Free speech is not without consequence. In the United States, for example, criticism of Israel is tantamount to heresy. Former US President Jimmy Carter felt a societal backlash last year after the release of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which condemned Israel’s apartheid-style policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Consequently, and without foundation, Carter was branded by many in the American press as a one-sided, anti-Semitic propagandist. Similarly, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were lambasted for a paper the two co-authored that discussed the power of the Israel lobby and its adverse effect on American policy. Additionally, Norman Finkelstein, an esteemed professor at Depaul University and author of the bestselling book, The Holocaust Industry, witnessed a McCarthyite-style campaign mounted against him when he came up for tenure. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s human rights abuses and of pro-Israel apologist and Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz. Predictably, it was Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure campaign against him; ultimately, Finkelstein was not only denied tenure, but he lost his job at Depaul.
The attacks against Carter, Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer serve as a few well-known examples of the consequences writers and intellectuals face when they breach the line and criticize Israel. Furthermore, the condemnation writers and intellectuals of Arab descent face are invariably higher than Jews of conscience, former presidents, and highly regarded academics. As a result, many writers often acquiesce to the demands of the mainstream. Their self-censorship usually appears in the form of “toning down the message,” be it to please editors or critics—essentially to conform to the reality of purported pragmatism. Yet, this “pragmatism” is a euphemism for acceptance of a repressive status quo and is analogous to the “necessary” practical thinking that silenced a multitude of commentators during the Oslo years—the supposed time of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold Palestinian suffering followed as a result of increased settlement expansion, land confiscation, checkpoints and seizures, and the ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.
Shying away from perceived controversial matters may help to protect a mainstream career, but the intent of a political analyst should not be to produce works of fiction. The vast majority of Americans weren’t open to criticism of US policy during the run-up to the war on Iraq, mainly due to the media’s complicity in promoting the war, but criticism was still the appropriate course of action based on the facts, and Americans would have been better off for it today.
A man who combined principle, activism, and human appeal quite masterfully was distinguished educator and commentator, Edward Said. In the realm of academia and Middle East analysis, Said was by no means viewed as the quintessential radical. Nonetheless, his positions were radical when juxtaposed with “conventional wisdom”: he was a proponent of the one-state solution, an unwavering critic of the Israeli government, and an ardent supporter of the ostensibly controversial right of return. Said was still heavily criticized throughout his career and endured incessant attacks by his detractors, yet his accessible personality and articulate message kept him relevant.
Sadly, Said’s relative acceptance has been the exception rather than the rule. In recent years, there has been increased emphasis on putative pragmatic dialogue. However, this accentuation on so-called rational and balanced thinking has proven to be little more than a sinister means to pressure the oppressed to accept the position of the oppressor. The greatest leaders of the last hundred years didn’t shy away from controversy; they remained persistent, and saw their visions brought to fruition; be they Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi. Nevertheless, one cannot overlook that even paramount figures have been castigated for “overstepping” their boundaries, namely Martin Luther King who was chided for speaking out against the war in Vietnam, imperialism, and social injustices that plagued the US.
This week, Palestinians across the US commemorated 60 years of displacement. Yet, the lens the Palestinian people are expected to look through under the pragmatist vision is one that sees a dispossessed people as necessary victims for a righteous state to take form. Unfortunately, waves of writers and commentators continue to adopt this line in fear of retribution, in exchange for nicer houses and comfortable livings, or a combination of both. That is their free will. Free speech is not without consequence. Nonetheless, losing piece of mind is the only repercussion a writer should fear.
* Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets For Palestine, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com. Remi can be contacted at remroum@gmail.com.
The control of large elements of the Western media by corporations and individuals (eg Rupert Murdoch) does make for an imperfect system and inevitably some viewpoints receive less airtime than others. This is a concern far wider than the issue of how Israel is treated by the media. One must ask whether the BBC's one sided handling of Israel and the middle-east in which the Israeli, British and US forces are consistently portrayed as the villains would draw equal criticism from Mr Kanazi or is it only when Fox and News International give a one-sided agenda that he is upset.
