editorial
7 Jul 2009
This Debate Needs To Take A Look In The Mirror
The Israel/Palestine issue is muddied by hate-filled comments online and partisan pressure behind the scenes. Now those responsible need to ask themselves if their tactics are really helping anything
Regular readers will notice that we have turned off all comments on articles about Israel/Palestine. This is not a permanent state of affairs but a stopgap while we develop the technical ability to pre-moderate comments on the site. We do this reluctantly, and in response to a handful of comment "trolls" who continue to abuse our open comments facility.Historically, we have erred on the side of free speech — we did not pre-moderate comments on the site, which is rare in this litigious age, because we wanted to promote open and diverse debate.
However we have, for the most part, been very disappointed by the level of debate that has taken place on articles about Israel/Palestine. We are appalled to find ourselves hosting Holocaust deniers and racists. Such comments in no way reflect the views of the staff of newmatilda.com. Obnoxious comments aren't limited to articles on this issue — but Israel/Palestine does provoke a greater volume of impassioned and divergent responses than any other.
As our comments policy says, we reserve the right to delete abusive comments and ad hominem attacks. We do delete comments and we have blocked repeat offenders, but sometimes offensive content slips through. The most objectionable comments usually get posted very late at night and very early in the morning. Now of course, we recognise that if as a news and analysis site we don't have the resources to monitor the comments facility effectively, we need to change the way the site functions.
The transformation of our comments function into a slanging arena has worked to shut down discussion and deflected attention away from those who are trying to engage with the issues. Frustratingly, the trolls have actively discouraged productive debate.
We firmly believe the comment trolls misrepresent our readership. In fact, we know this to be true because we frequently receive emails of a very different tone responding to articles on the site. We hear from people who can't believe how few media outlets in Australia are prepared to publish strong criticism of the Israeli Government's actions. We stand by our decision to publish many articles on this conflict — which is indeed more than we publish on many other conflicts.
This is a position that is unpopular with some.
Recently a politician, federal labor MP Michael Danby, wrote an attack on what he described as "antisemitism" on Australian websites, in particular newmatilda.com and Crikey. (He also singled out two of our contributors — Antony Loewenstein and Michael Brull — for special criticism, and you can read their reply here.)
In his argument, Danby made extensive use of a "special report" by an organisation called the B'nai B'rith "Anti-Defamation Commission" (ADC).
In April we received a letter from Tony Levy, chairman of the ADC, accusing newmatilda.com of displaying prejudice and imbalance in our coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict. (You can read their letter to us and our response here). The charges were based on a "special report" done by an ex-editor of the Australian Jewish News, Deborah Stone, who we believe is employed as their research director.
The report, which was sent to the ADC's members last week and is available here looks at 18 articles published by newmatilda.com over a three-month period at the beginning of the year.
There are two strands to the ADC's charges. Firstly, they target the comments on the articles. We acknowledge that, like other news and analysis outlets publishing on this issue, our site has attracted comments from a handful of extremists. These people have expressed views ranging from virulent anti-Israeli sentiment to anti-Palestinian slurs — views which we in no way endorse. However, rather than being a symptom of the tone of our coverage, as Stone claims, their presence is a result of us giving coverage to a highly charged, antagonistic and difficult debate.
The ADC's second charge concerns the articles we publish, however, and it requires a more considered rebuttal. They allege that the coverage of Israel/Palestine issues on newmatilda.com is "unbalanced and disproportional" and unduly represents Israel as an oppressor — and it is worth noting here that the period they have chosen to focus on is the period in which the Israeli Government was bombing Gaza.
In the report, Stone defines three "narratives" that articles on Israel/Palestine can fit into. The first is the "Palestinian narrative". This narrative "characterises Israel as an oppressor", while "the Palestinians are victims of occupation/apartheid/racism and/or heroes of resistance. Israeli victims or security concerns are not acknowledged".
In the second narrative — the "Israeli" narrative — "Israel is characterized as taking defensive action against terrorism. Hamas is described as a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel. Israelis are victims of terrorism and rocket attacks. Palestinian civilians are victims of their own leaders' attacks on Israel and the resulting war."
And the last possible narrative is the "neutral" narrative, in which "both narratives are presented without judgement".
Where the truth is supposed to fit into these strict options we're not entirely sure.
In her "findings", Stone reports that 17 of the articles she has analysed fit into the first narrative, one fits into the second, and none in the third. She concludes that this is evidence that newmatilda.com's "dissemination of hate and prejudice is unfair both to Israel and to the Jewish people", and says, "As an increasing percentage of the population relies on websites for news, discussion and opinion formation it is essential that we bring the standards of quality journalism to bear on this new medium". Stone appears to believe that just because a piece of analysis is online it is necessarily of a lower standard than one that is in print or on television. In fact, in 2009, many qualified and experienced editors and journalists work in this "new" medium — including right here at newmatilda.com.
