Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East Israel media bias dishonest reporting

Aporil 25, 2008

After the Tom Scott article was published in the Dominion Post, a number of viewers sent feedback via the KBRM web site. One letter was complimentary:

‘Islamists want to destroy everything the West holds dear’

Web Feedback

Congratulations for the rebuff to Tom Scott's anti-Semitic agitprop. Not surprising, the DomPost published Rodney Brooks' article under another piece of lame anti-Israel British Bullsh*t trying to revive Al-Dura-like accusations against the IDF. Surely, when these are demolished and proved lies, their audience once again will be left unaware of the reality.

Your activities seem a bit Quixotic in a situation when there is no media of even slightly different political persuasions in New Zealand, and in press Fairfax enjoys almost monopolistic position. For a Western democracy, it's a mockery of free speech, and the miserable quality of journalism, either domestic or international, in the only newspaper published in the capital, is a lamentable consequence. Anyway, those who go for presumably lost causes make this world better. You do. Thanks!

Four people criticised the article. In all cases their letters were answered by Dr. Rodney Brooks, KBRM chairman, without consultation with the KBRM membership, and so represent only his views. These responses are in red to distinguish them from the incoming mail.

Correspondent #1

> Israel as a nation is doomed if it continues its current behavior. In fact it has probably already sealed its fate with the oppression of the Palestinians over the last sixty years.
> The mighty Israeli army spends a great deal of time fighting with street gangs of various kinds, and killing mostly civilians - even when they are supposedly protected inside a "refugee" camp. When it faces an even partially competant opponent, it is beaten. The next time Israel takes on the Lebanese Hizbollah will be a sad day for Israel, and the world.
> The point is , and its made time and again - Israel has to begin behaving like a real nation state and confront its enemies without the use of military force. Israel cannot win a military confrontation in the Middle East without the use of nuclear weapons - and that is no victory.
> New Zealand and its people have no interest in supporting a nation that threatens to drag the world into a nuclear conflagration simply through its own arrogance and blind hatred.
> Stop oppressing the Palestinains, stop cuddling up to nuclear power via the USA, and start acting like a grown up country, you have a great deal to gain , and everything to lose.

Thanks for taking the trouble to write. I'm very sorry that you have the picture you do of Israel. All KBRM can do is present the facts and let people make up their own minds. If there is any statement in our article in the Dominion Post that you object to as being untrue or misleading, please let me know.

In this case, the fact is (and it is a fact), Israel does not want to oppress any Palestinians and would be very happy to leave them alone, if only the Palestinians would leave Israel alone.

Correspondent #2 (This letter was also published in the Dominion Post on May 3.)

I find it ironic that your organisation is called Kiwis for balanced reporting on the Mideast when Mr. Brooks' attempts to convey Israeli actions in Gaza with a positive slant extremely unbalanced by completely ignoring the realities on the ground.
It must be remembered that Israel had no qualms with using cluster bombs when it invaded Lebanon in 2006. Any country that uses cluster bombs is not "fighting for its life" but rather causing death and disfigurement to thousands of innocents for years to come.
Mr. Brooks' claim of one thousand Israeli dead since 2000 is surely dwarfed by the tens of thousnds killed and yet to be killed by a well organised and brutal military.
We must thank the Dominion Post for balancing Mr. Brooks' extreme and bias opinion with an article by a real reporter, Tim Butcher of the Telegraph, on the true affects of the massive Israeli war machine on innocent civilians.
I look forward to your reply and hopefully an apology for attempting to mislead the New Zealand public on Israel's unethical aggression.

Thanks for taking the trouble to write. The reason we call ourselves ‘Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast’ is because there is a huge pro-Palestinian bias in the NZ press, as documented in our analysis (see Jan. 24 article under ‘Previous Posts’).

The article about Tom Scott is a perfect example of that. Scott presented a very one-sided and inaccurate picture of the ‘Holy Land’, and we balanced it by presenting the other side. We stand by every statement in it. If you think it is misleading the NZ public, please identify which statements you think are wrong, or shouldn't have been said. In regard to your comments, let me just say that what you call Israel's 'unethical aggression' would not happen at all if the Palestinian terrorists, particularly Hamas, recognized Israel's right to live in peace and allowed it to do so. This is a fact with a capital F. It is also a fact that, unlike the terrorists, who deliberately aim bombs and guns at civilians, Israel targets only military targets. Now it is true that every bomb does not always land precisely on its target and every soldier does not always act as he should. Civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, especially when militants hide among civilians and use them as shields. Nevertheless, Israel does its best, and probably has a better track record in this regard than, say, the Allies during WWII.

If you don't recognize these two facts, then of course I can understand why you are anti-Israel.

This led to a second round of letters. The correspondent's letter (in black) is incorporated into the response:

Before I answer your comments, let me ask you one question: Do you really believe that Israel WANTS to kill Palestinians, and would continue to do so, even if Hamas and other ‘militant’ groups were to recognise Israel and allow it to live in peace? This is a Y/N question. If the answer is Y (as it seems to be), would you be kind enough to tell me what motive Israel would have for doing so? Even if you ignore the rest of the correspondence, I hope you will answer those questions.
Now here are my answers in red:

You claim in your article that Tom Scott's cartoons were one-sided. I would agree that the cartoon depicting a prison camp could be taken this way, but then again it also depicts an accurate situation of state of affairs in that region - the people of Gaza are unable to leave the area without the permission of the Israeli authority. But it doesn't give the reason for this, which is the continuing attacks from Gaza on Israel. It also is inaccurate in regard to the West Bank, whose border is crossed every day by tens of thousands of Palestinians, and it is grossly inaccurate in calling Israel ‘home detention’.

Your response to the cartoon of a young boy writing letters in an effort to stop the violence was to state that Palestinian children do not write letters of apology. You misunderstood both the cartoon and my response. The boy in the cartoon was NOT trying to ‘stop the violence’; he was pointing out the imbalance in casualties. Second, my main response was to quote a reader who pointed out that Israel would be happy to stop defending itself if the Gazans would stop attacking it..

You completely miss the intended irony, much as you appear to miss the irony in the name of your organisation. My point about misleading the public was that you purport to be a neutral party, when in fact, you are clearly pro-Israel. You don't understand the purpose of KBRM. We are only ‘pro-Israel’ in the sense that we believe Israel's side of the story should be told, and told truthfully, so that Kiwis can make up their minds in an informed way. That's what we mean by ‘balanced reporting’. It is you who, by objecting to our article, feels that only one side should be told.

