The Economist, to put it mildly, is not pro-Israel. The thugs... oops, bloggers to which
The Economist provides its web space, are worse. In response to one of them, I sent a letter to the editor. It was two days ago. I am waiting for its publication with bated breath. Here it is, with the robot's response on top:
>>>The Economist thanks you for your letter, which will be
edited if it is chosen for publication either in print or online. [skipped]
>>>
Dear Editor,
In the Soviet Union, where I came from, anti-Israel
pieces in the newspapers were often published anonymously as editorials. That
was intended, on the one hand, to suggest that the article expressed the Party
line rather than a personal opinion, and, on the other hand, allowed the author
to avoid a personal stigma of antisemitism that, when displayed openly, was
still considered inappropriate in educated circles. I am not sure about the
party line, but it seems that the above
referred article from March 6, 2012 (
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/israel-iran-and-america), took the same approach at least in regard to the cowardly cover of the
author's identity, protecting him/her from the personal mark of Jew-hater. As
it was in the Soviet Union with its relentless anti-Israel/pro-Arab propaganda
largely driven by traditional antisemitism, the article is full of distortions,
as is, for instance, its implication that Israel's control over the territories
is the result of its imperial ambitions, like Britain's or Portugal's. Besides
the absurdity of comparison between the territories obtained for imperial
colonization by those countries and the historically Jewish land captured by
Israel in a defensive war, the author neglects to note that immediately after
hostilities ceased in 1967 Israel offered to return all the territories it
captured - in exchange for peace. The "three 'no's" of the Khartoum
Resolution were the Arab response.
The author brands pathological the Israeli perception of
Iranian threat, when this threat is
unambiguously and repeatedly expressed by the top of Iranian leadership, and it
would be pathological or criminal for Israeli leaders to take that threat in
any other way than on its face value. The "ghetto mentality",
contrary to the author's view, is not the readiness to exercise strength for
self-defense, which the Israeli leaders hopefully have, but cowering in hope that the pogrom mob will miss you,
which the author has reserved for Israelis. The author's derision for Israel,
Israelis and the Jews in general is unmistakable in his/her referring to the
"familiar ideological trope from the Jewish national playbook: the
eliminationist anti-Semite", as if such an antisemite is something
inconceivable, and the elimination of Israel has not been promised by
Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. History teaches that promises like that are not given
in vain.
In the Soviet Union, we had a name for
"anti-Zionist" articles like this, hateful, lying and distorting: a
pogrom paper. Papers like that used to be published on the eve of another
tightening of anti-Jewish and anti-dissident policies. Those papers were usual
for Pravda. It is painful and revolting to see such an article on the pages of
The Economist.