controversial articles and neutrality problems

I just happened on this thread, and can't tell you how delighted I am to see that a post of mine has generated so much interest. And since I am the guy who lit the fire, let me add a bit to the flames:

FT2 suggests that a POV dispute can be simply resolved by writing "Rashid Khalidi says this and Anita Shapira says that." But that same information can take on a completely different meaning when written, "Anita Shapira says this and Rashid Khalidi says that." Order, emphasis, and nuances of language are the substance of these disputes, and not the specific content.

I, like many of those responding to this thread, am a pretty senior editor. Moreover, in the Israel-Palestinian arena, I am one of the very few editors that enjoy the respect of both sides in the dispute. And I assure you that, even with the most creative suggestions, and the most arduous and tactful negotiations, I have been unable to resolve the key POV disputes occuring in that area.

My argument that there is no such thing as neutrality in life-and-death struggles such as this one is perceived to be, was stated explicitly by the Palestinian director of a music school in East Jerusalem. Struggling with the scarcest of resources and a lack of qualified teachers, he refused to enlist help from Israelis, many of whom would gladly help out. Why, I asked him - music is one area where we can be neutral, where we can look beyond the conflict, at real human values. "In this conflict, there is no such thing as being neutral," he said. "If you are not with us, you are against us."

To suggest that we know better - that we editors can be really neutral - is not only naive, it is arrogant. --Ravpapa 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)