Home
Who we are
Our Agenda
 

Latest News
Good & Bad News

101 Palestinian History
Link & Resources
The Valley Galleria
nileMedia Reader
 

Archives
Contribute
Join US
Contact Us

February 03, 2002
What Is Wrong With Bernard Lewis's History

By Ahmed Amr.
Editor

 
 

On June 21.1995, Bernard Lewis, was condemned in a French court decision for statements he made denying the Armenian genocide. Part of the ruling read that "The historian is bound by his responsibility toward the persons concerned when, by distortion or falsification, he credits the veracity of manifestly erroneous allegations, or through serious negligence, omits events or opinions subscribed to by persons qualified and enlightened enough so that the concern of accuracy prevents him from keeping silent about them".

Yet this Princeton professor is still labeled as a "distinguished historian of the Islamic, Arabic and Middle Eastern worlds." Now, who would make a mistake like that? How about Paul Kennedy in a book review for the New York Times (NYT, 1/27/2002). The book in question is "What Went Wrong?" which is billed by Kennedy as "a concise study of the Muslim world's responses to the West and of its own long, sad decline."

Bernard Lewis is a professional defamer of Islam, a vile and indecent specimen of what passes for intellectual integrity at The New York Times, the daily ruse. Kennedy markets him as a legitimate 'expert' on the "Muslim world -- its history, literature, culture". Bernard's real expertise is in giving academic respectability to Israeli propaganda and Yiddish supremacist chauvinism.

Lewis is a deranged advocate of repression who never passes up a chance to denigrate the Palestinians and make light of their suffering. As a life-long Zionist operative, Lewis has finessed all kinds of ways to explain away every act of Israeli terror against the native people of the Holy Land. His basic message is that the repression of Palestinians is necessary because they are culturally incapable of living in a democratic society. By his logic, the Israeli occupation is good because it adminsters a people who would otherwise have a dismal future as failed democrats because of the 'flaws of their culture and religion'. As a Jew, you would think that Lewis would have something to explain about how every major American Jewish organization has aligned itself with the policies of a thug like Ariel Sharon. Is this a reflection of Jewish values, of Jewish culture, of Jewish tradition? Yiddish supremacists like Lewis consider such questions impertinent.

But let us pursue Lewis's line of reasoning. Osama Bin Laden claims to be a Muslim warrior. He has committed atrocities that are considered war crimes under international law, not to mention under Islamic law. This leads Lewis to conclude that Islam is the problem and the Middle East will continue in "a downward spiral of hate, spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression." Note that this alleged historian's conclusions apply to 1.2 billion muslims based on the actions of a very radical marginal fringe group that is statistically insignificant.

Now let us consider Israel and New York, where a very large percentage of the world's fifteen million Jews live. Israel, the only majority Jewish state in the world is, bydemocratic choice, a racist repressive apartheid country that has conducted a belligerent thirty five year occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The Israeli Army also ravaged Lebanon for over two decades until they withdrew under pressure from the Lebanese resistance. It is no secret that Israel practices torture, collective punishment, assassinates the leaders of the Palestinian resistance, demolishes family homes, kills unarmed women and children by the hundreds, illegally steals native land, constructs exclusive Jewish settlements and exclusive Jewish roads, invades its neighbors, has bombed entire cities to rubble, has exiled native people based on their profession of faith and consistently elects war criminals like Begin, Shamir and Sharon. Yet Lewis thinks the Palestinians deserve what they are getting because their 'cultural' response is full of "hate, spite, rage and self,-pity."

Of course, intellectual scoundrels like Lewis are a dime a dozen in New York and Princeton, both central hubs of Yiddish supremacy. They wax eloquent about 'freedom and democracy' while working hand in glove with the Israeli government to make sure that no single Palestinian will ever taste liberty. No cultural anthropologist can deny that the Palestinians have developed, in exile and under occupation, one of the most secular societies outside of Europe and North America. They embrace modernity, pursue education for both sexes with a zeal matched only by the South Koreans, have family values that have enabled them to endure systematic Israeli brutality and are some of the most cultured people on the planet. This is of no import to Lewis who uses every opportunity to jump on Sharon's defamation band-wagon and equates the Palestinians with the Taliban.

Lewis needs to explain why as an 'expert' he failed to notice the war crimes of Ariel Sharon at Qibya and Sabra and Shatilla. Like Sulzberger, Thomas Friedman and The New York Times; in the tradition of their fellow Yiddish supremacists at the Washington Post; these 'experts' do not care to discuss the record of their war criminal cousins in Tel Aviv. In fact, in the most successful single act of mass media deception, Sharon's criminal past is never mentioned by any of Sulzberger's minions. These are the same actors who made an international scandal because a right-wing xenophobe, Jorge Haider, was allowed into an Austrian coalition government. When the subject of Israeli repression comes up, they suddenly want to talk about the Super Bowl or baseball or ENRON.

Sharon will visit Washington next week to dictate new terms to the Bush administration. Lewis, Sulzberger and the rest of the Israel Firsters are already laying down the red carpet. CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS and ABC will all be covering "the Axis of Evil" while marketing Sharon as the only 'democratic' ally of America in the Middle East, a bulwark against "the hate and spite, rage and self-pity" that 'plague' the Middle East. If Bush steps out of line with Sharon, the Yiddish supremacists will turn up the volume on ENRON, like they had nothing to do with marketing ENRON and a hundred other scams.

There is no other way to market the Israeli agenda except to project and make legitimate the overt bigotry of Israeli society. In Osama Bin Laden, the Yiddish supremacists have found a scarlet letter that they will pin to the entire Muslim and Arab World for all the mileage they can get. Lewis is an academic 'icon' among the Yiddish supremacists. They pass him off as a legitimate historian, because of the volumes of defamation he has managed to squeeze into one life-time of academic falsification. Is it not fair to ask why so many of America's prominent Jewish intellectuals have militantly supported a thug like Sharon? What went wrong with Jewish culture that it has appears to have entered 'a downward spiral' of blind worship of the state of Israel and any war criminal thug they happen to elect as Prime Minister?