Robert Fisk

MOZAEI SHABBATH MEVARCHIM

Carolyne Gluick

Good evening.

None of us need an introduction to the most frequent speaker we had thus far.  And the frequency of your visits with us,  Mrs. Gluick, is the best compliment we could give you, which compliment, with respect, is welled deserved.

So tonight, I would like to share with you some thoughts about another man from the press. I do not believe Mrs. Gluick likes him, neither do I.  I do not think he is very knowledgeable, I do not think he is very fair. Alas, he is world renown, and with respect, unjustly so.

And why him? And why  today? 

Well, I do not have to agree with everything Msr. Gluick in order to respect her. Her integrity and honesty is beyond doubt. People call me from many places when the e-mail giving notice of her lecture is sent out. Tonight I would like to do and introduce an anti thesis to a fair approach. I do so, because something happened recently, and if we do not raise our voices, we will allow a lie to become the accepted truth. I would like to show you that claiming to know does not bring knowledge, claiming to be ethical does not make you so, claiming to  be fair does not necessarily mean you are, claiming to be honest does not mean you do not lie. Indeed, one of our previous guests made the same accusations, and, with respect, justly, and intellectually, successfully so, in an interview he shared for The Guardian in London. He was referring to Brian Whitaker. I am referring to another journalist.

In variance to what you will hear tonight from our guest, I would like to point to a dangerous individual who has yet to learn from Carolyne, at least the basic principles of intellectual integrity. I do not know if he heard of Mrs. Gluick, although he should have. I do not know if he read or heard what our guest wrote and spoke about, although he had ought to.

If he did not it is inexcusable, if he did, then his integrity is lower then I thought.

I am referring to an individual by the name of Robert Fisk. Fisk was to write for the Times in London and then following a dispute, he assigned his writings to the Independent newspaper in the Court of St. James.

Fisk is reputedly the most exposed newsman to Middle East conflicts. Some critics claim he is the most knowledgeable correspondence on the Middle East. Here in our battle against the Palestinians, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and more. He claimed reputation following his book Pity the Nation about the war in Lebanon, in which book he constantly accused Israel of war crimes.

Robert Frisk

Recently he wrote a 1,400 page book, The Great War of Civilization. His own newspaper wrote about it calmly, and even the Times found only 2 historical mistakes.

But this book as popular as you might want it to be, is a third rate journalistic report, with so many deviations from professionalism, with such a high number of historical mistakes [many more then the 2 found by The Times], and yet, so welcomed, that it is up to us to stand up and say, "so what if the whole world says so".

Fisk knows that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. But he was not. He was born in Beith Lehem; Mohamad's cousin and son in law, Caliph Ali was murdered in the year 661, and not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjorden in 1946. Fisk knows it happened in 1921. And  this king is not originated in the "Gulf Tribe" as suggested by this tower of knowledge, but with The Hashemite.  Iraq lost its monarchy in 1958, Fisk heard about it in 1962. Haj Amin al Housseini, was never elected to his position as Fisk believes he knows. He was nominated by The British. Khoumeni, according to Fisk moved from Turkey to Najaf during the rule of Saddam Houssein. I know it happened 16 years before Saddam came to power. Trust me, Fisk is wrong.

Resolution 242 was not adopted in November 1968, but 1967, and Anwar al Saddat did not sign his peace treaty  with  Israel in 1977, but in 1979.  No, he was not even killed in 1979, as Fisk knows, but 2 years later, in 1981.  And no, Mr. Fisk is wrong [once again] assuming that Rabin was the Prime Minister of Israel during the first intefada. He was The Minister of Defense.

And his favorite Al Qaida was established about a decade before 1998, the year offered by Fisk.

So many mistakes in one book questions even the supervision of the publisher. And as for Fisk himself? well, he should be very grateful that there is no Nobel Price in History.

But his anti Israeli approach, yes his support of the devil, his anti US and anti his own country led Bin Laden to invite him as his guest as "Fisk is a fair reporter".

Judging Israel, he met everybody in power who is our opponent. Why, his book commences with a meeting with Osama Bin Laden [whose definition by Madelein Albright in her newly published autobiography was "a special kind of evil"], and the dignity in which he writes about him, stunned me. And he does so notwithstanding the fact that the 9/11 commission report – or in its formal name, Final Report of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States - concluded, and I quote "Bin Laden sought the capability to kill on a mass scale".  And if I read the report, someone who wishes to assume the status of a researcher definitely  did. Or, did he? He describes his visits to the Muqata, to the corridors of power in the Presidential palace overlooking Damascus, He met extreme Jews in some places but not one official Israeli. To judge Israel without talking to those he judges is not even journalism.