You state that the extreme violence Israel inflicts on a daily basis would cease if the Palestinian ‘terrorists’ would stop firing rockets into Israel's borders. You got that wrong. Israel doesn't attack Gaza daily, but the Gazans do fire rockets at Israel on a daily basis. It is the under-reporting of this that is one of the things KBRM tries to correct.

If you are to call one side of this conflict "terrorists", by definition you accept that Israel's actions are that of a ‘terrorist state’ — after all it is a continuous state of terror that the residents of Gaza live under. Your definition of terrorism is quite different from mine. In my experience it denotes violence aimed at civilians to achieve a political end. The Palestinians routinely attack homes, schools, cafes and even hospitals, all with the aim of destroying a country. Israel acts in self defence, striking at the militants who are dedicated to destroying it. By your definition, the Allies in WWII would have been ‘terrorists’. Is that how you feel?

Last week Hamas offered a six month ceasefire to Israel. This was rejected and since then more Palestinian civilians have been killed. Today another truce proposed by factions gathered in Egypt was also rejected by the Israeli authorities. As it is Israel that continues to perpetuate the violence and refuses to stop killing, it is Israel's responsibility to take the necessary steps to end the bloodshed. When one country is trying to destroy another country, and that country is defending itself, it is not up to the defending country to take steps to end the bloodshed - it is up to the attacking country to stop the attacks. And that doesn't mean just for six months so that it can build up further arms; it means to state unequivocally that the other country can exist. But it is not the business of KBRM to decide who should do what. Our concern is that coverage of the conflict be truthful and balanced.

It is a civilised culture that can recognise its own mistakes and make the changes needed to move forward peacefully. From your lips to the Palestinians' ears.

You failed to respond to my points regarding the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon and how Israel can justify the indiscriminate killing thousands of innocents. To simply state that ‘Civilian casualties are unavoidable’ is unacceptable on many levels. Please address this if you wish to continue this discussion. There are pro and con arguments on the use of cluster bombs, and not everything done in a war meets the highest moral standards, including WWII. The various issues in this conflict could fill a book, and we have already gone too far afield.

The word fact would only have a ‘capital F’ if it is a pro-noun or beginning a sentence. I have already addressed your so-called facts above. To accuse me of being "anti-Israel" should I disagree with your opinion only demonstrates that your argument is based on emotion rather than fact. I called you ‘anti-Israel’ because (a) you don't grant Israel the right that other nations are given to defend themselves, (b) you blame Israel, which only attacks military targets, for causing civilian casualties but you don't blame the Palestinians, who target primarily civilians, and (c) you don't want to have Israel's side of the story appear in print.

I am neither anti-Israel nor anti-Palestine, rather I am pro-Peace — as we all should be. We are all pro-peace, but bringing about peace is not within KBRM's power. Our aim is simply to see that both sides of the story are told.

I hope that you do not take offence to my correspondence, as I truly believe that violence will never solve any of the problems that persist in the Middle East - a peaceful solution must be found or the horror of war will continue

Please take the time to think about what I have written here and I am sure you will become enlightened. I have taken the time. Please do the same. However I doubt that you will be enlightened because you appear to have a mindset that Israel is to blame, regardless of the facts, and you see moral equality between a nation defending itself, and those who are trying to destroy it. Sorry, but I can't go there.

This led to two more exchanges of letters, with the correspondent becoming increasingly aggressive, finally accusing Dr. Brooks of ‘lacking the basic intellectual faculties to understand my rebuttal’ and saying ‘I only write in the vain hope of helping you recover from your increasingly destructive disorder’, all the time refusing to answer the Y/N question asked above. This tirade ended the correspondence.

Correspondent #3

It seems imbalanced to me that you call yourselves ‘Kiwis For Balanced Reporting On The Mideast’. Your intentions are CLEARLY one sided.

It is true that in recent years there has been some unfavourable reporting regarding Israel and Israeli action. There has been very very much more unfavourable and often disgracefully racist reporting regarding Palestinians and Arabs and for many more years. So it is no surprise that there are recent efforts to tackle the historical imbalance. Those who you might label biased may be aiming to be the very opposite.
True, no person can be completely unbiased. I was brought up to believe that Israel was a good gentle sweet country with hardworking citizens who had finally come home after years of banishment. Then I went and saw for my own eyes — and I'm appalled at not only Israel but all those who supported the banishment of the Palestinians and the ongoing disgraceful treatment of them.

Who are you trying to persuade. Is it me? Is it those who have not yet seen? Is it you?

Please get your blinkers off. The plight of the Palestinians is terrible. Israeli arrogance, racism and violence towards the Palestinian people is rife and this needs to be acknowledged. True, not all Israelis hate Palestinians but very many do. And of course the reverse is true too. Ask yourself - why?

Palestinians who fight back are labeled ‘Terrorists’. Israelis who fight back are called ‘Soldiers’. Palestinians who are killed are called ‘Terrorists’. Israelis who are killed are called ‘Civilians’...

It is too late to pretend that the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is purely in ‘self defense’ and that the Israelis are all good gentle citizens just trying to get on with their lives. The evidence is overwhelming. The bias has been way too badly one sided for more than sixty years so you have a mess. It seems perhaps almost a failed experiment to try to found a state on religious grounds. It seems ironically to always lead to violence.

Thank you for taking the trouble to contact us. The reason we call ourselves 'Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast" is because there is a huge pro-Palestinian bias in the NZ press. This is documented in our analysis for 2007 (see Jan. 24 article under ‘Previous Posts’) which, using objective standards, found a ratio of 2.4 to 1. We are not knee-jerk pro-Israel, nor do we think that Israel does everything perfectly, but we do believe that Kiwis should be exposed to both sides of the story.

The article about Tom Scott is a perfect example of that. Scott presented a very one-sided and inaccurate picture of the 'Holy Land', and we balanced it by presenting the other side. If you object to this article, perhaps you would like to tell me exactly which sentences or facts you think are wrong, or shouldn't have been said.

Now if you don't mind, I would like to try to respond to several of your comments:

‘those who supported the banishment of the Palestinians’. I have done quite a bit of research on this, and it is clear that it was largely (but not entirely) the Palestinians who 'banished' themselves: (a) by making war against the Israelis and (b) by being urged by Arab leaders to flee from the war they had started. Today there are 1.4 million Arabs living peacefully within Israel.

