Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
This page is under constant development, as more questions appear in our mail.
Isn't KBRM just another Jewish-Israel lobby group?
KBRM's membership is drawn from a group of ethnically, politically and religiously diverse New Zealanders. Some members of KBRM are Jewish, but many are not. We are not here to lobby for Israel. Despite our diversity of backgrounds, we are united in our view that Israel deserves to be given a fair hearing in the media, just as Palestinians, and everyone else, deserve a fair hearing.
Who pays for the KBRM adverts, the Israeli lobby?
KBRM's adverts are wholly paid for by our members and other Kiwi supporters who give their time and money to help spread the missing truth about Israel. We receive no outside funds, and have no connection with any Israeli organisation or with any pro-Israel or Zionist lobby.
Does KBRM believe that any criticism of Israel is based on anti-Semitism?
Not at all. We have no objection to valid criticism. What we object to is unfair criticism, and even much of that arises from ignorance, not prejudice. However, some of it is clearly based on anti-Semitism (see Bigotry Box on Feedback Page), and we are happy to highlight continuing anti-Semitism in New Zealand, in the hope that more people will speak out against it.
Does KBRM ever criticise Israel?
KBRM is not in the business of criticism. We try to correct factual errors and supply truths that are omitted from many accounts. But see the previous answer; we object only to unfair criticism.
Would KBRM ever criticise unfair reporting of the Palestinians?
KBRM was formed to combat the anti-Israel bias in the media. We have not seen a pattern of anti-Palestinian bias (inaccurate and one-sided articles, etc.), but if it occurred, we would certainly want to see it corrected.
Why do you call yourselves ‘balanced’ when the material you present is pro-Israel?
The material we present in our advertisements is relevant information that is missing from most media. By presenting it, we are restoring balance and providing New Zealanders with a broader understanding of a complex conflict. We assume that readers of our ads have seen the media already, and would like to hear the other side. If you want to increase your own knowledge of the subject, we suggest that you read widely as there are many, often conflicting, views.
In a recent advertisement, you published a number of quotations that showed Israel's desire for peace and the Arabs' refusal to accept Israel, but why did you omit quotations that painted a different picture?
One of the biggest problems in the Israel/Palestine dispute is the wide range of views held by Palestinian, Arab and Islamic leaders. Some wish to negotiate a final settlement with Israel; others see a negotiated peace lasting only till they are strong enough to re-start the conflict; others again deny the legitimacy of Israel and want to see it destroyed. You may have seen some moderate views quoted, but they are not unanimous, and perhaps not even representative.
Aren't your articles and adverts just Zionist propaganda?
No. They contain truths not usually presented — truths that are relevant to the Middle East conflict. They are written by Kiwis who believe that the whole story should be known before judging. Some people with anti-Israel views do call them ‘propaganda’, but it would be fairer to say that they present facts that those who claim ‘propaganda’ find inconvenient or unpalatable.
Did Israel expel Palestinian refugees in 1948?
711,000 Palestinians (UN report) left their homes as a result of Israel's 1948 war for independence. This would not have happened if Arab states had accepted the UN's partition plan, and not chosen to make war on the Jewish state to ‘drive it into the sea’. The 1948 war caused widespread disruption, and Arabs left Israel for a range of reasons. Any claim that Israel had a policy of expelling Arabs must face the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel today, with full civil, religious and political rights.
On the other hand, and at the same time, almost a million Jews were expelled from Middle Eastern and North African Arab countries, or left as a result of persecution.
I like Jews, but hate Israel because of what it's doing to the Palestinians. Does this mean I'm anti-Semitic?
It probably means you have seen only one side of the story. While Israel is not perfect, its actions are generally taken in self-defence. By contrast, the aim of some (not all) Palestinian groups is to kill Jewish Israelis or expel them from Palestine.
Isn't the lopsided casualty ratio in Gaza proof that Israel's invasion was illegal and immoral?
KBRM does not pass judgement on the actions of Israel or the Palestinians. However it is generally accepted that it is both legal and moral for a country to defend itself and to stop its citizens from being killed. According to the UN's legal authorities it has not only the right but the duty to do so. Body count has never been an indication of morality.
Wasn't Israel's creation in 1948 both illegal and immoral because it took Palestinian land?
The creation of Israel as a Jewish homeland was sanctioned by international treaty in 1920, and later endorsed by the United Nations, in recognition that Jews have lived in Israel for over 3.000 years. On this basis, Israel could be said to be more ‘legitimate’ than countries like New Zealand, which were conquered by a colonising power. Demands for a Palestinian Arab state date only from 1967. The UN has proposed a ‘land-for-peace’ deal and Israel has offered to negotiate with Palestinian leaders. Unfortunately, Palestinian views are split between negotiating with Israel and using armed force.
Didn't the International Court of Justice rule that Israel's West Bank settlements are illegal?
The ICJ, which is an organ of the UN is both a court and a panel for expressing legal opinions. These functions are always separated in Western judicial systems.
In 2003, the judges of the ICJ were asked for an opinion on Israel's security barrier by the UN General Assembly, which had just condemned it. The judges supported the General Assembly and opined that the barrier was illegal. They also gave the unsolicited opinion that Israel's presence in the West Bank was illegal.
The opinion caused a furore in international legal circles, and a number of authorities on international law have criticised it as wrong on several counts. There the matter rests, since it was an opinion (not a court ruling) and there is no process to review or appeal it.