On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Jon Gabriel wrote: > Why Europe Sides > Against the Jews > Commentary by Michael Elliot for TIME.com
OK, here's a perfect example of an article I find singularly unhelpful. The author's reminiscences are OK as reminiscences go, and the part about Europe's colonial guilt and superior press coverage of Palestinian suffering is useful information, but then the reporter stops behaving like a reporter and starts damning with innuendo. The last paragraph... > So why do Europeans and Americans see the Middle East in such different > ways? Above all, because the shadow and shame of the Holocaust reaches out > of the past and lays a cold hand on our present understanding. All the > prayers in the world won't make that grim truth go away. ...is a perfect example of bullshit for bullshit's sake. OF COURSE "the shadow and the shame of the Holocaust reaches out...." But what net effect does it have and why? Why does colonial shame trump Holocaust shame and not the reverse, if that's what the author means? He quotes another reporter's assertion that Europe is willing to be complicit in murdering more Jews, but he doesn't present the reasoning behind the claim, doesn't examine it...just presents it as a given truth, as though an editorial is true just because he agrees with it. The author's not arguing or defending a point of view. He's shaking his head and saying, "Tsk tsk! Bad Europeans!" in print. He's generating heat but he's not shedding any light. He offers two rational reasons for Europe to feel more sympathy for Palestinians than Americans do, and then he obscures that with the implication that because Europe -- as though "Europe" is a sufficiently precise synonym for Nazi Germany -- committed a Holocaust once, "Europe" must be willing to commit another one now. He abandons the job of offering an explanation and just gives us libel. Ugh. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
