of the intensity of the weather (unless it suits them), ignoring the fact that Europe's chaos- at the very least the UK's- is in large part due to reduced capacity as a result of lower expectations following predictions of global warming. Yet again the BBC's coverage- even of the weather!- is distorted by ideology. When there is no financial rationale behind a business, ideas do tend to take over like bindweed.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

WHY SHOPLIFTING IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO...

WHY SHOPLIFTING IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO...: "With the retail stores so busy at the moment, up pops and Anglican cleric Tim Jones who reckons that shoplifting is understandable, if not desirable. Naturally the BBC found a soapbox for him this morning with viewers phoning in to express their delight at this most progressive of vicars. Tim blames 'society' for letting thieves down and the BBC seemed delighted to find a Christian minister they can at last agree with. Did you catch him on BBC circa 8.42am? Blessed are the shoplifters for they shall inherit the earth...

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

PEACE ON EARTH - GOODWILL TOWARDS IRAN

PEACE ON EARTH - GOODWILL TOWARDS IRAN: "The BBC just keeps giving when it comes the Mullahs in Tehran. This morning it uncritically covers the latest lies from Ahmadinejad on the topic of Iranian nuclear intentions. Yes, I know the 12th Imam's dining pal selected US network ABC to use as his conduit for propaganda (Big surprise, the BBC must be gutted) but I would have expected the BBC to at least provide those who suffer under the Mullahs with an opportunity to comment on Ahmadinejad's drivel but..no such luck. If it applied the same rigour it gives to comments by David Cameron as it does to comments by fanatics like Maddy at least there would be some consistency but no such process applies to the BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TO HAMAS

PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TO HAMAS: "I see the BBC has been doing it's best for those poor innocents that support Hamas. It reports today that 'the world' failed Gaza earlier this year. I agree. 'The world' should have fully supported Israel as it sought to defend itself from the murderous intent of the Islamic Jihadists that constitute Hamas. But that's NOT the line being retailed by the BBC this morning. No, you see the issue is that the bad Jews need to be pressurised much more for daring to defend themselves, or so says those impartial anti-Semites at Oxfam. The BBC is beside itself with joy at this seasonal message from the fake Charities although it does Israel two sentences to defend itself at the very end of the report. Meanwhile on Today, we had Hamada Abuqammar @ 7.19am relating just how tough life is for the poor people of Gaza, and explaining exactly why all those tunnels into Egypt are for humanitarian purposes. Hamas must love the BBC - if only they, rather than we, funded them.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"