How not to stage a balanced debate

Because the panel already has two considerable intellectuals who many people have a lot of respect for, who would be able to give a very measured and thoughtful appraisal of the situation rather than engage in some petty point-scoring over a human tragedy.

Tamimi on the other hand is a rabble-rousing propagandist. Unfortunately he has got his counterparts in our community.

I'm glad neither he nor they are on the panel. And besides if you don't want to go and appreciate what they have to say, nobody's forcing you.

I see that it is a conversation rather than a debate in any case.

A one-sided conversation, that's the point.

The best and most productive conversations start from a common baseline. If you have read Khalidi's and Shlaim's profound writings over the years you will know that they share a common commitment to human rights, peace with justice in Israel/Palestine, care for the people rather than respect for state power, and a determination to find a political rather than a military solution to the conflict. But I guess some peope may prefer an adversarial debate where people speak past each other.

Additionally, anything with Lindsey Hilsum should be avoided. C4news is even further to the left than the BBC.

I attended a similarly unbalanced 'debate' last Monday, at the College of Law (!), orgnised by The Haldane Society and Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights. The title was "Israel in Gaza: violations of international law."

Chairman: Ghada Karmi

Panel: Ruth Tanner (War on Want); Prof Iain Scobbie, Professor of public international law, SOAS; Daniel Machover, solicitor and chair Lawyers for Palestinian HumanRights; Salma Karmi, barrister.

I complained afterwards to the Principal of the College, on the basis that his College had hosted a Kangaroo Court.

He was not terribly concerned, except for the fact that the Haldane Society's agreement with the College was to hold a series of legal talks, not political ones.

According to some, a "balanced" debate is when everybody agree on putting the guilt on one side!
That kind of 'debate' I could witness on the French TV: one part was talking about destructions in Gaza by Israel, the other was on Beduin tribes in Israel, victims... of the Israeli government that did not provide them with shelters to protect them from Hamas rockets.
This is the famous game of "heads, I win, tails, you lose". But who wants to play that game?
Some doctors published an article in The Lancet last week, calling for academic boycott... They ended the article with a sentence saying that they had no "conflict of interest".
A quick search on Internet shows one of the authors was related to FQMS, a Foundation for a Gaza Medical School, headed by a declared anti-Zionist in UK, having "business interests in the Middle East".
No conflict of interest? Maybe!

And about Shlaim's "profound writings", perhaps we could count the one on
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/attapatu :
"This is all very disappointing, because withdrawal from Gaza was Sharon's sole contribution to progress. It didn't amount to very much but was something to begin with. Now the Israeli right is trying to sabotage even this very modest plan to evacuate 7,500 settlers. I suspect what will happen now is more of the same: more Israeli assaults on the Palestinians in Gaza, more house demolitions, more incursions and more retaliations by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The cycle of violence is likely to continue."
What a profound insight about the pacific masters of Gaza! An Israeli withdrawal would allow them to transform their free land into a Garden of Eden for Palestinians.
I'm sure Shlaim has an explanation that puts the blame on Israelis. "Heads, he wins, tails, others lose"...