Why did the Christian Science Monitor call Ilan Pappe a “historian,” and give him an unchallenged megaphone to malign Israel in an interview about his book, “The Biggest Prison on Earth,” (referring, of course, to Israel)?
Ilan Pappe is no “historian.”
But that’s not my opinion: it’s actually his.
Ilan Pappe has long acknowledged that he is not objective and cares little about factual accuracy. He readily admits that ideology drives his historical writings and statements. And his ideology can be simply summed up: Israel is illegitimate and should be the target of international sanctions until it is dismantled as a Jewish state.
A “historian” driven by agenda (instead of objective research) is like a doctor who doesn’t believe in science, or a paleontologist who doesn’t believe in fossils. It is simply antithetical to the profession.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
In his interview, Pappe says that the “occupied territories” are “the ultimate maximum security prison” and that Israel (all of Israel) is a “settler colonial project.” In language similar to that used by terror groups such as Hamas, Pappe refers to Palestinians as “natives,” and to Israelis (all Israelis) as “settlers” who are characterized by “tyranny, bigotism, religious fanaticism, and racism.” Pappe even expresses his support for Palestinian “popular resistance,” which is typically understood by its Palestinian perpetrators to be a euphemism for terrorism against Jews.
Pappe’s interviewer from the Christian Science Monitor, Steve Donoghue, did not challenge Pappe’s factually absurd, hateful and frequently racist assertions: not even once.
On the other hand, when Donoghue reviewed a biography of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by highly regarded Israeli journalist Ben Caspit, he did not give the author a platform to speak on his own behalf. Instead, he called Caspit’s work, “caustic,” and an “account that readers would expect to come from a working journalist rather than a professional historian.” Donoghue did not give Caspit an opportunity to respond, much less an unchecked megaphone as he did with Pappe.
Why the double standard?
Why does CSM tolerate applying one standard of review to books that condemn Israel, while applying an entirely different standard to books that are even moderately supportive? Why does it tolerate Donoghue providing an unchecked megaphone for Ilan Pappe to spout vitriol under the guise of legitimate “history?”
Christian Science Monitor and Donoghue have misled their readers and applied double standards in order to malign the State of Israel. Even in a book review, such behavior contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a journalist.
Share your considered comments with Christian Science Monitor by clicking THIS LINK and then clicking the link at the bottom of their page (after the article) entitled “Give us your feedback, please.”
Image of Pappe via YouTube/The Real News;
