Another unpleasant spin on terror debate
story ROSIE
DIMANNO
It was excessively self-punitive for Adam Aptowitzer to
resign from his position as Ontario chair of the B'nai Brith
Institute for International Affairs and feckless for that
institution to accept his head on a platter.
But Jews — like Caesar's wife — are always held to a
higher standard of morality, aren't they?
Anyone who thinks that remarks Aptowitzer made on that
now infamous episode of The Michael Coren Show a couple
of weeks ago were even remotely equivalent in ugliness to
statements asserted and reiterated by Mohamed Elmasry has
taken moral relativism to its most stupid and amoral nadir.
Elmasry, regrettably, is still and yet national
president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, his own
resignation ostensibly proffered and rejected by the executive
of that organization.
An executive composed of whom, exactly? Dunno. For all
I can determine, that executive might comprise half a dozen
fellow grievance professionals meeting in Elmasry's basement
and conferring upon themselves the right to speak on behalf of
all Canada's Muslims. And, of course, putting out an annual
audit that purports to measure "anti-Islam'' bias in Canadian
media outlets — an absurdly biased exercise on its own merits
since so much of the assessment boils down either to nuance of
language (descriptors preferred by the CIC versus those used
by journalists who won't come to heel) or outright objection
to opinions the congress finds objectionable.
I tried to find out more about the congress before
writing a column about the firestorm provoked by Elmasry's
incendiary comments — that any Israeli over the age of 18 is a
fair target for terrorism, because very nearly all Israelis
must perform mandatory army service. I left a detailed message
on the congress' answering machine itemizing specific
questions: How large is the membership? Who's on the
executive? How does one become a member of that executive? Is
the presidency determined by election?
But nobody ever returned my call.
After a fortnight of rightful public condemnation
directed at Elmasry, the scandal suddenly took a screeching —
and all too predictable — U-turn, as Elmasry's apologists
seized on another segment of that same Coren show to diffuse
their own guy's radical and clearly, overwhelmingly, unshared
views (for which he subsequently apologized).
The subject of the show, remember, was What is a
terrorist?
Aptowitzer said, at one point: "Israel does make use of
— I know I'm going to be misquoted — but the truth is that
terror is an option to be used by states in order to prevent
death of their own citizens and of others. The acts that take
place in Gaza and in the West Bank, you might want to classify
them as terrorism as sponsored by the state, but when that is
being done to prevent deaths, are we going to say that's
wrong?''
And, further: "When Israel uses terror to ... destroy a
home and convince people ... to be terrified of what the
possible consequences are, I'd say that's an acceptable use of
— to terrify somebody.''
He also noted that an armed attack against an armed
Israeli soldier should probably not qualify as terrorism.
Last Saturday, under the headline "Arab group got the
rest of the story,'' TorontoStar ombudsman Don
Sellar gave considerable space and, as I read it, a
sympathetic audience, to a belated reproach from the president
of the Canadian Arab Federation that the media had reported
only part of the story, ignoring Aptowitzer's remarks.
There was the suggestion that reporters had relied on a
transcript of the show and never bothered to watch the whole
thing. Or, worse — according to federation president Omar
Alghabra — seen the tape "but never picked up on what the
B'nai Brith spokesperson said until our organization alluded
it.''
Star city editor John Ferri said "we all had egg
on our faces,'' for not getting the "whole story from the
outset.''
Here's something else that was left out of most stories
— Elmasry discussing the recent and devastating suicide
terrorist attack on a resort hotel in Egypt frequented mostly
by Israelis:
"This is a terrorist act,'' Elmasry concurred, noting
that not all the victims had been Jews, and clearly drawing
his line in the blood. The perpetrators had failed to take
into account "the composition of these people,'' meaning the
nationality or faith of all the guests.
"They know the composition in general. But they don't
know if they are 100 per cent Israeli. ... So this is a
terrorist act.
