The Dish’s effect on readers’ Israel discourse

Andrew posts an email:

When I was young I thought Israel was a fact, a friend to the US, a bulwark against Communism, & the Holocaust justified its existence. Looking at those maps makes clear the original problem in the American/European support of Israel’s creation — in your supposedly more Israel-friendly map, there is not a single region that you show where a plurality of the inhabits were Jewish — by what right did any Jewish state rise up to kick this many people out of their homes & claim this land?

That’s because Andrew didn’t want to back down from laughably presenting the map as a “more Israeli-friendly map,” even after having to relate how it manipulated the Jewish-majority city of Jerusalem with an area beyond Jerusalem.

It’s a map from the one-state propaganda group at palestinerembered.com, a website subtitled “The Home Of All Ethnically Cleansed Palestinians,” not subtitled “a place for accurate and forthright maps including Israeli-friendly ones.”

So we see how Andrew’s ego actually has a negative effect on his readers.

______

UPDATE, 3/17/10:

Andrew said in a post yesterday, about Pete Whener’s selective quoting of Thomas Ricks:

I aired the whole controversy in real time, which seems to me to argue against the notion that I’m “not particularly interested in hearing fact-based arguments that undermine whatever argument he happens to be making.” I also aired a clarification to the new and better map here. I do this kind of blogging and clarification all the time – on every subject under the sun, with maximum accountability and reader reaction. I admit error promptly and I air dissents constantly. But I also stick to my arguments if they hold up over time.

Sure, just not on Israel and several other major topics.

[…]

And if Jeffrey believes that my blogging has “caused real damage to real people”, then I can only say that words and arguments hurt no one.

Bombs and missiles do.

Yet he has made the exact opposite claim, numerous times, about “neocon” pundits (ex. Krauthammer, the “intellectual architect of the torture regime,” and many people who work at the National Review) and about what he himself wrote before the Iraq invasion. And remember what he called Stephen Walt’s “powerful counter-factual”? I’m still laughing at that one.

Plus, there’s the issue of his NATO recommendation.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: