Thursday, May 31, 2012

Sharmine Narwani Tossed From HP to Al-Akhbar, Still Hating

The last time we heard from ex-Huffington Post blogger Sharmine Narwani, she was complaining about her former employers at anti-Semitic hate site Veteran's Today, where she has remained ever since. Anyway she is back again in Al-Akhbar repeating her same favorite line: That Israel must be destroyed and the Jewish people should be denied their human rights.

The article has all the usual condescension and rage that we have come to expect from Narwani, along with heavily reliance on Great Anti-Zionist Strawmen and "convenient misunderstandings." And in fact she repeats her previous writings a lot, if you are so inclined you can feel free to compare what she wrote here to what she was writing in the Huffington Post not so long ago. Still, let's take a look at what she brings to the table:
"Of course you couldn’t challenge Israel’s right to exist – that was like saying you were negating a fundamental Jewish right to have…rights, with all manner of Holocaust guilt thrown in for effect."
It isn't "like" saying anything, to see that Israel doesn't have a right to exist is to say that the Jews don't have a right to their own state. That is denying them basic human rights under the Declaration of Human Rights. This adds another level of irony when Narwani and her friends complain about the Palestinian peoples' rights to a state. I'm sorry but if you think the Jewish people should be denied a state but the Palestinian people have a fundamental right to one, you have a prejudice against Jewish people. I don't see how I can be any clearer than that.

Narwani's follow up to this returns to the spitting on the memory of Holocaust victims that we also saw her employ on that bastion of moderation known as the Huffington Post.
"Except of course the Holocaust is not my fault – or that of Palestinians. The cold-blooded program of ethnically cleansing Europe of its Jewish population has been so callously and opportunistically utilized to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arab nation, that it leaves me utterly unmoved. I have even caught myself – shock - rolling my eyes when I hear Holocaust and Israel in the same sentence. [Emphasis mine]"
I don't find Narwani rolling her eyes at the mention of one of history's greatest crimes to be the least bit shocking, actually. After all it didn't happen to her, and we already know that she doesn't consider Jewish lives to be as valuable as the lives of Arabs. That being said I would have appreciated a little less reliance on the Second Great Anti-Zionist Strawman. The Palestinians and the Arabs have only ever suffered the consequences of their own actions, including collaboration with the Nazis, a footnote of history that Ms. Narwani would rather everyone ignore, though I can't imagine she isn't aware of it.

That being said let's move along as Narwani keeps the victim train rolling. At this point she reiterates the tired Arab cliche that Jews are European invaders, ignoring the problematic truth that more than half of Israel's Jewish population come from those "tolerant" Arab nations that ethnically cleansed them. After ignoring the problems on the Arab side, Narwani moves on to full on denial:
"But what is truly frightening is the psychological manipulation of the masses into believing that Palestinians are somehow dangerous – “terrorists” intent on “driving Jews into the sea.” As someone who makes a living through words, I find the use of language in creating perceptions to be intriguing."
Yes, let's ask the Fogel family if the Palestinians are dangerous.

Just kidding, we don't even have to ask them. Let's ask the Palestinians themselves:
“We will not lay down our weapons until complete liberation... Sooner or later we will throw the Zionists into the sea.”- Lt. Col. Munir Maqdah, PLO commander in Lebanon(Reuters, October 8, 1993)
If Ms. Narwani would like to pretend that this quote is fake, "out of context," or somehow doesn't mean exactly what it appears to mean, I am completely open to hearing her point of view. And then when she is finished I have a page more of them for her to work on.

The meat of her article is then copy and pasted from her former writings when she still had some kind of relevance, and then goes into a long hate filled rant about how Israel is about to collapse and is doomed to destruction. It almost sounds like Nasser. Here's a small sample just so you know where she is coming from.
"Israel is a failed experiment. It is on life-support – pull those three plugs and it is a cadaver, living only in the minds of some seriously deluded foreigners who thought they could pull off the heist of the century."
(And she wasn't referring to her career when she wrote that, folks.)

 Okay so now that we have established her goals, check out another comment made further in the article:
"For anti-Semites salivating over an article that slams Israel, ply your trade elsewhere – you are part of the reason this problem exists."
Now this I simply don't understand. She suggests that we look elsewhere for an article that "slams Israel," but the entire point of this article is that Israel shouldn't exist and should never have existed. If that isn't "slamming," then the term means nothing and she should not have used it. That being said, I doubt that her antagonism toward anti-Semites (notice how she didn't attempt the "Arabs are Semites" defense) is in the least bit sincere. If she really didn't like anti-Semitism then she wouldn't be writing on Veteran's Today, one of the most notorious hate sites currently existing. Then again maybe she would, since her career seems to have taken a turn for the worst since she and Arianna appear to have parted ways.

Anyway we also get her attempted defense against any accusations of anti-Semitism, cribbing from herself yet again.:
"And no, nobody hates Jews. That is the fallback argument screeched in our ears – the one “firewall” remaining to protect this Israeli Frankenstein. I don’t even care enough to insert the caveats that are supposed to prove I don’t hate Jews. It is not a provable point, and frankly, it is a straw man of an argument. If Jews who didn’t live through the Holocaust still feel the pain of it, then take that up with the Germans. Demand a sizeable plot of land in Germany – and good luck to you."
Um, if nobody hates Jews than who are the "anti-Semites" you referred to a second ago? Did you mean "anti-Zionists?" Oh, this is confusing.

Anyway, I don't think I need to say anything more on Sharmine Narwani's relationship with Jews. Go check our history and you will find her holding them to a different standard, denying them their rights, Nazi-baiting, Holocaust-baiting (including this article), justifying their murder, and of course lying about their history. If she thinks that this only comes from a position of "criticism" of Israel, she isn't fooling anybody.  She has used the term "Jews" as opposed to "Zionists" or "Israelis" enough that we know exactly where she is coming from. I have a feeling that she only says that she isn't going to defend herself because she knows she can't, and if she did it would probably be "my best friends are Jews."

So after declaring that Israel must "die," and repeating Helen Thomas remarks that the Israelis should go back home to Europe, Narwani signs off to the rings of cheers from Veteran's Today and Al-Akhabar readers. Still, at least she wasn't on the Huffington Post. Not that the readers there would have received the article any differently.

1 comment:

  1. Al-Akhbar, is the same rag that publishes Max Blumenthal(no surprise there, surely), and now sports an article that, quote, reads, "We don't know who perpetrated the Houla massacre, but it's clear that both sides are guilty(!), and, in any case, let's not give any justification for western action...", and I'd add, "to stop the carnage".
    I think she'll settle rather cozily in there, with the bandwagon of gratuitous anti-Semites(and with VeteransToday too, I think her resume for that position is quite complete!).


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.