‘the ongoing disgraceful treatment of them’. Please read our article 'Israel: The most integrated nation in the Mideast' on our web site (Feb. 20 post).

‘Palestinians who fight back are labelled ‘Terrorists’. Israelis who fight back are called ‘Soldiers’’. Palestinians are called terrorists because they target civilians. Israelis are called ‘soldiers'’ because they target only military targets, and are under strict orders to do so. (Of course, as in any war, things aft gang aglay, due to technical or personal errors and there are civilian casualties — especially hard to avoid when the terrorists base themselves among civilians and use civilians as shields.)

Finally, we aren't trying to persuade you or anybody. We are simply trying to present facts that are usually not presented in the NZ press.

Thanks again for writing to us.

I think we will have to disagree regarding your standards which conclude that New Zealand has a pro-Palestinian bias in the press. I suspect there are many examples of pro-Israel or anti Arab reporting that you do not document simply because you agree with the insinuation and therefore don't notice the implication.

Regarding Tom Scott's cartoons — true he is presenting an opinion which could well be regarded as one-sided, though it seems to me he is also showing some sympathy for the Israelis in his cartoons. He points out that for both sides , the situation is awful but that overall, the situation is a lot more desperate for the Palestinians. Surely you don't disagree with that? And hopefully you have enough humanity in you not to think that the inordinate number of Palestinian civilians killed or injured deserve their fate.
There is terrible bitterness and despair in both of those societies. Kids who grow up in such an environment tend to develop strong resolve to fight back.
You talk of how Palestinians dance in the streets when Israeli civilians are killed — yes some Palestinians do and nobody condones that but it is wrong to imply or assume that this is the only Palestinian attitude regarding the deaths of Israeli citizens — it is unbalanced to suggest that that may be the case as you indeed do in your letter published in Friday's Dominion Post.

You talk of Arab citizens in Israel who would prefer to remain there than be part of a Palestinian State. It is not hard to see why.
Israel, who has U.S. backing and far the greater military might, offers very little to the Palestinians whenever discussions are broached regarding a Palestinian State. A Palestinian State would be controlled (policed) and kept weak by Israel. Only an idealist would want to live there.

You talk in your letter to me of the Palestinians declaring war on the Israelis. I think you too would eventually fight back if there was a clear and deliberate infiltration happening in your homeland by a religious group consisting of citizens from all over the world. Those who chose not to fight back but leave their home country temporarily for the safety of their families, believed they would be returning to their homes. Many kept keys and titles to their houses only to find on return that their property had been confiscated.
Yes there are currently Arabs living peacefully within Israel. Before the establishment of Israel, there were a number of Jews living peacefully within Palestine.
It is not rational to expect those who have genuine reason to feel aggrieved, to simply forget that.

You ask me to read your article 'Israel; The most integrated nation in the Mideast'. I will — but even before having done so I can say Israel is integrated because it has actively encouraged people from countries all over the world to move there. Those who have moved there largely do so because they passionately believe in the Zionist cause and therefore have little if any sympathy for the culture of the Palestinians who have lived on that land for a great deal longer. To add insult to the injury, the newcomers are given land which is confiscated from the natives.

I too have done quite a bit of research on the establishment of Israel. I also have been researching biblical archaeology which more recently, through scientific analysis amongst other tools, concludes that the Israelites were a sub group within the Canaanites, that much of the old testament was written well after the facts and much of it is extremely twisted if not completely untrue.
Now that statement might make me a heretic in the eyes of some. Some might be moved to wish to act violently towards me for stating it — BUT — these are facts simple — not inspired by passion or religious belief - not biased. Might I suggest that you read ‘the Bible Unearthed’ by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (both Israeli archaeologists).

I do not condone humankind killing humankind ever.
I do think that Israel has lost the plot with a dangerous unyielding attitude.
I know that there are many Israeli citizens who do not condone the heavy handed attitude their right wing government has towards Palestinian citizens.
It is a shame there are not enough of these citizens to vote a more realistic and humanitarian Israeli government into power.
Politics is a dirty game.

Oh and one more thing, I had a friend in London who was a young soldier in Israel. The terrible things he witnessed while there — including cover ups on the part of the Israeli military led him to leave his homeland.

You've written quite a bit, and I think it's best to focus on just a few items. Let's start with:

You said, ‘I think you too would eventually fight back if there was a clear and deliberate infiltration happening in your homeland by a religious group consisting of citizens from all over the world.’ This is the most fundamental point of all, because it has to do with Israel's right to exist. There are many countries that were founded by ethnic groups that came from other regions; New Zealand of course is one of them. In most cases the invading groups had no previous ties to or presence in the land, there was no international authorization, and the entire land was taken over. None of these things were true in the case of Israel. Israelis had a historical presence in the land - not just for centuries but for millennia; Israel was created with United.Nations authorization; and the land was divided between Jews and Arabs.

So I think the first question to settle is, do you believe that Israel has the right to exist? To put it another way, after 60 years of war against Israel, no matter how justifiable you feel it may have been, do you feel that it's time for the Arabs to accept Israel's right to exist in peace? If your answer is NO, then that's the end of the discussion. I would have to say that, given this belief, your other opinions necessarily follow.

If your answer is YES, Israel DOES have the right to exist and it IS time for the Arabs to accept it, then let's go on to some other points:
In regard to ‘I suspect there are many examples of pro-Israel or anti Arab reporting that you do not document simply because you agree with the insinuation and therefore don't notice the implication.’, this is not true. Our raters document EVERY article they can that is related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and they rate it according to strict objective standards (see Ratings page of web site). Insinuations and implications don't enter into it.
I asked you to cite specific sentences in my article you think are wrong. You cited one example ‘it is wrong to imply or assume that this (dancing in the streets) is the only Palestinian attitude regarding the deaths of Israeli citizens — it is unbalanced to suggest that that may be the case’. This statement was made in response to Tom Scott's assertion that Palestinian schoolchildren write letters of condolence to Israeli families. His statement (even if not meant to be taken literally) was not just one-sided, it was wrong. But they do dance in the streets. Note that I did NOT state, imply or assume that this is the only Palestinian attitude, but it is the dominant, visible Palestinian attitude, whereas Scott's depiction was untrue, or at best represents the attitude of a tiny (invisible?) minority.

This is an important point because it reflects a major difference between the two sides. Israelis do NOT rejoice in casualties inflicted on civilians, or even on militants for that matter. May I quote former Prime Minister Golda Meir: ‘we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.’

