"Balance"

Following Terry Cormier's statement that the resolution deploring Israeli settlement expansion was not "balanced" I wanted to post something quickly about the concept of "balance" which, in Canada at least, seems to be the the most important requirement of late when talking about the Occupation of Palestine.

I think this issue really picked up steam following the Israeli assault on Gaza in December. Media outlets were especially careful to appear "balanced" even when reporting largely of the carnage wrought by Israel. It seems - as you saw in my post about the IDF t-shirts depicting cross hairs on a pregnant Palestinian - that regardless of the story, a comment has to be made that shows "balance". The IDF can produce incredibly offensive and hateful t-shirts promoting war crimes, but as long as the reporter makes a reference to the fact that Hamas does bad things to Israelis - the newspaper is "balanced".

We really need a more fundamental understanding of just how insidious this idea of "balance" is, and what it really implies.

It implies that there are no victims. That Israeli actions (be they t-shirts or new settlements) are - despite being crimes - reactions to some sort of incitement by the Palestinians.

It implies that Palestinians somehow have as much control over their institutions as the Israelis - ignoring the 40 years of degradation to Palestinian civil society by the Occupation.

Ultimately though, and most importantly I would suggest, it implies that there can be no moral judgements. This, I think, should be the most troubling for the neoconservatives whose approach to foreign policy is Manichean at best. Conservatives are not the moral relativists that they accuse liberals of being. Yet this need for "balance" in the face of actions that are morally reprehensible bankrupts them of this position. No longer do we talk about rape victims "asking for it" - we've recognized that a crime is a crime. I can only hope that our diplomats and newspapers eventually do the same.