generalspeaking

Another "Mispoke"

What is it with Americans who have hailed from the Middle East, and who are in the public eye and who are highly respected for their balanced views, to the extent they are given free rein to state their opinions publicly...? And then, something suddenly erupts, something that quite possibly has been tamped down quietly and firmly in their inner consciousness with the knowledge that there it should stay lest their true beliefs become public knowledge.

Highly-respected doyenne of the White House press corps Helen Thomas questioned a succession of Presidents of the United States and they more than tolerated her crisp and probing questions and responded as well as they could. After a long and honourable career as a columnist within the press corps she has now been removed for her bitter declaration from the heart that Israel should depart from its illegal squat in the Middle East.

She can recall, with fond memory of the occasion when U.S. President Barack Obama helped her to celebrate her 89th birthday with a tray of cupcakes in the White House briefing room. The very day he celebrated his own 49th birthday. There, they had that in common. But not the forthright opinion she gave voice to; his is far more diplomatic, veiled and consumed with the need to further American interests, (at the expense of Israel's security, if needed).

Unlike official America, she doesn't think of Hamas as a terrorist group. They were, after all, voted into power by democratic means. "I think you can call anybody (sic) a terrorist organization when they are in opposition - it's a very loosely held word", she said during a lengthy interview. "I think people in Palestine are fighting for their land. Little by little, incursions and kicking people from their homes - who on earth would ever accept that without a fight?"

Well before she expressed her opinion that Israel should dissolve itself and Jews return to where-ever in the world they belong; to Poland, to Germany, anywhere but the Middle East, she was known to be critical of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. More discreetly critical, doubtless. Her cranky declaration of Israel's illegality in her considered opinion, appeared to be more than her profession would tolerate.

And now, goodness gracious, there's another one. CNN's senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs, Octavia Nasr. Who evidently overlooked the fact that electronic devices enable news to flash in a nano-instant around the world, and people actually look at these 140-character messages, they really do. And some people take note and become alert when someone in her neutral position, reflecting the ethos of her country, expresses a thought that might appear to some to be troubling.

She was incautious enough to Twitter her own personal take on the reputation and the lifework of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the Lebanese Shiite cleric, whom she wished, briefly, to eulogize. She did that, she allowed as how she respected the religious leader, known for his association with Hezbollah and his rather incendiary views of the West, along with his steady hatred for Israel's very existence.

Alerted to the outcry that resulted from that unfortunate tweet, Parisa Khosravi, senior vice-president for CNN International Newsgathering "had a conversation" with Ms. Nasr. During which they decided between them that "she will be leaving the company". Discreet is always best when one holds views likely to be looked upon askance by those who employ you, or the audience which views your professionalism thereafter with doubt.

The Lebanese Shiite cleric died on the week-end, and Ms. Nasr, an Arab-American, paid homage: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot." Um, indeed. Respect a man who hated the United States, who was an enthusiastic supporter of suicide bombings as a way of instructing Israeli civilians that they were living in the wrong place at the wrong time, a man whose religious teachings inspired the founders of Hezbollah.

Well, all right. Write it in your diary. You know that you've mentally compartmentalized this holy man's life's work, and it is not his terrorist-affiliated-and-supporting persona that electrified you, but his humane and refreshing interpretation of Koranic scripture that recognizes women as at least somewhat equal to men. It simply doesn't do to cause extreme embarrassment to one's employer, to place them in a position of having to admit to an "error of judgement" on your behalf.

And once having heard that such a statement, despite 20 years of work for the corporation, that one indiscreet little twitter of a tweet "did not meet CNN's editorial standards...This is a serious matter and will be dealt with accordingly", one could only intuit, correctly, that it was 'game over'. For it is a game, is it not, to present and to pose as one in perfect concert with American public and private opinion on such matters as pertain to one's heritage.

On the other hand, why should a self-respecting woman feel a sense of gratitude to a religious figure who, while calling for the abolition of tribal 'honour killing', still preached death and destruction to other people living elsewhere? Sheik Fadlallah's stance on women's rights stood in mild contrast to his hateful belligerence about Jews and Israel, as when he stated he would die a happy man if Israel were destroyed.

If, according to his words, the treatment of Arab and Muslim women represented a primitive, non-productive tribal practise, and that men abusing women ran counter to Islam, does it follow that wishing to destroy another people demonstrates devotion to Islam?
Are matter so relevant and irrelevant? Can good and evil be so readily seen and excused in the same body? One counteracting the other?

But she has outlined, in an explanatory blog, that her respect for this cleric was limited strictly to his stance on women's treatment under Islamic law, and tribal traditions. Denying her respect extended beyond that. And there's the rub. Does one respect a man who aspires to murder, but who courteously opens doors for women? Is this moral disequilibrium not absolutely insane?

Does it not speak to a fundamental lack of commitment to human rights? And human decency?

As an expert on the Middle East, this seasoned commentator reported and provided analysis about the area for CNN. Much as reporters do who work for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and who also appear all too often to be rather biased. But that's another story. None of them have yet lost their positions. It is to CNN's credit that the statement was issued:

"At this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward."

Listeners and viewers in Canada of the CBC and CBCTV would like a little of that treatment meted out to some of our venerable producers and reporters on the scene.

Labels: Human Relations, Human Rights, United States

posted by Pieface @ Thursday, July 08, 2010