Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Widening the debate

Meryl Yourish points to a Jerusalem Post article about a "panel discussion" in London:
Informed, honest debate on the Middle East has been stifled because of a fear of being accused of anti-Semitism, according to the participants in a discussion hosted by the Islam Channel in central London on Thursday. The broadcaster is the largest Islamic television outlet in Europe.

The discussion, titled: "Why anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism," was filmed against a backdrop reading "Zionism: The cancer at the heart of international affairs."

The discussion was chaired by Alan Hart, a former ITN and BBC correspondent whose latest book, "Zionism: The real enemy of the Jews" was recently published. He said, "The anti-Semitism card is something the Zionists have exploited to suppress debate."

He said the mainstream media had concealed "the truth of history" out of fear of offending Jews and thanked CEO Mohammed Ali of the Islam Channel for "his courage in widening the debate."


I was always amused at the amount of projection that the terror-supporters use when they accuse Jews of doing something. Almost invariably, they are far more guilty of whatever they accuse Israel or Jews of doing than the accusees.

In this case, I would like to "widen the debate" about the Middle East as well. I'd like to see some honest, open discussion in the mainstream media about various topics that are taboo for fear of offending Muslims or Arabs:
  • Why is it desirable to have a Palestinian Arab state altogether? How does it increase peace, or democracy, or world security? Answer with facts, not wild assumptions or wishful thinking.
  • Why is it acceptable for Mecca and Medina to not allow any non-Muslims within? Isn't that "ethnic cleansing?"
  • Can one be a believing Muslim and also not strive for a worldwide 'ummah under Sharia law?
  • What percentage of ordinary Palestinian Arabs truly support a permanent, two state solution where Israel stays a Jewish state? What percentage support terror?
  • What concessions have the Palestinian Arabs ever done for peace?
  • Why, exactly, is it unrealistic to expect Jews to live freely in a Palestinian Arab state in the territories?
  • Is Islam compatible with freedom and democracy?
  • When the word "Jihad" is used, how do most Muslims interpret it?
  • What is the real source of terrorism?
Yes, let's widen the debate. Please.

2 comments:

Elder of Ziyon said...

If Israel can be accused of "ethnic cleansing" in 1948, it would appear that a case where only a specific religious group being allowed to visit or live in a specified area is far more so. But in reality, you are right.

Pastorius said...

Great post, Elder of Ziyon. Thanks.