"The composition of the situation is much different
from going to a bus stop where (there are) Israelis in uniform
and some also in civilian clothes, but they are soldiers on
leave. Israel has a popular army, they have a draft.''
Et cetera, ad nauseam. And nauseating.
I never received a transcript of the tape and wouldn't
have relied on anyone else's transcribed version of the show.
I watched it from start to finish, twice. And Elmasry's
stunning comments about the legitimacy of targeting all
Israelis over 18 for terrorism was the "news nut'' of the
episode. But I'm not in the least bit surprised that some
critics, and their handmaidens, would try to turn the story —
what constitutes real news — on its ear, for the purpose of
diluting Elmasry's guilt.
In no way do I share Aptowitzer's view on the
demolishing of Palestinians' homes to terrorize them into
passivity. It's a brutal and counter-effective tactic. But
only the most wilfully obtuse — or deliberately diversionary —
could equate destroying property with murdering
civilians. There is simply no proportionate offensiveness.
From the perspective of the Star — if I might be
so presumptuous — the facts are these: We were late on the
story in the first place and then gave it short shrift for a
couple of days. From my knowledge of how newsrooms work, I
suspect this had much to do with the fact the story broke in
the National Post and newspapers are averse to chasing
a competition scoop, even though a front-page article based on
a publicly broadcast TV show can hardly be characterized as a
scoop.
Yet again, some Elmasry apologists — equivocating like
crazy — are perpetuating a Muslim persecution mentality, in
this case blaming, as per usual, a media bias that somehow
distorted the story. This is going on the offensive while
attempting to diminish the genuinely offensive. And it's lame.
The core controversy arises not from what Aptowitzer said
about Israel's use of terror — by destroying the homes of
known or suspected terrorists (and often the houses of their
close relatives) — but from what Elmasry said, and repeated
when invited by Coren to reconsider, about murdering Israeli
civilians.
Yet it's Aptowitzer who resigned, and not only
symbolically. Elmasry, meanwhile, has been given just enough
ammunition to graspingly rehabilitate himself. Indeed, in a
letter to the Star published Wednesday, Elmasry — who
never once mentioned Aptowitzer's remarks in the days
immediately after the storm broke — accuses the media of a
cover-up and brashly perpetuates a jaw-dropping fabrication:
That he never said what he said. Unbelievable.
There are, these days, immense challenges in writing
about subjects — from the war in Iraq to homeland security to
global terrorism — that often brush up against Muslim
sensitivities. News organizations bend over backwards not to
provoke and not to generalize. We walk softly and talk even
more softly, though that sometimes ends up — by my estimation
— in weirdly reticent and pre-emptively self-censored
reportage.
The latitude routinely extended to columnists — who,
let's face it, deal largely in the realm of opinion — shrinks
when the subject is Islam or Palestine. Editors huddle and
debate the potential repercussions from all possible angles.
I can think of no other constituency that is more
respectfully — or hyper-obsequiously — treated. And it doesn't
matter how carefully I qualify anything I say, or recount the
kindnesses extended to me in Muslim countries (especially
Afghanistan, my favourite place on earth) or how often I
include all the deferential acknowledgments about Islam — a
great religion of peace, its tenets hijacked in recent years
by some extremists that commit barbarous acts in its name —
it's never enough to satisfy those who accuse others of
promoting hatred while never examining the hostile bitterness
in their own hearts.
In this paper, commentators can bluntly equate
President George W. Bush to Osama bin Laden, Israel be
endlessly vilified as a terrorist state, the United States
broadly demonized and caricaturized as a superpower gone nuts
— and nobody bats an eye. That's all free speech, which I
defend without reservation. But the goalposts shift when the
subject is Islamist terrorism or the conflict in the Middle
East.
Objectivity — a phony construct in itself — is not the
same thing as balance.
Sometimes, there is no inherent balance and trying to
wedge it in there simply subverts truth.
Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday,
Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star
Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or
republication of any material from http://www.thestar.com/ is strictly
prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers
Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster
form. www.thestar.com online since
1996.
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=tracking}