In a lot of my recent blogging about the situation in the extensive gulag of “open-air prisons” in which the West Bank’s 2.5 million Palestinians have been forced to live since 2002 I have referred to these tightly quadrillaged areas as Bantustans. I think the term conveys some useful things to a world public about the stifling and continuously humiliating conditions in which the residents of these enclaves have been forcd to live for seven years now– and with no meaningful relief anywhere in sight.
(No relief in sight, despite all the ‘requirements’ specified by the US continuously since 2002, that Israel needs to “lift the roadblocks” that stifle normal life and normal economic functioning within the West bank, let alone between the WB and the rest of the world. Israel has been deeply non-compliant on that requirement, but has met not one iota of sanction from the US or anyone else in the international community because of that.)
Indeed, in many respects the residents of the Palestinian open-air prison enclaves enjoy considerably less autonomy from Israel than the residents of the apartheid-era Bantustans did from Pretoria.
But there are other differences, too. One key one has to do with the attitude of the local “rulers.” In the Bantustans, my understanding is that Lucas Mangope and most of the rest of the “leaders” installed as presidents of the respective Bantustans were for a while at least quite happy to take up that role and parade around as the “presidents” of their respective Potemkin “states.”
In the case of Yasser Arafat, he was generally pretty happy to parade around as the “president” of a Potemkin– because essentially powerless– “Palestinian Authority”. But none of the people currently in power in Ramallahstan is at all happy with the current status quo. They stick around in their various positions in Ramallah from a variety of motivations; but none because they are happy with the status quo. Some of them stick around because they’ve become addicted to the US-mobilized international dole on which they’ve lived, essentially, since their return to the West Bank in 1994; but there is shame and sadness in the way they look at their current role. Some of them– just possibly– stick around because they still “hope” the US, especially under its “new” administration, can work with them to win them the kind of West Bank and Gaza Palestinian state they’ve been working for for all these years. But honestly, I think the numbers of those “sincere” nationalists among the Lords of Ramallah must have shrunk close to the vanishing point by now. Case in point: Salam Fayyad.
So you’re left, essentially with the dole-addicted and the handful of profiteers, like those near the very top of the PA apparatus who’ve been making a killing out of the concrete supplied to build their encageing Wall. Not exactly a robust sociopolitical basis on which to build a policy of countering Hamas and its allies…
107 thoughts on “Not exactly Bantustans”
Comments are closed.
There can’t be two kinds of Bantustan, one called “Potemkin”, and the other called, vaguely, “the kind they’ve been working for for all these years”.
There are only two poles of apartheid, the colonisers and the colonised. What you have been seeing is what you get with apartheid. It is not evidence for the existence of some completely fantastic, different scenario.
There is no point in kvetching for another kind of non-Bantustan Bantustan. It does not exist and it will never exist.
Nor is it any good comparing the situation from the point of view and subjective feelings of stooges like Lucas Mangope.
The national unifying factor is neither the land nor the leadership but the working people and their employers. It is conceivably and atrociously possible for the employing economy, which is Israel, to genocide or ethnically cleanse and expel one proletariat and replace it with another one, but the end result will still be a secular national state with a national, secular and class-conscious proletariat. At that point it will neither be a colony nor a Jewish state.
You are still twisting on the hook of truth, Helena. The truth is that Israel cannot be a colony any more, and so it cannot be at all.
Maybe you need a new line of approach. Since you have met Benjie Pogrund, does it not occur to you to wonder how many other white South Africans, Zambians and Kenyans have become Israelis, and how much of their African experience has been transmitted into the Israeli colony?
What such people know is how best to temporise and how to displace their fate with unrestrained brutality but what they also know is that there is no end point, of something clearly defined and with a “right to exist”. As Shirin has pointed out, that is why Israel has no borders, and cannot have such borders.
Israel is a camp. Security and permanence and Israel can’t mix. The old Africa hands know that. They know that when the frontier wars are over the end is in sight. Israel is buying time with atrocities. When the atrocities end, Israel ends. There is no intermediate condition of co-existence.
All of these questions have been rehearsed before, and much more deeply. Your terminolgy is limited (Bantustan, Apartheid). What about “Constellation of Southern African States”?
Dominic,
I think you are attempting to transpose South African history onto Israel. The two countries have very different histories which make your analysis wrong.
Whether the Israelis are, as you might think, fiends dedicated to or unconsciously stumbling towards apartheid or, as I believe, a normal bunch of people attempting to survive in a hostile world, the fact remains that both sides’ ideology differ markedly from those in South Africa.
There is no reconciliation here. Hamas would never accept it, being dedicated to eliminating their enemies entirely, not just the government they despise. And, they do not favor equality for their enemies. Lest you doubt that, read the Hamas covenant. Do not lie to yourself that it does not define that party’s agenda. The leaders of the Hamas claim otherwise and there is no reason to doubt them.
Further, Jews largely see Israel as their last hope as a people. The alternative to Israel, as Jews mostly see it, is their demise as a people – the ultimate triumph of Nazism. Israelis will never give in for that reason. South Africans whites were stubborn but their history – hence what drives them – is entirely unlike that of the Jews.
Unfortunately, there is no reconciliation here. There will, instead, be either an all Arab state, with Jews ethnically cleansed and/or killed off, or a mostly Jewish state, with a small Arab minority. Views based on the South African model ignore entirely differences in the aims/methods of the Palestinian and Jewish side of the dispute. Consider, Nelson Mandela was always a man of peace, whatever violence may have been associated with the movement he spawned. Not so, Hamas or the PLO. And, the Jews are a people haunted by their tragic history.
Please do not make simple-minded generalizations.
N., you seem to know as little about South African history as you do about the Middle East. Nelson Mandela did not “spawn” a movement. He was always a disciplined member of a movement, the ANC, which had been founded in 1912, before he was born. And the reason he was jailed by the authorities? Because he was the first head of the ANC’s military wing, which was founded after a decision that he had advocated strongly for.
Re Jews “needing Israel as a refuge”… Israel is currently the unsafest place in the world for Jews to live. A majority of the world’s Jews– including maybe nearly a million of those who hold Israeli citizenship– live very happily indeed outside Israel.
Re Hamas “calling for the extermination of the Jews”, their Charter does not do that. It calls for the end of the Jewish state.
Um, have you read the Likud charter recently?
Also, as a general rule in politics it’s wisest to look at how political actors behave, not what their ideological statements say. Hamas has proven its discipline and commitment to ceasefires in both 2005 and 2008 and has indicated an interest in exploring the outlook for a– possibly many-decades-long– hudna (stronger and broader ceasefire.) It has also proven its political legitimacy in elections.
Recognizing those political facts is an excellent starting point from which western powers can explore the potential for a dialogue with Hamas– as Britain is now doing with Hizbullah (whose ideology is if anything more radical than hamas’s on the Israel question.)
Being ready to commit to a ceasefire and to prove one’s following by contesting in elections were the ONLY conditions placed on parties that joined South Africa’s peace talks. Which in case you didn’t notice, actually worked. Expecting one side, and side only, to commit to both physical and ideological disarmament upfront is NOT a basis for successful peacemaking. (Been there, done that: Oslo.)
Dear Helena,
By spawned, I did not mean found. I mean he was a leader of the movement. And, by the standards of the Middle East, he was a man of peace. Yes, you are correct that he advocated for a military wing of the ANC. However, look at the violence under his leadership. Where was it, Helena?
As for Israel, there is not a word by me on this page about Jews needing Israel as a place of refuge. That is something you made up. What I said is that Jews picture Israel as their last hope as a people. If you do not know that, you know nothing about Jews. Nothing at all.
I would appreciate if you would read what I wrote more carefully.
N. Friedman.
I think this statement does indeed imply that you consider Israel as a last hope. Jewish communities live perfectly fulfilled lives outside Israel.
Also, Mandela wasn’t always a man of peace. That he became a great man of peace and justice isn’t doubted.
Helena,
There is another point. You claim that Hamas is pragmatic, notwithstanding its covenant. You claim it abides by its agreements. Some evidence would help.
As I see it, you grossly exaggerate when you write that Hamas generally abides by agreements. I note that during the so called lull, there were a lot of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza ruled territory. It is easy for you, who is not affected, to say that Hamas did not authorize the rockets. “It’s not me, Guv,” says Hamas and, to you, that is an explanation. That is no explanation to me.
Not as many rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel as before the lull but, nonetheless, quite a number were fired. And, there were tunnels dug into Israel. The tunnels were dug by Hamas and are, in fact, not remotely in compliance with the lull Agreement. And, the smuggling of rockets into Gaza is not in compliance either.
Be that as it may, my gut reaction is that, as always occurs in history, meddlesome outsiders – interested in re-writing events based on some drop by observations – know not what is in the hearts of people they write about. In this regard, I see you as being somewhat like – although, perhaps not as foolish as – the NY Times’ Roger Cohen who embarrassed himself terribly regarding Iran and its Jews. Knowing some Iranian Jews – as well as Iranian Muslims – very well, I read his first column and laughed.
Not considered by you is the fact that, more often than not, nastiness against Jews is meant in earnest. Ergo, let Hamas prove that they are not a bunch of religious nutcases who advocate genocide. Let them say, “Our covenant was the product of foolish minds.” Let them say that they want a two state solution that ends the dispute for good.
“By spawned, I did not mean found. I mean he was a leader of the movement.”
LOL! Every time you open your mouth you flush your credibility further down the drain.
Either you are once again frantically backpedaling after being caught in yet another important factual error, or you need to add English vocabulary to your list of deficiencies along with factual knowledge, grip on reality, and basic logic.
The verb spawn means to produce, or to give birth to; give rise to. It does not in any context mean to join and later lead an existing movement.
