Occasionally, there are exchanges in the letters-to-the-editor section of our local newspaper concerning Palestine. The usual sequence of events begins with the publication of a letter either critical of Israel or supportive of the Palestinian people. Then one or more of our local hard-core Zionists weighs in with the usual talking points in defense of the indefensible crimes being committed by Israel. They launch ad hominem attacks on the writer, deny or ignore any factual assertions, then move on to accusations of anti-Semitism. Usually, they find it important to remind us that Palestinians, or “Arabs,” as Zionists often prefer to reference the indigenous population of Palestine, are all terrorists who hate Jews and want to destroy Israel.

We’re lucky to have a letters editor here in Santa Fe who doesn’t shy away from the subject of Zionism; our local paper is otherwise very conservative in its news coverage. I have never had a letter refused despite the fact that I speak plainly when expressing my views. There is a 150-word limit on letters to the editor and a thirty-day waiting period between letters from any individual, so I don’t waste time on subtleties.

It can be a tricky business though. Having to put the first foot forward leaves one open to vicious personal attacks and libel in response. The thirty-day waiting period makes it impossible to refute such attacks in a timely manner. Sometimes the outcome is encouraging, other times, not so much. Ya’ writes your letter and ya’ takes your chances, so to speak.

In March I wrote a letter pointing out the gross hypocrisy of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center building its $150 million Museum of Tolerance on top of an ancient Muslim cemetery, the Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem. Several days later, there was not one, but four vitriolic responses published, each attacking me by name. I won’t go into detail about the Hasbara techniques employed in these letters, but it often seems there is a group of Zionists in Santa Fe who are getting their talking points from the same source or else are consulting with each other before writing responses.

In this case, though I can’t know for certain, I suspect that two of the four letter writers may have been coached by a third, more informed and skilled writer who is one of our well-known local Zionist fanatics. All four letters contained common talking points, but three of the four used strikingly similar language to claim the Museum of Tolerance is not being built over the ancient grave site but rather “adjacent to it.” This is patently false. The fact that the museum is being built on top of portions of the cemetery is not in dispute. But I presume the writers knew they had strength in numbers, so they decided to go for the Big Lie.

The effect was compelling. With three letters referring to me by name and appearing to refute the central fact in my commentary, uninformed readers were most likely convinced I was wrong in my assertion. Several acquaintances of mine contacted me to question the validity of my claim. I have to admit, after reading the letters, even I was momentarily taken aback and found myself asking, “Did I get this wrong?”

The fourth letter writer in the group, though she didn’t use the “adjacent to” lie, did compare me to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She also insisted I hate Jews, substantiating this claim by informing the reader that, “Everyone knows when non-Jews use the word Zionism it is secret code for anti-semitism.” No kidding. Secret code. She must use a magic-decoder ring to decipher the newspaper.

There are some supporters of Israel with whom one can at least engage in reasonable dialog. We should do so with as much respect and understanding as possible. Educating the misinformed is the most important work we do. But many pro-Zionist zealots have abandoned rational thought when it comes to Israel. They embrace a type of fanaticism which in essence is a new religion called Israelism. Any lie or any denial of the truth is justified, as long as it is in support of Israel. Defense of the Jewish state takes precedence over even the most basic concepts of human rights and social justice. Israel is a benign, infallible entity and the evil Arabs are to blame for any transgressions which may occur when Israel reluctantly exercises its “right to defend itself.”

In my view, these individuals deserve nothing from us but disdain. They should be rebuked and excluded from the conversation. Their sole objective is to derail the discussion whenever possible. We can’t counter their illogical assertions with any rational argument because they are extremists who have moved beyond reason. Hence, my use of terms such as “nut-balls” and “crazies” to refer to them. Okay, perhaps it’s a bit mean spirited, but really now, secret code words?

The next letter exchange which occurred involved the same alleged organizer of the previous campaign against me. I wrote a piece decrying the illegal siege of Gaza. It turns out I was wrong about a point of fact in my letter. Dang. One hates to be caught in an error by these loonies. But I have to fess up. I was relying on three different news sources when I stated that the recent shipment of clothing allowed into Gaza by Israel was the first such commercial shipment of clothing in three years.

Wrong! My Zionist foil discovered a Palestinian source, Paltrade, which did indeed substantiate that during the months of August, September and October of 2008, Israel allowed some commercial shipments of clothing to enter Gaza. Prompted by this revelation, I did additional research and discovered another source which suggested that a shipment was also allowed in during July of that same year. I stand corrected. How could I have been so ignorant of Israel’s largesse?

The irony is, by emphasizing the error in my letter, my nemesis actually reinforced the pertinent truth of the assertion: Israel prohibits commercial importation of clothing and shoes into Gaza on a regular basis. In his zeal to discredit me, he proved my point. Also, he did not address the information in my letter concerning other types of commodities which have been denied importation into Gaza in recent years including crayons, toys, books, fabric, threads, needles, light bulbs, candles, matches, musical instruments, sheets, blankets, mattresses, toilet paper, diapers and feminine hygiene products. Yes, toilet paper and tampons.

But to his credit, on this one point he is right and I was wrong. The recent garment shipments allowed into Gaza were not the first commercial shipments in three years. They were the first in a year and a half. Oh, those generous Israelis.

The more disturbing aspect of the writer’s pyrrhic victory is that his source, Paltrade, provides indisputable proof of the punishing scale of Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza. Reports at the Paltrade site include a litany of statistics which document the devastating impact the siege is having on the people of Gaza and their economy. Yet, faced with these appalling facts, the writer spent his time combing through reports of individual month’s imports, or lack thereof, to find references to the few commercial shipments of clothing which Israel has permitted. It’s as if he went digging through piles of corpses to find a few people left alive so he could shout, “Aha! See, we didn’t kill everyone.”

I regret not being more mindful of the facts in my letter, and I apologize for trusting sources which turned out to be flawed. We have to be careful not to create an echo chamber for misinformation in our efforts to awaken people to the nature of Zionism. Plus, we can ill afford to give these nut-balls any reason to discredit us. The letter writer in question is a wizard of obfuscation and misdirection and will always attempt to find a chink in the armor of reason and exploit it. But this obsession with finding any error, no matter how substantively irrelevant, in order to obscure the actual issues is as deeply disturbing as it is commonplace in pro-Zionists’ arguments.

So, without a doubt, I was wrong. Israel is far more generous than my letter suggested. Four months’ worth of clothing shipments in three years—where did the people of Gaza find room for such a luxurious surplus?

We should be grateful for the ever-vigilant Zionists in our midst who keep us honest. Without their principled obstructionism, we might actually be able to engage in constructive dialog about the crimes being committed by the rogue regime in Israel, not to mention the funding and political cover being provided for these crimes by the United States and much of the international community.

Such discussions might lead us to conclude that respect for human dignity and the rule of law should be a benchmark for the behavior of all nations. What a terrible threat that would be to Israel’s existence.