Comments on: NUJ ADM: Should journalists boycott Israel? And can they?

By: johninnit » Blog Archive » Euro out of here!

johninnit » Blog Archive » Euro out of here! — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:41:21 +0000

[...] do sometimes often disagree with policies that have gone through my union. I argue with them at branch, vote against them when I get the [...]

By: David

David — Thu, 24 May 2007 22:14:38 +0000

Not much has changed in the last year

By: Tom Davies

Tom Davies — Tue, 01 May 2007 21:57:35 +0000

Yes, but until you can provide actual evidence either that contributors to this discussion, or delegates at the conference, are or were motivated by anti-semitism then you’re just speculating wildly and slinging mud around. Which, unfortunately, appears to have been the defining characteristic of most discussions of this issue that I’ve come across on the web.

So it can almost be quite rational for those accused of anti-semitism, without any evidence of it being provided, to take offence and request an apology. Any chance of one being forthcoming?

By: david

david — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:20:46 +0000

Mixed feelings.
On one hand it clarifies positions, since this boycott IMO clearly reveals that british journalists in majority are one-sided, meaning that they are more on the side of the palestinians than the israelis.This is clarifying in the sense that it explains for a large part the tone of the almost daily reports we get on the conflict.
Off course every journalist should be neutral and detached, but off course journalists are just humans and therefore sympathise (in general) more with one side or the other.
So getting out the sympathies in the open is not a bad thing. But….
Although neutrality does not exist, i do think it is what journalists should strive for. Therefore, formalizing which side to chose in a highly debated conflict does not seem like a good road in order to achieve neutrality.

Finally, being anti-israel can have many reasons, one of them being anti-semitic. If one encounters (what he thinks to be) rabiate and unbalanced anti-israelism, it can be quite rational to suspect that anti-semitism is behind this viewpoint.

By: martin cloake

martin cloake — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:47:27 +0000

Maurice, read Tom Davies’s post again.

By: Maurice Ostroff

Maurice Ostroff — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:11:49 +0000

Is the NUJ vote for boycotting Israeli goods unconstitutional?

The boycott raises an interesting constitutional issue.

As Motion number 30, passed at the 2006 ADM reiterated a fundamental commitment to diversity of views and pluralism in the media, one must how the NUJ can have such diversity while it obliges its members to adopt a single-minded outlook declaring enmity to one side and support of the other?

More blatantly, the boycott is incompatible with motion 30’s stress on the importance of a clear separation of the role of journalists from that of participants in the action or events they are covering. This creates a peculiar situation. Motion 30, unambiguously instructs the National Executive Council (NEC) not to lend support to organizations that do not recognize the importance of distinguishing between the role of reporter and participant. http://tinyurl.com/2jj8yr

Since the NUJ has now become a participant in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by boycotting one of the parties and actively supporting the other, the NEC is obliged to withhold support from the organization of which it is a constituent.

By: Martin Cloake

Martin Cloake — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:31:42 +0000

Thanks Martin, let’s see if it makes any difference - although holding your breath might not be advisable ;-)
Thought Peter Wilby was very intersting in The Guardian this morning btw.

By: Martin Stabe

Martin Stabe — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:00:30 +0000

Owen,

Your counterfactuals are all very interesting, but of course, being counterfactuals, can’t be proved either way. They are therefore pure rhethotic that do little to further our understanding of this issue.

I actually agree with you that this decision was a very bad idea, but like Martin Coake, I do wish we could keep the debate here more rational and civil. There’s no need to assume those whose don’t share our position are a bunch of bigots.

By: Owen

Owen — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:53:11 +0000

If anyone doubts anti-Semitism is a key driver behind the pro-Palestine campaign, consider this:

1. If Sudan’s government forces happened to be Jewish, the ethnic cleansing of black villagers in Darfur would be on our front pages every day… and there would be demonstrations on the streets.
2. If Turkey was a Jewish state, UK political activists would be running a high-profile campaign to demand Turkey’s military pulled out of northern Cyprus.
3. If Robert Mugabe was Jewish… OK, I think I’ve made my point now.

If anyone asks, I’m not Jewish.

All this motion will do is make our union look like a bunch of Trotty dinosaurs which would, given the chance, formulate a committee to appoint Erich Honecker’s corpse as successor to Tony Blair as PM.

By: Martin Cloake

Martin Cloake — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:40:54 +0000

Well, some of us have tried to have a reasoned debate here. But the majority of responses seem either, as Tom says, to be “apocalyptic scaremongering”, or ridiculous and offensive abuse. You may view the NUJ vote to be right or wrong - that doesn’t make people who you may consider wrong “racist” or “anti-semitic”. Accussing people who don’t agree with you of prejudice reveals only a lack of proper argument to back of your views. It’s an old, discredited tactic.
There are a few people on here who need to make an apology.
So much for the virtues of the blogosphere - it too often turns into a forum for cheap insults and misrepresentation.
Still - it’s given a few papers a story.