"If we hope to learn anything from this terrible event". What kind of message is that . That's not the what this should be about.

Second Draft should make the charge first to provoke maximum interest and then go on to prove it. It should not ask a question. It should start with an assertion it wants everyone to accept. "The French colluded with the PA to produce the biggest blood lible of the twenty first century with disasterous effect." for example. Instead, you end it with "Judge for yourself". Right away you are showing your evenhandedness to allow for a difference of opinion.

The story is not about the boy that became an icon but the lie and collusion that "sunk a thousnd ships"

Don't waste this wonderful opportunity to make a point. Instead you ask a question.

Richard Landes responds;

I had an immediate negative reaction to the opening in the Second Draft article on al Durah. It is very important that these facts be known far and wide and your work goes a long way in presenting the facts.

my sense is that you've read only the introductory paragraph. i recommend reading more before passing judgment, but since many visitors may read little more, i guess it's important to respond to "first impressions."

What bothered me first was the statement "the "death" of a boy, the birth of an icon".

Why is that the story lead? It is not enough to put death in quotes. The story is really about the lie and how it galvanized the world. Not even a hint of that in this opener. I also don't like the message that the boy in death was an "icon".

that's the boy in "death". the point was to pique interest, not shout conclusions that most people can't even begin to grasp right off the bat.

The unadorned message is that the boy was killed by the Palestinians and filmed by a Frenchman in full knowledge and promoted by the French in full knowledge and willingly believed by the world due to prejudice.

i'm not sure what you mean by this. the unadorned message of our site? no. the most likely explanation of the footage we have is that it was staged, filmed by a palestinian working for French TV, promoted by people eager to believe it, but not likely in full knowledge.

Secondly, you pose a question rather than make an allegation. "What happened here?" How about "The biggest lie of all". Or "partners in mendacity".

You go on to show both sides and then say

"Even-handedness – Who knows who did it? It’s a tragedy – doesn’t work here. If we hope to learn anything from this terrible event, it will come from examination. We put the evidence before you and the five possible scenarios with arguments for and against. Judge for yourself."

I am turned off by this whole paragraph.

ouch.

if you read some in the site, you'll find we address the question of "even-handedness" repeatedly, in particular in a discussion of "leveling the playing field" and of "moral equivalence" and that we not only think it's a bad idea, but one of the major contributors to what's wrong with the media's take on the issue, a flaw that hurts everyone, including the Palestinian people.

"If we hope to learn anything from this terrible event". What kind of message is that . That's not the what this should be about.

Second Draft should make the charge first to provoke maximum interest and then go on to prove it. It should not ask a question. It should start with an assertion it wants everyone to accept. "The French colluded with the PA to produce the biggest blood lible of the twenty first century with disasterous effect." for example. Instead, you end it with "Judge for yourself". Right away you are showing your evenhandedness to allow for a difference of opinion.

this is a very different style. you are giving me advice on preaching to the choir, who are not that many, even among advocates for Israel. i have been amazed at the resistance i've run up against in this case (as have so many before me, like Shahaf, Juffa, and Huber). i even have an essay on the subject.

this resistance is doubly motivated even among honest observers not motivated by some subterranean animus against Israel or the Jews. on the one hand, by an unwillingness to believe that the media could be so incompetent (what i call the emperor's new clothes effect), on the other by the lack of a "smoking gun." to try and force people to accept a conclusion that is not "beyond the shadow of a doubt" does not strike me as a particularly useful approach. we prefer to treat our visitors with respect, offer them the evidence and let them decide. those convinced will be far better able to articulate the case than people who have been told what to think.

i discuss a great deal of this at the FAQs on al Durah and in an interview with Solomonia.

The story is not about the boy that became an icon but the lie and collusion that "sunk a thousand ships"

nice _expression, it did sink a thousand ships, including Clinton's "millennial" dream of solving the arab-israeli conflict in 2000. you are right. but i guess it's a matter of style. as an academic, i prefer to empower my students to think for themselves than regurgitate what i think. in this case i see the website as the equivalent of the little boy in the crowd asking "why is the emperor naked?" rather than "look at that idiot!" as it is most people's reaction is to say, "hush child."

Don't waste this wonderful opportunity to make a point. Instead you ask a question

. you are welcome to make all those points. that's why we made this material to the public.

thanks for your feedback. always appreciated.

Ted Belman responds.

Thank you for taking the time to answer me in detail. I know where you are coming from and certainly that is your right.

The resource you have put together of the available evidence is valuable but it only goes so far.

Obviously I would have preferred that you weigh in heavily as I suggested, to right the balance rather then to sit on the sidelines. I would have prefferred if you would be an advocat for Israel rather then a disinterested party.

The enemy fights us with propaganda and lies. It is not enough to fight them with facts, though that is importrant. We must also marshal those facts in the service of Israel. We must draw the most favourable conclusion for Israel. We must think for our readers not just present them with the facts. Afterall we have to overcome the damage the lies have cost.

Israel stands accused. In the court of public opinion, Israel is entitled to and desparately needs advocates to speak or her behalf not just presenters of facts.

In fact I have yet to go beyond the opening page. I will. My quarrel is that you waste, from my point of view, a valuable opportunity to start with a strong conclusion. You know the headlines often are more important then the contents. Thereafter you can deliver your facts and as you suggest also you arguments.

My behavior is not dysfunctional in the least and I am not attacking you, I am attacking the message or should I say the lack of message in your opener.

"we have evidence not what most people wd consider proof, ie no smoking gun.. but i think it's a matter of style here". A lawyer arguing a case makes the best case he can with the available evidence. It is not for him to conclude whether it amounts to proof. That's for the reader. You obviosly do not want to be an advocate. That is your right. But that's why I am so disappointed with your "style".

"wd it help if i sent you letters from people who are not pro-israel thanking us for not shoving our conclusions down their throats and expressing shock and dismay at what we show?" It would not help. You and they are suggesting that there is something wrong with advocacy. I don't accept it nor do I accept that it is tantamount to "shoving our conclusions down their throats"

But that doesn't prevent a good continuing relationship.