Robert Harris
Frontpagemag.com
11 May '10
The pro-Palestinian movement is profoundly undemocratic with regard to dissenting views. All contentious issues have at least two points of view. A level of reasoned discussion is often required to bring about a fair resolution to a given issue. While most of us can have strong reactions to the opinions of others when they are unpalatable, we still recognize they are entitled to have differing opinions. The need for free speech is meaningless if we all agree with each other, and it is a necessary characteristic of having a free, open society.
Today, in honor of Yom Yerushalayim, a very special video - Jerusalem Day: Reflections by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
However, nowhere more so than with the Israeli-Palestinian debate does a genuine belligerence occur when there is a divergence of opinion away from the predominant pro-Palestinian narrative of the conflict. Whenever anyone endorses an opinion in the media or on the Internet that is even mildly critical of the Palestinians or mildly supportive of Israel they are typically subjected to extreme criticism. Palestinian sympathisers often use a variety of dishonest methods of argumentation. One common method of counter-argument largely avoids confronting the issue at hand. A pro-Israel article dealing with a particular topic is broadly dismissed but typically issues are cited that are beyond the scope of said article and as a consequence vitriolic scorn is often heaped upon it. Even lengthy articles can only deal with a limited number of topics in a limited number of words, and can only address a limited number of responses. Yet they are typically attacked to such an extent it comes across as an attempt, wherever possible, to discredit articles supporting Israel.
The Guardian newspaper has been for some time a notoriously biased publication when it comes to matters of the Middle East. Any article that doesn’t roundly condemn Israel is subjected to extreme prolific criticism below in the Comment is Free (CIF) Internet comment sections that is often very abusive in nature. Furthermore, rather than just criticising the content of the article, many comments can be extremely personal in nature. An author’s reputation can be put into disrepute by claiming he or she is a “holocaust denier,” under the control of “Zionist paymasters” etc. The moderators of the Comment is Free section often allow deeply anti-Semitic views to also be expressed. The criticism is very prolific, with comments sometimes numbering in the thousands. The Comment is Free section is an extreme example from a mainstream newspaper but this sort of activity is nonetheless very common.
It should be clear that this sort of behaviour represents an attempt to intimidate and essentially shout down any dissenting opinions. This does not only happen on the Internet. On discussion shows the same often occurs, and in mainstream publications few moderate articles on the conflict ever go unanswered (forcefully) in letters pages. From colloquial evidence, many that defend Israel are sometimes subjected to serious threats, which needs to be discussed openly.
(Read full article)
However, nowhere more so than with the Israeli-Palestinian debate does a genuine belligerence occur when there is a divergence of opinion away from the predominant pro-Palestinian narrative of the conflict. Whenever anyone endorses an opinion in the media or on the Internet that is even mildly critical of the Palestinians or mildly supportive of Israel they are typically subjected to extreme criticism. Palestinian sympathisers often use a variety of dishonest methods of argumentation. One common method of counter-argument largely avoids confronting the issue at hand. A pro-Israel article dealing with a particular topic is broadly dismissed but typically issues are cited that are beyond the scope of said article and as a consequence vitriolic scorn is often heaped upon it. Even lengthy articles can only deal with a limited number of topics in a limited number of words, and can only address a limited number of responses. Yet they are typically attacked to such an extent it comes across as an attempt, wherever possible, to discredit articles supporting Israel.
The Guardian newspaper has been for some time a notoriously biased publication when it comes to matters of the Middle East. Any article that doesn’t roundly condemn Israel is subjected to extreme prolific criticism below in the Comment is Free (CIF) Internet comment sections that is often very abusive in nature. Furthermore, rather than just criticising the content of the article, many comments can be extremely personal in nature. An author’s reputation can be put into disrepute by claiming he or she is a “holocaust denier,” under the control of “Zionist paymasters” etc. The moderators of the Comment is Free section often allow deeply anti-Semitic views to also be expressed. The criticism is very prolific, with comments sometimes numbering in the thousands. The Comment is Free section is an extreme example from a mainstream newspaper but this sort of activity is nonetheless very common.
It should be clear that this sort of behaviour represents an attempt to intimidate and essentially shout down any dissenting opinions. This does not only happen on the Internet. On discussion shows the same often occurs, and in mainstream publications few moderate articles on the conflict ever go unanswered (forcefully) in letters pages. From colloquial evidence, many that defend Israel are sometimes subjected to serious threats, which needs to be discussed openly.
(Read full article)
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment