Playing with Words and Clues

I started playing this game long ago when I noticed how often journalists refer to something as “controversial” when they (their masters, that is) want to make it look undesirable. In some contexts – such as religion or sociology or historical studies -- certain words, such as “controversial”, were almost sure to be followed with references to what might be described as Jewish concerns. Also, when the “news” repeatedly reports something which seems oddly out of proportion to its importance – for example when a movie in the making gets tremendously more coverage than other films, or a celebrity’s DUI arrest is headlined repeatedly (e.g. Mel Gibson) -- there will very often be something of “Jewish concern” under the surface. When I saw the incredible amount of coverage being given to filmmaker Gibson’s drunk driving offense and something unspecified he said to a law officer, my antennae went up and in a couple of days I saw for the first time a reference to his “antisemitic rant”. There were even complaints that the sheriff's office had not publicized the ever so important anti-Jewish remarks earlier!

An early example: While I was living in England in the early 1970’s, it was impossible to overlook that the British government was harassing and persecuting Scientologists, who had an international campus in the south of England. I knew enough about Scientology that I could see no reason why they should be singled out for such blatantly unfair treatment. And so I played my word game, watching for clues in the newspapers, and soon found, “Accusations of Anti-Semitism: Scientology Teaches Power of International Bankers.” The item went on to explain that “international bankers” is a code word for “Jews”. Huh? What if you’re really talking about international bankers?

In the article which follows, as soon as I saw the word “controversial” in the first paragraph I guessed correctly that some reference to Jews would ensue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-07-latin-mass_N.htm?csp=15

‘VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday formally made the majestic, complex and controversial millennial-old Latin Mass more accessible to Catholics, who have said the Mass in their modern local languages for four decades.

‘ . . . many church leaders are opposed to restoring and expanding a Mass they say . . . includes an offensive Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, asking God to lift their "blindness." . . . Criticism also came from Jewish leaders, unhappy with the restoration of a prayer for their conversion, which is spoken once a year during Easter Week. The Anti-Defamation League called the move a "body blow to Catholic Jewish relations."’

For 2000 years the Latin Mass was the only Catholic Mass. Then in the 1960s, “Vatican II's efforts to modernize the church replaced it" with a version to be spoken in the local vernacular.

The traditional Latin Mass is being brought back because so many Catholics want it, even to the point of staging sit-ins to demand it. ‘A growing number of Catholics of all ages have sought out the elaborate Mass with its sonorous Latin prayers, Gregorian chants and formal choreography of gestures.’

‘"Anyone who seeks religion seeks a sacred moment with God, and that requires a certain reverence that comes with the old mass and its other worldliness," said South Carolina resident Brian Mershon.’
‘Historian and linguist Eric Hewitt . . . regularly attending Latin masses, finds it "more symbolic, which I think makes it more difficult but also more powerful" than the modern Mass.’


I wrote the above on Saturday, and on Sunday the following headline was conspicuous. Note that by now the Pope’s decision is not just “controversial” but “highly controversial”.

Pope's move on Latin mass 'a blow to Jews'


Jason Burke in Paris
Sunday July 8, 2007
The Observer
‘Jewish leaders and community groups criticised Pope Benedict XVI strongly yesterday after the head of the Roman Catholic Church formally removed restrictions on celebrating an old form of the Latin mass which includes prayers calling for the Jews to 'be delivered from their darkness' and converted to Catholicism.
‘In a highly controversial concession to traditionalist Catholics, Pope Benedict said that he had decided to allow parish priests to celebrate the Latin Tridentine mass if a 'stable group of faithful' request it.

The Latin Mass was the keystone of Catholic worship for almost 2000 years and was effectively replaced (partly due to Jewish pressure) only 40 years ago at Vatican Council II, but, “The Observer” continues, ‘the older rite's prayers calling on God to “lift the veil from the eyes” of the Jews and to end “the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ” - used just once a year during the Good Friday service - have sparked outrage.’

‘Yesterday the Anti-Defamation League, the American-based Jewish advocacy group, called the papal decision a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations". ”We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted," said Abraham Foxman, the group's national director, in Rome. “It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.”

The reporter’s use of the word “bewilderment” in the next paragraph is akin to “controversial”. It is designed to form a certain opinion in the reader. Exactly who was bewildered, and why?

‘The Pope also sparked bewilderment when he made no mention of anti-Semitism . . . in a speech last year at Auschwitz. He also failed to acknowledge that there might be some degree of collective responsibility of the German people.’

My feeling about the whole thing is, “Tend to your own religion and don’t meddle in other people’s . . . and that includes not telling the Pope what he should put in his speeches."

