General Antisemitism

Tunisian Islamist Cognitive Dissonance Watch: Jewish freedom edition


On the same day the Tunisian assembly (led by a party the Guardian characterized as representing a moderate brand of Islamism) approved a new constitution explicitly banning Jews (indeed, all non-Muslims) from seeking the Tunisian Presidency, Al-Arabiya reported the following:

 

The story begins as follows:

“Tunisia’s moderate Islamist Ennahda party said in a statement Saturday that Jews living in the North African country were citizens with “all their rights and duties.”

Evidently, by “all rights” he meant to add:  Except, of course, for the insignificant right of Jews to equally participate in the nation’s political system.

16 replies »

  1. “new constitution explicitly banning Jews (indeed, all non-Muslims) from seeking the Tunisian Presidency”

    The Tunisian constitution may be an example of cognitive dissonance but this statement is a contradiction in terms. If jJews were banned ‘explicitly’ the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ would be specified; it isn’t.
    Definition of ‘explicitly’: “Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied”.

    • The point is, Adam. that it is not merely a matter of semantics. Your post clearly implies anti-semitism on the part of Tunisian politicians whereas you present no evidence that this is the case.

      • sencar, bubele, does the Tuniisan government allow non-Muslims (and that would include Jews) to hold public office in its government, or even stand for election or does it not?

        We both know the answer don’t we?

        So what are you blethering on about?

  2. Please revise the sentence “explicitly banning Jews “.
    It is not ‘explicitly’ banning Jews, but it is ‘explicitly’ banning non Muslims.
    I read your blog frequently and as a supporter of your work (not without my reservations about how you do it) I think that as someone who is very sensitive to ‘semantics’ (as you called it) in other’s writing, you should be accurate yourself.
    BTW, it is not a matter of semantics. it is plainly not true.

    • Roy I suggest you read the sentence and paragraph as it is written by Adam, you will find it is correct.
      Jews, and all non-Muslims, are explicitly banned. When they say ‘the President must be a Muslim’ how explicit can you be?

      By the way when you write ‘Please revise the sentence “explicitly banning Jews “.’ There is not a sentence as such, there is a phrase within a sentence.

      • Are you kidding me?
        Well, let me revise: “Please revise the segment “explicitly banning Jews “” – is this ok with you?

        To the point.
        Writing that it’s ‘explicitly banning Jews’ implies that you would find that the Tunisian assembly explicitly used the word “Jews” when they defined who could be president and who could not.
        Well, they didn’t..
        As you wrote, the said that ‘the President must be a Muslim’.
        So that fact that a Jew cant be president is ‘implicit’ and not ‘explicit’.

        Moreover, the current phrasing (“explicitly banning Jews “), in the article context (or blog post…. I wouldn’t want to be misleading, would I?), implies some kind of ‘explicit’ animosity towards Jews.
        Well, there IS probably such animosity in the Tunisian assembly towards Jews, but it cant be derived from this specific Tunisian assembly deceleration.
        So, to conclude, the after mentioned phrasing is misleading and more importantly dishonest and it taints the work Adam wishes to achieve.

        • “So that fact that a Jew cant be president is ‘implicit’ and not ‘explicit’.”

          No, wrong again Roy.
          Explicit; is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘definite, clear.’

          The fact that a Jew can’t be President is definite and clear therefore explicit.

          • Well, if we were at an English class I would have to agree with you.
            But we are not. We are in the real world.
            This blog focuses on how the media uses rhetoric tricks to mislead it’s audience. This blog time and again makes the legitimate point that you don’t have to lie to mislead. It’s all about what people understand from the specific words which were chosen and the context.
            By you logic I could write “explicitly banning Hindu”
            or “explicitly banning Christians”
            or “explicitly banning Animism”
            and I would still be grammatically and factually correct.
            Well, it might be so, but I wouldn’t be honest.
            I would be using the same despicable tactics that the ones I condemn uses.

  3. Stray message picked up on the cognitive distant bandwith (CDB):

    Open quote Theres some sort of technical problem here, I seem to have been redirected to CIF Watch”

    The Guardian wouldn’t even get to my loo.

    Printouts from CIF or even copies of the Guardian are superbly suitable for lining cat litter trays. endquote

    • Tee hee

      The Guardian is very absorbent, rather like the brains of its journalists for any old antisemitic/antizionist guff.

      Myself, I don’t buy it (heaven forfend! but it’s amazing how many are left behind on commuter trains – that must speak volumes) but we use it shredded as mulch on our allotment and to cover the kitchen floor so as not to track in mud from the garden.

      Adam, we should run a competition along the lines of “101 Uses for the Guardian”

  4. in tunisia, there is no law that specify the religion needed to take part in the political race,and if you knew tunisia, you would know that it would be meaningless to explicitly say that non-muslims are allowed in politics because, how many are they? how popular would they be? it is only fair to say that a jewish citizen in tunisia will have 100 times better chance to run for presidency than a muslim citizen in israel or usa…..