Submitted by Bill Chernin, Nov 27, 2006 14:41

I've just read Dr Bell's article and Mr. Roth's letter, and I find Dr. Roth's unsubstantial. What is obvious to many, but apparently not to Mr. Roth, is the war of Public Relations. The combatants, and surely Human Rights groups and others know this, can and do deliver a messge through the media, merely by adapting their message to the protocol the media uses in reporting it. Thus if Hizbollah responded to almost any incident by accussing Israel of war crimes, they know that the media consumers will hear that Israel is accussed of War crimes. Even Kofi Annan may have used/abused this simple system. After saying that Israel bombed a UN observation post "on purpose," which he had to retract the following day, an assistant of his reported (that same day)that he did in fact believe they had done it on purpose. Predictably, both stories were reported in the same new broadcasts (here in Canada) and media consumers heard that he appologized but didn't really mean it. To my mind it was as cynical manipulation of the media as we ever see. Many Human rights groups commit these sorts of abuses, routinely condemning Israel while a story is fresh and in the news, then condemming the anti-Israel forces weeks later, when the story is dead and no one will report it. This gives them something with which they can deny accusations of bias after the fact. By not acknowledging there is a PR war, they avoid difficult position of trying to prove that they are not partisans in it.

As to the law, and the anti-Israel sides use of adjectives, I find Mr. Roth uses adjectives in place of fact. Describing rice on the road, and mentioning the "outrage" he reveals how anti-Israel groups and individuals often mistake something emotive for something factual. Justice is supposed to be blind, so as to be concerned with facts. Mr. Roth, like any decent partisan person, doesn't menition what he finds inconvient, like the laws allowance for mistakes and proportionality, and it is this, more than anything, that makes me think that he is biased, because I see him using the tactics of the biased, and because he defends his organization, even at the cost of the principles ingeneral, which deminish those in particular he is supposed to protect.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.