I had an immediate negative reaction to the opening. As you kinow I know the story. What bothered me first was the statement "the "death" of a boy, the birth of an icon". Why is that the storey lead? It is not enought to put death in quotes. The storey 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". The unadorned message is that the boy was killed by the Palestinians and fimed by a Frenchman in full knowledge and promoted by the French in full knowledge and willingly believed by the world due to prejudice. 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 hate this whole paragraph.

"If we hope to learn anything from this terrible event".

What kind of crap 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 tenty first century with disasterous effect." 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 then replied

I had an immediate negative reaction to the opening. As you kinow I know the story. 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". The unadorned message is that the boy was killed by the Palestinians and fimed by a Frenchman in full knowledge and promoted by the French in full knowledge and willingly believed by the world due to prejudice.

do you mean our "unadorned message" is that the boy was killed by palestinians? surely not.

if you mean that's your take, please. i don't think he was killed. i'll be happy to list you among those who adhere to scenario 4. are you on record about this? i searched your site and came up with two postings on al durah (differently spelled), one from Juffa, one from Poller, both argue staged (scenario 5). i personally don't think the boy was killed by palestinians (at least not at netzarim junction on sept. 30, 2000. (no blood, he moves in take 6, the last take.) perhaps it would help if you read a bit more before you voice your visceral reactions.

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

okay. you're more than welcome to make the case, and we give you the material with which to do it. but we are committed to letting people make up their own mind. by all means, have a posting entitled that. but don't insist we be clones of your rhetorical stances.

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 hate this whole paragraph.

ouch. i'm sorry you feel that way. on the other hand, you're not someone i feel i have to convince.

"If we hope to learn anything from this terrible event". What kind of crap is that . That's not the what this should be about. Second draft should make the charge first to provke maximum interest and then go on to prove it.

as you know, we have evidence not what most people wd consider proof, ie no smoking gun. you're welcome to do that, but i think it's a matter of style here. 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 should not ask a question. It should start with an assertion it wants everyone to accept.

you're preaching to the choir, which is fine. we're not. many of the readers we want to draw in don't want to accept this argument. on the contrary, they're kicking and screaming all the way to the fairly inescapable conclusion. by all means deploy this as you wish, but please don't reproach us for not taking your approach.

"The French colluded with the PA to produce the biggest blood libel of the twenty first century with disastrous effect." Instead, you end it with "Judge for yourself". Right away you are showing your evenhandedness to allow for a difference of opinion.

we have a several lengthy discussions at the site about even-handedness, which we criticize fairly sharply http://www.seconddraft.org/playfield.php http://www.seconddraft.org/ess_moral_equivalence.php i do not consider treating my readers as autonomous moral agents capable of making up their own minds to be "even-handedness" but respect.

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

because he became an icon at whose altar arab and muslim hatred and paranoia worshipped, a thousand ships got sunk. (i like the _expression) this is not an either or.

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

have you read beyond the opening paragraph? we make many many points. i must say, i'm somewhat surprised by your vehemently negative reaction. is this the famed dysfunctional behavior of jews attacking other jews when they're on the same side? is this another MEMRI vs PMW? do we need this?

Can you just consider this a gift that you can use to formulate your own message, rather than a failed clone of Israpundit?

---------------------------------------------------------
I responded

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.

"is this another MEMRI vs PMW?" Absolutely. "do we need this?" Absolutely. This is the first time I hear anyone except the Arabs decry MEMRI. The US senators pay it much more respect as the most of the pro-Israel world.

"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 dissapointed 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.

------------------------------------------
Richard had the last word.

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.

you are welcome to take it further.

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.

there's room for both. i prefer to argue from the position of advocating for civil society and let the obvious advantage to israel make itself clear to people who aren't a priori on israel's side (quite the contrary, given the damage done by a criminally negligent MSM, they tend to view israel with a great deal of skepticism). i think if you read more inside, you'll find i take some pretty strong positions.

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.

that's your job. think of me as setting you up to spike the ball. and in this case, it's a pretty sweet spike. look forward to seeing what you do with it.

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.

i do a lot more than just present facts. read in the media: reflections page.

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.

i understand. there's room for it all. please, make some headlines.

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.

lack of message that you want to see. for people who have never even heard of the staged hypothesis, like the author of a recent Maariv article, this is already alot. i have an essay on "resistance to the staged hypothesis" in which i explore why it's been so hard to get people to think about this. i've chosen this technique to hitting them over the head (Juffa's approach). we'll see.

" is this another MEMRI vs PMW?" Absolutely. "do we need this?" Absolutely. This is the first time I hear anyone except the Arabs decry MEMRI. The US senators pay it ! much more respect as the most of the pro-Israel world.

i'm not decrying MEMRI, but the spat btw MEMRI and PMW (you may not know about it) in which one side in particular actually undermines the other, accusing them of being "frauds." this is crazy. my impression from your first reaction was that i'd be attacked from the pro-israeli side... alas.

"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 dissapointed with your "style".

i'm not a lawyer. and i want people to trust that what i put up is not slanted by advocacy (except, of course, for advocacy of civil society and its principles).

"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"

no. nothing wrong with advocacy. i'm the faculty advisor of BU Students for Israel, an advocacy group on campus. this is a style that i'm not adopting it for second draft.

But that doesn't prevent a good continuing relationship.

looking forward.