David Horowitz and the Art of Slander
Posted on 30. Apr, 2012 by Lawrence Davidson in Opinion
An Analysis
By Lawrence Davidson
Part I – Slander
On 24 April 2012 the New York Times (NYT) lent its editorial page to the propaganda of right- wing Zionist David Horowitz, thereby taking the "newspaper of record" down into the gutter for the price of a quarter-page advertisement. The ad , which purported to be "a public service" by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, told the following libelous story:
"The Holocaust began with boycotts of Jewish stores and ended with death camps. The calls for a new Holocaust can be heard throughout the Middle East and Europe as well. In the wake of the murders of a rabbi and three children in Toulouse, it is time for the supporters of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel movement (BDS) to ask themselves what they did to contribute to the atmosphere of hate that spawned these and other murders of Jews."
What is wrong with this story?
1. The analogy of BDS with "boycotts of Jewish stores" is (no doubt purposely) misleading. The Boycott movement is directed against Israel as a racist state and the economic and social agents (Jewish and non-Jewish) who support it. If you want a proper analogy to BDS, it is the effort by Jewish and other groups before and during World War II to organize boycotts of Nazi Germany. The notion that the BDS boycotts lead to death camps is fantasy. Whatever the crazy logic of the Nazis on the one hand and David Horowitz on the other, the BDS movement is an effort to prevent persecution and not to promote it.
2. The notion that the BDS movement either "calls for a new Holocaust" or is associated with those supposedly doing so, is nonsense. In reality it is the right-wing Israeli fanatics who are calling for, and actually carrying out their own version of a holocaust against the Palestinians. In the place of concentration camps they have created ghettos and Bantustans. In place of gas chambers they have promoted homelessness, cultural genocide and periodic pogroms. Indeed, the same week Mr. Horowitz placed his ad, Israel launched 57 military raids into Palestinian territory resulting in multiple injuries and death, destroyed at least 13 Palestinian shelters while beginning construction on 20 illegal settler houses. Yet the perpetrators of these crimes persist in portraying themselves as victims because once, under completely different historical circumstances, their ancestors were victims. But that was in the past. In the present the Zionists are the culprits and BDS seeks to bring out this tragic and ironic fact.
3. It is a gross misrepresentation to accuse those supporting BDS of contributing to "the atmosphere of hate that spawned…murder of Jews." The BDS campaign has nothing to do with this atmosphere, but the actions of the Israeli leadership has everything to do with it. With the Zionist persecution of the Palestinians on-going one does not need a boycott movement to explain the upswing of anger. Some may unfortunately fail to make the proper distinction between political Zionists and Jews in general, just like Horowitz and his ilk fail to make the distinction between terrorists and Palestinians in general. Yet, if the Israeli leaders and their supporters want to know where this anger is coming from, they need look no further than their own behavior.
However, they refuse to look. Instead they attempt to confuse matters and shift the blame from fanatic Zionist settlers and racist Israeli politicians onto those who would publicly expose the viciousness of Israeli policies. That is one of the aims of the Horowitz ad in the New York Times and it pursues it in very specific ad hominem fashion. When in November 1938 the Nazis launched the pogroms which became known as Kristallnacht, they painted Jewish stars on the sites to be attacked. In a similar way Horowitz seeks to identify and label those he wishes to be "publically shamed and condemned." What does that mean? Should they lose their jobs just like the Jews who were forced out of their occupations by the Nazis? Should they be segregated out and impoverished like Palestinians? Perhaps Mr Horowitz would applaud physical attacks? Just how Nazi-like does he wish the situation to get?
Part II – The New York Times
William Thomson of the University of Michigan, one of fourteen academics slandered by the Horowitz advertisement, notes that "groups and individuals will resort to unfounded character assassination and ad hominem attacks when reasoned discussion is beyond their abilities." However, the country’s major national newspaper is not suppose to be an accomplice in such attacks. Yet, that is the case.
Ali Abunimah has pointed out that the New York Times has "advertising acceptability guidelines" which require advertisements to "comply with its (the NYT’s) standards of decency and dignity" and not be "misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent." Horowitz’s offering is blatantly all of this. Yet there it was, in the April 24th edition of the "paper of record." Of course Horowitz’s propaganda was placed on the editorial page and not identified as an ad. What are we to make of this? It seems clear that the editors actually believe that the piece meets their standards of acceptability. But is the NYT also telling us that this libel is an acceptable editorial? The entire affair calls into question (not for the first time) the judgment of the people who run this famous newspaper.
