This is the second part of a post I began here.
For sheer hypocrisy, you can't beat today's Haaretz.com.
It contains an article (includes embedded video which loads automatically, so if you have a slow connection you might not want to go there) about a Hamas summer camp that allegedly teaches children to hate and kill Israelis and Americans. Now, reasonable people - regardless of where they stand on the I/P issue - have to recognize that indoctrinating children to hate is always wrong. Denouncing racial incitement is a no-brainer we can all agree on, right?
Well no, not all of us. For instance, Ha'aretz.com itself seems rather equivocal about what it feels on this subject. Obviously, it doesn't like it when the incitement is against Israelis - otherwise it wouldn't have run the report on the Hamas summer camp - but how outraged do you think Ha'aretz.com would be by racist incitement against certain other groups of people? For example, if there were an organization that incited against say, Arabs, and even went so far as to advocate the elimination of the Arab population of Israel and the Occupied Territories, what might Ha'aretz.com make of that?
Well, you don't have to go far to find out. In fact, you only have to go as far as the main advertisement on the very web page where Haaretz.com reports on the Hamas summer camp.
That advert about "saving Jewish babies" links to a Web page advertising the activities of Efrat, an organization I mentioned in my prior post on this subject, which works to prevent the aborting of specifically Jewish fetuses in order to counter the "demographic threat" posed to the "Jewish state" by the birthrate among the Palestinian population.
But look closely at the url for that Efrat ad, and you'll see the ad in Haaretz.com doesn't link to Efrat itself, but to a page about Efrat on "Samson Blinded", a web site I also wrote about in my earlier post, which advocates "the total destruction of the Palestinian people, the murder of large numbers of Muslim civilians, the assassination of the family members of Arab rulers, and the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against dozens of countries."
If you can stomach it, explore for a while the Samson Blinded web site that Ha'aretz has been taking advertising revenue from for at least the last nine months. How do you like this page for example (h/t palestine think tank), on the subject of Palestinians as cockroaches?
On the practical plane, goodness doesn’t matter. Our actions toward Arabs are evil. People pursue self-interest which, in the case of Israel’s right, only incidentally correlates with the divine goodness of Torah. Roaches are not happy when we squash them. They are unthreatening, but merely aesthetically detestable. Arabs, likewise, suffer through no guilt of their own. They are good, but still have to be evicted from Israel for the Jewish good.
Judaism resents hunting because animals have to be killed for food properly, with respect for their lives. Stone Age people enjoyed hunting because it gave them food; modern hunting is recreational. Enjoyment of murder, even of animal, is unethical. There is nothing wrong with Arabs. They lived their lives on the hills which they plowed for generations when Jews came to their country. Naturally, the Arabs fought back – not because of the European Judophobism, but as normal people who resist their country usurped by aliens; it’s a pity that Jews are less normal than Arabs and accept that Arabs breed to become a majority in Israel. Jews have to push the Arabs out and inflict suffering. That’s regrettable, but there’s no choice: as we need food to sustain bodies, we also need sovereignty to sustain our communal body. We “hunt” the Arabs without enjoying it - just because we have to live in a state of our own.
And just in case you're in any doubt about Samson Blinded's remedy for the presence of Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories, they've illustrated it for you:
Ha'aretz.com knows very well the ideological position of Samson Blinded. It was pointed out to them in June when ei contacted them about an earlier ad from the same organization that ran on Ha'aretz.com's front page. And yet here they still are, week after week, month after month, lining their pockets with ad revenue from a sponsor that advocates racial hatred and the elimination of Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied Territories. They're even running those ads as accompaniment to an article that decries racist incitement on the part of Hamas! Even if no-one at Ha'aretz.com has the decency to be offended by the crude racism behind these ads, you'd think that someone on the payroll would have enough of a sense of irony to see the absurdity of placing them on a page supposedly decrying racist incitement.
Osnat Kohali, the manager of Haaretz.com, answered ei's query by saying that the newspaper and its website have a clear policy of no "incitement against any side", but also offered as a defense the fact that the openly racist, genocidal stuff was only at Samson Blinded's web site, not in the actual ads that Ha'aretz.com runs (though the ads of course link directly back to the web site). Well, pardon my French, but I think the correct legal term for that line of defense is "dissembling bullshit".
I think it is absurd for Ha'aretz.com to suggest that the contents of the web sites it advertises are none of its concern just so long as the ads themselves are not inciting or genocidal. I don't believe for a minute Haaretz.com would use that defense if an organization that incited against Jewish people were to approach them with an ad they wanted to place in the on-line edition. How about if I were planning to release on DVD the notorious anti-Semitic propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, and I was looking for someone to advertise my web site, which happened to carry stills from the movie:
"In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, they [the Jewish people] spread from Eastern Europe like an irresistable tide, flooding the towns and nations of Europe - in fact, the entire world."
"Wherever rats appear they bring ruin, by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs."
"In this way, they (the rats) spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on."
"They are cunning, cowardly, and cruel, and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction -
- just like the Jews among human beings."
Do you think Haaretz.com would accept ads for my website? OK, the web site itself depicts Jewish people as vermin, but I could make the ads themselves less offensive than the web site they link back to, so Ha'aretz would be all right with that, wouldn't they?
My ass, they would. I don't believe for a minute that Haaretz.com would run ads to a web site portraying Jewish people as "rats" who must be eliminated, just so long as the actual ads themselves didn't openly depict Jewish people as vermin. Nor do I think they should. But then why is Ha'aretz - "liberal", "progressive", opinion-forming Ha'aretz - collecting ad revenue from a web site that portrays Palestinian people literally as vermin?