N., what “tunnels” are you talking about that violated Israel’s land border with Gaza? On Nov. 4, the IOF mounted a major and very lethal infractin of the tahdi’eh when it sent an assault force INTO GAZA and killed five or six Palestinians who it claimed were digging a tunnel. Many Gazans were digging under Gaza for many different reasons at the time. These people may well have been digging an underground defensive fortification, which would be just fine. I have seen no evidence presented that there was ever even one tunnel, let alone “tunnels” that breached Israel’s land border.
For the general record regarding what happened during the 2008 tahdi’eh, what its terms were, Hamas’s reliability as a negotiating partner etc I recommend you go to Stephen Shalom’s excellent and extremely well documented “Gaza Q&A”, questions 20-24.
Using the information provided by Israel’s own ITIC documentation center he wrote: The lull [tahdi’eh] got off to a rocky start. Islamic Jihad fired a few rockets from Gaza in response to the Israeli killing of one of their senior militants on the West Bank. But Hamas was generally able to convince the other Palestinian groups to respect the lull. In the five and half months before the lull there were 1,072 rockets fired from Gaza and 1,199 mortar shells. For the four and a half months from the start of the lull until November 4 there were 20 rockets and 18 mortar shells. No Israeli was killed — by rocket, mortar, sniper, or improvised explosive device from Gaza from mid-June to November 4.
You could also, certainly, look at the record of the cessation of rocket firings during 2005 when Fateh and Hamas and other Palestinian groups all jointly participated in a purely “unilateral” (i.e. Palestinians-only) ceasefire with Israel, from Gaza.
I wonder why you feel so motivated to try to continue stoking the fires of fear and suspicion when the documentary evidence doesn’t back up the exaggerated claims you keep making.
Anyway, are you a stakeholder any more than I am?
N., either you are lying, or you don’t know what you are talking about. Or perhaps a bit of each.
During the five months the “lull” lasted before Israel violated it on November 4 there was, according to both the Israeli MoD, and the Israeli ITIC a 99% reduction in rocket fire. Both further reported that Hamas was not responsible for any of the rocket fire during that period, and that Hamas did a creditable job of restraining other groups that were not parties to the tahdi’eh, and that are not under Hamas’ control.
So effective was Hamas in keeping its word, and restraining other groups that, according to newspaper reports all over the world, the people of Sderot and Ashkelon were able to enjoy four and half months free of the nerve-fracturing rockets, and were enjoying normal lives.
Further, the MoD and the ITIC both admitted that it was Israel that had broken the ceasefire multiple times starting on November 4. The MoD further termed the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza “retaliatory”, thereby acknowledging that Israel, not Hamas, was the aggressor. In addition, the ITIC reported that rockets were fired at Israeli Occupation forces, indicating that at least some of the fire was defensive.
It is interesting, N., that you yourself cited the ITIC in an earlier thread, and grossly misrepresented its findings. I did not have time to call you on it at the time, so I am calling you on it now. It looks suspiciously as though you are either lying or taking your talking points from someone who is lying. Either way you are propagating lies – lies that your own sources refute.
Helena,
The lull called for not firing rockets into Israel from Gaza. Now you post information that admits that rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel during the lull and you even admit that a tunnel – and I should have said tunnel, not tunnels – was dug into Israel. You elide discussion of the time after Israel legally responded to the digging of that tunnel, as if it were not part of the lull. It was and you are eliding important facts, which seems to be a habit of people on this website.
If partial compliance is what Hamas means by compliance with an agreement, you have your answer as to why Israel invaded Gaza. If you do not understand that, you do not understand the world. Or, let me be even more blunt. What you are writing is – and I hate to say it – nuts. What sort of settlement can be reached with people who only try to stop shooting rockets for purposes of trying to massacre people?
Please tell me about the “cease fire” starting in 2005. How many incidents occurred during this “cease fire”?
Come on, Helena. Get real.
N Friedman, Mandela was in prison and not in a position to commit acts of violence, but if you think the ANC’s record was better than either that of Hamas or the PLO, it only shows your ignorance. Ever hear of “necklacing”?
Most of the ANC’s atrocities, though, were black on black. They had a near civil war with the Inkatha movement, which was secretly supported by the apartheid government and both sides committed atrocities against supporters of the other. One could make an analogy between the ANC and Hamas on the one hand, and Inkatha and the PA on the other, because Inkatha was lionized in its day as “pro-Western” by some conservatives in the West, while being supported by the South African government, which is similar to the way the PA is treated as the good guys by some Westerners in the current struggle.
In general, anti-colonial struggles tend to be brutal, with atrocities committed by all sides. It was certainly that way in the US, when my ancestors stole the land from the natives.
Helena, going back to Camp David in 2000, and later Bill Clinton’s proposals at the end of his term, I simply cannot believe that he would have proposed a Palestinian state that was divided up in non contiguous Bantustans.
Dennis Ross also refuted this in his book, and published the map he said formed the final proposals?
I know you detest Dennis Ross and scorn him as a Zionist lackey (regardless of the detailed negotiations he described in his book), but are you saying he was lying?
Donald,
I am aware of necklacing and that it was directed mostly inward, which was my point.
The Arab Israeli dispute is not about anti-colonialism. Jews were migrants escaping oppression, moving to a place where refuge was available. That is the most basic of basic human rights, not colonialism.
Read what well known Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub recently opined:
[MEMRI]
He describes a religious war. He even explains the meaning of the Gharqad Hadith in Hamas’s Covenant. It, as used by them, is a call for genocide.
Religious wars are of a different ilk than colonial struggles. Read about the ones in Europe between Christians, ones between Muslims and Christians and ones between Muslims. In such wars, the calls for genocide are always sincere. So no. This is not about colonialism.
On Nov. 4, the IOF mounted a major and very lethal infractin of the tahdi’eh when it sent an assault force INTO GAZA and killed five or six Palestinians who it claimed were digging a tunnel. Many Gazans were digging under Gaza for many different reasons at the time. These people may well have been digging an underground defensive fortification, which would be just fine. I have seen no evidence presented that there was ever even one tunnel, let alone “tunnels” that breached Israel’s land border.
Just some clarifications here. First of all I have checked the B’tselem list (you know, the one that you cited yourself) of Palestinians killed on November 4-5. The deaths you mention are absent, but what B’tselem clearly states is that all those Palestinians killed on November 4-5, 2008 were either firing or had just fired rockets into Israel.
Second, given the abduction of Gilad Shalit, I would say that it was reasonable to assume that the excavation by armed men (there was a firefight) was not intended as a “defensive” position – desipite what the Methusala-like Jimmy Carter says. (BTW, you might have noticed another tent in Jerusalem besides that of Um Kamel!)
Finally, for the umpteenth time it’s IDF.
How very interesting, JES, given that the MoD, the Israeli embassy and the ITIC are all very unabashedly clear about the fact that it was Israel’s deadly attack of Nov 4-5 that triggered the resumption of rocket fire and not vice-versa.
N., either you need work on English comprehension (in addition to English vocabulary, knowledge of facts and reality, and basic reasoning), or you are utterly without shame.
What part of “I have seen no evidence presented that there was ever even one tunnel, let alone ‘tunnels’ that breached Israel’s land border” do you understand to constitute an admission on Helena’s part that “a tunnel was dug into Israel”?
And now this from you: “The lull called for not firing rockets into Israel from Gaza. and If partial compliance is what Hamas means by compliance with an agreement, you have your answer as to why Israel invaded Gaza.”
So, let me see if I understand your thinking. Hamas fired no rockets at all from day one of the “lull”, and was able to restrain other, independent militant groups sufficiently to achieve a 99% reduction in rocket fire, and a return to normal life for people in southern Israel. And that is why Israel invaded Gaza (and not coincidentally, brought about a return to regular rocket fire on its own citizens in the South). Fascinating reasoning. And also, of course, one of the standard talking points distributed by whomever distributes talking points to people like you.
Oh, by the way, did you know that the majority of the very small number of rockets that were fired from Gaza during the “lull” came from Fatah, the party of Israel’s favourite Palestinian, Mahmoud Abbas (check the MoD and ITIC reports)? Or did the people who tell you what to say leave that out of the talking points?
Oh, and by the way, N., during the first week of the “lull”, the UN reported something like ten breaches in which Israel fired on civilians in Gaza – you know, farmers tending their fields, shepherds tending their flocks, fishermen trying to fish, things like that. And yet during that time Hamas held its fire and did not respond to that “partial compliance” by Israel. Go figure.
You know, one has to wonder just how much the Israeli government really cares about its civilian citizens given its eagerness to take action guaranteed to renew the terrifying rocket fire instead of taking steps to extend what had been a very effective ceasefire that had brought them months of relief and improved safety. One would think that a government that cared about the safety and quality of life of its citizens would try to find a way to make such a situation permanent.
N.,
PS Of course, you have not bothered to address the fact that by Israeli officials’ own admission the attack on Gaza was planned almost a year in advance, and it was timed to begin during the last few weeks of the Bush administration and to end just before the inauguration of Obama. I am sure, though, that the series of Israeli attacks that began in November were purely coincidental and had nothing at all to do with the plan.
How very interesting, JES, given that the MoD, the Israeli embassy and the ITIC are all very unabashedly clear about the fact that it was Israel’s deadly attack of Nov 4-5 that triggered the resumption of rocket fire and not vice-versa.
Shirin, why don’t you actuall read what I wrote previously?
