Regarding Robert Fisk
by Peter Pan
Apparently, there are consorted efforts by some pro-Arab writers and journalists, to rewrite the region’s present and history, mingling facts with fictions, twisting the truth at every turn, and taking sides with the devil to serve their sole purpose: The elimination of the Christian and Jewish societies from the near-east.The two foremost leaders of this movement are Robert Fisk, an English journalist/writer reporting for the Independent, and Jonathan Randal, the former Washington Post and New York Times reporter.In this article, I will highlight some of the fallacies and malicious propaganda that Robert Fisk wrote about the Near and the Middle Eastern situation..ProfileBorn and educated in England, Robert Fisk, is currently living in Beirut. He is the Middle East correspondent for the London Independent . Has a Ph.D. in Political Science from Trinity College, Dublin (1985) and has received an honorary degree in Journalism from the University of Lancaster. He was the Irish correspondent of the London "Times" based in Belfast between 1971 and 1975. From 1976 till present he has been reporting from the Middle East. He has covered the Israeli invasions of Lebanon (1978 and 1982), the Iranian Revolution (1979), the Iran-Iraq war (1980 - 1988), The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980), The Gulf war (1991), the war in Bosnia (1992 - 1996) and the Algerian conflict (1992 - onward).He has been the recipient of: Amnesty International Overall Media Award, 1998.British International Journalist of the Year Award (7 times, most recently in 1995 and 1996).United Nations Press Award, 1986.Johns Hopkins SIAS-CIBA prize for international journalism, 1996.Some of his works:Pity the nation: Lebanon at war - 1992.Pity the nation: the abduction of Lebanon - 1990.In time of war: Ireland, Ulster, and the price of neutrality -1939-45.From all of the above, we should understand that we have a master of his craft at work, doing what he does best, to convey his political views to the masses in the English-speaking world, at the detriment of all whom he thinks are of the enemies of his just cause.Unfortunately, for some vague reasons, Dr Fisk seems to have embraced a pan-Arabic, pro-Palestinian and Leftist stand that no events, including terrorism, seems to shake his believes. A closer look at some of his work will reveal the web of conceits that Dr Fisk seems to be weaving in the area of the world. Robert Fisk, stationed in Beirut since 1976, wrote the following:“The seeds for the seemingly unending Lebanese conflict were sown in the 1920s, when the French, ignoring the people's wishes to remain Syrian, drew the country's borders so as to separate it from Syria. Ever since, Lebanese have fought over their identity. "How we love drawing lines on maps, we Westerners. How easily we support nations of convenience, Britain's failure to resolve what Churchill called the "hell-disaster" of Palestine produced Israel, which created the refugees in Lebanon and, for the Maronites, the provocation for civil war. – Robert Fisk”1- So the people of Lebanon wished to remain Syrians!!! I wonder from where Mr. Fisk got this information?2- The Maronites started the war in Lebanon against the innocent Palestinians. They went to war against refugees! No mention of Terrorist attacks against the government, no mention of the “Forced” Cairo agreement, no mention of Fatahland or the ipso-facto government of the Palestinians in Lebanon.Another piece of Mr. Fisk garbage:“The Taif agreement, which was supposed to radically overhaul the system, "provided first aid relief, Band-Aids on the worst Lebanese sores." The agreement did not change the basic power dynamics among the various political factions.”So according to Mr. Fisk, the Taef agrrement did not change the power dynamics! I wonder what was the fuss about then! I wonder where was he when the huge power shift happened during the 1990s!Still better to come from the master’s pen…“The Lebanese, who lost 150,000 citizens in the long and destructive civil war, still refuse to admit their responsibility for the conflict, which they call, the war of the other. Everyone--Israel, America, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the United Nations, the Palestinians--was responsible" for it, except for the Lebanese themselves”Well, there is a small degree of truth, but Fisk in all his writings, refused to blame Syria, the Arabs or the Palestinians for anything that happened in Lebanon.Of all the massacres that happened on Lebanese soil, the only two that Fisk keeps on reminding the world about are “Sabra and Chatila” and “Qana”; whilst there is nothing wrong with standing for injustice, however Robert Fisk injustice seems very narrowly focused and “anti-Christian”, “anti-Rightist” and “anti-Capitalist”. Robert Fisk never directly mentions the Syrians Intervention or Occupation of Lebanon, and whenever he does, he blames the Maronites. Similarly, not a word about the massacres of Damour (582), The Mountain (1500), When Kamal Jumblat was assassinated (177), etc…In another extract from a recent Robert Fisk article title "'Smoking them out' is not new in the Middle East, he states the following:"Lebanon's 16-year civil war, there were many successful attempts to assassinate heads of state and others. The Druze leader, Kemal Jumblatt, the Prime Minister, Rashid