It takes some skill to do something that is at once inane, ineffectual, counter-productive and insulting to the intelligence. But that is what the National Union of Journalists has managed to do by voting to boycott Israeli goods because of the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel".

I am a member of the NUJ, though at times like this I wonder why. A union battling for better pay and conditions is one thing. But why should my dues be spent on anti-Israel posturing of which I and many other members want no part?

You could say that this kind of thing is what gives British trade unions their Loony Left image. But in a way it's even worse than that. Although Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Mineworkers in the 1980s, was an unreconstructed Marxist, at least he was fighting for what he saw as the best interests of miners.

As Craig McGinty asks , how the hell does boycotting Israeli goods benefit journalists? Dadblog jokes about the other boycotts the NUJ could go for but his underlying point is serious - if the NUJ is going to go in for this sort of posturing, how about boycotting goods from countries that really abuse human rights?

A glance down the list of NUJ motions reveals a childish fixation with trendy-Leftie causes. It reminds me of the time I was JCR President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford and I was forever being mandated, after verbose motions carried by acclamation, to write to Margaret Thatcher to protest about this or that.

But that was forgivable - we were idealistic students who had not yet entered the real world. We had an outsized sense of our own importance and an impatient reluctance to bother ourselves with considering the complexities of life outside. We have since grown up.

A glance down list of motions shows that the NUJ, despite celebrating its centenary, is still an adolescent. There's a Guantanamo motion that expresses "concern" (that'll make a difference) about "the systematic violation of human rights by the US Military".

Another "applauds the advances made by the Venezuelan people and government in redistributing the country's wealth" and condemns "disinformation" that encourages "unjustified stereotypes of the Venezuelan president as a dictator who is repressing the local media".

So the NUJ is now dictating that its members should all write that Hugo Chavez is a great chap? Clear the front pages. And if you read the anti-Israel motions, you will spot a complete absence of any sense of journalistic impartiality. The "slaughter of civilians" by Israel is condemned (no mention of suicide bombings or human rights abuses by Palestinian militias, needless to say), as is the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel" and "continued attacks inside Lebanon following the defeat of its army by Hezbollah".

What kind of language is this? It is tendentious and politically-loaded propaganda that would be rightly edited out of any news story written in a newspaper that had any pretensions of fairness. Israel "defeated" by Hezbollah? That is at best debatable - it's the kind of wording smacks of a juvenile combination of unedifying gloating and wishful thinking.

Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack" on Lebanon? Er, am I missing something or wasn't last summer's conflict sparked by Hezbollah firing rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers (who still have not been released) and killing three other troops?

Much has been written about the media's shortcomings in covering events in Lebanon and Israel in 2006 - check out Matthew D'Ancona and Marvin Kalb for starters - but journalistic standards of fairness, professionalism and objectivity seem to be of no concern to the NUJ.

The case of Alan Johnston, the BBC's Gaza correspondent, who was kidnapped by an unknown Palestinian group more than a month ago and has not been seen since, illustrates the dangers of reporting from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Doing one's best to remain impartial in the most volatile and divided part of the world is incredibly difficult. Every single sentence or utterance by a journalist is scrutinised by both sides. Which can be a great thing (and something which I believe is extending across all journalism as the blogosphere spreads) but also adds to the pressure.

Foreign journalists are regarded by most Israelis as partisan advocates of the Palestinian cause. There's clearly some justification for this. It's scarcely breaking news to say that elements of the British press can be strongly anti-Israel.

Remember the Jenin "massacre", when the Guardian compared Israeli actions to 9/11? But most British journalists based in Jerusalem - and I was one of them - have a mix of sympathy for the terrible plight of ordinary Palestinians, a belief that there will be a two-state solution and even sneaking admiration for what Israel has achieved in terms of nation-building in its short history.

So what does the NUJ motion do for its members there? It helps smear them all as being biased and anti-Israel. Bravo NUJ for encouraging people to view your members as partisans in a region when charges like that can be damaging to one's health.

Propagating biased assertions, endangering the safety of its members, singling Israel out for criticism above all other nations, dictating what we should write. It's high time for the NUJ to take a long, hard look at itself if it wants to avoid being consigned to ridicule and irrelevance.


By Toby Harnden
 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/april07/savageisrael.htm

Wow! It really is just like the anti-apartheid campaign, with the Daily TelAvivagraph again rushing to defend land-theft and state terrorism - just like they did back when the whites were in charge in SA.

Some things never change.

"It takes some skill to do something that is at once ..."

Who are you trying to convince? These boycotts have led to Israel pleading with its US sponsor for increased "aid", has driven many Israelis out of Israel, and the pure symbolism of the act once again has people talking about the issue.

"because of the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel"."

Yes? If you are truly a "journalist", as allaged, then you should know that evidence has come to light that Israel plotted this invasion for well over a year, with direct US coordination.

"I am a member of the NUJ"

Sure you are ...

"though at times like this I wonder why."

So quit.

"A union battling for better pay and conditions is one thing."

Battling for humane treatment of an entire People, against the racist, supremacist Regime in an Apartheid state, is vastly more important.

"spent on anti-Israel posturing of which I and many other members want no part?"

There is nothing here that is "anti-Israel", unless you feel that perpetuating an unjust, cruel, Apartheid paradigm is somehow in the country's best interests, and that of its people.

"You could say that this kind of thing is what gives British trade unions their Loony Left image."

Especially if you were trying to limit debate, while at the same time, belittle unions as a whole. It's called Disinformation. If you are truly a 'journalist', you should know you don't use this.

"As Craig McGinty asks , how the hell does boycotting Israeli goods benefit journalists?"

It doesn't. It benefits the Palestinian People. Not everything is about you.

"Dadblog jokes about ..."

So you're not actually a 'journalist', but a Freeper, here to disseminate disinfo?

"how about boycotting goods from countries that really abuse human rights?"

Israel is one of the most serious and consistent abusers of human rights. Every accounting of human rights abuses says this. Gee, for a guy claiming to be a 'journalist', you're grossly ill-informed ... Who did you say you worked for again ... ?

"a childish fixation with trendy-Leftie causes."

However, this is a mainstream cause, as the ease of instant communication has torn down the carefully-crafted facade protecting Israel's war to wipe Palestine off the map from the prying eyes of the world, vastl;y increasing the pressure on this Supremacist, Zionist, Apartheid military state to reform.

"There's a Guantanamo motion that expresses "concern" (that'll make a difference) about "the systematic violation of human rights by the US Military".

It's a symbolic act, which carries weight.

Perhaps you should source your "list" ...

"And if you read the anti-Israel motions ..."

Again, nothing about this is 'anti-Israel', as Israelis and Jews worldwide are also suffering because of Extremist Zionism, as noted by the many anti-Zionist Jewish coalitions popping up over the past year, in order to deal specifically with this issue.

"The "slaughter of civilians" by Israel is condemned"

The UN called this "War Crimes", and "Egreggious Violations of International Law". A journalist would know these things.

"What kind of language is this?"

It's called 'reality' ...

"Israel "defeated" by Hezbollah?"

That is what the recent hearings in Israel concluded, yes.

"Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack" on Lebanon?"

Yes. A 'Journalist' knows these things to be true, as does the UN, human rights organizations worldwide, etc, etc, etc.

"am I missing something or wasn't last summer's conflict sparked by ..."

No, you're missing something. The two Israeli soldiers were actually captured within Lebanese territory, after being dangled in the most dangerous region of the border without adequate support. Hezbollah's rockets were not fired until Israel had invaded.

But these were only the excuses for a premeditated Act of Aggression.

Hezbollah firing rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers (who still have not been released) and killing three other troops?

"Much has been written about the media's shortcomings in covering events in Lebanon and Israel in 2006"

Yes, and most of it stems from its willingness to ignore the truth, and disseminate the LIES you have repeated here.

Nobody needs to read your pro-Zionist sources.

"who was kidnapped by an unknown Palestinian group"

The FBI has stated several times over the past three years that "previously unknown groups" are usually Fronts for intelligence services.

"illustrates the dangers of reporting from Israel and the Palestinian territories."

At least, that's what we've been led to believe. But only Israel's interests are served by scaring journalists away from reporting on their decades-long War. The Palestinians are desperate for media outlets for their stories.

"Doing one's best to remain impartial in the most volatile and divided part of the world is incredibly difficult."

But you're more than willing to ignore the facts, and impartiallity?

"Every single sentence or utterance by a journalist is scrutinised by both sides."

Actually, it's mainly the Zionists who attack the media for its coverage, especially in the few instances where it dares to step out of line, and report on the Zionist war with facts-in-hand.

The facts, after all, are the this war is the creation of European Zionists, and its perpetuation is theirs alone, because they do not want "peace" that includes a Palestinian People.

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
Published by
Jews for Justice in the Middle East

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes—on both sides—inevitably follow from this original injustice.

 http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/

"Foreign journalists are regarded by most Israelis as partisan advocates of the Palestinian cause."

Depends on what you mean by "Foreign". Most Western journalists are considered staunch allies in the war on Palestine, and those who don't toe this line are attacked and threatened.

"It's scarcely breaking news to say that elements of the British press can be strongly anti-Israel."

You mean "credible", "objective"?

Most of the media, however, is pro-Zionist.

"Remember the Jenin "massacre", when the Guardian compared Israeli actions to 9/11?"

You mean since Israel wantonly slaughtered Palestinian civilians, then barred the UN and media from entering the region for two full weeks, firing upon anyone who dared test their resolve?

Now you're really exposing yourself, Plant.

"journalists based in Jerusalem - and I was one of them"

Riiiiiight ....

"and even sneaking admiration for what Israel has achieved in terms of ..."

Now you've really exposed yourself, Shill. It's no great feat to "achieve" what they have through Ethnic Cleansing and military force.

"So what does the NUJ motion do for its members there?"

It allows them to, in part, make up for the media's "shortcomings", in helping hide Israeli crimes, and allows its members to do its part against an Apartheid, military state, for the good of both Peoples affected by the Cultish Extremism of Zionism.

"Propagating biased assertions"

Is what the bulk of the media does anyway - for Israel.

"endangering the safety of its members"

So, you're admitting that it is dangerous to be objective in the reporting on Zionism's war?

Interesting, but I agree wholeheartedly.

"singling Israel out for criticism above all other nations"

I think you mean "just like any other nation".

Nothing wrong with that.

Zionism is what's going to become the next failed, fascist ideology in the dustbin of history.

The only question is, "When?".