They are not “unabashedly clear” that it was Israel’s “deadly attack” that triggered the resumption of rocket fire (all that Israel said was that there was evidence that Palestinian “fighters” may have been hit in the firefight). What they are clear about is that Israel’s attack on, what appears to have been a tunnel designed for other than defensive purposes (why else place it less than 250 meters from the border?) was what triggered the resumption of rocket fire. If we take this together with the B’tselem figures from 4-5 November (figures that Helena has repeatedly cited when it serves her purposes), we see that while a significant number of Palestinians were, indeed, killed during that two-day period, all were killed while firing rockets and mortar rounds into Israel.
[MEMRI]!!
Very hatefull Zionest propaganda site, N. this is untrusted source of info at all.
Jews were migrants escaping oppression, moving to a place where refuge was available.
So they migrants escaping oppression (from Non-Mslum Land) to refuge was available (on Muslim Land??) isn’t N.?
So who are those causing oppression on Jew made them moving to a place where refuge avaliable on Muslim land?
[MEMRI]!!
Very hatefull Zionest propaganda site, N. this is untrusted source of info at all.
Jews were migrants escaping oppression, moving to a place where refuge was available.
So they migrants escaping oppression (from Non-Mslum Land) to refuge was available (on Muslim Land??) isn’t N.?
So who are those causing oppression on Jew made them moving to a place where refuge avaliable on Muslim land?
Perhaps Salah you could share with us why you think MEMRI is a “Very hatefull Zionest propaganda site”. Are the translations bad?
Yes, JES, some of the translations are appallingly and unexplainably bad. In other cases the translations are accurate enough, but they take things out of context in a way that alters their meaning. And in still other cases they employ malicious translation, choosing the most negative meaning when more than one choice is possible, and even when the context suggests a less negative translation.
Salah,
You may not like MEMRI but the quoted material is accurate and, in fact, representative. By the way, Hassan Nasrallah said roughly the same thing and his statement was printed in the Lebanese paper, The Daily Star.
As for your assertion that Jews were less ill-treated in the Arab world than elsewhere, that is essentialist nonsense. Moreover, such is what imperialists say about their captured subjects.
In some periods and places, Jews were treated comparatively well, with the more oppressive aspect of the Pact of Umar not always being fully enforced. In other periods, the Pact of Umar was rigidly enforced and oppression reigned. To the extent that we can generalize, Jews were rarely treated with dignity or respect and never with equality. I believe that a translation of the Arabic regarding Jews is “lowest of the low.”
So, I beg to differ with your anodyne version of history. Jews were not in love with living under the wing of Islam. They did not like the Hadiths about their alleged eternal perfidy, about killing all prophets and attempting to kill Mohammad, about falsifying the Jewish scriptures, etc., etc. They did not like living, as in N. Africa, in mellahs. They did not like wearing special clothing, as occurred not infrequently.
N., how do you know the quoted material is accurate? Do you understand Arabic?
No, I didn’t think so.
Shirin,
What makes you think I do not speak Arabic?
Be that as it may, a video of the speech can be seen on MEMRI’s website. You can provide us with your expert translation – if you think MEMRI has made errors. Somehow, I think you won’t because you know full well that what was said is not only a pretty good translation but, in fact, representative of things said by Ikwani type clerics.
DO you speak Arabic, N.? If so, it should be an easy matter to answer clearly instead of playing games.
Shirin,
My understanding of Arabic is sufficient to know that the translation is reasonably accurate.
Again, what errors do you see in the translation?
“My understanding of Arabic is sufficient to know that the translation is reasonably accurate.”
Good. Then you will have no trouble evaluating the accuracy of these typical examples of MEMRI’s work. They are brief phrases, and the Arabic is simple, so if you can understand Ya`qoub well enough to evaluate MEMRI’s translation of his speech, then this should be a piece of cake:
Arabic:
بدي أرسم صورة
MEMRI translation:
I will shoot.
Arabic:
بدنا انقاوم
MEMRI translation:
We want to fight.
Arabic:
بطخّونا اليهود
MEMRI translation:
We will annihilate the Jews.
Please tell us what you think of MEMRI’s translations of these short, simple phrases, N. Are they accurate enough for you?
Shirin,
I am not going to play your game. The gist of the material I quoted describes a religious war and advocates the killing of all Jews, in accordance with the Brotherhood interpretation of the Gharqad tree Hadith – a Hadith which the Brotherhood has removed from its traditional context and turned into an political program.
For what it is worth the first one, if we remove any context, means “I want to draw a picture” or words to that effect.
In other words, N., when you said you understood Arabic, you lied. You do not understand Arabic at all. You cannot even evaluate the accuracy of MEMRI’s translations of three extremely short, simple sentences. So, if you cannot do that, how on earth can you begin to evaluate MEMRI’s translation of whatever Ya`qoub said?
Oh, by the way, N., I hope you have seen my last two comments in the Chas Freeman thread. I am about to put up another one that should interest you.
Shirin,
I do not think I lied. Was my translation wrong?
The question is not whether your translation is wrong. The question is the accuracy of MEMRI’s translation of three very, very short, very, very simple phrases.
Is MEMRI’s translation accurate?
I answered that question already. I thought the basic translation is correct.
What is your translation? No doubt, your Arabic is better than mine. And, I claim not to be an expert – only an amateur. So, please let me have your translation.
N., I just want to be sure we are talking about the same thing here. Are you saying that you think MEMRI’s translation of the three phrases I posted here is correct?
The overall translation, Shirin.
It is the overall translation that is basically accurate, so far as I can tell.
If you think it is wrong in a serious way, please let me have your translation.
N. Friedman,
Your selective way to answers and twisting the answer, you forgot to answer this:
>B>So who are those causing oppression on Jew made them moving to a place where refuge avaliable on Muslim land?
Btw,
All your references represent “Facts” “accuracy” more than others references? Why that?
JES,
If you like to put every single quote/speech by Israelis either political or religious figures with their Arab and Muslim hateful speeches and judge you as Jew group on that bases then [MEMRI] is doing same against Arab and Muslims.
To all JWN Readers
We are fortunate that we reading and saw two or three Israelis, Zionist here writing and commenting on many aspects of Arab/Israeli conflicts, its showing the exact behaviours of Israelis and how Arab and Muslims frustrating to talk to this sort of speakers/ writers and politicians when all we looking for peace and how hard to find common grounds and lines to set and talk in faith of finding solutions for this long lasting conflict that the religion politicised by Zionist.
N. Friedman, JES, Vadim, and few others have not showing any sign that give hope Israeli society have well and determinations for peace how about those in power and holding Israeli talk imagine how hard to talk and deal with this sort of people who devoted themselves for not agree with any one as far as not comply with their mindset.
If this people in this time and in this world can get real and talking with others, put aside what happened in the past and forget and forgive the past and start to find ways and solutions to this conflict there will be no peace in ME.
Sadly this truth did not need any accuracy or references to be proven, its all here in JWN space that Helena Cobban offered to us.
I think the discussion with some of them is time wasting and limitless and they will not agree whatsoever but what their mindset is.
Is there hope for Peace in ME?
I doubt if we see and hear people like N. Friedman, JES Vadim……
Salah,
You write: “So who are those causing oppression on Jew made them moving to a place where refuge avaliable on Muslim land?”
Aside from the bad grammar, I think you are asking whether those who oppressed Jews included any Muslims and whether that led them to find refuge in what you call “Muslim land.”
In fact, many Jews felt oppressed in Muslim countries and, as a result, did move to what you call Muslim land and what I call Israel.
N., I have to confess that I am a bit mystified. On the one hand you say correctly that بدي أرسم صورة is “I want to draw a picture”, and on the other you say that MEMRI is correct in translating it as “I will shoot”? Well, either your translation is correct, or MEMRI’s is. They can’t possibly both be correct, can they?
Here are the correct translations:
بدي أرسم صورة means “I want to draw a picture”, or “I am going to draw a picture”. There is absolutely no context or situation in which بدي أرسم صورة means “I will shoot”, and there is no way to mistake it for that.
بدنا انقاوم means “we are going to resist”. Resist is a completely different, unrelated verb from fight, and their meanings are very different in Arabic just as they are in English. An Arabic student who translated this way should question what he is doing in a language class of any kind.
And this is the most egregious of the three:
بطخّونا اليهود means “the Jews will shoot us”. It most emphatically does not mean “we will annihilate the Jews” or anything remotely close to it. This is so unambiguous that a far-below-average first-semester Arabic student who never studies would not make such a mistake. The verb is unambiguously not “annihilate”, but “shoot”. The subject is unambiguously “the Jews”, and the verb is unambiguously in the third person plural, not the first person. The object of the verb is unambiguously first person plural, not third person. The verbs for “shoot” and “annihilate” are distinct verbs, unrelated in every way, and it is impossible to mistake one for the other.
So, this brings up a couple of questions:
1. Since you were unable to spot MEMRI’s egregiously incorrect translations of three very short, very simple phrases (even though you were able to translate one of them correctly yourself), how can you possibly claim that your command of Arabic is sufficient to determine the accuracy of anyone’s translation of anything even a little bit more complex, let alone a religious speech?
2. How on earth can you possibly trust MEMRI’s translations of anything given how completely, and maliciously wrong they were on these three very short, very simple, very straightforward phrases that even a very poor, very inattentive, very untalented first-semester Arabic student could never get so wrong?
“Aside from the bad grammar…”
Just FYI, N., English is Salah’s fourth or fifth language. How many languages do you know well enough, N., to make yourself understood – or even to be able to understand basic, simple, two and three word phrases?
Shirin,
I asked you if the translation was overall accurate, not whether you agreed with the specific translation provided.
You then assert some differences. Are you saying that the gist of the translation is wrong? Yes or no?
Send my apology to Salah for noting the grammar problems in what he wrote. No offense was intended.
?Re Hamas “calling for the extermination of the Jews”, their Charter does not do that.
right, they just innocently cite a hadith that does:
“”The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).”
