Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
January 27, 2008
Herald columnist calls Israel ‘a terrorist state’
Matt McCarten, a regular columnist for the Herald on Sunday, devoted his column to an attack on Israel, calling it ‘a terrorist state (that) is able to wage crimes on an innocent people’. The full text can be seen here: www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10488995&pnum=0 The next week the Herald on Sunday published the following response (of equal length) by the Israeli Ambassador, Yuval Rotem:
Would New Zealanders ask their Government to sit idly by while a terrorist organisation fires missiles on the towns of Tauranga or Hamilton? For this is what is being asked of Israelis — to sit idly by while the residents of their southern town of Sderot are fired on by missiles from the terrorist organisation Hamas. It is asked only that New Zealanders put themselves in the shoes of Israelis for just one day, without a vast ocean to protect them, without a democratic and secure neighbour like Australia, and with a terrorist organisation mere miles away whose only reason for existing is their nation's destruction. Only then can democratic, informed debate happen.
The terrorist organisation Hamas in Gaza focuses its weaponry on civilians; on children in their schools and kindergartens, on families' homes and in the streets of Sderot. They fire their missiles from deep within civilian neighbourhoods, taunting Israeli Defence Forces to fire back, knowing that injury to the innocent people of Gaza would fuel their propaganda campaign. Israel acts only in self defence. When they do fire on Gaza it is merely in response to Hamas' missiles and they are focused on the militants themselves.
The people of Gaza are not the enemy, nor is there any benefit from Israel making them so. The people of Israel, in withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, sought to gain a democratic and secure neighbour; a neighbour with which they could engage and trade. Rather than yielding benefits for Gazans and calm for Israel, Hamas increased violence from Gaza, including raids over the border into Israel to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers. To see the people of Gaza suffer is not pleasurable for Israelis. They only wish to circumvent the activities of the terrorists Hamas who control the area.
Ever since Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006, Israel and the international community - including the UN, EU, Russia and the USA - have put forth a consistent message: to end its isolation, Hamas must recognise Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and agree to abide by previous agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are not very difficult conditions. Indeed, they are the bare minimum that Israel should expect from a ‘partner for peace’ or even a non-belligerent neighbour. Hamas has steadfastly refused to agree to any of the three. Instead it has chosen to steadfastly pursue its sole objective of the destruction of Israel and thus hold ordinary Gazans hostage to its beliefs.
To draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Israel's current actions is offensive and undermines the indignity that the Jewish people suffered. The security fence was erected along a border for which the sole purpose was to protect the people of Israel against terrorism. What Matt McCarten fails to understand is the horror caused by these extremists using themselves as human bomb carriers; of climbing on buses, seeing innocent children and still pulling the trigger. Of then seeing these same children maimed, blinded and killed by the screws and nails the terrorists have embedded in their bombs to cause the utmost pain possible. The security fence was constructed in order to protect Israeli citizens, as an act of self defence.
Israel acted in self-defence by temporarily closing the borders. It prevented fuel supplies to travel through only after Palestinian snipers killed an Ecuadorian volunteer and continued to fire on a television crew, and only after Hamas continued to fire missiles on Israel. By stopping the passage of fuel, this slowed production by Gaza's power station, which supplies only 30 per cent of the total power to the area. Israeli-based power companies continued to supply the remaining 70 per cent of electricity to the region. Of the electricity that was available in the area, Hamas chose to divert it to their weapon producing factories, knowing that ensuing suffering by the people of Gaza would inflame public opinion against Israel.
Israel continues to allow humanitarian aid; food, medicine and other supplies into Gaza throughout Hamas' reign. This continues even though border authorities have foiled, in the last two weeks alone, attempts to smuggle under the guise of humanitarian supplies, tonnes of fertiliser for use in making missiles. In any informed debate on the virtue of Israel's actions, it is imperative to remember that the Israeli Government continues to aid those Gazans who are suffering under the Hamas regime.
Therefore, it is not asked that Matt McCarten in his opinion piece on Gaza, be denied the right to express his views, nor is it asked that a newspaper limit the freedom of speech by refusing to print them. With the right to freedom of speech comes a responsibility not to distort facts or inflame and play to prejudices. There is a fine line between fair and just criticism, and blunt anti-Israel sentiment which is a camouflage for anti-Semitism.
As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a firm believer in the freedoms of speech and press in a vibrant society. Israel invites debate and council on its actions, but it asks that the dialogue be informed..
The Herald on Sunday also received a number of letters, the first three of which were published as Letters to the Editor:
Building walls an age-old human pastime
China built a Great Wall. The US is building a wall on its Mexican border. Egypt built a wall between Egypt and Gaza. Throughout all of history, cities worldwide have erected walls. Is Matt McCarten showing a bias when he talks only of Israel's wall (‘West stands by while a whole population is illegally jailed, January 27’)?
John Langdon, Freemans Bay
A step too far
It saddens me that the Herald on Sunday would print such a distorted and incorrect piece of drivel. As Matt McCarten's rant is printed as an op-ed piece, the paper is supporting an anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian editorial line. To allow a piece that compares Gaza and the military conflict there to the Warsaw ghetto and to insinuate that the next step will be ‘the final solution’ is going way too far. Six million Jews were butchered by the Nazis in WWII. Since 1948, about 10,000 Palestinians have died in the conflict with Israel, two-thirds of these armed combatants. During the same period, 11 million Muslims have died in conflicts, mostly in the Middle East, unconnected to Israel. McCarten should examine why so many peace-loving Muslims have killed each other for so long.