If Mr. Scott is permitted to give his one-sided (and false) portrayal, don't you think KBRM should be permitted to balance it with Israel's side of the story, which in this case happens to be a lot closer to the truth? Here again, I think we have a make-or-break question. If your answer NO then, unless I'm missing something major, I don't see how we could have a rational discussion.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Rodney Brooks

P.S. In regard to your statement that "hopefully you have enough humanity in you not to think that the inordinate number of Palestinian civilians killed or injured deserve their fate", let me assure you that neither I nor any member of KBRM thinks that any civilians deserve to be killed or injured, whether the number is ordinate or inordinate. I also believe that very few Israelis think that.

No further response was received.

Correspondent #4

In an article published in the Dominion Post on Friday 25 April, Rodney Brooks (who is described as chairman of KBRM) makes false comparisons, ignores important facts, draws illogical conclusions and lies in an effort to portrait Israel as being the morally superior party in Israeli Palestinian conflict. For someone who claims to be in favour of balanced reporting Rodney has written one of the most biased articles on this subject that I have yet seen in the Dominion Post. It should attract one of the worst ratings for balance on your website.
He makes a false comparison between the West Bank barrier and other border fences. He ignores the obvious difference: most border fences are build by countries on their own side of the border. Building a fence on the neighbour's side of the border (which Israel has done with the West Bank barrier) is rare and invariably controversial. For example, I am sure if the US had followed Israel's example and built its border fence with Mexico inside Mexico fencing off chucks of Mexico (which it could do given US military superiority over Mexico) then such a fence would be every bit as controversial as the West Bank barrier. But like almost all other countries the US has built its fence on the US side of the border.
I suspect Rodney is unaware of the irony in his statement ‘When your neighbour keeps invading your yard and killing your family...’ given that it is much more a description of what Israel has done to Palestinians and other Arab neighbours to a far, far greater extent than they have ever done in return. Israel is by far the worst respecter of boundries and killer of civilians in that part of the world. Israel has killed vastly more Arab civilians than the civilian deaths it has suffered. It has invaded and occupied far more Arab territory than the reverse. Rodney should be campaigning to keep Israel contained within some sort of barrier if he is really worried about human lives and borders.
Rodney's description about how easy it is for the people of the West Bank to move about and enter and leave is completely at odds with the facts of 100s of Israeli check points, Israeli mandated system of passes plus lack of passports and Israeli rules on visas to enter the West Bank that make sure that Palestinians live very much under the Israeli thumb.
His argument that Gaza is not under even more restrictions than the West Bank don't even make sense. Given that the Israeli government has quite made clear that it restricts movement in and out of Gaza both of people and goods (including fuel and food aid) in an openly stated effort to put "pressure" on Hamas by hurting the civilian population. As for the Rafah crossing it may be run by the Egyptians but they obey rules agreed with Israel which include CCTV feed to Israel, only Israeli approved people can cross and that it only operate when EU observers are present. Those EU observers live in Israel and the IDF decides whether they can go to work or not, hence putting the ultimate control of the Rafah crossing in the hands of Israel.
Rodney expresses surprise that Israel allows supplies of food, fuel, power etc to be sent from Israel to Gaza but given that Israel remains the ultimate authority over Gaza and steadfastly refuses to relinquish such control, Israel is merely carrying out its international obligation under such circumstances.
His argument that Israeli Arabs have equal rights because they prefer to be Israelis than go and live in Gaza or the West Bank is illogical. Everyone agrees that Israel treats their own Arabs better than they treat those in Gaza or the West Bank, but that doesn't mean they are equal citizens to Israel's Jews. There are plenty of examples of differing treatment ranging from housing regulations, government spending, access to jobs, treatment by El Al and airport security etc. During the Jim Crow era in the US when American blacks were discriminated against, there was no exodus of blacks from the US. During the apartheid era in South Africa there was a net migration of blacks to South Africa. It would be laughable to use these as "proof" that blacks were treated equally to whites in those countries in those eras.
Ultimately Rodney Brooks ignores the most important fact, which is that the cause of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is the ethnic cleansing of, and theft of land and other property from the Palestinian population by Jewish settlers (mostly in 1948 but continuing today in the West Bank). Palestinians struggle to regain what was stolen from them, and prevent more being taken. Israel defends its theft and keeps on taking.

Thank you for taking the trouble to send me your letter. You are obviously an intelligent, knowledgeable person and you have presented your arguments in a rational way. I would like to respond to them in reverse order, because it is your last paragraph that I think is at the root of the difference between us.

8. You see the creation of the state of Israel as ‘theft of land’. While no land was literally ‘stolen"’, as I presume you know, you are clearly referring to the installation of a Jewish government over the land allocated to it by the UN. Further when you talk of the ‘Palestinian struggle to regain what was stolen from them’, you obviously mean their desire to destroy Israel and replace it with a Muslim state. KBRM, on the other hand, sees Israel as a legitimate country, created in an ancestral land by international agreement, in parallel with the creation of a Palestinian state alongside it (which, as it happens, was invaded and "stolen" by Jordan, which used it as a base to attack Israel — but that's another story). I can understand why anyone who thinks that Israel should not be there and that the Arabs are right in their desire to push it into the sea would not like my article.

Now to your other points:

7. I'm afraid your logic breaks down here, or you misread. I did not say that Arab Israelis have equal rights BECAUSE they prefer to be Israelis. I said it because they DO have equal rights as citizens of the state, but I didn't say they are treated the same in every aspect of life. I would agree, for example, that Arabs are more likely to be subject to security checks at airports, or excluded from certain residential areas (as Jews are excluded from Arab residential areas). In another article that was published in The Press, I discussed this at some length. However, as you must realise, there are very few countries, including New Zealand, where minorities (not to mention minorities that are members of an enemy group) do not suffer any discrimination. I was referring to equal rights under the law.

6. I do not think this is because of ‘international obligations’. I believe Israel does this - even to the point of furnishing the supplies and medical treatment — out of simple humanity. In any event, I'm glad you agree that they do it; that's the important thing.

5. I did NOT argue that Gaza is under less (or more) restrictions. What I said was that the need for a security fence is greater along that border because Gaza is an enemy state bent on Israel's destruction. You are correct about the Rafah crossing, and if I had more space I could have elaborated on that. I just wanted to make it clear that Israel is not the only country involved in controlling Gaza's borders.

4. I did not say ‘how easy it is for the people of the West Bank to move about, etc.’ I said, ‘Palestinians with a valid reason for entering Israel ‘work, study, medical treatment, etc.’ can do so. Twenty thousand Palestinians hold work permits in Israel, and 5,000 more are to be issued soon. In addition, those who want to travel abroad can do so via Jordan.’ All of these statements are true. Of course passports, etc., are needed.

3. I do not deny that the death count is, so to speak, in Israel's favour. I was referring to the fact, as you yourself stated in your last paragraph, that the Arabs have been trying to "regain what was taken from them" for 60 years, while Israel has been fighting to defend itself from such destruction. Nor do I deny that Israel has, so far, been successful in this defence, so that the land discrepancy you refer to is also in Israel's favour. However, adding these two facts would not in the least have changed the central point, which is that the fence is being built to keep out Arab terrorists who want to kill Israelis.

2. Come on, _____, you should know that when you make a comparison you cannot address every similarity and every difference. Of course you're right that Israel's fence is built on the Palestinian side, and if it were up to me, I would not have chosen its present location. However the similarity that I was referring to is that all these fences were built to keep people from entering the country, not to fence them in. This was the central point of the article, in response to Tom Scott's false depiction.

You will note that I have taken the trouble to go through each of the points you raised, and what do we have?. In some case you simply misunderstood or misstated what I said. In other cases you pointed out ‘omissions’ that I could have included (if there had been space) without changing the thrust of the article in the least way: There is discrimination in Israel, Israel is involved in the Rafah regulations, there are checkpoints in the West Bank and passports are required for exit, Israel has so far been more successful in defending itself than the Arabs have been in attacking it, and the location of the security fence is on the Palestinian side.

Yet from all of this - and now we come to your first paragraph

1. Now if you look at what I really wrote, instead of what you think I wrote, you will see that I have not lied or drawn illogical conclusions. The facts that were omitted (because I was writing a space-limited article) would not have altered the conclusions one iota. As for balance, it is clear that you haven't looked at our rating system. There is no ‘worst’; we rate I, P, or N, depending on the space and emphasis given to damage, hardship and blame on each side. In this case the rating for the text (apart from the headline and the reproduction of the two cartoons that dominate the article) would of course be I. The whole point of the article is to balance Tom Scott's incorrect opinion with the (correct) other side of the story. Your letter itself is evidence that such balance is needed.

I said at the top that your belief that Israel has no right to exist and should be destroyed (or retaken) by the Palestinians would explain why you don't like my article, but I'm not sure that's true. If you are truly an intelligent, reasonable person, shouldn't you be willing to have both sides of a story presented? Do you not want the public to know that Arab Israelis have equal rights (even if there is some discrimination) and are treated better than New Zealand treated its German residents during WWII? Do you not want the public to know that Israel is acting humanely in supplying food and medical treatment to its enemies? Do you not want the public to know that it's not just Israel, but also Egypt and the EU that control the Gaza borders? Do you not want the world to know that West Bank residents with valid credentials and reasons can enter Israel and even go abroad? Do you not want the public to know that, despite the ‘score’ being in Israel's favour, it is the Arab determination to infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis that led to the erection of the fence? In short, are you a one-sided bigot or are you in favour of truth and open discussion?

As for me, I have no objection to the Palestinian side of the conflict being presented, as long as it is done truthfully. I too have sympathy for the Palestinian plight, and wish they would abandon their desire to destroy Israel so that their plight can be addressed.

I hope you will respond, as you took a lot of trouble to express your objections and I took a lot of trouble to respond to them.

I'm glad we agree about Rafah.

We appear to be talking about different ideas of ownership. I was talking about private property and the theft of that private property whether it is land, buildings, crops, livestock, machinery, personal belonging and money from banks etc from Palestinians by the Israeli government (and in some cases by soldiers and civilians).

Which government is in charge over an area of land and the associated population is a different issue. The UN didn't reallocate private property with resolution 181, in fact it said ‘No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.’. The UN didn't mention other forms of private property than land but I expect that was because they expected the Jewish and Arab States to respect other forms of private property without being told.

The creation of the state of Israel was accompanied by theft of property from Palestinians worth many times the total value of property owned by Jews at the start of 1947. Theft of Palestinian land by Israel is going on in the West Bank as we email each other. This and the refugee issue need to be addressed before Israel will ever be at peace with the Palestinians.

Personally I don't care if there is a single government of and by all of Palestine/Israel (Jews and Arabs) or two governments. Both scenarios have major problems, which I'd be happy to discuss at some other time. My view is that all humans should be treated equally regardless of skin colour, religion etc.

It is a big jump on your part to go from my concern over human rights and respect of private property to support for a desire to ‘destroy Israel and replace it with a Muslim state’. Not all Palestinians want to destroy Israel let alone want to live in a Muslim state. Some do, undoubtedly, but at the moment it is still a minority opinion amoung Palestinians. But these are views that are growing in popularity as Israel still continues to expand its settlements in the West Bank, occupy and repress the West Bank and Gaza and refuses even to acknowledge the crimes of 1947/8, let alone redress them. To me it looks like extreme opinions are gaining ground amoung Palestinians and Israel's actions and inactions seem to be the catalyst. Call me a pessimist if you like but I see peace as becoming less and less likely.

I am glad you acknowledge that Israeli Arabs are discriminated against, it is a pity you forgot to include this in your article in the Dom, as that would be very important when discussing Tom Scott's cartoon as it would support the point of Tom's cartoon.

Similarly you are now saying that you are not contradicting Tom Scott's point that Gaza is under worse repression than the West Bank. Pity you didn't include this in your article in the Dom, because now you have taken the time to explain yourself it sounds like you, Tom Scott and I are pretty close to agreement on the differing treatment Israel has for Palestinians in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank. Even if you prefer that Tom didn't make the points so publicly.

You also now acknowledge the disproportionate kill ratio between the two sides. Putting this in the article would also support the point of Tom's other cartoon. Pity this got missed out.

Are you saying that Israel doesn't have obligations to civilians in territories it is occupying (or even in countries it is fighting against)? Other countries have such obligations (which they don't always fulfill) why not Israel? Obligations are important to acknowledge and respect especially in situations of major power imbalance, otherwise it is too easy to overlook them (as the US did at Abu Ghraib).

Twice you have used the phrase ‘enemy state’ when referring to Gaza. I ignored the first time as I thought it might be petty of me to mention it. But you have done it again so I'll take you to task over it. Gaza is not a state, it is a non-state territory populated mostly by refugees from Israel and their descendants.