Maybe the Avalon project is staffed by zionists as well?
vadim,
Of course. Who else can get admitted to Yale?
Seriously Shirin, please help us out with our translation here. Is Avalon project mistranslating the HAMAS charter, or is Helena wrong when she says that it doesn’t call for the killing of the Jews. I thought Helena was fluent in Arabic, but I think we may need a real expert to resolve this one.
N. Friedman, you have somehow managed to miss my point completely, so I will ask you the two questions again:
1. If your Arabic is not adequate to determine whether “I will shoot” is an honest translation of بدي أرسم صورة, whether “we want to fight” is an honest translation of بدنا انقاوم and whether “we will annihilate the Jews” is an honest translation of بطخّونا اليهود, then how on earth are you qualified to say whether or not MEMRI’s translation of Ya`qoub’s speech is honest and accurate?
2. Given MEMRI’s egregiously wrong and maliciously dishonest translation of the three simple, unambiguous examples I provided, how on earth can you ever trust anything you see from them?
You don’t need to answer these questions, but perhaps you ought to reflect on them a bit.
Its ok Shirin, I’ll answer them.
1.) N. Friedman’s Arabic skills are irrelevant to the accuracy of the disputed remark.
2.) MEMRI’s Zionist agenda is irrelevant to the accuracy of the disputed remark.
These suggestions are ad hominem, a latin term meaning boring and dumb.
So rather than fretting over N. Friedman, why not tell us yourself if the cleric said what has been alleged? While you’re at it, you can have a crack at that HAMAS charter and let us know which parts are Zionist concoctions?
Your talent as a linguist (however unsubstantiated with actual bona fides) could put this issue to bed immediately.
Vadim, you could not be more wrong. N. Friedman claimed that the MEMRI translation is accurate based on his knowledge of Arabic. He then proceeded to demonstrate clearly that his Arabic is not even adequate to determine the accuracy of MEMRI’s translations of three very short, very simple phrases. Therefore, N. Friedman proved that he is in no way qualified to judge the accuracy of any translation of anything in Arabic.
In addition the three examples I provided of MEMRI translations demonstrate that MEMRI translations cannot be trusted to be even remotely accurate or honest.
There is nothing ad hominem about asking N. Friedman to substantiate his claims that 1) MEMRI translations are honest and reliable, 2) he is qualified to make that determination.
Case closed.
Shirin,
You proved no such thing. Moreover, I did not make an attempt to translate the speech. I merely noted that I think it correctly translated, over all, based on my understanding of Arabic. I stand by that.
You, however, have not provided a complete translation. You have, instead, claimed that you translate certain sentences a specific way. How do I know that MEMRI is translating the specific phrases you quote? Please provide a link to the page which shows that the exact lines translated and pointing to the same phrase with the specific translation, line for line, thereunder. I cannot find in on MEMRI, which is why I did not challenge you more directly.
Shirin, they are both ad hominem because they’re irrelevant to the argument he posed.
You seem to have not read or not understood my objection so I will repeat it. Please re-read the next 2 sentences until they sink in.
1.) N. Friedman’s Arabic skills are irrelevant to the accuracy of the disputed remark.
2.) MEMRI’s Zionist agenda is irrelevant to the accuracy of the disputed remark.
I hope we can agree that the accuracy of the quotation itself does not hinge on N. Friedman’s translation skills or MEMRI’s honesty?
The funny thing is that you’d rather play gotcha games with N. Friedman than clarify this matter of substance yourself, even though you present yourself as an Arabic expert (whereas N. Friedman explicitly doesn’t!)
N., once again, you have utterly missed the point. I did not ask you to translate anything.
And I proved nothing at all. You yourself proved that you are not qualified to determine the accuracy of MEMRI’s translations by demonstrating very clearly that you were unable to say whether or not MEMRI’s translations of three very short, very simple phrases were accurate or honest. You made a claim, and then proceeded to refute your own claim. What part of that is still not clear to you?
N., you were unable to determine whether MEMRI’s translations of three very short, very simple phrases were accurate or honest. If you could not make that determination, then you are not qualified to determine the accuracy and honesty of anyone’s translation of anything.
You don’t know whether that translation is accurate or not because your command of Arabic is not sufficient to make that determination.
N. Friedman’s Arabic skills became relevant when he made them relevant by claiming they were adequate to determine the accuracy of MEMRI’s translation. He made a claim in support of an argument, and challenging his claim was absolutely legitimate.
As for MEMRI’s agenda, I never said a word about that. I merely called into question, based on past experience with MEMRI’s record, its trustworthiness to accurately and honestly translate from Arabic to English, and I provided real examples of its work. That was also legitimate given N. Friedman’s claims.
The fact is that N. Friedman does not have any way of knowing whether what he quoted is accurate and true or not, and neither do you. Furthermore, his source has historically proven repeatedly to be unreliable.
N. Friedman has proven his own claims, as well as his sources, to be unreliable.
Case closed.
Shirin,
The fact is that the translation is basically correct, as I indicated from the beginning. You would have provided an alternative translation, were it incorrect.
Your assertions have shown exactly nothing. You have not even provided a link which shows what line was translated what way. The one line I chose to translate, you said was correctly translated.
Shirin,
I have now carefully examined the English transcript from which I quoted above and the broadcast of the speech. You are really not going to like this, Shirin.
The Arabic you claim to have been mistranslated as “I will shoot, “We want to fight,” and “We will annihilate the Jews” does not even appear in the transcription of the speech. It also does not appear in what I quoted above. It also does not appear in the video.
So, whatever it is that you are translating is not what I had quoted. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you misstated the words slightly, I looked for the word “shoot.” It does not appear in the transcript or in the video at all. The word “fight” appears a number of times but not to express a “want.” The word “annihilate” appears once, in the sentence: “You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.”
That rather well explains why you refused to provide a better translation. Either you are making things up or you had no idea what speech I had quoted from. Next time, before you call me names, get your facts straight, bozo.
N, Shirin is a bluffer. Even if the three quotes she cherry-picked had been there and were not translated correctly, this proves nothing as to the veracity of the large number of translations MEMRI carries out every day. To their credit, MEMRI was one of the only outlets that translated the Farsi correctly for Ahmedinejad’s “Wipe Israel Off the Map Speech”, rather than going with the little ape’s official press office and simply copying “wipe off the map”.
If you like to put every single quote/speech by Israelis either political or religious figures with their Arab and Muslim hateful speeches and judge you as Jew group on that bases then [MEMRI] is doing same against Arab and Muslims.
Salah, no need. We have you raking the dark side of the Internet in search of what Israelis did or didn’t say.
N. Friedman, Shirin has been cribbing something flogged by “the Angry Arab” some time ago:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2007/05/lies-of-memri-yet-again.html
It has nothing to do with this speech but with a different MEMRI translation from two years ago, so old that MEMRI long ago removed the source video AA claims to have transcribed. According to Shirin, we just have to assume that “the Angry Arab’s’ transcript is accurate.
“The fact is that the translation is basically correct, as I indicated from the beginning.”
The fact is that you are in no way qualified to say whether it is basically correct or not. You’re not even qualified to say whether the translations of those three very brief, childishly simple phrases are correct. That was and remains exactly the point.
“You would have provided an alternative translation, were it incorrect.”
That is an interesting assumption, particularly given that you never provided a source for the original.
JES, just supposing some organization dedicated to translating Hebrew media material translated “the Arabs will shoot us” to “we will annihilate the Arabs”. Or “I am going to draw a picture” to “I will shoot”. And supposing they made a lot of “mistakes” like that. Just exactly how much credibility would you give anything that came from them? Not much, I’ll bet.
Yes, Vadim, As`ad did publish comparative translations on his blog. He did it at a time when that clip was all over the media and freely available on the web. We all heard the same things when we listened to it, and no one found any problems with As`ad’s transcription. And so what? None of that does not alters the fact that N. Friedman proved that his Arabic skills are not adequate to evaluate the translation of a religious speech.
Oh – and I never suggested that the three phrases were from the speech. It is interesting that N. Friedman’s comprehension of both the three phrases and the speech is so poor that he did not realize they were not from the speech. The fact that N. Friedman thought they were is further evidence of his lack of qualification in Arabic. Anyone who had listened to or read that speech and understood it even a little bit would have at least noticed something, and he clearly did not.
N. Friedman claimed he was qualified to determine the accuracy of MEMRI’s translation of a religious discussion when he could not even determine the accuracy of the translation of three very short, childishly simply phrases. In addition he had either not heard or read the speech in Arabic at all, or had not understood much of it. He is simply not qualified to state whether any translation from Arabic to English is accurate and honest.
None of you is qualified to judge whether any of MEMRI’s translations is accurate and honest. And given MEMRI’s history of malicious mistranslation, and distortions by removing context, anything they produce is, at best, suspect and should not be taken at face value.
And supposing they made a lot of “mistakes” like that.
Let me explain to you, Shirin, in simple language. (Move your lips while reading, if you need to). You, or rather As’ad, pointed out a few in a single translation. Yet you are making a claim that MEMRI makes a lot of mistakes. (You even put the word mistakes in quotes. I suppose you think they were intended mistakes.) However, neither you, nor As’ad, has pointed out any of those numerous mistakes.
MEMRI has been operating for about 11 years, and I suppose they have translated literally thousands of documents and broadcasts. I would imagine that they would make a few mistakes during that time.
Now, you’ve been given the opportunity to provide your own translation and to provide evidence of widespread mistakes. You haven’t done so. You’ve only provided three. Further, N, Vadim and I have taken you at your word that we are not qualified to comment on the accuracy of MEMRI’s translations – the implication being that you are. Yet we have refrained from pressing you on what your exact qualifications are. I had a year of undergraduate Arabic and another in graduate school, and I have to agree with you: I’m not qualified to comment on the veracity of MEMRI’s translations. However, neither you, nor anyone else here (including Salah – who I believe is the only native Arabic speaker) has provided any reason for me to doubt the accuracy of MEMRI’s translations.
