are the US media to biased toward Israel ? (video)

Great Debates
101

First of all, Tutu did not compare the “Jewish lobby” to Hitler, et al. Read the quote again.

Nor did he even directly compare the state of Israel to Hitler, et al. Nowhere does he say that Israel is as bad as those other regimes. Rather, he lists unjust regimes which exist no more. At most there is an implicit comparison (and some Godwin-esque rhetorical hyperbole).

All of which may add up to strident opposition to Israel, but still does not support (without more) an allegation of anti-semitism.

In my experience, hair-trigger charges of anti-semitism get tossed out as a way to short circuit debate on Israel’s policies, or debate on whether the US is wise to support Israel.

102

anti-Semitism or not (I think the point is debatable) its also ridiculously inaccurate.

-XT

103

I don’t think that it is “hair trigger” to raise the question of whether Tutu’s remark is anti-Semitic - I honestly think it is a case.

You are correct that he does not directly compare “the Jewish lobby” to Hitler, et al. But there is clearly an implicit comparison.

More, the use of the term “Jewish lobby” implies, incorrectly as it turns out, that Jews all support Israel, and that others fear ‘the Jews’ and are correct to fear them.

The quote again:

So, people are scared of the Jews (or the “Jewish lobby”) in the US? The “Jewish lobby” is implicitly as powerful, and as evil, as a list of evil dictators?

I think a case can be made that this is an anti-Semitic remark. It certainly uses a prevelant anti-Semitic canard about the ‘all-powerful Jews’ and their malevolent influence. It even goes so far as to imply that God is against the “Jewish lobby” in the US and that they will be destroyed by God - just like these dictators.

It is far removed from a legitimate debate about the policies of Israel, and wisdom of supporting same.

104

Dan Rather after Nightline ,about monthly ,used to have a long panel show. They would attempt to get ideeply into a hot topic. On one program which was particularly long, he had representatives from several factions . One was the grey panther party, another black panthers and several others. As the panelists spoke they sometimes agreed with other panelists that their coverage was somewhat short or slightly biased.
But one thing they all agreed. Each and every one of them thought that their own coverage was very biased against and they had inadequate coverage. They were treated unfairly without question.
It was impossible,but revealed we all see with some bias. All of us. I another thread I said the truth is in the middle. It almost always is. so’ lets get rid of the anger and insults and at least wonder if the other guy is honestly stating a position he believes and is intitled to.Maybe we are overlooking something.

105

There was an international opinion survey reviewed in the Wall St. Journal last week (I will post details if I can find the article) concerning views on the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism.

Confirming a trend that observers have seen repeatedly, it was noted that those who held the most virulently negative views of Israel also showed the highest rate of agreement with classic anti-Semitic attitudes - such as “Jews only care about other Jews”.

So what does this mean? Not that being opposed to Israel’s policies makes one an anti-Semite…that’s nonsense. But it’s sadly true that the Middle East conflict provides a semi-legitimate cover for bigots, and that as condemnation of Israel grows more bitterly hostile and one-sided, you are increasingly likely to find simultaneous anti-Semitism. We’ve seen it on this board, and it’s all too common in society as a whole. It’s relevant to the debate because bigots are more likely to conceal facts and slant their presentations, and so are untrustworthy.

I don’t know what “hair-trigger” charges are, but I’ll grant that not all perceptions of anti-Semitism are going to be accurate. My perspective here is just a bit different though (note - this next statement is not aimed at spoke-).

In my experience, the claim that “if you dare speak out against Israel you’ll be labeled an anti-Semite” sometimes gets tossed into the opening phases of a discussion on the Middle East by people whose views are illogically and virulently tilted against Israel, and who hope that by staging a sort of pre-emptive strike they can deflect any charges of anti-Semitism as being due to unfairness or paranoia on the part of their opponents.

Those who hold forth on the basis of facts and leave ethnic stereotypes out of discussion of Middle East issues almost never get accused of bigotry.

106

The WSJ was most likely reporting on [url=http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/50/4/548]this study. (PDF)[/ur]

107

~sigh~
Hit submit instead of preview.
Fixed link to:

this study. (PDF)

108

Thanks, Finn. That’s the one.

