web analytics
April 24, 2014 / 24 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Joseph Farah’

Joseph Farah, Mythbuster

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Joseph Farah the founder and editor of WorldNetDaily, is so solidly and unashamedly pro-Israel that he’s developed something approaching a cult following among pro-Israel Jews. (Yes, “pro-Israel Jews” – it has, unfortunately, become necessary to make that distinction.)

Many of Farah’s columns on the Middle East are e-mailed around the world to be read, downloaded, photocopied and faxed countless times over. A number of them have appeared over the years as Jewish Press op-ed articles.

Here’s Farah back in 2000, alerting readers to a sermon delivered by Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabita, a Gaza-based cleric and former acting rector of Islamic University (typically, the speech was all but ignored by the American media, with the usual exceptions like then-New York Post columnist Rod Dreher):

“If you think you get an accurate idea of what Arab leaders believe when you listen to Hannan Ashrawi interviewed on ‘Nightline’ or on CNN, think again,” wrote Farah, who then quoted extensive portions of Halabita’s tirade, some of which went as follows:

None of the Jews refrain from committing any possible evil…. O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists, are the Jews, who have butchered our children, orphaned them, widowed our women and desecrated our holy places and sacred sites…. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: ‘Fight them; Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them, and will relieve the minds of the believers…. Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them….

It was a column in October 2000, titled “Myths of the Middle East,” that really brought Farah to the Monitor’s attention. In it, Farah gave his readers the sort of history lesson they’d never get from Thomas Friedman or the Haaretz editorial board. It’s worth quoting extensively:

Isn’t it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland? “Well, Farah,” you might say, “that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem.” That’s true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn’t capture these territories from Yasir Arafat. They captured them from Jordan’s King Hussein. I can’t help but wonder why all those Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine.

The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier…. Palestine has never existed – before or since – as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I…. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.”

What about Islam’s holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. Shocked? You should be. I don’t expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It’s just not politically correct.

I know what you’re going to say: “Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam’s third most holy sites.” Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem….

By the way, Farah happens to be an Arab-American who writes from an evangelical Christian perspective. What – you thought a Jew would write like that?

Jason Maoz can be reached at jmaoz@jewishpress.com

Conservative/Liberal Divide Over Israel

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

There is one question readers have asked the Monitor with far greater frequency than any other. It’s a simple one, and it goes basically like this: What is the most important thing you can say about the media after doing a column like this for ten years?

The answer is easy, and it reflects the general direction of American politics in recent decades. With the rarest of exceptions, liberal pundits and liberal publications are less likely to be supportive of Israel than their conservative counterparts. As a matter of fact, it’s not even a close call.

Readers who find that statement to be simplistic or inaccurate are invited to attempt to prove the Monitor wrong, but the evidence is overwhelming: Whereas conservatives, with the exception of some relatively marginal paleoconservatives writing for a handful of mostly obscure web and print outlets, tend to be strongly supportive of Israel and highly skeptical of Arab intentions, almost the exact reverse is true among liberals and leftists.

On the one hand, the most staunchly pro-Israel newspapers, magazines and cable networks — Wall Street Journal, New York Sun, New York Post, National Review, Weekly Standard, Commentary, American Spectator, Fox News — are virtually all on the right side of the political divide. (The New Republic is a unique case: a moderately liberal publication with a generally positive disposition toward Israel.)

On the other hand, those outlets with the most reliably ambivalent or actively hostile take on Israel are almost all found on the liberal-left end of the spectrum — New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, The New Yorker, The Nation, The American Prospect, Harper’s, CNN, etc.

Similarly on the web, just compare conservative sites like Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, FrontPageMag, WorldNetDaily and the like with liberal favorites such as The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Slate (to a somewhat lesser degree) and others of similar mind. The articles posted on the latter sites, and even more so the responses from readers, invariably blame Israel — often in terms so vituperative they seem to have been lifted from neo-Nazi and Islamist sources — for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East while portraying the Palestinians as eternal victims of aggressive, imperialist Israeli policies.

In terms of columnists and commentators, any list of the most consistent supporters of Israel (and by “supporters” the Monitor refuses to take seriously those who affect a pro-Israel label – Tom Friedman, Richard Cohen, et al — while never missing an opportunity to criticize Israel) would include the names of George Will, Cal Thomas, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Joseph Farah, William Kristol, Ralph Peters, John Podhoretz, Jeff Jacoby, Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, Rich Lowry, Jay Nordlinger, and others too numerous to mention here.

There are, of course, liberal pundits whom one can fairly characterize as supportive of Israel, but, as is the case with the aforementioned Friedman and Cohen, that support almost always comes with at least a caveat and criticism or two, an assumption that most if not all criticism of Israel has a basis in fact, and an almost plaintive wish that Israel would act with more understanding and greater restraint.

That such a sharp liberal/conservative media divide exists on the issue of Israel should hardly come as a surprise. For years now, polls have shown conservatives to be much more supportive of Israel than liberals (likewise those Americans who identify themselves as Republicans poll significantly higher than self-described Democrats on support of Israel).

The most reliable indicator of support for Israel, then, is not whether one is Jewish or gentile, or where one lives, or what one does for a living. It’s whether one is conservative or liberal (again, with the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule). Why should journalists and other media types be any different?

Only Jews, by the way, seem not to be in on this open secret, as the vast majority still proudly answer to the liberal label and no doubt will once again pull the Democratic lever this November.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/conservativeliberal-divide-over-israel/2008/07/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: