Hussein Ibish Treads Very Carefully, Boycotts Press TV
Hussein Ibish has taken umbrage at Iran’s Press TV for misrepresenting what he said and decided he will no longer be giving interviews to the English-language Iranian network. After the interview, Press TV posted Ibish’s latest appearance on its website with the following title: “US main obstacle to peace in Palestine.” Hussein found this title “outrageous” and thundered “the headline attributed to me a sentiment which I absolutely do not agree with and did not either say or imply and which I find completely ridiculous.”
Let’s first agree with Hussein that it’s “not only unprofessional but unethical” to “deliberately misrepresent” or “misconstrue” anyone’s words, but what exactly is Hussein so vehemently objecting to? And what were the sentiments that Press TV attributed to Hussein that got him all riled up? The answers to these questions reveal the disingenuous nature of Ibish and the other career opportunists within the Arab-American community who live on the margins of Washington officialdom. They’re also a reminder of the very narrow, strictly defined parameters of acceptable public discourse to which House Arabs must adhere to maintain their “respectable Arab” status among the political elite and within the corporate media.
Apparently it was the implication that Ibish would ever question the basic assumptions or benevolent nature of U.S foreign policy, its role as an honest peace broker, or its moral authority (all of which a cursory review of the U.S role in the region makes clear are ludicrous lies) that alarmed Hussein and sent him rushing into damage control mode and writing a blog post pledging to never appear on Press TV.
In response to the suggestion that Hussein would describe the U.S. as the “main obstacle to peace in Palestine”, he replied “Obviously I neither said nor implied nothing of the kind, because it is a ridiculous, and indeed offensive, position.”
So for Hussein the mere suggestion that the U.S. government – the biggest purveyor of violence (both direct and indirect) in the Arab world, a global empire that has thrown its full political, economic, and military might behind the Zionist colonial regime in Palestine, and is complicit in all of Israel’s crimes – is the “main obstacle to peace” is “ridiculous” and “offensive.” In the reality-based world, what is truly ridiculous and offensive is the notion that the U.S. is an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians or the Arabs. Even if one was to concede, for argument’s sake only, that the U.S. government is in a position to play the role of honest broker, enough time has passed to conclude it has no such intentions.
What makes Ibish’s remarks so absurd is not only his assertions that the U.S. is capable of being an honest peace broker, and is NOT the “main obstacle to peace”, which is obvious to any reasonable observer, but that he insists the mere suggestion to the contrary is “ridiculous” and “offensive.” Unlike the views of the Zionist fanatic he recently debated, calling the U.S. government an “obstacle to peace” is, for Hussein, beyond the realm of reason.
What is truly ridiculous and offensive are the absurd assumptions on which Ibish and the other House Arabs must base all their public discourse. There is a finely delineated limit to permissible commentary for those who value their role on the margins of Washington, and basic assumptions are never to be challenged. Ibish sacrificed his dignity and worked hard to achieve his “respectable Arab” status, and what Press TV suggested Ibish said could cause him to be cast out among the shunned miscreants.
It’s the political exigencies of Washington, and not the lack of journalistic integrity and professionalism, that explains Hussein’s prompt response to having his position “misrepresented” and the decision to boycott Press TV. Of course, Hussein will remain a regular guest on the American government propaganda channel Al-Hurra where his views will not be misconstrued and will always be welcomed.