109

Glad to be of service.

I believe that this is the WSJ article in question as well.

110

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

See Deneme Bonusu Veren Siteler 2023 - Bonus Veren Siteler 2023

111

So what are you saying? If one criticizes Israel (unless they are carefully meek in their criticism) we must assume that this person is an anti-Semite?

That certainly sounds to me like a debate-killer. No one may dare criticize Israel, lest they be presumed a bigot.

If we are ever to have a rational debate, I think it better to assume otherwise until proven wrong, rather than indulge in innuendo and name-calling.

At any rate, calling your opponent in a debate an anti-Semite is still an ad hominem attack, even if true, since it adds nothing to the debate and is irrelevant to the resolution of whatever issue may be under discussion.

See how the debate in this very thread has been sidetracked into an argument over whether Tutu is a bigot?

112

I suppose it would really depend on the TYPE of criticizing going on. Measured and accurate criticizing I don’t believe could, should or would be considered anti-semitic. If it is then I’d be an anti-semite myself as I have some things I’m critical of Israel on myself. The problem seems to be, however, that a LOT of what folks criticize Israel for is NOT measured OR accurate. And some of THAT is completely over the top…at which point I’d have to say, yes…that could very well be a deep seated anti-semitic response. Else why do some folks contiue doggedly on in the face of facts presented to them, stubornly reciting the same old mantra over and over again?

(FTR I’m NOT putting you in this category btw spoke-…or anyone else in this thread for that matter. Just debating the point).

-XT

113

No, that’s not what he said.

No, it isn’t, you’ve missed the crucial part of the defintion of that fallacy. Saying that claims your opponent makes are wrong because they’re a bigot is an ad hominem fallacy. Saying that they are wrong and a bigot is not an ad hominem fallacy.

Likewise, you missed the part that “the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).”

In most cases. Not in all cases. If, for instance, someone bases their anti-Israel arguments on claims like “The Jews have a secret conspiracy to rule the world, of which Israel is their visible outpost. Thus, Israel is bad.” then their argument can indeed be disproven by showing that their premise is bigoted (ie. false).

This is a simplified example, but still shows how anti-semitism is not always irrelevant when discussing positions.

Would you say, for instance, that the Egyptian Mufti’s anti-semitic slurs, false claims about motives, etc… should not be touched on? That they don’t invalidate his argument?

There has been very little debate on the actual OP of this thread since the word go. My analysis of the first bit of the video was the most thorough made, and nobody even touched on it who was arguing that the video was valid and accurate. The only person to react to it via challenge only whinged that people would “descend” on it in “self rightous fury”.

If people will not defend the OP, then perforce the debate will either die or meander.

114

This thread is but one example of the phenomenon. (I’ll grant you that the debate died an early death here.)

You’re right about that. And that response (as I specifically pointed out in an earlier post) is just another form of ad hominem. I deplore such tactics from both sides of the debate.

When you turn from attacking a man’s arguments to attacking the man himself (as by calling him an anti-semite) you are engaging in an ad hominem attack (i.e. an attack “against the man”). You may try to justify it by arguing that you are attacking his credibility. I say it’s a better (and much more convincing) approach to show that his facts are wrong rather than to argue that he can’t be trusted.

It is frustrating to me, as a dispassionate observer, to see all of the threads on the Middle East devolve to invective. I understand the passions stirred by these debates, but I long for a calm, reasoned debate. I usually stay out of these threads because they always seem to generate more heat than light.

115

Insults are not necessarily ad hominems. If you’ve spent 10,000 words attacking his argument, and then note he’s a bigot, you’ve commited no falacy.

Can be, but doesn’t have to be. In the cite I just provided, how exactly, for instance, would you go about proving that people do not in fact move to Israel “in order to create so much mayhem and spill innocent blood in such a stupid manner?” One could, perhaps, hope that there is a study done somewhere where all the immigrants to Israel were asked for their reasons for making aliyah… or one could simply point out that the person making that claim is a bigot and a liar and that he has no support for his claim.