The difference between the placement of West Bank barrier and other border fences is the most important point about it. Making comparisons that don't mention it, is making a false comparison. I am glad you have agreed that it is in the wrong place, and I hope you make this point in public as forcefully as you make your other points. If the barrier was merely to keep terrorists out there would be no point on building it though the West Bank. Have you thought that the barrier is built with more than one purpose in mind?

I am not opposed to open discussion and information being presented about both sides. But it is important to avoid making false comparisons, ignoring important facts and making false statements. I accept your "clarifications" and it is a pity you couldn't put them in the article as it would make the whole tone of the article very different and show there isn't that much difference between your point of view and the points that Tom was making. (Which were: Israel has 3 classes of treatment for Palestinians depending on whether they live in Gaza, Israel or the West Bank; and the kill ratio is disproportionate).

Out of interest, how do you see Israel addressing the ‘Palestinian plight’?

Let's clarify one fundamental point before even touching the others. That is, what is the ‘struggle’ about?

Let us put aside for the moment if the ‘ethnic cleansing’ was caused by Israel or by the Arabs. Let us put aside the question of whether ‘ethnic cleansing’ is even the proper term, considering that there are 1.4 million Arabs within Israel. And let us put aside the question of how much if any land was ‘stolen’. (I have a still-vivid memory of a visit to Jerusalem where a friend pointed out a house that was still held in trust for an Arab who owned it before he fled in 1948.) Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel indeed stole land from Arabs and forced them out of the country.

Do you really believe this is what Hamas and other "militant" groups are fighting for — to regain private property (land, buildings, crops, livestock, machinery, personal belonging and money)? Do you believe that if this property were restored, or adequate compensation given, that Hamas would be content and Israel could live in peace? Suppose each Arab family were compensated double the amount that their property was worth, regardless of why it was lost - do you believe that would settle the conflict and Hamas would lay down its arms?

And here's another question: Even if their property was "stolen" (as we're assuming for the sake of argument), do you believe that sending suicide bombers and rockets to kill innocent civilians, including babies, is a proper way to get it back? Do you think that such "theft" justifies this kind of struggle — what most people call terrorism? If a neighbour stole your land, would you then strap an explosive belt around you and go into his cousin's house to blow up his cousin's family?

If all this is true, then it seems that you have no problem with the existence of Israel and you believe that the Arabs also should accept it, as long as their property is restored or suitable compensation paid.

As for me, I don't see it that way at all. To me there is no question but that the Arabs never accepted Israel in the first place and have been fighting to destroy it for 60 years. I see this in the 60 years of history, the five wars, in the Hamas charter, in statements by Hamas leaders, in Hamas' refusal to even recognise Israel. I never heard any Hamas leader say, ‘we will accept Israel if they restore our private property or compensate us for it.’

So let's clarify this point because the other issues, even if we should agree on them, are minutiae compared to this. (And there is much you say that I wholeheartedly agree with.) Of course there are some issues that we might disagree about. For example, you might be unfamiliar with the protections that Israel has in effect for Arab-owned absentee property.

But the basic question is, what is the Palestinian struggle about? Why do they send suicide bombers and rockets to kill Israelis?

Lets address two points in this email: terrorism and your confusion between Hamas and all Palestinians.

Lets remember that not all Palestinians are Hamas (something you seem repeatedly confused about). I may be a pessimist but yes, I do believe that support for Hamas would wither away if the Palestinians regained their private property. What reason would ordinary Palestinian voters / civilians have to support Hamas when they no longer have anything to personally to gain from it? Once you have a job, house and personal safety it is difficult to put your life on the line for a cause that won't gain you anything as American army recruiters have found. Hamas militants would survive in a reduced form, may be for quite a long time, killing occasionally and becoming less and less relevant like the KKK in the US after the abolition of slavery. It is silly to rule out a chance at peace because you can't guarantee 100% of people will accept it.

Killing of civilians is wrong whether it is done by rockets, missiles, tank shells, bombs, suicide belts, rifle or machine gun fire etc. It is wrong regardless of whether those civilians are Jews or Palestinians. It is terrorism. And given you admit yourself that Israel does much more of the killing, we have to agree that both sides use an evil strategy by such killing and that Israel does much more such evil. So why would I condemn Palestinians more than Israel for using terrorism as strategy? Terrorism is the wrong strategy for both sides to use (from a moral point of view)

I could ask you why Israel uses terrorism? But that would be a petty taunt on my part.

You also ask ‘Why do they send suicide bombers and rockets to kill Israelis?’ the answer is in two parts. First on the weapons, if the Palestinian terrorists had F16s, tanks, helicopter gun-ships like Israel, they would use those to kill Israelis just like Israel does to kill Palestinian civilians (after all Israel has shown how effective better weapons are). I am not sure they are convinced they can actually destroy Israel using such pathetic weapons, I'm certainly not. Second is they feel they lack other ways to convince Israel to make peace. Talking to Israel has fallen on deaf ears for 60 years.

The Palestinian struggle is basically summarized by UN resolutions 194 and 242 as Palestinians have explained repeatedly. (I'm sure you are well aware of this ! !)

I'm still interested in knowing how you see Israel addressing the ‘Palestinian plight’?

Thanks for your last letter. It is obvious that I misunderstood and misjudged you in our first round of correspondence. We clearly disagree about at least two fundamental points. But first, I must tell you that I don't enjoy your repeated insults to my intelligence, e.g., your charge that I'm confused between Hamas and all Palestinians. Of course they're not the same, just as all Germans were not Nazis during WWII. (But that didn't stop Germany from attacking its neighbours, did it?)

Now here are the fundamental differences I referred to:

MOTIVE. You have replaced the present reality of ‘destroy Israel’ with a wish-fulfilment idea that if "stolen" personal property were restored or compensated, then Hamas would eventually give up or be rendered ineffective. You also replaced the 60-year reality of Arab armed attacks on Israel with your belief that they were only ‘talking to Israel’ to convince it ‘to make peace.’ Your version of history is pure fantasy, while your prediction is possible but problematical. In any event, KBRM is not in the prediction business.

MORALITY. You believe that deliberately attacking civilians with the intent of destroying a nation has the same morality as attacking those who try to destroy you while avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible. You say they're both ‘terrorism’ and ‘evil’ because civilians are killed. (I presume that you saw Allied actions in WWII as ‘evil’ and ‘terrorism’ because civilians were killed.) Sorry, Ian, but I can't join you on that either.

