I found out that I was blocked on X by a well-known Aussie journo sometime this past week. She possibly may not have liked a reply of mine regarding the Israel-Iran war in Gaza or Lebanon. So what huh?

Thing is, when I post at someone you’ll never find ad hominem from me. That’s not how one debates. I address their issue or opinion, I challenge their bona fides, and when not clear I identify my opponent. I did so recently in reply to a Guardian article by Naomi Klein. Ad hom is the way of the coward—it is the nervous twitch of the person with nothing constructive or erudite to say. An opinionator attacks ideas.

I follow and am followed on X by some pro thinkers and writers who are diametrical to my worldview. I believe we do that to learn from each other. At times the distance of our camps is massively frustrating, but we persevere. With dialog comes the chance for agreement if it is sought. It also rings the bells of danger unexpected.

But for a journo to block an opinion, is a waste. As it turns out you actually can’t “block” someone on X—a site driven by accounts, pseudonyms and bots. So I took a look through my opponent’s feed for clues.

Lo and behold I found repost after repost of every pro-Hamas conspiracy around. Nothing from the Israeli side. No push for peace. Just a ramp-up of hate while not being specifically antisemitic. Most importantly however, for her followers—no corroboration, no context just reposting “as fact”. Were I to say Hamas is a proscribed terror organisation in Australia (fact), that might earn me her ban (intolerance).

I own numerous Christian and Jewish bibles based on church and sect; I own the best English translation of the Koran in print, the Tao Te Ching, books on Zen and the Indian Upanishads. I do so to learn tolerance. AND I have read the Hamas Covenant of 1988 calling for the death of Jews, the conversion of Christians and the One State Islamic Caliphate of Palestine where the role of women is to breed men—no negotiation possible. All journos must read it—and its later re-write that tried to change the word “Jew” to “Zionist” and water down the nastier aspects of Sharia life.

Yet, some in our mainstream media believe that the proxies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Palestine want peace?

I amass resources to double-check what I see and think so I know what I’m talking about—so I don’t take to the streets calling for “rivers” and “seas” not knowing where they are, nor berating a concept called “Zionism”, misusing the word “genocide”, claiming “apartheid” or speaking of “The Holocaust” with disrespect.

The internet is a tough place. An exhausting one if you let it be. But if your opinions are so porous, your politics so weak and your bias so obvious—let your readers tire of you first, and they will. Don’t cut them off. You may just be wrong after all.

Too many journos and activists since 1948 have been the source of Palestinian pain today. They chose the wrong battles, called for wars instead of peace, claimed victimhood while the world went on with its business and Palestine’s leaders ensconced in Paris and Qatar far away from Gaza made themselves filthy rich by the billions of dollars.

The road to peace means we need serious debate—in person or by devouring thought. That is a journo’s duty to readers.

I always wondered what the 2020’s would look like decades ago, thinking of the 1920s—the heyday of glamour all to come crashing down in 1929. It’s nearly 2025 and I sit shaking my head wondering now: what the hell are we doing with our mastheads and nightly news—what is our gaslighting leading to come 2029?

© 2024 Adam Parker.

You can find me on X @adingtonp (Adam Parker).