The 9 /11 tragedy has to do with Israel's attitude towards the Palestinians, so he claims, this,  notwithstanding the fact that Fisk himself quotes a high Al Qaida official , telling him that  Western civilization is what Islam is fighting.  And no, this official was not alone in this understanding.  Anybody who listens to the Wahhbi's leaders, anybody who watches al jesira television, anybody who sees in London the plaques stating that "Islam in the future of England" understands what Fisks fails to recognize. It is not Israel, it is not the Palestinians. It is western and Judeo Christian Civilization, and it is the internal severe disputes between the various sects within Islam itself.

Fisk does point at mistakes, at painful errors that should be recognized. At bombing in Iraq that resulted in children exposed to cancer. At Children being killed in Gaza and Lebanon. Of course, without trying to ask, even once, why do the Palestinians fights from residential quarters. Why do they shoot from houses full of children.

When talking about the Shah of Iran,  detailing the positin under his rule, "out of the bleu" we are reminded that El AL used to have a flights once a week to Teheran of The Shah. That is true. Pan American had 6, BOAC had 8 and Air France had 8. But only El Al is to be mentioned. This bloody Jewish airline. 

He was happy to quote Edward Motimor of the London Times suggesting that Khoumeni does not want to impose Islam on the rest of society. Evidently he was talking about the cousin who remained in Paris, not about the Ayatollah.

When quoting another book and disagreeing with it, one reason for the disagreement was that it is a pro Israeli book.

He speculates about every Arab tragedy how was this woman killed and this baby burnt. Whenever mentioning a terrorist attack on Israel, which he does, it is immediately covered by the evil of Israelis.

Fisk, although condemning 9/11 actually tries to find justifications for it.

He claimed Arafat was determined to make peace and he resents the fact that we call him a terrorist.  He knows that the majority of conflicts between Jews and Arabs are initiated by Israelis, and knows of times when this land was empty of Jews. [No, he does not point to the year, decade or century, and for a very good reason]. 

He quotes with consent another writer who cannot visualize a more subdued and frightened population then the Arabs in Israel.

No he does not mention the Arab political parties, the number of Arabs treated in every Israeli hospital, that Arabs, even the wives and children of terrorists who are imprisoned in Israel are supported by the National Insurance, or the fact that non of the Arab Israelis want to be governed by the Palestinian Authority. 

No, he does not point out who started the Six Days War. And the fact that resolution 242 omitted the word "the" when demanding that Israel withdraws from territories is not even mentioned. He knows that a Jew demand eye for an eye. And the Arab? Why he will turn the other cheek, as we can  witness these days watching the calm and dignified way in which Shiites and Sunnis are trying to solve their differences in Iraq.

One more point. One reason that Israel is at fault when it comes to the intifada is the number of Palestinian dead vs. the number of Israelis. This shows that Israel is at fault. 

What a scientific and wonderful and original approach. I agree. 

But if Fisk does not mind, let us take his logic one step further. As you know, by the end of the second world war most German cities were devastated, thus many more German were killed then English. So, here is the conclusion "alla Fisk". England was the violent country during the

second world war, not the good and ethical Nazi Germany. Or The USA and not Japan. After all, Japan lost many more people then the US did.

I elaborated on this book, and I could do more, because the writer is dangerous. He had not one good  word to say about the US or his own country, England.  many good words about Bin Laden.

Putting down the book, I was not sure if he was Lord Ho Ho or Quizling.

That is why we have to know the truth. The good and the bad, and, yes, there is bad, there are mistakes, which mistakes we must recognized but under the umbrella that "my country right or wrong". The tragedy is that Fisk reflects an element, an element stating that my enemy is always right and I am always wrong. Another extreme case relates to the Second World War. The English provocative, but many a times fascinating philosopher and writer Anthony .C. Grayling, in his newly published book Among The Dead Cities, debate the issue if the air bombing of German cities during the war. Was it justified, or did it amount to War Crimes?

Today, I know I am going to be more fascinated in one hour than I was in 26 hours reading Fisk's outrageous book. 

Do not read the book, But listen to Caroline. And listening to her after reading Fisk, is a waive of fresh air. So tonight, I am ever so grateful to welcome once again, Calolyne Gluick.

Zalli Jaffe