Bells will ring throughout the UK on Friday morning, marking the inauguration of the 2012 summer games. In stark contradiction to this jovial hullabaloo, the games will not include a moment of silence for 11 Israelis murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. Notwithstanding requests from Israel, Germany, President Obama, Mitt Romney and various members of the US Congress (see: http://london2012.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/munich-widows-to-meet-with-rogge-to-urge-moment-of-silence/), the International Olympic Committee has refused to honor the memory of the slain Jewish sportsmen during today's opening ceremony.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has expressed its gratitude to the International Olympic Committee for refusing this request for a moment of silence. As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=279048):
"Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Football Federation, sent a letter to IOC chairman Jacques Rogge thanking him for his position, the PA’s official news agency, Wafa, reported.
'Sports is a bridge for love, connection and relaying peace between peoples. It should not be a factor for separation and spreading racism between peoples,' Rajoub, a former PA security commander, wrote in his letter.
. . . .
A senior PA official in Ramallah confirmed that Rajoub had sent the letter and said that the Palestinians were opposed to 'Israel’s attempts to exploit the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes.'"
Question: If 11 American, British or French athletes had been murdered in 1972, would the Olympic Committee have honored the request for a moment of silence? I think the answer is clear-cut and self-evident.
In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Olympic Contradiction" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion/brooks-the-olympic-contradiction.html), David Brooks ignores the controversy surrounding the proposed tribute to the slain Israeli athletes, instead focusing on what he perceives as an inherent contradiction involving the Olympics. On the one hand, the opening ceremony represents "a lavish celebration of the cooperative virtues: unity, friendship, equality, compassion and care." On the other hand, "After the opening ceremony is over, the Olympics turn into a celebration of the competitive virtues: tenacity, courage, excellence, supremacy, discipline and conflict." Brooks celebrates this contradiction:
"The enduring popularity of the Olympics teach the lesson that if you find yourself caught between two competing impulses, you don’t always need to choose between them. You can go for both simultaneously. A single institution can celebrate charitable compassion and military toughness. A three-week festival can be crassly commercial, but also strangely moving."
Sorry, David, but there is no contradiction here, only hypocrisy. The International Olympic Committee has demonstrated that there can be no celebrating "charitable compassion" when it involves murdered Israeli athletes. The Committee knows no compassion and knows no shame.
Jeff, Brooks, like other NYT columnists, is a despicable babbler, manipulator. I find his style as cheap as that of Friedman. No, writing isn't about putting many, many, many pretty words together (without any connection to any reality) in order to be paid (a lot).
ReplyDelete