Personally, I think that the reason that references to anything published on MEMRI get people’s hackles up is because they’re just so damaging and embarassing when compared with the sanitized English version of events in the Arab and Muslim world. But that’s my personal take.
Shirin,
What I said is the truth. I am not an expert in Arabic, only an amateur. And I said that based on what I know, the translation seems pretty accurate. I stand by that.
Now, returning to the original point here, before you worked to change the topic: the fact is that there are a lot of looney tune preachers and politicians in the Muslim world who appear to advocate genocide. Moreover, the Hamas covenant appears to advocate genocide as well.
So far as I know, these preachers are sincere and, to the extent that I can discern, Hamas and Muslim political parties across the Muslim region appear to be sincere as well when they say similar things. If I am correct, what the Israelis really face is not an uprising against colonialism – a silly notion to begin with since Jews were migrants seeking to escape oppression, not colonists – but part of a religious war among the aims of which is the genocide of the Jews and the expansion of Muslim lands.
N.,
You do not qualify as an amateur. You don’t even qualify as a bare beginner. After just a few weeks of instruction most beginning Arabic students have more understanding of Arabic than you have demonstrated here. They at least know how to look up unfamiliar words in a dictionary and make a good guess at the meaning. You were not even able to do that.
You have demonstrated without a doubt that your Arabic skills are not even sufficient for you to evaluate MEMRI’s translation of three very short, childishly simple Arabic phrases. If you cannot do that, then you certainly cannot evaluate a translation of the sophisticated language of a religious discussion. An average first-semester Arabic student would have been able to tell whether those three phrases were accurately translated. You had no idea what you were looking at.
“Based on what you know” you could not possibly determine whether the translation is “pretty accurate”. “Based on what you know” you might, with help, be able to recognize one word out of 200, though I doubt it.
Furthermore, it is clear that you have not even heard or seen that speech in the original Arabic. You made that clear as can be when you assumed that the three simple phrases I asked you about were taken from the speech. If you had heard or read and understood that speech well enough to be able to determine that MEMRI’s translation was “pretty accurate”, you would have known that those phrases were not in the speech at all, but came from a different source.
Add to that the fact that, despite repeatedly demanding that I tell you what is wrong with the translation and produce a correct translation you have never once provided a source for the original Arabic, obviously because you have none. That doesn’t really matter, of course, because you wouldn’t understand it if you did.
This has been fun, though. I offered you three feet of rope, and you eagerly grabbed ten more, wrapped one end tightly around your neck and hanged yourself.
Shirin, stop beating around the bush. We’ve all admitted that we’re not qualified to vouche for the veracity of MEMRI’s translations and you are. It’s time to put up or shut up!
Let ME explain to YOU, JES, hopefully in language you can understand. Please stop me on the difficult syllables.
– Countless people who could understand the Arabic saw and heard the same things in that clip during the weeks it was all over the media, and found the mistranslation vicious and appalling even by MEMRI standards. As`ad verified and published on his blog a comparative translation that one of us took the time and effort to produce. (Oh, and I did not know you were on a first-name basis with As`ad – how sweet. I shall have to ask him about your relationship next time we talk.)
– No, I am not making a claim that MEMRI makes a lot of mistakes. I am stating as a fact that MEMRI’s translations cannot be relied upon, that they deliberately cherry pick the most negative things they can find, and that they do not hesitate to use various techniques to misrepresent non-negative items that they can take out of context, twist, mistranslate or translate maliciously (malicious translation is the technique of selecting the most negative possible translation for a word or phrase that has multiple meanings, even when it does not fit the context or clear intent of the original).
I am stating as a fact that they have a well-known history of distortion, misrepresentation, and at times out and out fraud. Their blatant and clearly malicious mistranslations of the three simple, unambiguous phrases I put here are an example of that fraud. Their translation of that clip is noteworthy not because it is the lone example, but because it is crystal clear that they deliberately and inexcusably provided obviously incorrect translations in a brazen effort to make that clip look as evil as possible.
– As I explained in some detail, and as you must know if you have had two years of university Arabic, the mistranslations I presented here cannot possibly be mistakes. As you must know if you have had two years of Arabic there is simply no way on earth to mistake بدي أرسم صورة for “I will shoot”, and it is no coincidence that they substituted for an innocent, peaceful, creative act of self-expression, a destructive act of violence. There is also no way to mistake بدنا انقاوم for “we will fight”, and it is no coincidence that they substituted for a word that implies passive, peaceful, and non-violent action against injustice one that strongly implies violence. And there is not a chance in hell that translating بيطخّونا اليهود as “we will annihilate the Jews” is a mistake, and it is no coincidence that they substituted for an expression of concern about a very real and ever-present danger to Palestinian children a statement of murderous intent against “the Jews”.
These are the simplest and most straighforward of baby phrases, not sophisticated Arabic filled with ambiguity and double meaning. Even the most unskilled translator would not make these kinds of mistranslations by mistake. And it is no mistake that these “translations” produced by MEMRI turn the real meaning on its head in an egregiously ugly way.
No doubt MEMRI does make real, honest mistakes from time to time, but these were not mistakes, they were obviously deliberate misrepresentations intended to paint as ugly a picture as possible. And they are not the only such examples. I chose them to use here because they are so simple even an Arabic student of a few weeks could figure them out, they are obviously not mistakes but blatantly intentional mistranslations, and because they are particularly clear in illustrating MEMRI’s ill intent. And, of course, they provided an interesting test of N.’s claims that he is sufficiently conversant with Arabic to evaluate MEMRI’s translations, a test he failed spectacularly.
– This is not about me or my qualifications or lack thereof. I have made no claims about my qualifications, and feel no need to prove anything in that regard. N. claimed to be qualified to evaluate MEMRI’s translations. Oddly, he brazenly continues to make that claim even after demonstrating clearly that he cannot understand the simplest words and phrases. I guess that is what you call chutzpah.
– “Now, you’ve been given the opportunity to provide your own translation…”
Actually, I have not been given that opportunity at all since somehow or other no one has been able to produce a source for the original Arabic. I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate this particular MEMRI translation is, and that is clearly not what I have challenged. I challenged N.’s assertion that he knows Arabic well enough to know the translation is accurate. Clearly he does not.
– There is a basic principle in life and law that if you catch someone in one lie then everything else they say must be suspect. That certainly applies to MEMRI, as demonstrated by what I posted here. For the record there are also sources of Hebrew translations and other types of information about Zionism and Israel that I will not even look at because I have found them dishonest in the same ways MEMRI is dishonest.
– There are a lot of very real things that come out of the Arabic media that make us cringe. Embarrassment is certainly part of it, but it is mostly internal discomfort that those things are part of the picture. But what gets people’s hackles up about MEMRI is that their purpose is clearly not to present an honest and balanced picture, but to cherry pick what they can find, and distort when necessary in order to present as ugly and black a picture as possible. What disturbs people about MEMRI is that they do not present a realistic and varied view of Arabs and Muslims, but rather create a image of a uniformly dark and dangerous “exotic other”. Given the extreme reaction of Zionists and Israelis to the exposure of anything remotely negative about Israel I would think you would have more understanding of our objection to MEMRI’s demonization.
JES, you have managed to miss the point, as usual. This is not about me or my qualifications. I have never made any claims one way or the other in that regard and feel no compulsion to try to prove anything to you. It was N. who made the claim to be qualified, and who has utterly failed to either put up or shut up.
Again, Shirin dear, please read carefully what I write and feel free to move your lips while doing so.
No. It is not about you. You have “backpeddled” to make the issue about N’s qualifications. However, it is you who questioned MEMRI’s accuracy. We’ve been asking you here to please, based on your perceived qualifications, to present some examples, apart from the three that you took from the “Angry Arab”, to substantiate your argument. Otherwise… well we’re just going to have to assume that you’re full of it.
Actually, I have not been given that opportunity at all since somehow or other no one has been able to produce a source for the original Arabic.
Here ya go Shirin. Knock yourself out:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2042.htm
Shirin,
If you had read what I wrote, you would know that I said that I had seen the video. I also said that I am no expert in Arabic but that the transcript seems reasonably accurate.
You seem to think that you get to test my Arabic. You do not. I indulged you to the extent of providing the translation of one phrase you wrote. On that basis, you claimed that I know no Arabic – even though you admit my translation is correct.
Again, you, not I, challenge MEMRI’s translations. You have, as JES writes, noted 3 phrases allegedly mistranslated – and, I see no proof from you that even that mistranslation actually occurred. So, you can either prove that MEMRI mistranslates things – and does so as a habit, not in a one off mistake – or you can withdraw your criticism.
JES, please review this thread before putting fingers to keyboard. I will help you out. It went like this:
1. N. Friedman found and took advantage of an opportunity to try to divert the topic from a discussion of Palestinian “leadership” to Egyptian Salafi anti-Semtitism, posting an excerpt from a MEMRI translation.
2. Salah commented that MEMRI is not a reliable source for accurate and honest translations.
3. You asked Salah whether MEMRI’s translations are bad.
4. I responded that some of MEMRI’s translations are very bad.
5. N. Friedman announced that MEMRI’s translation is “accurate and, in fact, representative”.
6. I asked N. how he knows it is accurate, and whether he understands Arabic.
7. N. proclaimed that his Arabic was “sufficient to know that the translation is reasonably accurate”, and then proceeded to prove that his Arabic is virtually non-existent.