Play my little word game. It’s fun and educational.

Bye Bye Blair? We Should Be So Lucky!

Showdown in the Vatican

I recently watched “The Trial of Tony Blair” on the BBC, a film in which Blair resigns, converts to Roman Catholicism, and is whisked away on a plane to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Court.

Would that real life were so satisfying. But those of us who despised the Blair-Bush warmaking coalition do have the satisfaction of knowing the former prime minister must have felt like a naughty schoolboy being hauled into the principal’s office when he made a much-heralded visit to the Pope at the Vatican. Instead giving Blair his blessing, the Pope blessed Blair out. (If that’s an unfamiliar colloquialism, it means “The Pope cussed Blair out,” or “The Pope severely chastised Blair.”) That black smoke seen angrily billowing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel had nothing to do with the election of a new pope! The Vatican described the exchanges between the Pope and Blair as a "frank confrontation," which in diplomatic language translates as a “profound disagreement”, or, some say, “complete disaster”.
There had been strong rumors that Tony Blair was going to visit the Pope as a step toward his acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church, but instead of welcoming a new convert the Pope criticized Blair for having pushed policies directly contrary to some of the strongest policies of the Church.

A spokesman for Blair had said last week he would discuss with the Pope not only interfaith questions but also world issues such as peace in the Middle East. As it turned out, the discussion apparently consisted mostly of the Pope blasting Blair for his “best supporting actor” role in starting the Iraq War.

Very shortly before Blair’s audience with the Pope, Blair’s spokespersons – aware of looming trouble – toned down the conversion process and said that Blair was going to talk mostly about spreading harmony between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If he did indeed dare present himself to the Vatican as a man qualified to talk about that subject, he must have increased the papal disapproval tenfold. If Jesus made one thing clear, it was that he hated hypocrites.


A New Job for Tony?

It has been reported that not only President Bush but also Europe's most senior officials have given their support to a plan to make Tony Blair a Middle East envoy. Bush is pressing Blair to become a representative of the Quartet of powers that supposedly are to implement the “road map to peace” between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors.

“Nevertheless some European diplomats are worried that Blair's participation in the U.S.-led war in Iraq make him too controversial a figure in the Arab world.” How understated can an understatement be? Next to George Bush and Vice President Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who could be more hated in the Arab world than Tony Blair, and who could be less likely to lead the way on a “road map to peace” – already the least heeded piece of paper in the world next to last year’s grocery ads? Under Blair, Britain was as responsible as the United States for fabricating false evidence and stories designed to justify the invasion of Iraq.

As I was preparing to write about Blair’s conspicuous lack of qualification as an envoy to the Middle East, I found that The Guardian had already done a clever job of it.

This is the great opening statement from The Guardian:

'Many jobs have been touted for the outgoing prime minister. It's hard to say which of them he's most unqualified for.'

Excerpts:

‘Special envoy to the Middle East is the most ridiculous of all these touted jobs. The idea that Blair should become a peace envoy in the Middle East, in what the New York Times calls a "visible attempt at laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state", is in a class of its own for sheer absurdity. That is not less so for President Bush's support, nor for the fact that Blair has already applied for the job.’

‘After Iraq, the culminating events came last summer. With Israel bombarding Lebanon, with most Labour MPs wanting an immediate ceasefire, and with barely a fifth of British voters thinking the Israeli action justified, Blair would not budge an inch from his support for Bush and Ehud Olmert.’

It was reported elsewhere that Blair said to Bush last year while Israel’s American-equipped jets were razing Lebanon, and Blair was joining in delaying a ceasefire so that even more Lebanese could be murdered, that he could go to the Middle East ahead of Condoleezza Rice "if she needs the ground prepared as it were ... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can go out and just talk".

A fine admission for a future envoy to the area: “I can go out and just talk.” Just what Israel wants in an envoy.


Marc Sirois, of the Beirut Daily Star, wrote that the prime minister had "sacrificed what credibility he ever had in this part of the world" by abdicating any responsibility he had toward the conflict. Blair couldn't possibly act as an honest broker, since "he is identified so strongly by Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular as somebody who supports the policies of the Bush administration. George Bush might be hated here but at least he's respected. Tony Blair doesn't even have respect."

Less respected than G.W. Bush! Tony Blair’s niche in history is assured.



Tony Blair Update, June 28: Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said in Gaza that Blair's appointment as envoy 'is not acceptable to Hamas nor to the Palestinians. He will not
do anything to support the Palestinian interests but will do everything to
support the Israeli occupation.'