by Diane V. McLoughin
The following is an interesting personal message sent to me which is critical of my recent piece, 'FREE GAZA'.
I responded using the greater-than (>) sign to pin my points where I respond. I feel bad about the acrimony:
Dear Ms. McLoughlin,
This article is an example of distorted news coverage.
While there is legitimately much to criticize in the way that Israel responds
>This paints Israel as the victim - *reacting* - never instigating - revealing a misinformed bias;
I object to one-sided, dishonest and manipulative reporting
>I also have objections: to one-sided, dishonest and manipulative responses;
I object to a double standard
Israel being painted as the sole villain while Hamas is exonerated despite exploiting its own people and committing terrorism
>Hamas is the democratically-elected representative political party of the Palestinian people; the P.A. exploits its people in my opinion, and colludes with the occupier, Israel; you are woefully uninformed as to who and what Hamas is and what Hamas proposes (1), which is most unfortunate, considering your apparent engagement in the public square;
There has been both a continuous Jewish presence and a continuous Arab presence in the holy land since antiquity
>This is a complete misrepresentation of the historical facts. Palestine was an Arab region with a tiny Jewish minority. Jews, misguided by fanatical, lieing political and religious leadership, in their European plight, were hoodwinked into immigrating to 'a land with no people' - which was a complete, out-and-out lie.
And in recent times, additional Jews, and additional Arabs, have migrated there from other lands.
Both people have a right to live there in peace.
>Yes. But what I take you to really mean to say is that Jewish settlers, then, have an equal right to outright steal - murder, if necessary - that which is not theirs, because there is an 'equal' claim.
It is equally tragic when civilians are killed, whether they are Arab or Israeli.
>Show me where I ever stated otherwise.
However, you are misrepresenting history. Example; The map of Israel that you have labeled "Israel 1949-1967" is actually a map of Israel after the 6 Day War of 1967. Israel annexed this land in 1967, only after being threatened with annihilation on all fronts by its Arab neighbors.
>I suggest accessing real history books, such as Ilan Pappe's, 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'.
I support Palestinian statehood, but not at the cost the destruction of Israel.
>Define 'destruction of Israel'. I suspect it will be racist in nature, that is, that to you, if Israel is not exclusively Jewish in character, then it is not 'Israel'. 23% of Israel proper is Palestinian-Israeli; plus besieged Gaza, plus occupied West Bank, plus the refugees, plus, plus, plus. The fact of the matter is that the numbers of Palestinians to Jews is pretty close to a perfect 50-50 split. The chorus grows ever louder for one
I accept legitimate criticism of Israel, as I do of my own country, the USA, but I can't accept slander in either case.
>The typical Zionist slant: All time taken up with attack, a pastiche at the end saying that of course, legitimate criticism of Israel is permitted - but admission of Israel's crimes never actually transpires.
I am trying to figure out if you are just misinformed or you are being paid to tell lies.
>I am informed. Paid? No, I am not in anybody's pocket.
I don't like getting personal - I am trying to help - but your insults border on slander. So the truth of it is that in my opinion you are brainwashed with bromides that are lies. And until enough people like you are able to see the situation for what it is, Israel, that which you care about so, will never have peace, because her supporters do not realize her self-destructive ways and so do nothing to steer her clear from rocky shoals. Is it peace you want, though?
In either case, the truth matters.
>Yes, that would be what I care about. The truth. Justice. And peace.
Footnote: The woman wrote back to say that her main objection was that in her opinion the map which accompanies my FREE GAZA article is inaccurate. I wrote her back again with a few observations to share while expressing my sincere regret at the poor tone of our original exchange.
(1) 'Hamas renews offer to end fight if Israel withdraws'; with editing by Kevin Liffey; Reuters; May 30, 2010; http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64T2AM20100530