Posted on 04/25/2002 3:42:10 PM PDT by Tom Jefferson
My Meeting with Dan Rather by Elliot Mathias Since Arabs view the world differently, who's to say that we're right and they're wrong?
My recent encounter with CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his producer made me realize that much of the anti-Israel coverage in the media -- which treats Israel with a double-standard unparalleled anywhere else in the world -- is attributable to factors other than anti-Semitism.
I met his CBS producer at a building in Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter that overlooks the Temple Mount where she wished to film from. We proceeded up to the roof which afforded a masterful view of the centerpiece of the Old City. Sprawled out in front of us was the Temple Mount, the place where the two ancient Jewish Temples stood, and currently the shared location of the Western Wall and the Al-Asqa Mosque. Behind the Temple Mount is the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, with the rugged hills of the Judean Desert in the background.
This is the focal point of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, Palestinians call the current conflict the "Al-Asqa Intifada."
As we stood side-by-side taking in the extraordinary view, the producer turned to me and said in a sort of apologetic tone, "You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are we looking at?"
My stomach instantly dropped. Maybe she was unsure of a specific building?
"No, what is this entire area we are looking at?"
"The Temple Mount!!" I wanted to scream. "It's the most important spot in the entire region!"
I controlled myself and began my first history lesson to a national news producer. I explained how the Jewish people built a Temple in this spot 3,000 years ago, and how, after its destruction, a second Temple was built in the exact same location.
I explained how Jesus visited this second Jewish Temple, which stood until the Romans ultimately destroyed it in the first century. I explained how the Muslims came to Jerusalem in the mid-seventh century, soon after the creation of their religion, building the Al-Asqa Mosque and the Golden Dome. I explained to her that the Western Wall is the remaining retaining wall of the second Jewish Temple.
As I went through these historic points, the producer was taking furious notes on her yellow writing pad, trying to record the details of this place so integral to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A few minutes later, Dan Rather arrived. He climbed the stairs to join us on the roof. As he reached the top stair, he looked out at the view that was spread before him. "Oh, I've been here before," he said. Then, looking at his producer, he quietly asked, "What is this that we're looking at?"
My stomach plummeted again. Not Dan Rather, too?! The expert on world events who is watched by 30 million nightly viewers can't identify the Temple Mount? I knew American viewers were in big trouble.
The producer read the notes on her yellow pad, filling Mr. Rather in on all the details of the place in front of them. During the film shoot, Rather held this same yellow pad of paper in his hand, reading from it on air. So much for in-depth research and media accuracy.
A DEBATE ABOUT TRUTH
After Dan Rather left, I spent some time with his producer, discussing her viewpoints of what was currently happening in Israel. After seeing the tone of her news segment, I was concerned. I began to question her about accuracy in reporting.
Her answer was even more shocking than what I had already observed. "The thing is," she told me, "it is impossible to be objective in this situation. The fact is that there is no objective truth -- neither side is right or wrong."
"Wait a minute," I asked her. "When a Palestinian straps on a belt of dynamite lined with nails and walks into a pizza shop, blowing up innocent people, that wouldn't be objectively wrong?"
"Of course I would think that is wrong," she answered me. "But the Palestinians believe this is a legitimate form of warfare. And they would say the Israelis are doing the same to them by killing innocent civilians when they retaliate militarily. Who am I to say what is right or wrong? Who am I to say that the Palestinians are wrong in their beliefs?"
"But don't you think there's a difference between a person blowing himself up in a restaurant, and a military that responds by searching for and killing terrorists. Granted that innocent civilians are killed in both circumstances -- but in one situation the innocents are targeted, and in the other situation they are regrettably caught in the line of fire?"
"Well, that's a very Western way of looking at things. You see I'm Christian and American. I see things the way you do as an Israeli -- we have the same moral framework. But the Arabs view things differently, and who's to say that we're right and they're wrong?"
At this point we both realized we weren't going to get any further in the conversation, and we politely thanked each other and parted ways.
CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
This experience gave me new insight into why so much of the media seems biased against Israel. Not only, as I saw with my own eyes, was even the top echelon some of the media unprepared and lacking knowledge of the basic history and make-up of the conflict, but they also possess an extremely dangerous philosophy -- a belief that there is no objective right and wrong.
The world today is being shaped into two conflicting civilizations. This has been happening minimally for decades, but more probably for centuries, and has now become most evident since September 11. One civilization, led by Judeo-Christian ethics, values life with the utmost sanctity. Individual rights and freedoms, equality of the sexes, and peace amongst nations are pillars upon which this half of the world stands.
The other civilization holds very different ideals: the glorification of death and war, totalitarian control of the masses, and oppression of women. The latter civilization sees the former as a direct threat to its way of life and is willing to sacrifice its own children to destroy the other.
This clash of civilizations is being fought on many fronts, including the battlefield. But for most of us non-soldier-types, the war is being fought in the recesses of our own conscience.
Many world leaders, like President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, have identified this clearly as a fight against evil. But there are others, many of whom are influential in the media, who don't believe that the values of the Western world are "objectively good." Reuters news service refused to call the September 11 attacks "terrorism," finding that even too much of a moral stretch.
This clash calls upon us all to must make a clear choice. Are we confident in our own values and morals? Do we know that they are objectively good and thus worth defending and fighting for?
Unless we can answer these questions with full determination and conviction, we will remain deeply threatened by those who seek to destroy us. Because one thing is certain: The other side has the determination and conviction to carry on their crusade.
Author Biography: Elliot Mathias is the Director of Hasbara Fellowships, a program co-sponsored by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Jerusalem Fellowships of Aish HaTorah, which educates and trains university students to be pro-Israel activists on their campuses. For more information about the program, visit www.goisrael.org. Elliot graduated from Northwestern University and is originally from Buffalo Grove, Il.
I am not sure what that means. Could someone explain the above in clear english. Thanks.
Live! Now on RadioFR!
6pm/9pm - TULL's TAWKIN: Special guest, Ralph Sarchie, an eighteen-year NYPD veteran, works out of the 46th Precinct in New York's South Bronx. But it is his other job that he calls "the Work" that I find interestering. Ralph, under the direction of the Catholic Church, investigates cases of demonic possession.
7pm/10pm - INS WHISTLEBLOWER RICK RAMIREZ GUEST ON SPECIAL EDITION "BANANA REPUBLICAN RADIO HOUR"
Click HERE to listen LIVE! while you FReep!
Limo ride from airport to the Temple Mount-$ 40.00
If it had occurred to the guide to intentionally feed a bunch of blatantly wrong information for the assistant to scribble down-priceless
A human being with a moral understanding of life.
But assume that a newsperson's job is to be dry and factual, and not to impart any moralizing on any situation... does she think the media has done a good job at being neutral reporters of fact in this situation? I say, not in most cases.
And these are the same buffoons who ridiculed Governor Bush for not knowing the lastest names of the changing rulers of several third world countries?
Within a week, we had Bill Maher saying that "they definitely weren't cowards" and now 6 months out we have the pro-Palestinian protests in America with people openly defending suicide attacks on civilians.
If neither side is right/wrong then why do we not get an impartial coverage of the conflict? She also said that there is no "objective truth". Sure there is, there always is but the media/politicians often choose a side to present as the enemy (if not the good guy).
To all reading this, let me make one key point very, very clear.
This producer bimbo is NOT a Christian, no matter what she says.
She is a citizen of a Christian nation (trust me; that's what she meant) but there is no way she's a practicing Christian.
Fact.
There are also those muslims who hold that for a non-muslim/infidel to kill a muslim is horribly wrong, for a muslim to kill a non-muslim/infidel is of no consequence, and a muslim who kills a muslim should be tried under Islamic law. This was why the original Taliban offer to "prosecute" terrorists had no teeth.
War crimes cannot exist in her world; the object of war is to win at all costs. How can you say that your acts to win the war are prohibited? And yet we acknowledge that people can be prosecuted for extremely uncivillized behavior.
"Well, that's a very Western way of looking at things. You see I'm Christian and American. I see things the way you do as an Israeli -- we have the same moral framework. But the Arabs view things differently, and who's to say that we're right and they're wrong?"
Uh, how about anyone with an ounce of morality, a little common sense, and maybe half a brain? Geesh, who IS this idiot producer, whose moral compass appears to spin as fast as her ditzy brain? Still, she knows more about the Temple Mount than Dan, lol....
I am not sure what that means. Could someone explain the above in clear english. Thanks.
Well, while I find the comment insightful, I would not claim it covers all the motivations of liberals concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. But it does make a good point for why liberals don't seem to have a problem with Muslim atrocities.
Liberals in general are anti-religion and pro-state. They believe the state is good, and to the extent that religion undermines the moral authority of the state, they don't like it.
However, when religion and the state become one, the liberal's dislike for religion disappears. Such a religion is furthering the aims of the state, and the liberals don't have nearly as big a problem with that.
Even though Israel is primarily Jewish, it is not a theocracy. The Jewish religion is still quite separate from the state of Israel. So the liberal's standard dislike of religion extends to Judaism.
The Arab countries do incorporate religion into the governing state. The liberals tend to like autocratic government, of any kind (communist, socialist, welfare state nannyism, whatever). The Arabs use religion as the justification for their autocratic governing. Liberals don't much care what the justification for autocratic behaviour is - they'll take religion as the justification as easily as communism. So in this case, they're not opposed to religion because it furthers the ends of autocratic states.
That's fairly long winded, and in some respects a simplistic analysis, but I hope it answers your question.
Can you and I agree that the basis for defining right and wrong is set forth in the 10 Commandments and the Judeo-Christian moral code? If we can, then we have moral absolutism, not moral relativism.
Yes, you and I agree and we can discuss right and wrong because we have an absolute standard against which to test our assertions. When we try to engage Dan Rather, et.al. however, our standard means nothing to them, and moreover, they have no standard against which to test their own assertions.
I believe that Rather's way (which is now the domant worldview of our culture) is the path to tyranny. It leads to chaos and where there is chaos, there is always someone around who will promise to do whatever it takes to bring order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.