Daniel Goldwater, Auckland
Irrational
It's hard to tell exactly what McCarten is advocating in his diatribe against Israel, America and Britain. McCarten's piece would be much more damaging if it weren't so transparently irrational and malicious. But it is still damaging, as is much of the increasingly popular anti-western sentiment being bandied about by today's soapbox liberals. One of McCarten's apparently numerous problems is that like so many others, he appreciates the benefits of a free society while failing to acknowledge its fragility and the need to protect it. McCarten justifies the Islamists' means (deliberately targeting civilians) by totally misrepresenting their stated goal - to destroy Israel.
Gordon Bling, Auckland
Unpublished letters
Last Sunday was the 63rd anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and a day on which the United Nations has established an annual International Holocaust remembrance day. On that day the Polish President Lech Kaczynski stood near the rubble of the gas chambers and said ‘Let remembrance of this serve as a shield that will protect us and generations to come against racism and anti-Semitism’.
It was the height of insensitivity for your paper to publish Matt McCarten's comparison of Israel's Government to the leaders of the Third Reich on that same day. Any educated person will know that Hitler published and pursued an agenda of genocide, and that the Government of Israel pursues a policy of security, coexistence and peace (in stated order).
The inversion of reality and lack of moral fortitude in Matt McCarten's article is a disgrace. Israel has been under daily attack, since it withdrew from Gaza. In the wake of the stated genocidal aims of Hamas, Israel's closure of the border and pursuit of terrorists is more than justified.
Andrew Blitz
Matt McCarten's column printed January 27 is so full of exaggerations, lies, and outrageous comparisons, that it is hard to see how anyone with even a minimal understanding of events in the Middle East could take Mr. McCarten seriously.
Since Israel ended the occupation of Gaza over two years ago, the Hamas leadership been involved in what Mr. McCarten describes as ‘causing a nuisance’.
‘Nuisance’ is a very mild word to describe over 4000 missiles fired at civilian population centres, including homes, schools, and synagogues.
One of the targets of these missiles has been the electrical power plant in the Israeli city of Ashkelon. This power plant has been providing the Gaza Strip with a large percentage of its electric power.
After the number of daily missiles rose to more than fifty, Israel decided to react by reducing the amount of power provided to Gaza by the power plant that was the target of the attacks.
Mr. McCarten's conclusion was that this slight reduction of power is on par with Nazi planned genocide during WWII. Mr. McCarten's extreme prejudice seems to have clouded his common sense or sense of proportion.
Michael Sedley
Modi in Israel
Matt McCarten must have been having a bad week when he wrote his vitriolic ‘Opinion’ piece for the Herald On Sunday (27 January). It read less like the well-informed opinion of a New Zealand political commentator and once aspiring Parliamentarian, and more like a cobbled together collection of sound bites drawn from the Anti-Semitic ravings of Hizbollah's Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
While making unsubstantiated assertions of ‘atrocities’ against Israel, Mr McCarten fails to see the irony that Gaza, ‘governed’ by the ‘democratically elected’ terrorist organisation Hamas, constitutes the only true terrorist state in the region, and that Israel's Jewish civilians, are its primary focus of hate and terror. That someone as prominent in the New Zealand's political landscape and Union movement as Mr McCarten could be capable of writing such a wretched distortion of the situation in the Middle East is deeply disturbing.
Readers are left wondering if Mr McCarten's ‘Opinion’ represents the true voice of the New Zealand's political Left and Union movement — one that seeks to whip up the mob with half-truths and second-hand hate speech rather than attempting to present the truth of a political situation with understanding, reason and balance?
Kirsty Walker
KBRM sent the following letter to the newspaper. No reply was received.
As chairman of Kiwis for Balanced Reporting, I would like to compliment the Herald on Sunday on its fairness and balance with respect to Matt McCarten's article on Jan. 28. It was a very bad article, but by allowing equal space to the Israeli ambassador for a reply and by printing three letters to the editor (and acknowledging others), you have shown a sense of fairness that should be a model for NZ newspapers.
As for McCarten's article, KBRM recognizes that oped columnists are entitled to their opinions and that the newspaper does not necessarily endorse them. However we also believe that columnists have the obligation to not distort facts while expressing those opinions. Mr. McCarten may hate Israel if he wants, but there are some factual issues that he has distorted — distorted to the point of inverting the truth — and we don't think this should be tolerated in a regular columnist.
For example, the question of which side is trying to destroy the other side in the Mideast is a factual question that can be answered not just by looking at the words of the leaders, but also the deeds. The Hamas government of Gaza has proclaimed its intent to destroy and annihilate Israel, while Israel's stated wish is to live in peace alongside a peaceful Gaza, and Mr. McCarten should know that. It is also a demonstrable fact that Hamas' military actions are aimed at Israeli civilians, including women and children, while Israel, in its actions against those militants, tries to avoid inflicting civilian damage. These are also demonstrable facts and anyone who states the reverse should not be permitted space to do that in a decent newspaper.
I would like to close with a request. You are not the only news medium in New Zealand to print a vicious diatribe against Israel, followed (in some cases) by a corrective response, and KBRM wonders why it couldn't be the other way around. Do you have room in your oped section for ‘guest’ articles? As an example, we are preparing an article about Arab Israelis, showing that Israel is not an apartheid state. Would you be receptive to publishing such an article?
Thanks again for your sense of balance and your consideration.
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast (www.kbrm.org.nz)