This was never about me or my qualifications, it was about N.’s qualifications to make the declaration that MEMRI’s translation was accurate and your (plural) efforts to make it about me.
Really, JES, you seem to be losing your touch, you are so clumsy and transparent sometimes.
Shirin,
The New York Times seems to agree with me. That paper’s reporters may not be expert speakers either but this is what reporter Steven Erlanger wrote: “Along with Mr. Marcus’s group, the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, also monitors the Arabic media. But no one disputes their translations …” (NY Times, April 1, 2008, article title: “In Gaza, Hamas’s Insults to Jews Complicate Peace”)
No doubt, from time to time, there is an error. But, gross errors on a regular basis is contrary to fact.
4. I responded that some of MEMRI’s translations are very bad.
AND THAT IS ALL WE ASKED YOU TO VERIFY THROUGH EVIDENCE, SHIRIN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? NO, IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!
And I did verify that some of its translations are bad by presenting three clear examples of not only bad translations, but clearly outright fraudulent ones.
Shirin,
You write: “And I did verify that some of its translations are bad by presenting three clear examples of not only bad translations, but clearly outright fraudulent ones.”
Identify the MEMRI webpage on which the supposedly mistranslated material appears. While there are surely mistranslated materials – as all translators make errors, sometimes bad one -, I await proof that the specific errors you assert occurred. And, I await proof that mistranslations are commonplace on MEMRI.
N., I have done my job. I posted three examples of clearly and unambiguously fraudulent MEMRI translations, and have explained repeatedly and in detail why the translations are fraudulent and not mistakes. Of course, if you had any ability in Arabic, it would be obvious to you that they could not possibly be errors in translations. No beginning Arabic student with even a few weeks’ instruction would have made those translations.
That particular clip was all over the web and the media for weeks, and was posted prominently on MEMRI’s website. I am told they have removed it, which by itself is interesting. What would motivate them to remove it, I wonder? Perhaps they were taking too much heat for it so they decided to pretend it never happened?
And in any case, you would have no way of confirming whether any translations were fraudulent or not because you don’t understand Arabic.
And please do not put words into my mouth. I have not said that mistranslations are commonplace on MEMRI. What I have said is that some of their translations are very bad, which I have demonstrated clearly. What I have further said is that they are very selective in what they choose to produce, and that they use various techniques to distort and misrepresent items in order to paint a consistent, unnuanced picture of Arabs and Muslims as an evil, stupid, primitive and dangerous category of people.
Shirin,
So, post the video, if it was all over the web. It sounds like you are bluffing again.
And again, I am not an expert in Arabic but, to my non-expert ears, the MEMRI translation I referenced seemed to be pretty accurately translated.
N., this is ridiculous. It WAS all over the web (and all over the media). That was two years ago. and apparently MEMRI felt compelled to take it off their website. In any case, based on your demonstration of your Arabic skills so far, you would not understand a word of it anyway.
Shirin,
Come on, Shirin. You can do it. Find the video and post it.
Absent that, withdraw your accusation.
“The New York Times seems to agree with me….this is what reporter Steven Erlanger wrote: “Along with Mr. Marcus’s group, the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, also monitors the Arabic media. But no one disputes their translations …” (NY Times, April 1, 2008, article title: “In Gaza, Hamas’s Insults to Jews Complicate Peace”)”
LOL! More textbook examples of fallacious reasoning from N. Friedman. So many fallacies in so few words, and these are such childish ones, too. The first few obvious fallacies that jump out:
– If the NYT publishes something I believe to be factual, then that constitutes evidence that I am right. Wrong. The only thing it is evidence of is that the NYT published something you believe to be factual.
– If a well-known journalist reports something I believe to be factual, then that constitutes evidence that I am right. Wrong. The only thing it is evidence of is that the journalist reported something you believe to be factual.
– The fact that the NYT publishes a statement that is consistent with a view I hold means that the newspaper agrees with me. Wrong. Newspapers publish things all the time that are counter to their editorial positions. What you cited was a report, not an editorial. It might mean that Steve Erlanger agrees with you, but not necessarily (see below).
– If a well-known journalist reports something that is consistent with a view I hold, then he agrees with me. Wrong. An ethical, well-trained journalist keeps his own views and opinions out of his reports to the extent humanly possible. What you cited is a report, not an opinion piece (you still have not figured out the difference, I see). What Erlanger reports might or might not reflect his own views.
– If something is published in the NYT, then it is factual and accurate, especially if it is something I want to believe. Wrong. You should have learned that from the NYT’s consistently grievously contra factual stories about Iraq’s WMD’s.
– If a well-kown journalist reports it, it is factual and accurate, especially if it is something I want to believe. Wrong. Well-known journalists report contra factual and inaccurate information quite regularly.
And it just so happens that the statement you quoted from Steve Erlanger is, in fact, neither factual nor accurate.
Itamar Marcus has been thoroughly and meticulously discredited numerous times on numerous issues by a very broad range of people, including Israeli academics. His 1990’s Palestinian textbooks fraud is an example I and a number of American, Israeli, and Palestinian colleagues followed very closely.
The statements that no one disputes MEMRI’s (or Itamar Marcus’s) translations is flat out false. Their translations have been disputed numerous times by numerous people and groups on numerous different grounds.
“No doubt, from time to time, there is an error.”
We are not talking about errors here, we are talking about deliberate mistranslations, distortions, and misrepresentations. How many times do I have to repeat that?
“gross errors on a regular basis is contrary to fact.”
1. No one has suggested that MEMRI makes gross errors on a regular basis.
2. You have proven beyond a doubt that you do not know enough Arabic to know how many or what kind of errors and “errors” are in MEMRI’s work.
Shirin,
Where’s the evidence? I say, put up your evidence or admit defeat.
LOOOOOOOOOOL! Give us a break, N. Where is YOUR evidence for anything? Where, for example, is your evidence that you understand Arabic at any level at all? I even offered you an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of simple, bare- beginner-level Arabic, and you could not.
Shirin,
In other words, you have no evidence for your claim even as to the specific words you claim to have been mistranslated. In fact, such could be shown, were it true, by merely posting a link to a single video along with a copy of MEMRI’s translation of that specific video.
By contrast, my claim is simply not capable of proof online. After all, I could, if I were lying, merely paste any Arabic into a translator – or give it to a friend – and then provide a possible translation. You, on the other hand, can prove your claim easily, were it so.
I really do not think you can prove your claim even regarding the specific Arabic words in question, much less regarding the alleged lack of reliability of MEMRI translations. Otherwise, you would.
1. No one has suggested that MEMRI makes gross errors on a regular basis.
Huh??? You cited 3 examples (ok, one badly documented example broken into 3) of distortions that are supposedly “typical examples of MEMRI’s work.” You then said that these “egregiously wrong and maliciously dishonest translations” means that “MEMRI translations cannot be trusted to be even remotely accurate or honest.” In written English “typically egregiously inaccurate” is synonymous with “regularly in error.”
So why not cut to the chase and tell us if mean malicious MEMRI got this one wrong as well? In one act, you could allay N. Friedman’s misconceptions about Arab racism, discredit MEMRI even further and demonstrate your own fluency with spoken arabic in the bargain. It’s win-win, Shirin, don’t let us down!!
Translating the tedious dronings of some Egyptian Salafi cleric would demonstrate neither my fluency nor anything to do with spoken Arabic. Translation does not demonstrate fluency. Neither do reading or listening. And in any case, religious speeches are always delivered in formal Arabic, which is quite different from spoken Arabic. And in any case, it was N., not I, who made claims about his Arabic abilities (and then proceeded to prove that they were nonexistent).
More on MEMRI:
MEMRI: Lost in translation?
“Besides writing and editing, I spend a big chunk of my day as a linguist, translating Arabic to English and vice versa….
“…it should come as no surprise that I was extremely intrigued by Brian Whittaker’s piece in The Guardian that highlighted the mistranslation of the now infamous Al-Aqsa TV clip, which was eaten up by US media outlets. While I found the show and its content extremely off-putting, as children are being cajoled into parroting political ideologies, Whittaker makes a very valid point: The MEMRI translators either mistranslated or intentionally decided to embellish what was said on the tape. What was most intriguing about his piece was the argument that occurred between MEMRI’s founder and one of CNN’S Arabic speakers, Octavia Nasr. [see my comment above]
“As a native speaker myself, I heard nothing about annihilating the Jews. What I heard was: بطخونا اليهود which translates into: “The Jews are shooting at us.” So the question becomes: Did MEMRI embellish their translation on purpose or was it simply an innocent translation mistake? I cannot say for certain. What I do know is media organizations should take MEMRI’s translation with a grain of salt, especially after this incident. Here is what Whittaker thinks:
‘The curious thing about all this is that Memri’s translations are usually accurate (though it is highly selective in what it chooses to translate and often removes things from their original context). When errors do occur, it’s difficult to attribute them to incompetence or accidental lapses….The effect of this is to devalue everything Memri translates — good and bad alike. Responsible news organisations can’t rely on anything it says without going back and checking its translations against the original Arabic.’
http://www.mentalmayhem.net/mental_mayhem/2007/05/memri_lost_in_t.html
The biggest complaint about MEMRI is that it publishes only the most extreme things it can find, and pretends that these are representative of mainstream Arab and Muslim thought when they are far from it. In addition, MEMRI takes things out of context in a way that distorts the meaning. Or they will translate something accurately except for one word or phrase that will alter the tone or significance of the entire piece. They also consistently use the technique of malicious translation in which, given multiple possible ways to translate a word or phrase they will choose the most negative way possible even when the context indicates that a less negative translation will more accurately convey the intent of the speaker or writer. And finally, we see extremely bad translations such as the Farfour episode, which simply cannot all be mistakes.
