Your freedom to think and express yourself in Arab countries stops at the borders of certain givens; some of them are religious (Nasser Hamed Abu Zein being an example) and some involve social traditions, attributed to religion. Your freedom also ends at the criticism of the leader, whose legitimacy is derived from religious statutes. In Europe, your freedom stops at the discussion of the legitimacy of Israel. This is where laws have been passed to punish anyone who dares raise this question. The religious sacred has been replaced by a Jewish-political sacred, which is not revered by all Jews. Therefore, the official American anger at journalist Helen Thomas and her firing and being forced to retire after 50 years of work, as the dean of the White House press corps, came as no surprise. Thomas dared to attack the “sacred” and called on Israelis to return to where they came from, to Poland, Germany and elsewhere. Her firing was not a surprise, since European and American administrations legalize the expulsion of an entire people from its land and protect the thieves by using all means possible, including clamping down on freedom of expression, in whose name wars are launched and countries are destroyed, to “liberate” their people from dictatorships. This took place in Iraq, and might take place in Iran, and other countries opposed to Israel. It was not surprising to see the Lebanese editor of Palestinian origin, Octavia Nasr, fired from her job at CNN after 20 years in this leading American station. It is truly surprising that the response was limited to the firing. Nasr's crime was great, under American tradition, which has become firmly ratified in laws over the last 60 years. There are laws that block the mind, obstruct historical research on the Jewish question, because any criticism of Zionism or Israel turns into accusations of anti-Semitism and legal prosecution. If Helen Thomas dared to attack the “sacred,” then she deserved to be fired. Nasr's fault was that she expressed sadness over the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the enlightened Shiite religious figure, a progressive, in the modern sense of the world, compared to his Muslim and non-Muslim counterparts. However, in the United States, Fadlallah is a terrorist against Israel and Zionism, which means that he is anti-Semitic. In fact, the monitoring of journalists, media professionals, and opinion makers in Europe and America, and holding them accountable for any words against Israel, is not limited to the Arabs. Europeans and Americans are also exposed to this monitoring and prosecution. The British ambassador in Beirut, Frances Guy, wrote on her blog that she was saddened by Fadlallah's passing, and that the world “needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths.” She was then forced to apologize diplomatically, after an Israeli campaign against her. Many expected that London would replace her, with a new government. Arabs are afraid to criticize freedoms in Europe and America, because of the oppression and attacks against the freedoms they suffer in their own countries. However, when someone is forced to be pro-Zionist (the United Nations equated it with racism and then cancelled this resolution a few years ago, under pressure form George W Bush), this means despotism. Moreover, it is a political decision that blocks the production of valuable historical research. Instead, research that is based on a guilt complex becomes an ideological imperative. We will see many similar cases to Thomas and Nasr. Perhaps this is why we find Arab journalists and intellectuals go overboard in castigating themselves and assigning a sacred character to everything produced by the west, including the sacred Israel.
