Comments on: The MEMRI Hole

By: nic

nic — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:45:59 +0000

Oh but I agree it’s not cool to call anyone anything bad, if only everyone followed that simple rule, oh what a better place the world would be. Better still, if only everyone remembered that it’s perfectly legitimate to be anti- something in terms of political opinions and opposition to governments policies, then no one would consider that noble democratic prefix as a smear. Where I differ is that I don’t really think that being called “anti-Arab” was the reason MEMRI got all peeved. After all, like Campus Watch and like-minded individuals or groups, they consider “pro-Arab” an insult, and pro-Palestinian akin to terrorist sponsor (as in, purely hypothetical instance: “university professor with unashamedly pro-Arab views”). So, I’m sure they’re not that bothered by being identified as holding the opposite view from the one they’re against. (Given that the third option, bipartisanship, is definitely not contemplated here).

By: Ragout

Ragout — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:31:43 +0000

nic, You may think it’s fine to accuse people of being “anti-Arab” without any more proof than the fact that they’re Israeli military intelligence officers, but I don’t. Just like I think one ought to have convincing evidence before accusing others of being racist, anti-semitic, sexist, homophobic, etc. These are strong allegations.

By: nic

nic — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:09 +0000

Cole smeared MEMRI, calling them “anti-Arab,” as if they’re against the Arab people as a whole! No! really? amazing! that’s got to be the worst smear you could possibly come across in the age of the war on terror! especially if you’re a former Israeli military intelligence officer. Gosh, to be called anti-Arab has to be so unbearable for Col. Carmon, no wonder he had to sue…

By: Ragout

Ragout — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:16:18 +0000

abb1, Campus Watch posted some links to writings criticizing Cole. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Perhaps you could explain it. In any event, when Cole complained that he was receiving hate mail because of these links and he threatened to sue, Campus Watch took down their “dossiers on professors.” I give them lots of credit for acting honorably, when they were under no obligation to do so. In contrast, Cole smeared MEMRI, calling them “anti-Arab,” as if they’re against the Arab people as a whole! In addition, he claimed that they have a $60 million budget, to further his repeated insinuations that Jewish orginizations have vast unjustified powers. When MEMRI denied this $60 million figure, Cole could not back it up. In several follow-up posts, he has failed to cite any source. Instead he has tried to cloud the waters, criticizing others who cite actual information from IRS filings showing a $2 million budget. His failure to admit to a clear error may not be libelous under US law, but is truly pathetic.

By: Ragout

Ragout — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:39:23 +0000

henry, Talk about tendentious misrepresentations! You are misquoting me as saying “that the debate proves ‘without a doubt’ that ‘it is the anti-Israel side that engages in uncivil, name-calling, personal attacks’ (and by implication that the pro-Israel side is blameless)” In fact I wrote: “in secular, left-liberal discourse about Israel, and without a doubt on CT, it is the anti-Israel side that engages in uncivil, name-calling, personal attacks.” This was somewhat of an overstatement: I should have confined the claim to Crooked Timber. But it cannot reasonably be read as a claim that the “pro-Israel side is blameless.” It is a claim that the pro-Israel side on CT (and in other secular left-liberal discourse) is blameless. I don’t doubt that there are nasty pro-Israel name-callers out there somewhere. And dan simon’s description of the way you shut down the debate is debate is perfectly accurate. You critized my comments specifically. But you only made a half-hearted attempt to criticize “their equivalent from people on the other side.” You criticized none of the extremely offensive anti-israel comments specifically. I remember as particularly offensive the comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and a reference to “tribal religions.” These drew no specific criticism from you (that I recall). Perhaps you truly did believe that there were offenders on both sides, but because you only leveled specific criticisms at the pro-Israel side (i.e., me), that was not how I read your final message.

