British journalists on slippery slope

An open letter to Jeremy Dear, Secretary General of the National Union of British Journalists

By Robert Horenstein

Dear Secretary General Dear:

As you are well aware, the resolution passed by the 40,000-member NUJ on April 13 calling for a boycott of Israeli goods in protest against Israel's "military adventures" has sparked outrage among Jewish organizations on this side of the Atlantic.

The Anti-Defamation League, for example, used the term "shocking" to describe the resolution, which condemned Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon" last summer and its ongoing "slaughter of civilians in Gaza."

Quite frankly, I can't figure out what all the fuss is about. Indeed, I want to assure you that I, for one, wasn't shocked in the least.

That American Jews would be stunned by the boycott decision and the anti-Israel rhetoric accompanying it shows that they simply haven't been paying attention to you Brits.

After all, it was only last year that a group of prominent British architects called for a boycott of Israel's construction industry in protest against the "apartheid wall" (of course, Israelis refer to it as a "security barrier" because it prevents terrorists from sneaking across the border and blowing up women and children on buses and in cafes).

Then there was the decision by Britain's Association of University Teachers to boycott Israeli academics who refuse to publicly renounce Israel's "apartheid policies."

Could anyone have reasonably expected that you and your professional colleagues would remain silent while those self-righteous architects and smug intellectuals claimed to be the exclusive champions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah?

While others may be decrying your call for a boycott, I'm actually thankful for your role in bringing about this remarkable moment of clarity by taking such an unambiguous stance against any pretense of objectivity.

For one thing, I feel vindicated after having argued for years that the Guardian and Independent newspapers regularly print accusatory, anti-Israel editorials and that their correspondents in Israel file biased, inaccurate stories.

And the BBC? Don't get me started on its concerted and relentless one-sided portrayal of Israel as a demonic, pariah state.

Even so, I never understood that British journalists had such a deep personal stake in the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It requires great personal sacrifice to forgo Jaffa oranges, Gamla Cabernet Sauvignon, and Ahava hand cream, not to mention Israeli-developed medicines (although I understand that Hamas, whom you would never think to boycott, has figured out a way to cure cancer permanently using C4 plastic explosive).

More importantly, in passing a highly politicized and blatantly biased resolution, you followed your conscience even if it meant defying your own union's code of conduct (see, http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/uk.html). It takes real backbone—we Zionists call it chutzpah—to declare that a journalist's obligation to be fair and balanced (i.e., not to take sides) must be cast aside if it will benefit the Palestinian terrorist organizations.

These positives notwithstanding, there is one aspect of the union's decision that I find a bit troubling. First, however, let me make clear to you that my concern has nothing to do with the factual distortions in the resolution itself.

I'm not one of those ADL or AIPAC hotheads who feel compelled to point out that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005—that the "slaughter" taking place there is due almost entirely to Palestinians from rival factions and gangs killing each other. Or that last July's Israeli incursion into Lebanon wasn't "pre-planned" at all but in response to Hezbollah's unprovoked attack inside Israel, which resulted in the death of eight soldiers and the kidnapping of two others.

Nor am I upset that you are singling out Israel, a liberal Western-style democracy with freedom of the press, as the target of your boycott in support of human rights.

True, Saudi Arabia has no independent press, bans Christianity, forbids women to drive, and carries out floggings of young adults arrested for being affectionate in public. But I fully recognize that calling for a boycott of the kingdom's oil would no doubt jeopardize the access British journalists have to Saudi officials who can provide abundant fodder for your campaign against Israel.

What does concern me is the suggestion that the NUJ passed the resolution, in part, as a reward to the Palestinian Journalists' Union for its help in trying to secure the release of Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent who was kidnapped by Palestinian militants in Gaza several weeks ago.

If true, this would seem to imply that your motives and your stand against impartiality aren't entirely pure.

As I see it, it's one small step down the slippery slope toward neutrality.

What's next? The BBC airing a report refuting allegations that Israel has been injecting Palestinian children with the AIDS virus and exposing Palestinian civilians to radiation at West Bank checkpoints?

For the sake of the Queen, sir, think of your image!

Robert Horenstein is the staff director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Community Relations Committee.