On Sept 22, 2011 I heard the beginning of the self-labelled 'leftist' Alex Bennett radio show. Alex Bennett, the host, called people who wanted to stop the execution of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia hypocrites for not protesting the execution the same day of Larry Brewer by Texas. Larry Brewer was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in the murder of James Byrd, Jr. Byrd was tied to a truck and dragged to death. The state of Georgia began to ignore much possibility of reasonable doubt of Troy Davis' guilt starting when 7 of 9 witnesses recanted their testimony. Alex Bennett could have been joking because he thought it's better radio to not have a 'serious' tone all the time. Or he could have been missing the point entirely about the motives of the 'save Troy Davis' movement. What the demand for equal condemnation of executions actually means, if Bennett was serious and not joking to create 'entertaining radio programming,' is that someone (Alex Bennett in this case) doesn't like the influence on public discourse that people in the 'save Troy Davis' movement had. The people in the 'save Troy Davis' movement should have, to be 'intellectually honest' or 'consistent,' 'divided their limited ability from lack of funding to advocate on an issue among all examples of the issue (executions in this case) that will reduce influence on public discourse of advocacy.'
Comparing lack of attention by people concerned with human rights, peace and justice to prevent war paid to conflicts other than the Israel-Palestine conflict is the same comparison Alex Bennett made, either seriously or for 'entertainment to sell satellite radio subscriptions,' between people concerned with stopping one execution and people concerned with stopping all executions. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict prejudice is imputed as a motive (usually by one-sided 'pro-Israel' partisans) if people concerned with human rights, peace and justice to prevent war choose to focus more of their advocacy on Israel AND have an influence on public discourse if not policy change or legislation passage.
As an example of how criticism of Israel is deflected with comparisons to other conflict-plagued countries and how the critics who criticize Israel more are presumed 'prejudiced' with accusations of anti-semitism that is equated with anti-zionism or simply calling the critics 'anti-Israel' here is a radio commentary read by the AJC Executive Director. My responses are in brackets.
played on WWRC 1260 AM in 6am CNN news Mar 20, 2009.
March 17, 2009 – New York – “Create a lie, repeat it often enough, and it sticks,” says AJC Executive Director David Harris, referring to the “skillful PR game” Israel’s adversaries have played. “They’ve learned a basic lesson from history and have used it more than once,” adds Harris in his national radio commentary. LISTEN 
Harris urges listeners to watch “Vilified,” the new hard-hitting AJC film that highlights three malicious lies about Israel.
Harris’s weekly messages on the CBS radio network air during the Osgood File. All AJC radio commentaries since 2001 are available at www.ajc.org/radiocommentary.
The full text of this week’s commentary follows:
How many conflicts are going on around the world?
According to experts, 345.
And of these conflicts, which gets the most attention?
[And of these conflicts, which side gets the most money and PR support from all over the world? Israel, who is stood with, by, in solidarity, under economic death penalty after being labelled 'bigoted.']
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And of the two sides, which gets the greater scrutiny?
[Shouldn't Americans have accountability over how their money is spent by the greater recipient? The Supreme Court has declared 'money is speech' in limiting extent of campaign finance regulation in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Americans' money militarily aiding Israel is speaking. Regardless of how one feels about campaign finance reform, therefore Americans, or citizens of any country, should be able to speak clearly in words, and actions, beyond how representatives spend their money.]
Israel.
Incidentally, many of the ongoing conflicts are far deadlier, with infinitely more casualties.
[Base attention and focus on conflict resolution on death tolls. *sarcasm alert* Base not -*sarcasm alert*- on capacity of other countries to influence conflict resolution toward negotiations based on international law. Because Israel benefits from this comparison of Israeli-Palestinian conflict to other conflicts David Harris isn't drawing a moral equivalence. That's all the term 'moral equivalence/blindness/relativism' usually means in public discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Don't compare Israeli-Palestinian conflict (one negative topic) with other conflicts (other negative topics) unless Israel looks better in the comparison. An example of a comparison of two negative topics that is not engaging in 'moral equivalence/relativism/blindness' because Israel looks 'better' in the comparison was when David Bernstein, former Washington Director of AJC and since 2010 director of David Project, compared the accidental USA bombing of the China embassy in Belgrade, Serbia to the second Israeli bombing of civilians in 10 years in Qana, Lebanon as being similarly accidental or should be viewed in perspective of a greater good not simply as wrong for killing civilians. Documentation of this 'dumbfounding anecdote' "A Price of Fighting Terrorism" August 10, 2006 column Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901517.html.]
Why Israel?
Good question.
Maybe because it’s an open country, where the media operate freely and without fear.
