I was surprised to find Richard Ingrams writing in the Guardian that he avoids reading letters in support of Israel if they’re written by Jews. There was no embarassment about his comment. In America, I think it would be unacceptible to admit such a practice. Ingrams wrote:
I’m unimpressed by Ingrams’s point. As he admits, Barbara Amiel’s article had arguments. Her case should be judged on the strength of her arguments, not whether she’s Jewish. If she was lying or distorting facts, then Ingram would have a valid complaint. But, he didn’t make that accusation about Amiel or about Jews in general. He felt that Jewishness was enough to weaken or invalidate the argument.
Before I lose my cool and start calling Ingrams names, I want to ask the panel whether he has a valid point. Do Jews tend to lie or distort or exaggerate when discussing Israel? Is the Jewish POV unworthy in some other way? Should one be leery of Jewish sources of information about Israel?
BTW for those who would answer “yes” to any of these questions, here’s a follow up: Would the same rule apply to other groups, such as
– Italians and Italy,
– British and the UK,
– Roman Catholics and the Vatican,
– blacks and the inner city
– Hispanics and Latin America
– Etc.
To make a blanket generalization, blanket generalizations are typically wrong. To make another, everyone has some kind of bias on some issue that influences their view to the point of disregarding all data to the contrary, or twisted said data in completely ridiculous ways to conform to the established belief. To assume that Group X is always biased concerning Issue A is, of course, just such a blanket generalization, and is just as wrong.
It’s been my experience that a great many Jews I’ve spoken to, here in the US as well as in Israel, support the Israeli government unflaggingly, even when said government appears to be randomly shooting apparent innocents. However, other Jews I’ve spoken with criticize the Israeli government for same, and still others are completely neutral, apathetic, or uninformed on the issue.
When someone’s belief on an issue differs from your own, or you just don’t feel like listening for some reason, the easiest course of action is usually to simply decry the infidel as biased and/or stupid and/or ignorant without further investigation. The situation in the OP strikes me as a prime example of such behaviour.
This is all a long-winded way of saying, “Ingram’s methods are, from my point of view, sadly ignorant.” I wouldn’t jump to calling him an anti-Semite, because I’ve never seen any evidence of that, but he seems to be making an error many anti-Semites make, in short, “All those damned Jews always stick together, no matter what, so of course they’re biased!”
Besides, names are frequently a lousy way of guessing ethnicity, what with intermarriage, names shared between ethnicities, and such. My last name IRL is more commonly held by British than by Jews, and a dear friend of mine, a born-again Christian, carries her husband’s last name, which is Cohen. (He converted, too, although he considers himself both a Christian and a Jew…long story.)
One should be leery of Jewish sources of information about Israel and Arab countries, just as one should be leery of Arab sources of information about Israel and and Arab countries. I doubt many think Arafat and Sharon are very credible persons informationwise.
The source of information are one of the most important factors when determing credibility. This is something students in journalism learn during their first weeks in school.
Your follow up about whether the same rule should apply to groups like Italians and Italy, British and the UK, etc, is a bit out of context. I have an education in Communication Theory & PR. Our syllabus included reading about an experiment conducted on a group of people who didn’t have an opinion on a certain issue. Then these people were subject to very biased information on the issue. As a result, a small majority started to agree with the information, a minority became very opposed, a few remained undecided.
Further, those who become deeply involved in the issue also began to question and dismiss well known facts and events when these bolstered the other side’s case.
Pretty much like when die-hard pro-Israelis perseveringly refers to the Six Day War as the Seven Day War to duck several UN resolutions which are stating that the Isrealis are engaged in an illegal occupation.
Did you bother to read the article? Ingrams is not talking about Jewish sources of information (even if he were, that would have its own problems, though wouldn’t be entirely wrong). Rather, he is talking about Jewish opinions on Israel, saying he does not bother to consider them since they come from Jews. This is stupid, since a moral viewpoint (rather than a empirical question) is true or false regardless of who holds it.
Furthermore, not all Jews have the same opinions on Israel. Look up “Adam Shapiro” if you ever get the chance. Granted, an extreme case, but there are plenty of Jewish critics of Israel, and the viewpoints range the full spectrum. Ingrams is being openly anti-Semitic with this stance, and if you think all Jews “unflaggingly” support Israel, then perhaps you should look into your own biases.
Oh, in my reply above I forgot to mention that when it comes to Letters to the Editor - as in the case referred to in the OP -, editors generally prefers letters/opinions from the “average guy”, not opinions from someone representing an interest group lobbying for their cause.
When it comes to news articles, any decent journalist would include opinions from both sides. And most certainly no journalists should write opinions when they have a vested interest in the outcome. They teach you that in those schools too.
I was talking generally, I don’t know Ingram, nor Barbara Amiel.
And as I just said above, there are different criterions for inclusion on the Letters to the Editor page than for sources of news articles. Do you have any idea how many letters an editor of a large newspaper receive each day? It’s alot.
But no, I don’t think Ingram is being anti-Semitic if this is a rule he applys only to the Letters to the Editor page, and if he applys his rule equally to others. But then again, I don’t know Ingram, he might have an agenda for what I know. But I agree with him on his criticism of Barbara Amiel, you don’t write commentary about issues you have a vested interest in. That’s garbage journalism.
While it’s wrong to disregard a comment because of the source, it’s just common sense to consider the source when evaluating it. How many people here take the posts of Democratic and Republican partisans at face value, without considering that the author might be exagerrating facts, minimizing or omitting facts, or even outright lying to make their argument stronger?
As a general rule, Jews are pro-Israel. A definite consideration when evaluating their comments.