On the subject of professional journalism — no serious journalist believes the situation in Israeal/Palestine is reducible to the kind of "Us and Them" world that Stone presents. There is no singular "Israeli" or "Jewish" narrative, as she must be aware. Nor is there such a thing as a simple, unified "Palestinian perspective". Our contributors — Israelis, Australians, Jews and Palestinians — demonstrate this consistently. Furthermore, it is odd that a supposedly anti-racism group would try to cast a political situation along racial lines — a reductive and simplistic approach that seems more consistent with the tactics of a lobby group.
Stone's study, which criticises newmatilda.com for running "disproportional coverage" of Israel/Palestine, has chosen to focus on the period of the Israeli Government's military operation in Gaza. That operation, along with its aftermath, was the biggest story in the world at the time. Here again, there is the voice of a lobby group seeking to influence what a media outlet pays attention to, irrespective of what is happening in the world or the desire of its readers to see those events covered.
As part of that attempt, Stone's report is based on the premise of "balance", which she describes in this way: "The principle of balance in journalism requires that an equivalent coverage is given to both sides of a conflict."
We strongly disagree.
To clarify our editorial policy here: we believe balance is desirable where it is approriate — but we do not attempt to provide a "for" and "against" analysis of every issue we cover. That is because we believe that some things are simply wrong, and should not be justified on any terms. Bombing innocent civilians is, in our minds, one of those wrong things. The Holocaust is another.
This criticism over "balance" and others like it pick up on the fact that at newmatilda.com we have described ourselves as providing "non-partisan information" in the About Us section of the website. We agree this is open to interpretation. When we said non-partisan we meant "non-party political". We have now clarified this on the site.
Balance is not always a straightforward issue. And on that matter we seem to be in at least partial agreement with the ADC. We noted with interest that in none of the ADC's communication with us, (nor in their report or on their site) have they protested about the significant anti-Palestinian racism also present on newmatilda.com from commenters who support the Israeli Government. This from an organisation that purports to oppose racial discrimination.
As an ethnic lobby group, B'nai B'rith is perfectly entitled to lobby on this issue. However, as we are an independent media outlet, such lobbying — whether it takes place behind the scenes as in this case, or in public — can have no role in influencing our editorial policy. The fact that Israel-related topics are highly sensitive will not deter us from continuing to publish articles on Gaza, on refugee camps, on the Israel-US relationship, and on US foreign policy in the Middle East and in general.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I was wondering when the full weight of the Israeli lobbies would hit New Matilda.
Looks as though it has, and I can only be pleased that New Matilda claims it will continue entering critical articles as they arise. I can hope that they can withstand the immense pressure that will be brought to bear on them, possibly also from pollies such as Deputy PM Julia Gillard, who has very definitely chosen on which side of the fence she is sitting.
There are lots of pollies in Australia totally beholden to the Jewish Lobbies, and a lot of them are on the Labor side. The Jewish lobbies have the money, great oodles of it, and the power that that money buys, whilst the Palestinians, or the Arabs in general, unfortunately, do not seem to have any influence (or friends) whatsoever in our corridors of power, or our Media.
Whether NM can continue against this pressure I would guess to be a moot point. Best of luck. No others every have.
As for comments, the closing of this off is regretted, but even I was getting to the stage that I was just ignoring with utter disgust the comments section on an article in the Israeli/Palestine subject because it had long since become septic. Which I am sure was what was intended by the more virulent ‘comment trolls’ possibly referred to above.
There are many ways of killing cats! Or so it is said! And the Mossad know them all. Dazza.
After reading and giving up on several pages worth of commentary - much of it highly inflammatory, repetitive, and ultimately useless - tacked on the end of a recent ‘offending’ article, I registered with the intent of at least telling the trollers, whatever their supposed persuasion, where to get off, so the rest of us - whether contributors or interested onlookers - could get to the heart of the matter. It doesn’t surprise me that NM has had to step in.
And, at the risk of being labelled antisemitic (or ‘anti-my-lobby-group’) by the very people I’m about to describe, certain (i.e. not all, but fire away) Jewish lobbyists obviously have considerably unhealthy attitudes and/or influence in Australian politics and media. While I couldn’t be bothered getting into the influence side of it - plenty of others have and will ad nauseum - I also strongly disagree with Stone’s definition of ‘balance’ (is Howard back?). I’d like to see if she supports the notion of equivalent coverage given to Nazis in European WWII media. After all - strictly dichotomously speaking - it was them versus the rest, wasn’t it?