Karami, the President, Rene Mouawad, and the Christian Maronite politician Dany Chamoun were all murdered by gunmen; in Jumblatt's case, many Lebanese blamed Syrian agents for the assassination, while the others may have been killed by right-wing Christian organizations. "The article is explaining that assassination is not new in the ME, and this was the only mention to Lebanon.If someone needs a lesson about Robert Fisk loyalties and Truthfulness, follow my points:1- Robert Fisk, the expert in Lebanese Politics, does not know who killed Kamal Jumblat, it is only speculation according to him.2- the martyr of all Martyrs, Cheich Bashir Gemayel is not mentioned. Probably because he never existed according to Robert Fisk.3-Right wing Chritians one killed Mouawad or Chamoun!! Wow, he seems to be the only person to know something! I think Addoum needs to use his expertise in "criminology" to frame the remaining Right-wing students.4- No mentions of Mufti Hassan Khaled, Foreign Ambassadors, Riad Taha, etc... No Syrians, Palestinians or, God forbid, left-wing to blame.Robert Fisk attitude towards Lebanon is that it should have never existed, the Christians are cancerous cells that should be exposed (especially the Maronites) and everything that is leftist, pro-Islamic or even Fanatic Islam is cool.Robert Fisk attitudes towards the west are not any better, anything Christian or capitalist is to be condemned, and anything that “Pacifies” the aggressors are welcome.Taking a closer look at the lies and smokescreens that Dr Fisk is trying to feed his readers will reveal the man’s deceit and dishonest purposes. From a very recent article that R.Fisk wrote, titled “Slaughter of the innocent bolsters view that this is war against Islam”, he is lamenting the “human collateral damages” of the wars by saying:“In Baghdad we had the bunker where our missile fried more than 300 people to death. In Kosovo we had a refugee column torn to pieces by our bombs. Now in Afghanistan, a village called Karam is our latest massacre.”Furthermore, Mr Fisk is putting the sole blame on the Western Powers and NATO:“We start shooting with "smart" weapons after our journalists and generals have told us of their sophistication. Their press conferences produce monochrome snapshots of bloodless airbase runways with little holes sprinkled across the apron. "A successful night," they used to say, after bombing Serbia. They said that again last week and no one – until of course we splatter civilians – suggests going to war involves killing innocent people. It does. That is why the military invented that repulsive and morally shameful phrase "collateral damage". And they are always ready to smear the reporters on the ground.”Taking this article and having a close analysis will reveal the following traps:· The title is about a war against Islam not against terrorism, the argument is that if in any military action, you have some innocents killed, then you should be targeting their faith, and that’s only when they are a Muslim. · Military powers should make no mistakes, in case of ground troops, do not open fire at your opponent, until you are dead by his weapons, then and only then you are assured that he is not innocent. In case of areal strikes, you have to fly your plane inside the hangars to check that it is really a weapons depot, and then, only then, you can drop your bombs.Mr Fisk, found that convoy in Kosovo, as the only worthwhile subject to write about; as to why Ben Laden’s troops were helping their Muslim brethrens in Kosovo, or Why 300 historical Christian monuments were destroyed with hate by the Muslims with total indifference and why is it that the names of all the neighbouring localities carry a Slavic name ever since the inception of time.·The aggressor seems to be the non-Muslims in all of these situations; there is nothing wrong with Iraq invading Kuwait, or Serbians and Albanians threatening the world security, or Ben Laden slaughtering 4000 innocent victims in NY and Washington. Robert Fisk argument is similar to Chamberlain in 1936-1938, dealing with Hitler, feed the beast and avoid confrontation at all cost.Even when Dr Fisk came close to death and got beaten badly by mullahs in Afghanistan, he found a way to switch the blame back on the Americans! It was because of their aggression, tracking down the peaceful Talibans and Qaeda members, that the mullahs frustration translated into a hiding second to none.Robert Fisk, Jonathan Randal and above all Noam Chomski are cool to read, especially amongst the “self-appointed” Intelligencia and Academia of this world… The more you are to the left the better your prospect of being accepted amongst the Journalistic and new-age amateur historian! Most recently, Michael Moore is trying to outdo them all, he’s got a powerful weapon in the Hollywood propaganda of the school-dropouts, twisted personalities and drug-stoned! There are definitely some good points that the above-mentioned writers highlight and pursue, reading any opinionated book is always helpful and educational, however the major point is that history is becoming more and more subjective and personal; the old adage about “History being written by the victor” is now superseded by so many other sub-mottos, victors can be replaced by a plethora of different subjects, from those who have the money to those who have an agenda! Take your pick….
Peter Pan