[The Israel defense ministry censors its own media and the Information Ministry censors foreign media operating in Israel. Israel army IDF can and does declare 'closed military zone' at any time for any reason at any place to keep out reporters or any independent observers of its actions. At least the USA military, in Iraq, offers limited access as protection from kidnapping with the reporter embedding process. Foreign journalists were kept out of Gaza, and protested it, even before the Operation where the IDF Cast a lot more Lead than the total weight of Hamas rockets. Israeli journalists, with few exceptions, know better than to even ask to enter the West Bank or Gaza. See "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land" as a balance to the unbalanced perspective of AJC's viral video 'Vilified" for more on press closures in open Israel.]
Maybe because Israel’s adversaries have played a skillful PR game. They’ve learned a basic lesson from history and have used it more than once.
[Maybe because Israel's defenders have played a skillful PR game. First accuse your perceived enemies of whatever you do to appropriate 'moral high ground' in public discourse. Exploit the social rule of 'first impressions matter most' for political advantage. When you're called on hypocrisy, by people first accused of anything negative, people will remember their first impression of the accused's problems and disregard what they say. Then use the 5 tactics to make the 'case for Israel.' Hat tip to Alan Dershowitz book title for help naming the rhetorical construct.
Change the subject.
Equivocate on small details to distract from the big picture.
Drop dumbfounding, uncorroborated, unverifiable, undocumented, emotional anecdotes to elicit stammering silence from those one disagrees with (works better in oral debate than written debate/discussion). The longer the silence, the more audiences to the dispute will presume 'ignorance of all relevant facts' regardless of how relevant the anecdote was.
Play guilt by association games with the unpopular person or funding source to smear the many by association with the few.
Use all 4 of the above tactics to 'get person or group known more for controversy around their words or actions than for the words or actions themselves.' Exploit the social rule of conversation 'don't talk about sensitive subjects -religion or politics-' by manufacturing controversy out of anything one disagrees with, in order to inhibit dialogue on improving the status quo.]
Create a lie, repeat it often enough, and it sticks.
AJC has produced a new film, “Vilified.” It highlights three such lies about Israel.
[And it takes less of your valuable time to watch than "Relentless: The Arabs War against Israel" renamed "The Search For Peace in the Mideast" and "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" by so-called honestreporting in the .com, not the .org domain.]
The hard-hitting film is five minutes long, but its impact will last much longer.
It’s been out less than a week and already thousands of people around the world have seen it.
View “Vilified” at ajc.org. Or go to You Tube.
This is David Harris of AJC.
[David Harris, once having first accused others- Palestinian supporters- of playing a skillful PR game, won't suffer any loss of credibility in public discourse if anyone calls him on playing a skillful PR game by invoking the personification of Israel as a 'Jew among other personified nations' who is judged by an apparent 'double standard' that other personified nations aren't judged by. Harris misses, or at least distracts his audience from, the bigger picture and broader context that undermine his 'community of personified nations' supposed bigotry against one personified nation.]
A 2008 column on townhall.com I originally found on realclearpolitics.com by Dennis Prager "Why do Palestinians get much more attention than Tibetans?"
and an article by Michael Freund in the Jerusalem Post reprinted in the Sept 3, 2009 Washington Jewish Week "All Settlers are not created equal"
follow this same tactic of making false equivalences and bad comparisons with the intent of protecting Israel from criticism, not all criticism, only criticism that could have influence leading to policy changes or bill passages.
On April 16, 2012 Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's office gave a letter to Welcome to Palestine flytilla people who arrived in Israel's one airport in spite of Government of Israel efforts to have people denied boarding at airports of origin. If the link doesn't work try http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-israel-pro-palestinian-activists-get-attention-if-not-entry/2012/04/15/gIQADxFhJT_story.html or search on the title "In Israel pro-Palestinian activists get attention if not entry." The letter read in part "You could have chosen to protest the Syrian regime's daily savagery against its own people... [or] the Iranian regime's brutal crackdown on dissent. Instead you chose to protest against Israel, the Middle East's sole democracy," and was the same tendentious, tiresome prejudice-baiting of advocacy priorities hoping to divide Palestinian supporters' attention and weaken effectiveness of support activities.
Because of controversy-startups 'linkage,' (the concept that the continuing Israel-Palestine conflict harms USA military and security interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen) has been turned into a 'forbidden subject' for dialogue. Former General and now CIA director David Petraeus in March 2010, and JD Gordon (Herman Cain adviser) had supported the 'linkage' concept in the link below. The Iraq Study Group report also discussed the idea of 'linkage' where the continuing Israel-Palestine conflict worsened other conflicts making all harder to resolve.
Because the subject is set, by controversy-startups around the 'linkage' concept, 'beyond boundaries of polite conversation' social rules for 'getting along with people' are harnessed to help advocacy work of extreme 'pro-Israel' partisans not necessarily advancing the cause of peace and regional stability for all, not only Israeli Jewish, peoples of the Middle East region.