A quite significant minority of Jews do not favor current Israeli government policies in the slightest; au contraire. Evaluate people based on the opinions they express currently and have expressed previously. I’m Jewish, and I’d sure hate to have my opinions evaluated on the same basis, as, say, Netanyahu’s.
Argue the points, argue the facts, argue the logic. But dismissing an argument without hearing it because it is being made by someone who perceives themselves to have an interest in the subject is just idiotic. At best.
It seems like a convienent way to not have to to bother his little brain with any arguments that might conflict with his preconcieved ideas.
And Alien. Huh? The opinions page is always full of features of commentary from people with vested interests. The President of the AMA on tort reform. The head of the Pediatric Society on extending benefits for uninsured children. A head of an American Arab organization on the anti-immigration bent of the currrent adminisration and how it contributes to anti-Arabism. So on.
Evil, he is not considering the source. He is not considering the arguments or facts because of a prejudgement about the POV of the source.
Hearing a variety of opinions from a variety of points of view may actually expand ones mind beyond a prejudgement. But one can’t have that.
I guess I shouldn’t listen to anything Coll says about MENA because he works in the region so has a vested interest? Or he to my points because I am Jewish?
The opinions page might be full of features of commentary from people with vested interests, the Letters to the Editor page is not, not anywere I have lived anyway. And we were talking about the Letters to the Editor page here, at least I and the OP was.
If someone in charge of a Letter to the Editor’s page is subject to a write in campaign, and doesn’t want to be that, s/he may filter the letters based on whatever s/he wants, including location, name or organization, as long as s/he’s consistent - in this case doing the same with Arab names. In fact, in cases where it’s his/her damn paper the person can do whatever hell s/he wants.
It doesn’t strike me as hard to see that the large majority of Jews (or, at the least, practicing Jews) have a strong pro-Israeli bias. Furthermore, the reasons for that bias are perfectly clear.
What Ingram seems to miss (no, I did not read the whole article) is that everyone with an opinion on Israel is biased. The only thing different about everyone else’s biases is that their sources tend to be less clear. To assume that someone does not have anything important to contribute to a discussion merely because you can identify the reasons for their particular predisposition seems, to me, utterly foolish.
I agree with just about all of this, but just want to add a caveat. Being “pro-Israel” is not necessarily the same as, for example, supporting Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. In the same way that some opponents of US foreign policy argue that they are acting in America’s best interests, some who oppose Israeli foreign policy argue that they do so out of a love for Israel. This is not a trivial argument, despite the fact that many jingoists still dismiss such people as traitors and/or idiots.
I certainly don’t think an argument or statement about Israel should be dismissed just because it comes from an Israeli. Not all Israelis are uncritical supporters of their government’s actions. In fact, you’ll often find much stronger criticism of the Israeli government’s actions in many sections of the Israeli press and public opinion than in the United States press and public opinion. Those who tend to assert that all Israelis feel the same way on the issue would do well to remember this. Similarly, there are plenty of Jews who live outside of Israel who support Israel’s foreign policy, and plenty who don’t.
As Evil Captor says, we always consider the source when evaluating an argument, but in this case the simple fact that someone is a Jew would be a silly reason to dismiss their argument out of hand, no matter which side you take on the issue.
Not at all. We had a wonderful Jewish gentlemen interviewed interviewed in London on our programme yesterday, calling for Jews and Palestinians to live side by side peacefully in a greater Palestinian state.
Only kidding. But honestly, in the many articles I’ve read and interviews I’ve seen, there are plenty of fair-minded and peaceseeking Jewish people and journalists writing about Israel and Middle East politics in general.
Like with the emerald-tinted glasses Irish situation, it tends to be the American armchair viewers outside the region that get such an inaccurate, polarised viewpoint. Likud/expansionist zionists apart, you’ll find more tolerant and realistic views and opinions among Jews in Israel, than among Jews (and many non-Jews) outside the region.
The way that some non-Israeli Jews jump to every defence of atrocities committed by Sharon and every vilification of Arabs is equivalent to the (foolish) Arab muslims abroad who jump to extol and defend every Arab muslim atrocity, and every Jewish vilification. Both are extremists, both are misguided, both are seriously damaging to world opinion of their group, and of the peace process in general.
Not sure if we have a debate here, the logic was specious and it comes right up to if not crosses into what might be called soft bigotry. I doubt a single person will argue otherwise.
I think the only question is whether Richard Inggram applies / would apply the same policy to other issues - e.g., throw out any letter about the situation in N. Ireland if the writer’s name starts with the letter ‘O’. Also, of course, whether or not he throws out letters on Israel written by people who’s name “sounds” Arab.
If the answer to both the issues above is “yes”, it’s his right (but I still think he’s an idiot). If not, we have here a full blown case of anti-Jewish (and maybe also anti-Israeli) bigotry.
But of course I’m Israeli, so I have no right to express myself on this issue :rolleyes: So just ignore me…
I appreciate your comment, Collounsbury. The additional point I’m trying to get at is that having a POV doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is untrustworthy. E.g., scientists who disagree with Creationism generally have a strong POV, but don’t lie or spin in their debates.
Consider the example of the alleged Jenin masscre. The pro-Israel side was right in claiming that the massacre story was false. In this case, the pro-Israel side was more accurate.
Consider allegations of media bias. There are lots of specific examples demonstrating unequal coverage of Israel and Palestinian actions. E.g., this study showing a bias in Reuters headlines.
I think an arguments with documentary support and evidence should not be discounted, even though it comes from partisan Jews. OTOH I think those who supported the Jenin massacre myth should be doubted, because their facts were unreliable.