The bottom line is that MEMRI’s translations simply cannot be trusted, and must always be verified.
The biggest complaint about MEMRI is that it publishes only the most extreme things it can find, and pretends that these are representative of mainstream Arab and Muslim thought when they are far from it.
Really? I wonder how these fit in?
http://www.memri.org/reform.html
Or is reform an “extreme” position in the Arab and Muslim world?
Yes, recently MEMRI did begin presenting translations of so-called “reformist” Arabs/Muslims who represent the other extreme end of the spectrum, as if that means that now what they are showing is really an honest representation of Arab Muslim thought appearing on the media. Of course, showing two extreme ends is no more representative than is showing one extreme end. But more to the point, the real effect of presenting the “reformists” is to present a “good Arab” who serves to make the “bad Arab” stand out in even sharper, and more threatening relief.
It’s kind of like the good Indian/bad Indian dichotomy in American western films in which there was always a “good Indian” who loved having his land taken over by the white man, and for whom that evil “bad Indian” completely spoiled it.
Yes, recently MEMRI did begin presenting translations of so-called “reformist” Arabs/Muslims who represent the other extreme end of the spectrum….
Yes, by recently I guess that you mean 1999, which is, I believe, a year after MEMRI’s founding.
Of course, showing two extreme ends is no more representative than is showing one extreme end. But more to the point, the real effect of presenting the “reformists” is to present a “good Arab” who serves to make the “bad Arab” stand out in even sharper, and more threatening relief.
I guess that it’s no more representative, but the extremes tend to be what’s representated in the media because it’s interesting. As for the “real effect”, as you put it, it works both ways: the existance of the religious fantacts tends to place the reformists in greater relief.
Really Shirin, I would think that you would just give it up on this argument. So far, you’ve really lost a lot of credibility. Your presumed knowledge of Arabic is pretty much shot to shit, as are your supposed connections to Iraq, so I think that we can pretty much take your finger wagging lectures with a large grain of salt. Also, your plans to move to Syria don’t seem to have materialized, and I really don’t expect them to.
JES,
No, I am never going to give up the argument, nor are any of the very large number of us who understand and abhor what MEMRI does.
Mark Lynch said it so much better than I ever could, so I will let him respond to your last pretty pathetic attempt to defend MEMRI. He is directly addressing MEMRI here:
“MEMRI routinely selects articles which show the worst of Arab discourse, even where this represents only a minority of actually expressed opinion, while almost never acknowledging the actual distribution of opinion. As for the Reform Project, it tends to select statements by pro-American reformers who concentrate on criticizing other Arabs, again with little regard for the real debates going on among Arabs. Your selective translations therefore offer a doubly warped perspective on the Arab debates: first, over-emphasizing the presence of radical and noxious voices; and second, over-emphasizing the importance of a small and marginal group of Arabs who share your own prejudices. What you leave out is almost the entire Arab political debate which really matters to Arabs: a lively debate on satellite stations such as al Jazeera and al Arabiya and in the elite Arab press about reform, international relations, political Islam, democracy, and Arab culture which English-speaking readers would greatly benefit from knowing about.”
As for your standard ad hominem remarks at the end, ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.
sorry – forgot to include a link to the Marc Lynch remark.
And while I am at it, here is more, this time from American Amnesia as cited by Juan Cole:
““MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Organization, hasn’t received attention here at American Amnesia for one simple reason: it’s a compost of specious translations of worst-of-the-worst opinion pieces coming out of the Arabic press. Think of an organization dedicated to translating into Arabic the Jerry Falwells, Bob Jones, and other scraps of ideological detritus bobbing around in our local papers, and you’ve got MEMRI’s mission and net worth.”
And here is more from Marc Lynch (see the link above): “it is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges. If your lawsuit actually goes to court, I strongly doubt that you would be able to find a single Arabic-speaking expert (other than those already sympathetic to your political viewpoint) willing to testify otherwise.”
And more from Marc Lynch (same link as above): “…you [MEMRI]have fully lived up to your bad reputation: you presented your highly controversial variant translation in the most partisan way possible, based on a very thin foundation of evidence, without ever acknowledging that weakness or – in the weeks since – responding to your critics or to the increasingly powerful evidence in the other direction. You similarly refused to translate commentaries on the very same sites which did not support your views, which gave your readers a highly warped perspective on the state of Arab argument.”
And by the way, yesterday I submitted a lengthy post on the Farfour mistranslation, which was held by the system, most likely because it contained too many links.
So if “Angry Arab” does the translating and Marc Lynch does the editorializing, so who does the typing? One of the servants?
If we wanted to read Marc Lynch’s or Juan Cole’s insights we’d be on their blogs, not Helena’s. weren’t you just giving N. Friedman grief for parroting an NYT editorial?
Nothing Marc Lynch says in your cut-n-paste rebuttal addresses ANYTHING JES wrote. As for leaving out debates from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, maybe MEMRI doesn’t see the purpose of translating already-translated material (they have their own translators.)
MEMRI routinely selects articles which show the worst of Arab discourse, even where this represents only a minority of actually expressed opinion
I don’t think MEMRI has ever said their pieces represent the “majority of expressed opinion”. How arrogant that a westerner like Lynch feels entitled to speak for this same majority.
Here is an e-mail exchange which amounts to a thorough take-down of MEMRI founder Yigal Carmon by Brian Whitaker. I was hoping to have time to summarize it here, but time did not permit. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, anyway.
Wow, Vadim, I thought you were reaching before, but now your arms are looking like elastic! Did you make up that stuff about “the majority of expressed opinions” all by yourself? I ask because the criticism of MEMRI is something quite different from that.
And who better to evaluate MEMRI’s work than people who regularly follow the Arabic media – people such as As’ad Abu Khalil (a native Arabic speaker/reader/writer), Juan Cole, Marc Lynch, and Brian Whitaker (DO read his take-down of the obviously dishonest Yigal Carmon!), to mention but a few?
You know, I was getting tired of this, but you have encouraged me, and if I have time I might just try to continue with this. So much material, so little time!
DO read his take-down of the obviously dishonest Yigal Carmon!
I read the debate, and, personally, I think that Carmon had the better of Whitaker (who basically shut down the discussion with a finger-wagging assertion that Shirin would be proud of).
Carmon was very open about the majority of charges that Whitaker made: about supposedly hiding his past (which he didn’t) and about his and Meirav Wurmser’s political agenda. And, as far as reaching goes, well I would say that assuming that the reason for leaving out the fact that the author of a poem published in al-Watan titled “Bush is an Ape” lives in Ramallah was intentionally designed to place Arab-Americans in a bad light is… well… a stretch of major proportions.
BTW, apparently Vadim’s line about “who does the typing” if Angry Arab does the translation and Marc Lynch the editorializing? “One of the servants?” went over Shirin’s head. I fell off my chair laughing.
Did you make up that stuff about “the majority of expressed opinions” all by yourself?
Er, no Shirin that was Lynch (remember, the guy you keep quoting??) For some reason he feels qualified to characterize the “minority of expressed opinion” in Arab media all the way from from the faculty lounge in Washington DC. And Whitaker, who in your big takedown wrote that MEMRI “claim[s] to represent the views of the Arabic media,” prompting this straightforward disclaimer: “Memri has never claimed to “represent the view of the Arabic media”.
Amid all the LOOLing and ZZZing maybe you missed this exchange? Maybe you slept through the boring bits?
I recognize that Cole, Marc, Angry and their fan clubs routinely follow the ‘Arabic media’ to the extent they can via internet. I routinely follow the ‘English media’ but I would never be so arrogant as to characterize this or that opinion as a minority view among the entire English speaking world! No, that type of arrogance might require a Phd in Mideast studies.
who better to evaluate MEMRI’s work than my favorite graduate students
Shirin, ask yourself who processes more Arab-language media, the full-time staff of native-born Arabs stationed at MEMRI in Jerusalem, or some US-based grad students who also have to teach, grade papers, pen blog entries, attend protest rallies etc? LOOL! Who is in a better position to describe current trends in Arab media, native speakers who translate hundreds of pieces a week, or Abukhalil & Lynch from their perches in Berkeley and DC, USA? LOOL!
And besides, they aren’t evaluating MEMRI’s work (translation, remember), but their priorities, perceived ideology and in Cole’s afactual and paranoid rant, funding. And for a site called “Angry Arab” to be complaining about bias is LOOL-eriffic. If we were filtering for political bias Shirin we’d have to shut down the internet, starting with the Angry Arab and his entire blogroll. Why don’t they spend more time discussing the positive role played by US foreign policy? So imbalanced! LOOL!
So much material, so little time!
From the looks of things (35+ posts on this thread alone) you have plenty of time. Glad you’re having fun . So am I! It’s LOOL city over here.
JES and Vadim,
OK, now, listen carefully, because these are, apparently, very difficult concepts for you.
1. Academics and professionals such as Marc Lynch, Juan Cole, and As`ad Abu Khalil are very qualified to comment on the views expressed (aka “expressed views”) in the Arabic media, and which ones represent minority or extreme views, because they follow the Arabic media. It is part of their jobs to study these things. They are qualified to comment on the nature of public discourse in the Arab world because they follow it and study it. And no, they do not just follow it “to the extent they can via internet”. I guess you have never heard about Satellite TV.
In fact, not only do they follow the Arabic media closely, they have been known to appear on it, some of them regularly. As’ad, in particular, does not only follow the debate on the media, he is part of it both in print and on TV.
And in any case, anyone who even casually watches of Arabic TV on any kind of regular basis quickly becomes aware that the types of items MEMRI pushes are really few and far between, and are more than balanced by everything else.
