11
January 2015
Terrorism
is not terrorism when a much more severe terrorist attack is carried out by
those who are Righteous by virtue of their power
THE
WORLD reacted with horror to the murderous attack on the French satirical
journal Charlie Hebdo. In the New York Times, veteran Europe correspondent
Steven Erlanger graphically described the immediate aftermath, what many call
France’s 9/11, as “a day of sirens, helicopters in the air, frantic news
bulletins; of police cordons and anxious crowds; of young children led away
from schools to safety.
It
was a day, like the previous two, of blood and horror in and around Paris.” The
enormous outcry worldwide was accompanied by reflection about the deeper roots
of the atrocity. “Many Perceive a Clash of Civilizations,” a New York Times
headline read.
The
reaction of horror and revulsion about the crime is justified, as is the search
for deeper roots, as long as we keep some principles firmly in mind. The
reaction should be completely independent of what thinks about this journal and
what it produces.
The
passionate and ubiquitous chants “I am Charlie,” and the like, should not be
meant to indicate, even hint at, any association with the journal, at least in
the context of defense of freedom of speech. Rather, they should express
defense of the right of free expression whatever one thinks of the contents,
even if they are regarded as hateful and depraved.
And
the chants should also express condemnation for violence and terror. The head
of Israel’s Labor Party and the main challenger for the upcoming elections in
Israel, Isaac Herzog, is quite right when he says that “Terrorism is terrorism.
There’s no two ways about it.”
He
is also right to say that “All the nations that seek peace and freedom [face]
an enormous challenge” from murderous terrorism – putting aside his predictably
selective interpretation of the challenge.
Erlanger
vividly describes the scene of horror. He quotes one surviving journalist as
saying that “Everything crashed. There was no way out. There was smoke
everywhere. It was terrible. People were screaming. It was like a nightmare.”
Another surviving journalist reported a “huge detonation, and everything went
completely dark.”
The
scene, Erlanger reported, “was an increasingly familiar one of smashed glass,
broken walls, twisted timbers, scorched paint and emotional devastation.” At
least 10 people were reported at once to have died in the explosion, with 20
missing, “presumably buried in the rubble.”
These
quotes, as the indefatigable David Peterson reminds us, are not, however, from
January 2015. Rather, they are from a story of Erlanger’s on April 24 1999,
which made it only to page 6 of the New York Times, not reaching the
significance of the Charlie Hebdo attack. Erlanger was reporting on the NATO
(meaning US) “missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters” that
“knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air.”
There
was an official justification. “NATO and American officials defended the
attack,” Erlanger reports, “as an effort to undermine the regime of President
Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told a
briefing in Washington that “Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder
machine as his military is,” hence a legitimate target of attack.
The
Yugoslavian government said that “The entire nation is with our President,
Slobodan Milosevic,” Erlanger reports, adding that “How the Government knows
that with such precision was not clear.”
No
such sardonic comments are in order when we read that France mourns the dead
and the world is outraged by the atrocity. There need also be no inquiry into
the deeper roots, no profound questions about who stands for civilization, and
who for barbarism.
Isaac
Herzog, then, is mistaken when he says that “Terrorism is terrorism. There’s no
two ways about it.” There are quite definitely two ways about it: terrorism is
not terrorism when a much more severe terrorist attack is carried out by those
who are Righteous by virtue of their power.
Similarly,
there is no assault against freedom of speech when the Righteous destroy a TV
channel supportive of a government that they are attacking.
By
the same token, we can readily comprehend the comment in the New York Times of
civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, noted for his forceful defense of freedom of
expression, that the Charlie Hebdo attack is “the most threatening assault on
journalism in living memory.”
He
is quite correct about “living memory,” which carefully assigns assaults on
journalism and acts of terror to their proper categories: Theirs, which are
horrendous; and Ours, which are virtuous and easily dismissed from living
memory.
We
might recall as well that this is only one of many assaults by the Righteous on
free expression.
To
mention only one example that is easily erased from “living memory,” the
assault on Fallujah by US forces in November 2004, one of the worst crimes of
the invasion of Iraq, which opened with occupation of Fallujah General
Hospital.
Military
occupation of a hospital is, of course, a serious war crime in itself, even
apart from the manner in which it was carried out, blandly reported in a
front-page story in the New York Times, accompanied with a photograph depicting
the crime.
The
story reported that “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms
by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied
their hands behind their backs.”
The
crimes were reported as highly meritorious, and justified: “The offensive also
shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants:
Fallujah General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties.”
Evidently
such a propaganda agency cannot be permitted to spew forth its vulgar
obscenities.
Source:
Telesur
No comments:
Post a Comment