Two months ago, the New York Times issued an apology for publishing
what was somewhat viewed acidulous caricature to certain group of
people. It depicted the Israeli prime minister as a guide dog with
Magen David labeled on his face and has his leash held by Donald
Trump, featuring a blind man. The portrait received enormous critique
from both Jews and guide dog owners in the States, whom mostly are
manipulated and funded by the Zionist lobby therein. Thereupon, the
broadly recognised newspaper apologised and discarded the depiction. A
question, what if a portrait published by a prominent magazine or
newspaper anywhere in the west aped prophet Muhammad, for instance, on
what is considered offensive to Muslims, would the publishing source
apologise if we demand them to? Moreover, up until now, no one
apologised for the defaming caricature of prophet Muhammad that was
deliberately published in a Danish magazine and a Norwegian newspaper
on the same day. When Muslims demanded an apology right then, they
were told it’s freedom of expression. Why couldn’t the New York Times
respond with the same justification explicitly evinced by the two
Scandinavian publishers back in 2006? The New York Times apologised
for publishing this caricature because of Jews not the blind though.
All the blind I knew whom criticised the caricature are ostensibly pro
Israeli and of the right political wing in America. Gay, Lesbian,
Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual, all are protected against
discrimination or harassment by federal authority. If someone
singles out or provokes people based on sexual orientation, he could
be sued and thence, punished by law for exerting invidious practice.
If someone wrote, spoke or displayed a banner that contains what is
considered antisemitic rhetoric by white Christians standards, he will
be subjected to tough consequences. He must apologise and dispose his
publication which allegedly reflects his right of free expression. If
someone spoke rudely to an individual with darker skin, he might be
viewed as a racist, he might be criticised by some, but he most likely
won’t be sanctioned or coerced to apologise and utterly extinguish his
publication. Nonetheless, if someone comes near the Jews, he must
extinguish his post out of the press. Despite the fact that it is
suppose to be his right of free expression, Jews and Israel are of an
unbroken redline. They are untouched, a boundary that should not be
passed, a critical edge for negotiation or compromise. If someone
speaks abusively of Islam, slanders it and marginalises its tenets, he
might be criticised but most likely his free expression won’t be
touched and he would not be forced to apologise. What is that called
folks? Leastwise, hypocritical, duplicitous and absolutely
illusionary. The proposition that the United States has uniquely
unrestricted scope of free expression and this has no identical model
in the whole world or specifically the Middle East is emphatically
counterfeit, vacuous. Please, respect our rate of awareness and don’t
lie to us again. If we here have restrictions on free expression
imposed by the de facto coup based regime, you too have the same
situation forcefully obtruded by the Zionist lobby. So, at the end,
we’re nearly the same. In the supposedly Christian nation of the
States, you could draw a naked picture and publish it in plenty of
magazines, but you couldn’t ridicule Jews or tell a Holocaust joke. I
passed the New York Times scandal on to those who do not view news
headlines in English. Locals of my country have the right to know
about your allegedly unparalleled version of free expression. Each and
everyday, your freedom’s true face is scandalously exposed. We won’t
ever be fooled again with these emptily and meaningless mottoes.
Lastly, I just want you to know, that those whom you fully endorse at
congressional platform and everywhere else are serial murderers. With
your financial support and tax revenue, they ruthlessly kill innocent
children everyday, yet you knew that. So, don’t be offended then if we
despise you for what you carelessly insist to do. If I decided to
smash a shop, I must bear the consequences of doing so, even though I
have freewill to do so, I must bear the consequences. If I decided not
to study, I must be solely held accountable of failing in my exams. If
you decided to unconditionally back everything Israel does, fine, you
sure have the right to do so, but you then must bear the natural
consequences on your own, and that includes, mass contemn, repudiation
and possibly, targeting you with arm means. Don’t tell us we’re your
friends while you stand side by side with our singular clearest enemy.
You have the right to defend and shield them. Nonetheless, we have the
right to independently react to that in the manner we adequately deem
proper. You have the right to consider us terrorists and we have the
right to respond accordingly. Thank you for reading, Mustafa, resides
in Cairo, the polluted capital, the bossiest and the gravely fussiest
city of Egypt.
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)