If only we were all so balanced on the tightrope of debate.
I find it very strange that the Australian jewish people in particular are so insular. Michael Danby was born in Australia and has connections to Germany but none at all to Israel except maybe being Jewish. But does Danby feel an affinity to the 25% of Israel that is not Jewish? I don’t think so.
Last week ABC aired a brilliant documentary about jewish and Palestinian groups in Palestine/Israel working together to show that they can. Parents, brothers, sisters, ex-soldiers and others working to comfort each other over the deaths of children and so on.
The murder of Abir was well covered in the Israeli papers with shock and disgust that the IDF could murder that innocent child of a peace maker.
I read incessantly and always have and what is the most interesting to me is that Ilan Pappe and Sari Nuessiebeh have the same narrative of the occupation from different sides but they could be brothers and are probably friends.
When people like Danby and the ADC dare to lecture us about the reality and try and stifle a debate that rages in Israel and Palestine it is wrong and they should be chided.
To make matters worse for Danby he was with the Dalai Lama lecturing China about freedom for the Tibetans but he cheers whenever Israeli’s army blasts a few hundred more Palestinians to death.
And he declared the Xmas Island camp a nazi concentration camp and then uses it for innocent people anyway.
Sorry, it would have been better to say Israeli, rather than Jewish, lobby groups - an important distinction, in my book. No doubt someone will jump on my ‘Freudian slip’. And inform me that Freud was a Jew. And tell me off for going on and on…
Okay, finished now. I’m off to read about other topics. I need some balance.
comment deleted because it was off topic
Oh, one more thing… After reading Maryj’s post, I suppose I meant Jewish Israeli lobby groups, rather than Jewish lobby groups (as I’ve sort of touched on) or Israel lobby groups with some sort of idea of just treatment of everyone within its borders, not just Jews. Phew, this is complicated. I might need some help from Mr Danby.
Already in response to NM’s unapologetic apology, we have the usual red-neck response to the notion of Jewish Israel.
Jews and Israelis are not a monolith. They allow each other free speech without fear of being treated as dissenters are in the rest of the middle east.
Poor NM I am sorry you are copping flack from Jews with backbones.
But the flack we cop is a lot harsher than a tongue lashing.
Look what is happening in Iran where peaceful protestors are beaten, shot and "detained".
Imagine if these people employed the tactics of the Gazans and rocket launchers in Lebanon and Syria.
Look at the map and try to find Israel and then take a good look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourselves honestly how could you carve up this tiny nation, half the size of Tasmania any further.
Then compare the neighbouring Arab nations and compare their population sizes.
I would’nt be surprised if NM does’nt publish my post, because I fear your attitudes have been cultivated by the self serving market you have created.
Don’t ask me for any more subs, no thanks there’s nothing here for me.
I’m sorry I did’nt realise it before.
Good by.
I think I’ll take my chances with Israel, at least it will still be around long after NM has waltzed itself into the billabong. Oli
Ad hominem comment deleted
"..dissemination of hate and prejudice is unfair both to Israel and to the Jewish people"
It is a shame that New Matilda has reacted to the spin of those who have aleady hobbled the traditional media.
How can criticism of crimes be stretched to racial "hatred" ??
I don’t think you should censor anything except personal abuse as it is obviously "off-topic". You now run the risk of the historical narrative being rewritten by Deborah’s "oppressors"
New Matilda should know that the Economist has run similar stories in the past month and the vitriol against those who criticise or correct is equally virulent
Let it flow. Lets see the nature of these people.
Thanks, revilo, for your advice. Us rednecks need all the help we can get.
After the little brat next door kicked his footy into my yard and almost hit me, I took your advice and looked in the mirror, then retaliated by throwing my obsolete gym equipment over the fence. The old lady and her two dogs were unfortunate to be in the firing line, but it’s really the father’s fault - he is their leader. And there are seven - make that six - of them, and only one of me. I won’t tolerate their assaults, especially as I’m their landlord.
I do hope your pearls of wisdom go down well in your chosen paradise with your fellow Israelis (only the Jewish ones, of course, and only those ones with backbones).
And when they ask how they can overcome future threats, as you so bravely did with enough rope against the crumbling antisemitic NM empire, never let them forget the importance of playing the man rather than the ball.
Ad hominem comment deleted
Well, either the system’s not in place yet, or it hasn’t lifted the discourse as planned…
(Hi James - we’ve turned off comments on all Israel/Palestine articles except for this one. We figured it would be hypocritical not to allow debate on an editorial such as this - Ed)
Newmatilda: you are the ones who need to take a look in the mirror.
You publish the most obscene anti-Israel screeds, many of which are nothing short of outright antisemitism; you allow (and often your writers encourage) the Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating comments at the end of these screeds; and then you hide under the cover of, "This is just legitimate criticism of Israel."
Well, as the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s spokesman said in response to pro-Palestinian (and that includes most "humanitarian" groups) charges of Israel preventing aid from reaching Gaza earlier this year: "Unqualified bullshit."
You cannot hide behind this bullshit defence any longer. The jig is up. Civilised people do not think, contrary to your intimations, that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Or that those with a point of view that differs from the "orthodox" pro-Israel position are antisemitic. Frequently they are not, and their views are perfectly legitimate. But frequently they are, and their views are bearly disguised antisemitism.
Such is the case with your website’s sickening editorial policy on Israel. And you, despite your pretensions to progressivism, are utter, antisemitic hypocrites.
As Thomas Friedman has written:
Shame on New Matilda. And thank you, B’nai B’rith, for finally speaking out against this vile website.
**This comment has been edited
Ahh, not in place yet.
Calling Jewish critics of Israel "Jews in name only" is anti-Semitic, and vile.
You’re right, James. Then again, the vast majority of the Australian Jewish community will agree with me. Am I still antisemitic?
But seriously, dude. Calling me antisemitic is to drain all meaning from the term. If I’m antisemitic, then everybody is. Get real.
Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me that you ignored the substance of what I said and zeroed in on the ad hominem attack.
Still, it is typical of you redneck "progressives" (faux-gressives?) to totally ignore the meat in a good argument that countervails against your own. Totally typical.
**This comment has been edited
NM is to be congratulated in taking the position it has - to publish and not be cowed by the likes of Danby and the ADC.
If Danby has any "claim to fame" [highly questionable!] it is that he made a complete goose of himself, around the world no less, when 3 years ago he called on a publisher and author not to publish a book he described as obnoxious [or words to that effect] - 12 months before it was to be published and when no one had even seen the manuscript.
As for the ADC, sadly [for a once well-respected organisation] it now joins the ranks of the strident people at AIJAC in Australia and the ADL and other organisations in the USA trying anything, by whatever means, to shut down debate about Israel - on the totally offensive claim that those who criticise Israel are anti-semites or anti-Zionists or anti-Israel. The conflation is not only absurd but by any yard-stick can be seen to be spurious and to lack credibility.
The more Israelis actions are exposed to the light of day the sooner there will be a prospect of peace in the Middle East. Israel’s one-eyed and non-critical supporters can jump and down as much as they like, but there is no hiding from the fact that Israel is increasingly an apartheid State which continues to breach international law, ignore and flout UN resolutions and discriminate against 20% of its population [the Palestinians and Arabs].
As I always like to preface with every foray in this fraught policy area - there are many beautiful Arabic and Jewish people in this world. I find that wonderfully subversive of the dominant violent paradigm and personally liberating. It is also my direct personal experience.
As commented before NM have an obligation too to reveal any ethnic, cultural background here. Just asking? Should it be declared?
Also true that this topic is hate filled and highly problemmatic for that reason draining so much time and energy for any media outlet.
That’s what violence in word and action creates. A nasty cycle. Yet it is the reality of our world.
Gandhi was so right - not least about the useless role of humiliation of one’s enemy - and the UN too that for every death on either side another 10 enemies are created. What a prescription for misery.
On the other hand it is the moral challenge of the media sector to cope and manage this topic. Not least because the Israeli and Iranian nuclear dimension makes it a global concern, as well as an infamous moral conundrum.
Facts as always are pre eminent and the wisdom to understand the dynamics of hatred in all its negative aspects eroding humanity and mutual respect.
#2 Oh and just to say, good to see NM with an editorial for a change, though time is bit short to read it in full and the comment string (my own method of managing the Middle East tendency to takeover one’s life).
Nature abhors a vacuum so to speak, meaning you have to stand for something, anything really. This life is not a read through, apologies to Red Hot Chilli Peppers.
Can’t ignore what’s not there, kiddo.
New Matilda,
Apparently NM has been under a more sophisticated version of the DOS attack, I can feel a conspiracy theory developing.I agree with your editorial that the requirement for "balance" is a specious argument,what it really implies is "give us equal space for our propaganda." I wonder which site is the next target.
Good luck.
Dear Editors and staff of nm,
I wanted to say how much I admire this website for publishing articles which it is clear would not get published elsewhere. Even if I didn’t think there were serious critiques of Israel to be made, I would applaud the committment to free speech.
I also want to say how dismayed I am at the level of ‘debate’ around these matters on this site. As a prolific and committed contributor to the comments on this site I have often felt ashamed at the violence and vehemence of posters on both sides.
It appears this is an issue where legitimate points from both sides are ignored because somehow the stakes are too high for truth to come into play. I must say that, aside from a couple of obvious anti-semites, the pro-Israel writers have struck me as the most didactic and self-righteous group ever encountered online.
I have myself been accused of anti-semitism, and feel this is terrifically untrue, even having re-read my posts. On this basis it is hard not to fully support Anthony and Michael. In fact I beleive that if the state of Israel is to become a mature state young people like them will feature heavily.
Thanks nm.
Dear Editors
FYI - Dictionary.com defines ‘non-partisan’ as ‘objective’ and, ‘objective’ as ‘not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased’
So could you explain again how it is that people with an obvious personally ideological agenda to push are given space on your ‘non-partisan’ news site? Oh and by the way, if you wouldn’t mind pointing out where the separation between analysis and reporting is?
You know, just so no-one accuses you of unbalanced reporting …
Hi Jewinthefat,
We agree the description of NM in the About Us section of the site could be more clear and we’re working on a new one as we speak. For now though, the editorial you just read gives you (and anyone else who wants to know) a pretty good idea of where we are coming from.
Best
Marni Editor
Alphacrucis, as a reactionary you seek to return to a former state of affairs. A reversion opposed to progress. By keeping on the defence of antisemitism you divert the attention away from progress, a distraction from the crux of the Israel / Palestinian debate.
You mention how this debate will eventuate to never seeing a Palestinian state, and how shameful and discriminant this publication is. This is supported in your accusation calling them Hypocrites because there are other gross deprivations of human rights going on In Lebanon, Egypt and so on. By saying this you subconsciously contrast the state of Israel’s affairs with these nation states. Whilst defending the Israeli, you inadvertently suggest Israel’s implications in a sorry state of deprivation of human rights. It’s like the kids who get detention for stealing from the tuck shop, opposed to those who didn’t and then refute.
"but Joey did so and so and he only got a warning."
I’m no expert on these affairs, but I am interested in hackneyed attacks on the dissemination of information and non-partisan reportage which the New Matilda seems to be providing.
Also what’s this , you’ve gone and said
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. (last line) "
then you go on to blurt,
"And you, despite your pretensions to progressivism, are utter, antisemitic hypocrites."
( line 15)
I mean seriously … The mirror recedes back onto you aplhawad.
(Comment edited to remove an unhelpful and ad hominem remark)
Marni,
I find it astounding that you, an individual who okayed the publication of an article about Israel entitled A Long History of Killing Children, can keep a straight face when talking about NM’s "editorial policy".
Really? Editorial policy? "A long history of killing children." Charming. Sounds awfully like blood libel to me. Oh, but wait - you’re talking about ISRAEL, not Jews, right? So you can publish anything you like about Israel. Never mind that the large majority of the world’s Jews are Zionists, or that almost half the world’s Jews are Israeli. "
JewsIsraelis have a long history of killing children." Ahhhh. Much better. Can’t say it about Jews. But you can say just about anything about Israelis.Israelis have been lovingly referred to as "filthy animals" in your comments sections; the Holocaust has been denied; and this sort of hate speech typifies your readers’ comments: "They are a nation of fat overfed lazy and genocidal parasites, pathological liars who live off the hard working Americans and the proceeds of the world’s biggest crime syndicates including the biggest sex slave rings, child pornography syndicates, even the biggest date rape drug manufacturers in the world operate freely out of Israel. The list of filth and iniquity out of Israel just goes on and on."
And it’s not just that you leave these racially vilificatory comments up - your writers have openly defended and even encouraged them.
Danby and the ADC are long overdue in their denouncement of your website’s obscenely skewed, hateful articles on this issue.
And for those who keep mindlessly repeating the canard that we "didactic and self-righteous" (thanks Dr Dog) pro-Israel types simplistically "conflate" criticism of Israel with antisemitism (thanks jloewen), I will repeat Thomas Friedman’s words on the matter, because they bear repeating:
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
Not that I expect this to affect the drones’ incessant rants one jot.
Hey Marni,
I’d be real interested to see where the writers have unsubstantially supported such heinous accusations. I am new to the New Matilda and have relatively unformed ideas on such debates. It’d be great if you could link me to the article where they deny the Holocaust and call Israeli’s drug runners so I can hatch some more developed o
pinions of the New Matilda.
with thanks
"alphacrusis":
I love the sneering at people who — for some ker-razy reason — think you conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, after, in the same post, demanding that an article deploring Israeli actions be interpreted as mere anti-Semitism.
And you seem to have missed the point of the article — they’re moderating comments because of the bigots you’re complaining about.
Jack: Since you haven’t been here long, before commenting on NM’s track record of Jew-hatred perhaps you’d consider actually reading some of it. Here is where you will find the comment that is still online - UNMODERATED - calling Israelis all kinds of disgusting things: http://newmatilda.com/2009/01/08/world-gives-israel-green-light?page=1 … Now please go through the archives and read.
JamesT: You missed my point on both counts. The article’s title alone is prima facie evidence of antisemitism. Though I have little doubt you’ll disagree. And in case I didn’t spell it out before: I don’t really care what NM’s stated "policy" on moderating comments is. The fact is, they don’t do it. They encourage the antisemitic screeds. GO BACK IN THE ARCHIVES. It’s all there.
Now I really don’t have time to deal with every one of the miscreant hate-defenders here. So if I go silent for a while you’ll excuse me for having better things to do.
Well said Alphacrucis.
Marni, thank you for pointing out your editorial, but I would like to point out that you still have not answered my questions.
Where are the separate sections on your site for news and analysis? Why are readers provided with analysis-as-news, when we both know that failing to describe news stories as op-eds severly diminishes the integrity of the site as an objective media outlet?
As a source that refuses to stop fuelling the fires of racial villification, hate-speech and Holocaust Denial by addressing the bias within its editorial department, instead your editorial is “reluctantly” removing the ability of readers to show their distaste?
Can you seriously tell your readers that
- headlines such as "long history of killing children" is not an inciteful statement?
- articles promoting Holocaust Denial as Freedom of speech are not offensive?
- Defending Ahmadinejad for racial hatred and villifying Avigdor Leiberman for the same thing is not hypocritical?
- legitimising internationally recognised terrorist organisations while simultaneously calling an Israeli perspective ‘propaganda’ is not a double standard?
Where is the space in newmatilda to air an ‘alternative’ view point in these options? I am all for agreeing to disagree - but you won’t even let the other side be heard!
Some fair fight that is …
And by the way, you need two positions to hold a debate …
… so where is this ‘other’ side then?
Jewinthefat: thanks, but I’d rather not have your support if you aren’t going to back up your claims. I can give you URLs for every one of my claims, but I don’t recall NM publishing an article defending Holocaust denial. If you have it, post it.
In other words: NM is a website that promotes the new antisemitism. It just is. But don’t say that if you can’t back it up with sources.
To mangle the metaphor even further it is difficult to look in the mirror when you are already viewing the world through a prism.
Alphacrusis’ prism is Israeli infallibility. Despite protestations to the contrary criticism of Israel is conflated with anti-semitism - it’s hard wired. Repeated attempts have been made to detect flexibility or mitigation in this view, to no effect other than frustrating the other contributors. This, and similar, frustrations have led to much of the hateful language from the other side.
Sadly this gives vehement pro-Israel writers ammunition to falsely accuse their opponents of anti-semitism and the cycle of violence, mistrust and downright bullshit continues.
There are bigots on both sides that have abused the great priviledge of free comment on a public site. How sad that democracy has to be moderated because folk cannot take on the responsibility that comes along with it.
I am going to miss the free flowing discussions that arose when the lack of regulation allowed for quick comments and lightning responses. Having others agree with me was never as much fun as when disagreements were able to be maintained for days with mutual respect the most significant outcome.
Finally when alphacrusis quotes Thomas Freidman (see above) they leave out the high expectations we should have toward a state that was created in the supposedly enlightened 20th century and receives immense practical and philosophical support from our own and many other democratic countries.
Of course the real stinger is this, if the Holocaust gives Jewish people special rights and understandings, it also delivers a special responsibility to ensure that the methods used to oppress and finally murder them are never used in the maintainence of their own state. I expect more of Israel than I expect of Palestine, for all these reasons.
"Though I have little doubt you’ll disagree."
That’s true; after all, I can read.
Article written by Michael Brull, "Even Bigots deserve freedom of opinion"
http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/03/even-bigots-deserve-freedom-opinion
Thanks, jewinthefat. I didn’t realise NM had sunk to the lowest of lows.
(Comment edited)
Hey alphacrucis
Sadly, there is a need for independent, fair and accurate news-based media, and newmatilda needs to reassess its place within that field.
http://jewinthefat.wordpress.com
Marni,
This is an excellent editorial as you have claified and explained the blackout.
Whatever revisions you make to "about us" please ensure that the traditions that appeal to thinking readers are retained esp..
"As well as offering an understanding of current events against a broad historical and political backdrop, it features issues and ideas often left untouched by the mainstream media. "
You might also care to remind you pro Israel posters that Australia and Australians with soldier ancestors of the First World War have a blood relationship and "vested" interest in Palestine and its posterity.
You have been a unique voice since 2004. Keep it up.
Do I detect a note of triumphalism in some of the posts? Let’s hope it’s mistaken. In the interests of future balance,there should be no Islamophobic statements, no anti-Arab racist rants, the word Palestinians should not be written as "Palestinians" and definitely no claims to special status because of religious or ethnic affiliations.
(Comment edited. Off topic sentence removed.)
I applaud New Matilda’s attitude to debate and commentary. Faced with what you refer to as "trolls" (and I expect they know who they are!) I think you have your work cut out. Never mind, please keep at it as you provide a small island of honesty and even sanity in our "spin driven" world. Good luck!!
good luck with your new policy NM, it’s going to be tough but well needed. i normally enjoy the debate after articles but long ago stopped bothering with anything that concerned this matter.
Jewinthefat and alphacrusis- i am wondering how the article you linked shows new lows for NM or is an example of them supporting holocaust denial. the article states, several times, how deplorable they find Tobens arguments. this to me seems like opposing holocaust denial. the article is supporting freedom of speech even for ‘bigots’.
can i remind you of the famous quote, often attributed to Voltaire but indeed made by Evelyn Beatrice Hall "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Firstly, Brull draws the comparison of the "subversive teachings" of Toben and his ilk to the teachings of Jesus Christ (who, I’m pretty sure was not a fan of intolerance or racial villification).
As well as this, he makes the point that people should not be jailed for their opinions, no matter how offensive or vile. He would do well to note that Frederick Toben was sentenced to three months in jail for contempt of court, not purely for his opinion. Federal anti-vilification legislation is designed to protect ALL Australians. If Toben chose to break the law by stealing, or murder, or rape, he would be held to account in the same way.
In spite of all this, Holocaust Denial is a slap in the face of those people who were murdered and those who survived. Denying scope or tragedy of the genocide is a purposeful manipulation of the facts, designed to invalidate the suffering of millions.
Jewinthefat, your argument about his comparison to jesus christ is irrelevant. his point was that jesus christ (should one beleive he existed) was a person who was thought to be subversive during his time by many. Whether or not Jesus turned out to be right and Toben looks to be wrong is beside the point.
if you choose to disagree with Brull’s stance on anti-vilification laws is also beside the point. There is a huge debate about anti-vilification laws vs freedom of speech and this isn’t the point.
The point is just by saying someone like Toben shouldn’t be silenced does not mean you support him. As i think is made entirely clear in the article.
I haven’t made up my mind on Brulls position regarding Israel but referring to this article proves nothing. you might be opposed to Holocaust denial but so too, it seems, is Brull.
My personal thoughts on holocaust denial are that if they are so clearly wrong (which i am asuming they are, i haven’t done the research myself) then let them show their evidence and refute it. It’s the only way it’s going to stop.
To those people who post on this site and hold their particular and sometimes peculiar ideas, as sacred, unassailable and protected by law, I’d recommend JS Mill’s "On Liberty." That’s of course if they’re committed to free speech.
The problem here is how diplomacy has flown out of the door with too many commentators using NM as a platform to express their form of radical, political ‘extremism’.
Because it seems in so many of these Israeli/Palestinian debates the critical issues of compromise and consensus are lost amongst the rude ‘extremists’ - the non-two state solutionists - who display enormous capacity for insult and slur against each other.
The Israeli/Palestinian situation demands critical and calm attention to historical details that cover a plethora of social, religious and cultural issues.
So unless you are seriuosly looking to achieve peaceful Palestinian autonomy from Israeli domination, you are wasting your time (and everybody else’s) arguing for any other ‘extremist’ point of view.
Banning any comments is a bit severe, but understandable considering the level of invective reached lately.
Perhaps these ‘offenders’ should be banned after a couple of ‘bad strikes’ and subsequent warnings. That would soon stop those ‘rotten eggs’ from spoiling the debate for everybody else.
Perhaps, denise, offenders - and only offenders - could be banished to this thread where they could slog it out forevermore. Ten years on, NM could charge admission to see the battle of ‘those who won’t be budged’.
Flippant, I know, but it’s easier on the ticker than getting pent up over a few printed circuits. Whoops, I’ve slipped into abuse. It’s hard not to be reactionary in this environment.
Maybe I’ll have more luck over at the Burma article, for example, that’s looking a bit unloved at the moment. I don’t have much to offer on that one, but I’d love to see some considered opinion from someone else (over there, not here). There are plenty of other things to get angry about. And waffle I do…
God, how I wish humans hadn’t invented religion.
If you behave badly, you must not blame your parents or your gods - it is your behaviour - and if people wish to invent gods who licence death and destruction then those people should be disciplined if they act on that fantasised licence. The fact that they have invented such gods is simply irrelevant to the discussion.
Having got that out the way, we could then do the same job on race. Then on nationality.
Oh shit, what’s left to fight about - there’s no fun anymore. After all fighting each other has been a given throughout history - and we’re unlikely to change that now. It’s just that we seem to need to invent justifications rather than just treating it as the sport it has always been. Spend a day in a schoolyard anywhere in the world and you will have heard all the justifications for bullying that have ever been invented - because there’s no new ones needed.
We are sublimely ridiculous, and this is made more poignant by those rare people like JSMill who rise above the quagmire to give an alternative approach to thinking about living together.
Christopher
Oh and repeating Thomas Friedman doesn’t make him right
And with 46 comments (at the time of writing) this article has re-poked the wasps nest again. Predictably, the slanging match has once again started too.
After seeing so much vitriol spewed over months and months and months of endlessly rehashed Israel/Palestine articles, I avoid reading anything with the tag anymore. Its just too exhausting.
I also expect to be called lazy, uninvolved, uninterested and of burying my head in the sand over the issue for taking this course… I don’t apologise, and although it won’t go away (clearly) I’m just worn out by the whole thing. I’ve had enough.
phermon: I agree. Religion is a poor excuse for killing. Unfortunately, Israel faces a jihadi enemy that seeks its total annihilation. And so it must fight until that threat ceases.
You’re also right. Quoting someone does not make them right. But I’ve yet to hear a refutation of the Friedman quote. Here, I’ll quote it again and perhaps you’d like to tell me where exactly Friedman has it wrong:
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
Alphacrucis,
Replace the second ‘anti-semitic’ with ‘wrong’ and I can agree with Friedman; saying Israel is singlehandedly responsible for all the shit that happens in that neck of the woods is obviously wrong but it is not necessarily or even probably anti-semitic.
My wish that humans had never invented religion, tribes and nationalities applies to all - there can be no excuse for jihad Christopher
I know how you feel about religion, tribes and nationalism. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with group identification - the problem is fundamentalism. Identification with the group is a sociological phenomenon; humans were ever thus. The trouble, as I said, is fundamentalism.
I am glad you agree that Israel is not singlehandedly responsible for the conflict! (Understatement of the century!)
"Jewish" is not a religion, Christopher. FYI. Antisemitism is not a religious phenomenon, it is better described as an ethno-religious phenomenon.
I am still baffled as to how criticising the Jewish state out of all proportion to criticism of other states is not antisemitic.
The Arab-Israeli conflict could be solved much more simply if religious fundamentalism were taken out of the picture. The compromise has been available for at least 15 years; the reason it hasn’t happened is the corrosive Palestinian religious nationalism that brooks no compromise. True Palestinian moderates are very, very rare. The Second Intifada proved this. Sari Nusseibeh was, so far as I can tell, practically the last moderate left standing.
So while it is true that there are fundamentalist elements in Israeli society, most of them could be bought off by the PM if a deal were struck. Shas is the classic example - they supported Rabin’s Oslo.
No deal will be struck until Palestinians change. The cult of jihadism must end and a secular civil society must be built - and these are the prerequisites to compromise. Until then, Israel must exercise a policy of containment, and put up with the kind of sincere ignorance that you hear from the newmatildas of this world
(this comment has been edited)
Israel, like most countries is a discombobulating array of views and opinion not to mention different races and religions. To be critical of the general population without qualification of which group is being criticized is simply putting an unreasonable stamp on the country and raises the question of racism. To actually target a specific group, the Israeli government for instance is not. Almost half of the Israeli population demonstrates at the ballot box that they disagree with the government by voting for the opposition parties. It is this failure to separate the intended group from the rest that causes its supporters to rally support by also failing to separate the discussion into whom it is aimed at. The likes of the Anti-Defamation Commission are particularly adept at using this lack of distinction to drive home their particular argument. If you are critical of the Israeli government, you are by their default, critical of all Jews when that is clearly not the case.
Like with every ethnic group of people that I know, there are very good people and there are complete arseholes who deserve all of the censure I can muster. It is my opinion for a multitude of reasons, that the present Israeli government fit within that second group and will be repeatedly the subject of my opprobrium.