But the author's complaints about unfair treatment of his allies is rather undermined when he describes any opposition as "Israeli apologists". He demonstrates the same disregard for other's views as he denounces his opponents for.
The final issue is this. Mr Kanazi is rightly critical of the apparant limitations on free speech in the American media and academic worlds, but Free speech is enshrined in the US constitution. Do Fatah or Hamas embrace free speech? How many middle-eastern countries have free speech? Westerners living in liberal democracies find it hard to be lectured on free speech by Arabs or Palestinians.
Do you watch al jazeera Arabic ? Everyone has his view spoken out that 's freedom of speech ! I feel so sorry for you taht you cannot understand arabic .
Al Jazeera is widely and (to some extent) correctly identified as being a largely unbiased news agency. Yes I have watched it - using my translator to tell me what exactly is being said (my Arabic is pretty poor). It is fairly basic journalism and no one is really grilled in the manner of a serious western news programme. But that ain't the middle-east - that's one news network. Look at the entertainment section of this website and see how Israel is portrayed in Arabic popular culture.
Western media are overwhelmingly biased in favour of Israel. US corporate media are the worst. Many of them are owned or managed by Zionist sympathisers.
Coverage of the deaths of Israeli civilians is massive and sympathetic. The regular slaughter of Palestinian women and children usually goes unreported. When it is covered Israeli official excuses are reported uncritically.
Surveys have shown that most Britons and Americans believe that the Palestinians occupy Isreli land rather than the reverse. Such absurd views are the result of decades of biased coverage in favour of Israel.
American journalists have been accurately described as "stenographers to power" as was perfectly demonstrated by their reflexive support for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Thus the US legal right to free speech is moot in practice and the truth can only be found by using Internet news sources.
What law was broken in the invasion of Iraq? Seriously - what law? It is the classic conceit of the anti-war lobby to decry anything they dislike as illegal. Actually no law has been broken at all.
Now of course the US has a vast gulag of secret torture prisons where inmates are "disappeared" with no hope even of charges, never mind a trial. A new 40 acre prison is planned for Afghanistan and many prisoners are being transferred to Iraq where lawyers are too frightened to travel. Many prisoners are kept on prison ships - reminiscent of the rotting hulks in Victorian Britain.
The US attacked a TV station in the former Yugoslavia murdering several of its staff - "free speech" according to James in London. He is typical of brainwashed Britons and Americans.
Try reading a newspaper. You'll find that the 'massive bias' towards Israel simply doesn't exist in UK media. Hard to say how the Canadian press handles it - I've not spent much time there. The left wing and liberal press here has adopted a decidedly pro-Palestinian anti-Israel stance over the lats few years. A stance as clearly biased as that of Fox. ULTIMATELY YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. WE HAVE A PRESS THAT CAN EXPRESS SUCH VIEWS.
I notice when Israeli civilians are killed by rockets fired by terrorists these are deaths but when the US attacks a civilian(ish) target its murder. Not much balance there is there?
You are calling the freedom fighters "Terrorists? You have a problem to see straight .Who invaded Palastine? Who Bombed the Hotel inHaifa with the british soldiers inside ? the Zionist state is the terrorist.And they are teaching the american goverment to be like them ,do you know who did 911,and why?
if iwere george bush i would jump in front of tank before i let it hurt anyone--this guy is right guy for job-but he missed------the tank that what he try to do
Free speech is not without consequence. In the United States, for example, criticism of Israel is tantamount to heresy. Former US President Jimmy Carter felt a societal backlash last year after the release of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which condemned Israel’s apartheid-style policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Consequently, and without foundation, Carter was branded by many in the American press as a one-sided, anti-Semitic propagandist. Similarly, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were lambasted for a paper the two co-authored that discussed the power of the Israel lobby and its adverse effect on American policy. Additionally, Norman Finkelstein, an esteemed professor at Depaul University and author of the bestselling book, The Holocaust Industry, witnessed a McCarthyite-style campaign mounted against him when he came up for tenure. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s human rights abuses and of pro-Israel apologist and Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz. Predictably, it was Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure campaign against him; ultimately, Finkelstein was not only denied tenure, but he lost his job at Depaul. 