But the bottom line is that KBRM is neither in the prediction or morality business. Our aim is simply that both sides of the story today be told, and told truthfully. You believe that only one side should be told.

However I do appreciate your writing, as it has given me more insight into the kind of thinking that leads to the one-sided view that you espouse.

Thanks for your email, it is always very interesting to hear from you. While I am considering the points you made in your last email, I would dearly like to hear your personal views on the question I asked in my last 3 emails. As you know I have put a lot of time into responding to your points, how about responding to one question from me?

How you, Rodney Brooks, see Israel addressing the ‘Palestinian plight’?

I look forward to hearing your answer, in the meantime I'll prepare a response to your last email as like all your emails it includes some points that are well worth responding to.

Have a nice day, regards

First, the question of how Israel should address the ‘Palestinian plight’ is not one that I've thought much about.

Second, it's pretty far afield from KBRM's concern with balanced reporting on the mideast.

Third, I'm not sure what is meant by ‘Palestinian plight’. I don't know if you're referring to Gaza or the West Bank, or both. And I'm not sure why Israel should address it, rather than, say, other Arab nations or perhaps the UN. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer the question:

If by ‘plight’, you are referring to Israel's military and security actions, such as checkpoints and attacks on terrorists, I would say that the first thing needed is to stop the Palestinian attacks on Israel, and stop them permanently. I would then expect Israel to cease those military actions. Alternatively, if an international force were put in to stop the attacks on Israel, I would expect it to cease its military actions.

If by "plight", you are referring to economic conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, I would say that I don't think it is up to Israel, the nation being attacked by Palestinians, to remedy their economic problems. According to the UN charter, it is quite the other way around; when an aggressor nation attacks another nation, the international community is supposed to immediately apply economic pressure, such as a blockade, on the aggressor. I have always considered it the shame of the UN that, after creating Israel it left it among the wolves to defend itself, rather than fulfil its charter requirements and take action against the Arab armies. (It also allowed Jordan to take over what should have been a Palestinian state, without even protesting.)

But perhaps your question refers to a hypothetical future in which Hamas et al, have been somehow eliminated or rendered ineffective, and Israel's security guaranteed. In that case, I would first point out that the economies in the West Bank and Gaza are far from the worst in the world, and secondly, I would point out that there is a lot of oil money in the Arab world that could go into helping the Palestinian economy.

However, having said that, I would expect that Israel would join with other nations, especially Arab ones, to provide economic aid. In particular, I think Israel should see to it that all Palestinians are compensated for any property that may have been ‘stolen’ from them, perhaps as determined by an international tribunal (although I believe that this amount would be quite small). What's more, under those circumstances I believe that Israel would be happy to do that.

Please note that these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect those of other members of KBRM, which, as I said before, is not in the business of making predictions or decisions, but is simply concerned with balanced reporting.

I'm astonished; you wrote: ‘You believe that only one side should be told.’ Why do you think I believe this? Have I ever said this? I believe all views need to be known (and clearly identified). I was critical of the accuracy, completeness and balance of what you said in your DomPost article attacking Tom Scott's cartoons, especially as you were writing the name of Balance. But I have never said that the Israeli view shouldn't be told. I think the Israeli government view should be heard (and it very much is) and the PLO view and the Hamas view and so on. I also think that journalists and cartoonists should come to their own conclusions, their independence from control by outside forces is to be encouraged. I never said you shouldn't have written the article but I did say you should have been more accurate and complete in what you said and even said you should have included stuff you later admitted in your emails so the article more accurately reflected your knowledge (even if being more truthful would have spoilt the point you were trying to make -- but surely the truth is more important than the point)

I don't mean to insult your intelligence. But if you read carefully back over your emails you do seem to equate the Hamas charter with the aims of all Palestinians. There are other Palestinian groups including the PLO (recognised by Israel as the representatives of the Palestinian people) whose views you ignore entirely. Perhaps you should explain why you do this, as it leaves the impression that you think the Hamas charter is the Palestinian view. For instance in your latest email you say ‘present reality of ‘destroy Israel’’ when you talk about the difference between your view of the Palestinian attitude and mine. Hence you lead me to think that you equate the Hama charter with view of all Palestinians. If you don't want me to think this then start making the distinctions clear in what you write.

I am sure there are more than two fundamental differences between us, is that a problem for you?

I think that we have a fundamental difference in what we accept as true in terms of facts and opinions. You seem to want to believe the best of Israel (e.g. you have a reluctance to accept the ethnic cleansing of Israel or that Israel has ever killed civilians deliberately) and the worst of Palestinians (e.g. you keep suggesting that all Palestinians are trying to ‘destroy Israel‘). On my side I believe that both sides have done and continue to do evil things to each other and this is leading away from peace. But overall the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer the greater injustice at the hands of the Israelis and injustice on both sides needs sorting. In practical terms history can't be rolled back to 1946 or 1870 but injustice can and should be dealt with, and it is an obligation for those in power to use that power to for justice and peace (rather than oppression and acquisition).

I think that the reason behind this different stems from where are our concerns lie. Yours views are consistent with those people whose main concern is defending Zionism and downplaying or denying its negative aspects. Mine concern is for an equitable peace between Jews and Palestinians. I think we each start with our concerns and pick and choose what to believe or how much importance to give to facts and opinions. I sure it colours our perception of what sources of information are reliable.

So if we read Ilan Pappe's account of a premeditated ethnic cleansing by Zionist forces in 1947/8. I think that this looks well researched and matches first hand accounts I've read elsewhere. It is also in line with the actions and aims of the Zionist movement in the 60 years prior to 1947 and in line with on-going Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, attempts to annex parts of the West Bank, talk in the Israeli media of "transferring" the Israeli Arab population etc. Someone like you may think: Pappe has got it all wrong, he must hate Israel or something. Or if we read on a Zionist website that "Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle." I think, well a few years ago Zionist websites would just have had the first half of that sentence, these guys are very slowly changing. Someone like you may think, well that is obviously a balanced view point, see it was mostly directly or indirectly the Arabs fault.

We have a fundamental difference on the importance of solving the conflict. You say it something you haven't thought much about whereas I think it is the most important thing. (‘"Palestinian plight’ was your phrase from an earlier email). You might not be sure why Israel should address it, I can think of lots of reasons why Israel should address it:

Humanity,

Desire for Peace and Justice,

Obligations to UN resolutions 194 and 242,

Given the extreme power imbalance in favour of Israel, most of the peace options are in Israel's hands Israel Jews are a proud and paranoid people; they are unlikely to accept Arabs, the UN or even the Americans dictating the peace process.
You might deny that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel happened but it I think it is gradually becoming more widely known and eventually Israel will have to face up to this major black spot in its history (though probably not before it has to face up the issues of building settlements in the West Bank and taking water from there).