2. Marc Lynch does not pretend to speak for anyone, so don’t try to drag out that old canard. Studying and reporting on what people are discussing is not even remotely the same thing as speaking for them. But of course, you know that.
3. Marc Lynch did not make a reference to the “majority of expressed opinion”, but of course you know that too. The phrases he used were “actual distribution of opinion”, “the real debates going on among Arabs”, “a lively debate on satellite stations…and in the elite Arab press”. “Distribution of opinion”, “real debates”, “lively debate” are what MEMRI leaves out of its highly selective cherry-picked, and often dishonestly-presented items.
But, as you said, Yigal Carmon and MEMRI have admitted that they have an agenda, and that pursuant to that agenda they intentionally present a biased view of Arabs and Muslims. Enough said.
And oh, yes, Carmon did get schooled by Brian Whitaker. Carmon lied, bobbed, weaved, dodged, avoided, and refused to address critical questions brought up by Whitaker.
Shirin,
No matter how much Marc Lynch studies the Arabic media he isn’t qualified to say what the “minority of expressed opinion” (Lynch’s words) might be, because he isn’t omniscient. Even if he sat at home all day watching Arab language TV and combing through piles of newspapers, he wouldn’t hope to have the same exposure to Arab language media as the 30+ folks at MEMRI translating full time.
But unlike Lynch, MEMRI isn’t claiming their research into Arab language extremism represents a minority or a majority of Arab opinion. That’s all in your head. MEMRI isnt’t trying to prove that a majority of Arabs think Jews are pigs and apes or that they believe in the Protocols of Zion. But clearly some significant minority does believe these things, or MEMRI wouldn’t find so many examples from major news outlets like Al Ahram, Al Manar etc.
And these kinds of things are worthy of notice by non-Arab speakers, even if it engenders anti-Arab feelings among less critical readers. It isn’t your job to shield the world from the ugly thoughts of some Arabs, with the misguided aim of defending the “Arab mainstream.”
Yigal Carmon and MEMRI have admitted that they have an agenda, and that pursuant to that agenda they intentionally present a biased view of Arabs and Muslims. Enough said.
Everyone has an “agenda” and political biases. It amazes me to see you trot this banality out on every thread, like it’s some kind of trump card — labeling everything you find objectionable ‘hasbara’ . Does Helena’s blatant bias deprive her every observation of meaning? Does it undercut any of her arguments? Of course not, not if she’s doing her job. Labeling something propaganda isn’t a counterargument Shirin.
In fact, not only do they follow the Arabic media closely, they have been known to appear on it….
Yes. And so does Yigal Carmon. So what?
And in any case, anyone who even casually watches of Arabic TV on any kind of regular basis quickly becomes aware that the types of items MEMRI pushes are really few and far between, and are more than balanced by everything else.
And on what do you base this Shirin? Do you watch Arabic TV on a regular basis? And on what basis can you state that what MEMRI translates are “few and far btween”?
So what? So, Yigal Carmon is a propagandist with a clear political agenda, and they are scholars. That’s so what.
Right Shirin. As Vadim eloquently pointed out, everyone has an axe to grind and is a propagandist – even you. If anything, the fact that Yigal Carmon may have a far clearer political agenda than do those who can hide behind scholarship makes what he may say on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya far more meaningful.
BTW, speaking of lying, bobbing, weaving, dodging, avoiding, and refusing to address critical questions, perhaps you’s like to answer the questions I posed earlier. Just to refresh your memory:
And on what do you base this Shirin? Do you watch Arabic TV on a regular basis? And on what basis can you state that what MEMRI translates are “few and far btween”?
Yeah, whatever, JES. You and Vadim know what MEMRI is, and you approve completely. Of course, if there were an equivalent “research institute” that was cherry picking and misrepresenting and maliciously translating the Israeli media to the English-speaking world in the same fashion, you’d be screaming bloody murder. And you know what? You would be absolutely right to do so. Too bad your blinders won’t let you understand the principles involved.
PS Not that this is about me or anything, but yes, I do watch Arabic TV pretty regularly. I admit that what I enjoy most are the old Egyptian movies – reminds me of the good old days – and I watch quite a variety of other things, including the infamous Al Jazeera.
Very close friends of mine in Damascus have had some modest success writing for TV. He is a journalist, regularly published in print media, including Arabic Newsweek, and she has written musalsalat, one of which is being produced as a Ramadhan series this year, which is quite a big deal. He is currently working on a documentary for Al Jazeera. That doesn’t make me an expert on Arabic TV or media in general, of course, but our conversations about their joys and frustrations does provide some small window into it.
What about you? Do you watch Arabic TV at all, or do you just depend on MEMRI for your knowledge of its contents?
Of course, if there were an equivalent “research institute” that was cherry picking and misrepresenting and maliciously translating the Israeli media to the English-speaking world in the same fashion, you’d be screaming bloody murder.
But you see Shirin, most of the Israeli media take the trouble and are honest enough to translate themselves. Just look at how much Helena relies on Ha’aretz for her propaganda. And, unlike the Arab media that publishes or broadcasts in English or other languages, for the most part, the Israeli media simply translates what’s printed or broadcast in English.
BTW, you say that I approve of MEMRI. I don’t think that I ever indicated one way or another. What I did say is that I don’t question their translations and that I think they are a valuable resource. That’s all.
Yeah, right, JES. And the English editions of Hebrew media such as Haaretz are nothing but side-by-side translations of the Hebrew – NOT. As they used to say about Arafat, the Israeli media say one thing in Hebrew and another in English (and no, I do not read Hebrew except at a uselessly rudimentary level, but I have connections with Israelis who are fluent in both Hebrew and English – and some in Arabic, too).
And get real about MEMRI. If you don’t have any problem with their translations (including their egregiously malicious mistranslation of the Farfour episode), and if you consider them a valuable resource, then by definition you do approve.
Yes. I have to admit that Arabic TV does broadcast a much wider range of programming than what MEMRI translates, particularly Egyptian movies (true art!) and Ramadan musalsalat (although they do translate those that are based on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or that imply blood libels, such as the harvesting of Palestinian organs by Zionists).
So what? So, Yigal Carmon is a propagandist with a clear political agenda, and they are scholars. That’s so what.
And scholars have no clear political agenda that’s so what! LOOLtastic! The regal gaze of Queen Shirin must only behold ideas she agrees with, from sources she likes (the snootier the better). Things that are propaganda need never be engaged for they are propaganda and therefore FALSE. Thats’s so what! So much for “speaking across worldviews.”
Once more Shirin, propaganda isn’t ipso facto “false”. And in fact you can never have an informed view of “ideas that are in wide circulation” among pro-Israeli circles unless you take interest their propaganda, just as MEMRI takes interest in anti-Semitic propaganda. Even if MEMRI were making it up from whole cloth this would be the case. But as Whitaker’s “Gallup” pettifog shows, they aren’t making it up, and such distortions as he’s mentioned aren’t meaningful.
and I watch quite a variety of other things, including the infamous Al Jazeera.
I can’t speak for JES but I watch Al Jazeera all the time. The fact that I watch it in English via cable subscription in a Western city inclines me to believe that much of the Arab world *doesnt* watch it. And in fact Al Jazeera rarely appears in MEMRI’s reports, but rather channels like Al Manar that aren’t rebroadcast via satellite, or like Al Manar only broadcast in Arabic.
As’ad, in particular, does not only follow the debate on the media, he is part of it both in print and on TV
Has it occurred to you that “anarcho marxists” like Professor As’ad Al-Berkeley aren’t as representative of the famed “Arab Street” as you’d like to think? That maybe that the “Arab Street” doesn’t by and large have satellite tv or cable? That what Lynch candidly termed “the elite Arab press” is only a small part of a much larger picture?
Its fascinating to see the way westerners like you and Lynch casting yourselves as cultural tour guides for the rest of us, telling us what’s typical, what’s important and what not to look at, when your own “elite” worldview is admittedly so blinkered, speaking of “the debate” you’re involved in as if it’s the only thing out there. No one is essentializing the “Arab debate” more than yourselves.
If you don’t have any problem with their translations
You really need to decide whether your problem is with the quality of their translations or their selection of material. Whitaker et al actually praise the general quality of their translations. “No one has suggested that MEMRI makes gross errors on a regular basis,” remember? Whitaker: “Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri’s translations”
Correction: although satellite penetration in Arab countries is actually quite high, almost none of the Arab language stations featured in MEMRI seem to be accessible via US or European providers.
I’m looking through MEMRIs video and thus far have found only one very benign translation from Al Jazeera. The incendiary stuff seems to come overwhelmingly from Al-Rahma television, Al Aqsa, PA Authority TV and Al Manar. To my knowledge Mr. Angry hasn’t set foot in any of these studios. I doubt they’re interested in what he has to say about Marxism, feminism or post-colonial theory.
Whether or not they reflect more widepsread prejudice, the very worst stuff seems to come from official party stations (Aqsa, Manar) run by HAMAS and Hezbollah. In other words, this isn’t some public access channel with 10 viewers but the official mouthpiece of the region’s most influential political movements.
So Shirin do you really think the speeches, documentaries and childrens shows regularly aired by HAMAS and Hezbollah aren’t newsworthy? Should we avert our eyes and concentrate on the airbrushed elite of Al Jazeera instead?
There are always difficulties and room for dispute in translation, which makes conclusions harder to reach. To my mind the decisive instance demonstrating MEMRI’s dishonesty is its depiction of Norman Finkelstein as a holocaust denier. He could have explained it better – it’s spread over three URL’s on his site, but what MEMRI did was to edit his remarks to put someone else’s words – an interviewer/narrator – in his mouth, and it’s all in plain English. After reading that, with no correction ever, it is impossible to take anything they say on trust.