[PREV - GLASS_BUBBLE] [TOP]
SMEAR_THE_MESSENGER
November 14-19, 2006
There is, as it happens, a
relatively famous Robert Fisk And you should probably
column from back in 2001... *read it* before looking
at one more damn piece
of commentary:
http://www.counterpunch.org/fiskbeaten.html
He writes about an incident where he
had been beaten by a mob of Afghan
refugees -- in this article he
expresses sympathy for his attackers;
he claims that he can see how were he
in their place he would want to do
the same thing -- beating up any
Westerner he could find.
This was seized on by conservative
critics -- here we have a prime
example of "the cult of victimology"
at work, eh?
And isn't there a double-standard, here?
Making excuses for violence when it's After all we would not be
done by one side, but not by the other inclined to give Israel a
pass for killing Islamic
The trouble is that people at random, right?
Fisk *does not say However understandable
this*. The idea that Israel's fear and
he thinks his beating frustration might be, we
was justified is expect them to be able to
completely wrong. rise above it. Don't we?
And let's consider some
other possible readings.
Let us imagine for a
moment that it was
written by a Christian
priest rather than a
liberal reporter:
suddenly we have a sermon
about "turning the other
check" and "loving one's
enemies", and so on.
Would the chorus of
conservative critics
be quite so loud?
The closing lines are oft-quoted:
"If I was an Afghan refugee in
Kila Abdullah, I would have done
just what they did. I would have
attacked Robert Fisk. Or any
other Westerner I could find."
In an earlier line, however, he makes
clear that he does not believe the
attack was justified:
The key, oft-ignored
"And -- I realised -- there were all phrase:
the Afghan men and boys who had
attacked me who should never have "who should
done so but whose brutality was never have
entirely the product of others, of us --" done so"
Even the people who
quote this line try
to pretend that that
phrase isn't there.
What he appears to be saying
here is that their actions are
"understandable", he is *not*
saying that they're "justified".
COWARDLY_LIONIZED
Why is it that conservatives
have so much trouble There were similar go
with this distinction? rounds after the 9/11
attack -- one side
moaning "Why do they
UNDERSTAND_JUSTICE hate us so?", and then
getting angry at any
attempt to answer.
Further: there really is a
need to see the point of SWORD_OR_SHIELD
view of the victims of the
world's grand affairs.
The message in this Fisk
essay is a bit muddied --
but only a bit.
Who is the victim
precisely? Does Fisk ask Fisk is a British
us to grant him a writer, and an older
privileged position guy -- he doesn't know
because he's been how to cover his back
victimized? from right-wing
internet hatchet men.
Well: certainly I do.
I respect Fisk much
more than his armchair
critics.
TOUGH_TO_BE_TOUGH
Andrew Sullivan, "The Pathology of Robert Fisk":
http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_12_09_dish_archive.html#7786744
The accusation against Fisk of
"racism" or even of apologizing
for racism, is clearly way off
base...
The gyrations that Sullivan goes
through to get from what Fisk said
to an accusation of racism really
should be laughable -- the fact
that anyone took it seriously
shows that we're in really
sad shape.
Briefly: the idea seems to be that
Fisk refused to blame his attackers
because they have brown skin.
Even if you buy the idea that
Fisk is handing out "a priori
absolution" to these folks, he
would be doing it because of
*what was done to them*. Their
skin color has nothing to do
with it, except in Sullivan's
mind.
Allow us to review:
Nineteen fanatics from Saudi
Arabia get in a lucky hit on START_THE_CLOCK
the World Trade Center.
Thousands of people are
killed because they're in
the wrong nation at the
wrong time.
The ring leader of the fanatics
is (supposedly) hiding out in
Afghanistan whose government
refuses extradition requests.
So the United States goes
beserk bombing this place.
thousands of people are
killed because they're in
the wrong nation at the
wrong time.
Attacking innocent
Then, we've got a mob of refugees people is apparently
who've just had to run from their a dreadful crime, but
homes because of this mess. only under some
narrow circumstances
And they see a fellow who is that I have trouble
clearly a Westerner, and they go comprehending.
crazy attacking him, because he
happens to be from the wrong If it was okay for
country at the wrong time. Western countries
to bomb Afghanistan,
why is it so terrible
for an Afghan mob to
Robert Fisk's first worry when attack a Western guy?
plunged into this situation -- once
it's clear that he's going to get If the latter was
out alive -- is that people may "racist", then
look at this attack and use it for why not the former?
some kind of justification for
reprisals against the Afghans.
And there you have it,
the "pathology" of
Robert Fisk.
How dare he have a longer
perspective than allowed
by our brave, patriotic,
armchair hawks.
--------
[NEXT - THE_TRUE_FISK]