Paper III – Conclusion
David Horowitz probably wrote this propaganda piece not only to shift blame, but also to scare people. To frighten those named and scare off others from getting involved in the BDS movement. Yet he may well have overstepped and made himself the subject of critical attention rather than those he rails against. That is what happens when your message reflects a viewpoint that is ideologically driven and fanatical. Cast this viewpoint in a more normal light and it looks weird and distorted.
The 19th century British essayist William Hazlitt once remarked that prejudice can only be convincing when it can pass itself off as reason. This is Horowitz’s rather gross effort to do just that. But identifying those opposed to Israeli behavior with Nazis is wildly unreasonable. Hopefully, at this stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most Americans recognize this to be so.
loading...
5 Responses to “David Horowitz and the Art of Slander”
Leave a Reply
Donations
Join Us
 |
| Subscribe to Opinion Maker |
| Email: |
Rehmat
01. May, 2012
The FAIR magazine selected David Horowitz among the top 12 Islamophobes in 2008. He runs the FrontPage Magazine and regularly writes for the Ziocon media outlets, such as, Washington Times, the Weekly Standard and appears on the Fox News Channel.
In the past, David Horowitz had called professors Edward Said, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein “terrorist”. Dr. Finkelstein has called Horowitz “a political whore”. Last year, Horowitz called Rep. Ron Paul a “crackpot and vicious anti-Semite” for suggesting that $3 billion US annual military aid to Israel should be stopped. Both David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz ran a vicious smear campaign against their fellow Jewish professor Finkelstein and eventually was denied tenure at DePaul University in 2007.
http://rehmat1.com/2011/11/25/rep-ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite/
Afriq
02. May, 2012
"… Finkelstein and eventually was denied tenure at DePaul University in 2007."
How can any BLINKERED org have the gall to call themselves an academia/university?
Finkelstein can thank his "lucky stars" to be denied tenured by such a biased org.
Khalif
02. May, 2012
"Ali Abunimah has pointed out that the New York Times has "advertising acceptability guidelines" which require advertisements to "comply with its (the NYT’s) standards of decency and dignity" and not be "misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent." Horowitz’s offering is blatantly all of this. Yet there it was, in the April 24th edition of the "paper of record." Of course Horowitz’s propaganda was placed on the editorial page and not identified as an ad. What are we to make of this? It seems clear that the editors actually believe that the piece meets their standards of acceptability. But is the NYT also telling us that this libel is an acceptable editorial? The entire affair calls into question (not for the first time) the judgment of the people who run this famous newspaper.
Wow NYT or JYT (jew york times) famous? really? for what?
LIE/FAKE/BIAS/MADE in US news?
these are dime a dozen. they are many things see above but famous, nay.
Dream on what is the zionised BS "keep repeating a lie…….." and people will just switch off/cancel/reject
the Israhelli nazi ideology DOES NOT WORK and will not work
Afriq
02. May, 2012
these slimy UGLY jokers are LOL
BDS is nothing more than a way for the victims of Israhelli inferno to give themselves the only way to PROTECT themselves against the MASSIVE onslaught of vicious barbarity
the only ones creating hate is US/UK + Ishrahell and their vile naTo goons
Khalif
02. May, 2012
BDS
http://www.mathaba.net/news/rss.shtml?x=630329
Defend Palestinian rights! Defend their right to resist! Defend the right to protest! Defend the Melbourne 19 for courageously doing it!
New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies head Vic Alhadeff discussed tactics used. He said they're "not limited to engagement with civil society and politicians, patronage of boycotted outlets, cooperation with police, shop owners and centre managers, and exposure of the motives behind the BDS movement."
Strategy he said should be "speak softly" but carry "a big stick." Police provide big ones but don't "speak softly."
During a July 27, 2011 bail hearing, Victoria police admitted that confrontation was decided before protesters demonstrated. It followed meetings with Zionist organizations, the local government, shopping center management, and Max Brenner.
Palestinian solidarity is criminalized. So is BDS activism. Anyone supporting right over wrong is vulnerable. Doing it publicly may bring fines and jail. It also subjects activists to police brutality. Whether in Melbourne, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, or Jerusalem, criticizing Israel is dangerous.
Tactics used include close monitoring and infiltrating* groups, as well as kettling. It involves confining demonstrations to small areas.
—————————–
*- go to any protest as an individual and you will be plagued by these cancerous infestation “agents”. They “desperately need a wafa sultan, mona elthaway, hussain haqqani, saud idiots, qatar bum bum boys
Play your card and lead these scums a merry dance to nowhere.