In response to your comments on peace moves, I am less optimistic than you are about Israel's current peace intentions:
Several times in the past Palestinians have stopped attacking Israel, but unlike what you suggest Israel's response has always been to carry on attacking Palestinians until the Palestinian groups get sick of being attacked and nothing else changing and resume attacks on Israel. The latest suggested truce by Hamas has been rejected by Israel. And of course Israel never stops building settlements and taking water from the West Bank.

I like your idea of an international tribunal for resolving property disputes, though there is no reason why it can't start immediately on the information gathering phase. It can get access to all the people and archives it needs to have access to while Israel mans its check points, attacks Palestinians and builds settlement in the West Bank and while Hamas et al fire their rockets over the Gaza fence.

Like I said in an earlier email, I am an all human beings are equal kind of guy. So yes I do believe the bombing of German and Japanese cities by the British and Americans was terrorism even if I agree with their political motives for doing so. Doing bad things for good reasons doesn't make them good in my view. I don't use Winston Churchill as a moral cue, but he wrote to the British Chiefs of Staff ‘It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed’. To clarify I use the definition ‘Terrorism is the use of violence or threats of violence against civilians to achieve a political goal’. But I am comfortable with you having a different definition of terrorism (there are so many to choose from these days) so long as the definition is politically neutral.

From the point of view of pain and suffering of the victims and their families, it doesn't really matter what definition of terrorism we here in NZ use. From the point of view of solving the Israeli Palestinian conflict you have to ask yourself whether killing civilians by both sides (and the difference in the kill ratio) is useful way of solving the conflict or whether it is more likely to lead to both sides to hate the other side more. Personally regardless of whether people call it terrorism or not, or can justify the killings to themselves, I think it increases hate on both sides and hence not useful to solve the conflict. What do you think?

But we do agree with each other that all views need to be heard and that truth is important. But I think we have significantly different ideas on what the truth is.

And that brings up an interesting point. How is ‘the truth’ to be determined?

I haven't even finished reading your letter, but I just have time for a quick reply before leaving on a week-long trip:

I have never felt that the Hamas charter represents the views of all Palestinians, and I'm quite sure that I never said or implied that. (If I'm wrong, please point out a passage where I did.) I find it insulting for anyone to think that I would believe such a stupid thing, and I don't believe that every time I use the word Hamas, I must state ‘of course I recognize that Hamas does not represent all Palestinians.’ If there is any intellectual sloppiness involved, I think it is on the part of readers who jump to such a silly conclusion.

As for the PLO not sharing the aim of Hamas to destroy Israel, here is an item that I just ran across:
From the Jerusalem Post, April 14

PLO: We'll drive Israel out of Palestine

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF

‘The PLO is the sole legitimate representative [ of the Palestinian people], and it has not changed its platform even one iota.’

That's what the PLO's ambassador to Lebanon, Abbas Zaki, told Lebanon's NBN TV in an interview that aired last Wednesday and was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

‘In light of the weakness of the Arab nation and the lack of values, and in light of the American control over the world, the PLO proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine,’ added Zaki.

The clip can be viewed at http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1738.htm.

Hi Rodney,

Have a good trip. I hope you come back feeling less insulted, more cheery and with more time to re-read what I said very carefully.

I regard this as more authoritative statement on the PLO aim of achieving a two state solution:
http://www.un.int/palestine/documents/qop62-29nov07.html

I will try again to bring closure to this discussion by answering your question: ‘And that brings up an interesting point. How is ‘the truth’ to be determined?’ To determine the truth, one must go into it with an open mind, not with preconceived ideas.

For example, I have read quite a bit about Israel's history, from both sides, and it is clear that the Arab refugees of 1948 fled from a war that they started, at the urging of their own leaders, abetted in a few cases - and only a few - where Jews, regrettably, did unto the Arabs what the Arabs were doing unto them. That's truth.

This approach also applies to statements made by people and organisations. For example, when I showed you a statement by a PLO official that their ultimate aim is to ‘drive them [the Jews] out of all of Palestine’, you rejected it, saying you regarded another PLO statement as ‘more authoritative’, even though the two statements are in no way incompatible! Both statements can be (and indeed are) true. Perhaps you shut out the first statement because you have a preconceived idea about the PLO. I didn't.

To put a close to this lengthy correspondence, let us return to the article that started it. It was written to supply the missing truth and balance to a Tom Scott cartoon that showed Israel's defensive barriers as prison walls. This was a cartoon that contained many factual errors and, more importantly, omitted the fact that the barriers are a defence against Palestinian attacks. You didn't complain about these errors and missing facts, but you did complain that in my article I made "false comparisons, ignored important facts, drew illogical conclusions, and lied".

Sorry, but after all this discussion, I still can't find any lies, illogical conclusions, or invalid comparisons (within their context), and the only facts I left out (e.g., the exact location of the fence) were not relevant to the issue being addressed (the purpose of the fence).

From your first insults to your present insistence that I seem to ‘equate the Hamas charter with the aims of all Palestinians’,* you have voiced a low opinion of my intelligence and moral character, and now you hope that I returned from my trip ‘feeling less insulted.’ Well, it's not the insults that bother me. It's that you (and people like you) have closed your mind to the facts.

* As it happens, I just saw a poll showing that 17% of Palestinians disapprove of Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel. (Not ‘recognizing’ a state, of course, is another way of saying that you don't accept its existence.) OK, I accept that 17% of Palestinians disagree with Hamas about this fundamental point, but I also see that 83% agree. It is this 83%, along with the Hamas leadership that launches rocket attacks against Israel on an almost daily basis, that constitute a most real threat to Israel. And yet Israel is blamed for putting up border fences and blockades!

P.S. You show a basic misunderstanding of who I am when you say my main concern is ‘defending Zionism’, ‘downplaying its negative aspects’, ‘trying to portrait (sic ) Israel as being the morally superior party’, etc. My main concern, actually, is to see that the truth is told about Israel and the Palestinians — the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — so that others can make informed judgments. I believe that ‘lies about the Jews aren't good for the Jews’, and I'm sure I would feel the same way if I weren't Jewish. I'm pretty sure this is also the main concern of other members of KBRM, including the non-Jewish members.