By: carlos

carlos — Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:03:25 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html Article in Guardian a few years ago on MEMRI. Very imformative

By: russkie

russkie — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:07:54 +0000

It would be appropriate (and fair-minded) if Henry Farrell were to post an update to the original entry mentioning that Cole has previously threatened a suit against Martin Kramer.

By: nic

nic — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:37:02 +0000

What abb1 said about bullies. It’s so funny to compare what Campus Watch was/is doing to the mere opinion that MEMRI is politically on the Israeli right wing and that they must obviously be getting tons of money to pursue their activity and recruit all those translators (they don’t come cheap, and they’re not volunteers I know of no other non-business organisation in the world that can afford paying for so much translation work.) I don’t know what’s objectionable or harmful or libellous about that. I’m glad to hear CW removed the “dossiers” on un-American professors and now say they just want to “enage in dialogue” and not call for ousting anyone from their job (something no one has done to MEMRI), how lovely. I remember a much stronger original declaration of intent by Pipes & co, as well as the publication of those dossiers, I guess they got some good legal advice in the meantime. But even now it’s very disingenous to ignore that in Patriot Act America, alleging direct financial ties to terrorism is perhaps a step closer to libel, if libel has to be, and in any case a step closer to having practical consequences for the target of such allegations, than merely reading right-wing political affiliations into the positions of an organisation, no? Unless you want to equate being on the Israeli right wing and being a terrorist or terrorist sponsor and funder. Which would be extremely ironic. Obviously CW must have realised that to retract that kind of “factual” dossiers. That should tell you something.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:27:17 +0000

How is MEMRI pro-Likud? Oh, I know, because Juan Cole said so. Well, let’s see: pro-Likud, Islamophobic, wingnut – what would you prefer? ‘Pro-Likud’ seems like the least insulting, doesn’t it; after all, Likud is a political party and a popular one too. Saying that MEMRI is a bunch of Islamophobic wingnuts would probably be more accurate but somewhat less civil. We want to be as well-mannered as possible, don’t we?

By: 8opus

8opus — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:16:25 +0000

Incidentally, Cole’s accusation—that MEMRI has mistranslated—isn’t quite right. 1) MEMRI didn’t really translate anything until what is apparently an Islamist Web site had issued (in Arabic) what it thought was a correction to CNN’s translation—by drawing attention to the word “wilayat”. MEMRI translated and corroborated Qal’a’s own translation. 2) I’m no linguistic expert. And my Arabic is both rusty, and pretty rudimentary at that. But Juan Cole’s reasoning smells a little fishy. As near as I can tell, he’s disputing Al-Qal’a’s and MEMRI’s translations based on that idea that bin Laden couldn’t possibly have meant what it sounded like he was saying, so he must have been either relying on a “fundamentalist archaism” or accidentally slipping into “Hindi-Urdu”. It’s possible. But it seems a stretch. Given Cole’s blustering hyperbole about the MEMRI site sprinkled throughout the article—he first introduces it as “neoconservative organ MEMRI”, and kind of takes off from there—it’s not hard to think that some sort of animus is involved.

By: Felix Ditwaller

Felix Ditwaller — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:09:44 +0000

I don’t know why people complained about those lynchings during reconstruction. People just cherry pick to make southerners look bad? “Jews are monkeys and apes” is just cherry picking too.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:01:01 +0000

What the hell! Are the translations accurate or not? The rest is all ideological pr.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:03 +0000

Of course MEMRI cherry picks arab broadcasts. Cole doesn’t claim the translations to be inaccurate. If they are accurate, then that is enough. It is what it purports to be. These ARE in fact true and correct broadcasts or publications that appear in the mainstream (or even state-funded) arab media. Gee, sorry if that makes muslims look bad. But then, wouldn’t that be muslims making muslims look bad? What a crime!

By: TM

TM — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:55:28 +0000

How is MEMRI pro-Likud? Oh, I know, because Juan Cole said so.

By: TM

TM — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:54:48 +0000

How is MEMRI pro-Likud? Oh, I know, because Juan Cole said so.