Or, in short, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim, and if it lacks factual support, and rests on personal opinion, then the nature of that personal opinion is not just fair game, but the only real topic to discuss. Unless you’re willing to engage in proving a negative.

It’s hard to have a reasoned debate when many people holding one position are consistently engaging in intellectually dishonest arguments. I can’t count the number of times, for instance, that the claim “Israel is intentionally targeting civilian targets with no military value (or trying to commit genocide :rolleyes: ) because the statistics show more Lebanese than Israeli deaths” was made. Nowhere was that claim followed by “But obviously a large part of the cause of those statistics is Hezbollah’s practice of using human shields and blending into the civilian populace, and so we can’t conclude anything based on the statistics alone.”

After the fifth, or the tenth, or the N[sup]th[/sup] time answering that calumny, it becomes hard to be totally calm and not mock the position being put forward.

Likewise observe in this very thread how this video was presented as a valid cite, but then nobody would actually defend it from the massively intellectualy dishonest claims it made. This is at least the second or third time it’s been used in this forum. And at least the second or third time I’ve had my detailed analysis of it totally ignored while people claimed that their inability to debate their claims was somehow my fault, that disagreement rendered them powerless to support their position.

When this video is used for the fifth, sixth, and seventh times (and it most likely will be, given time) and nobody offers to back it up or actually responds to challenges made to it, can you blame folks for getting frustrated?

Ditto for a recent thread (and repeated claim) that Hezbollah hiding among civilians was a “myth”.

Or the repeated claim that Israel’s defensive actions were due “only” to two soldiers being captured.

Or the repeated claim that Israel was nefariously planning this for years, without mentioning that they were planning for years on what to do when Hezbollah attacked with its massive stock of rockets.

Or the repeated claim that all the Hezbollah attacks, or even most of them, targeted Israeli military targets. One person was recently claiming that, and hadn’t even done enough reading to know that katushas were physically impossible to aim at any specific target other than a large geographic area at random.

Or the repeated claim that Israel killed a certain and/or specific number of civilians versus Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon when nobody can possibly have an accurate idea of which was which.

Or the claim that Israel never stopped overflights into Lebanon, even when the person making that claim provided a cite saying that Israel had stopped overflights into Lebanon.

Etc…

Debating in these threads is often like playing whack-a-mole, and I’d almost be willing to bet money that this video will be cited again in a week or a month or a year’s time, most likely by someone who already posted it and then had it rebutted, but didn’t deign to respond.

I would love to see someone who was well informed, intellectually honest in their arguments, and who could present a nuanced position. For the most part, I’ve not seen it.

116

I second that motion…

-XT

117

Thirded (is that a word?)

118

You indisputably made the claim of multiple instances, as though it is a regular thing. A claim which you cannot back up because it is false. Moreover, as I stated at the time regarding the one and only example, I copied that link from a post on this board by antechinus made the same day, or a day earlier. Consequently your surmise about my familiarity with what you term ‘anti-Israel’ sites, is unfounded.

Lastly, I politely noted that I had answered numbers of your questions in orderly succession, but had yet to receive answers to my own questions. See, this is how it works to debate and argue. I answer your questions, you answer mine. On we move. But no, you won’t play and I felt no obligation to continue. And here you are again, reshaping your assertions as you go. Where’s the fun in that?

119

Completely misinformed.

While the Israelis have predictably made a lot of hoopla about the Gaza withdrawl, there was nothing benevolent about it. Two facts:

  1. It is by and large a useless piece of dirt, which occupied too many Israeli resources to hold.

  2. Expansion of West Bank land appropriation and settlement, or theft, by Israel has far outstripped the population withdrawl from Gaza, during that period.

120

Here you go. I’ll give you a second chance to re-read my post, then your characterisation, think about it for a bit and state in your own words whether you think it was an accurate paraphrase. We’ll leave ‘fair’ for later shall we?

Jackmannii: Open/re-open a thread on the Meirsheimer & Walt study and we can discuss there the extent and influence of Israeli PR vs ors.