Why is the phrase even handed offensive?

Just saw Howard Dean on CNN and he said that when he used the phrase last night he did not know it was offensive to some people. My question is to whom is it offensive and why. Just so you know, he was talking about the I/P issue.

Thanks.

frankly, and I'm a Dean supporter - he was rambling during this interview and wasn't making a whole lot of sense.

I did like his idea about President Clinton going to the ME. Who better to broker a peace agreement? Of course the GOP leaders would rather eat shit vs asking Clinton for help

if they were locked in a room and told they had a choice, they would ask for the shit....

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1999/347/347p13.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=even-handed+offensive

To be 'even-handed' in some cultures means to side with the oppressor, obviously not a wise choice of words when speaking of the I/P conflict. I don't think he was rambling, I think he was getting in front of something that had already (as of around noon today) shown signs on the Dean blog, which shows a remarkable degree of connectivity...

Having read the already enflamed debate about the use of the phrase, and how it was "oh so appropriate coming from a Sharon supporter like Dean" on the Dean blogs, I was glad to see him get in front of it and state that it was a poor choice of words...

But I think he actually was going the other direction, worried that he offended Jews by making them think he would alter our relationship with Israel.

i'm a Dean supporter, and i cringed when i read those words, "even-handed". it's like a code phrase that can mean the opposite of what it says --- just like "fair and balanced" on FAUX. that said, i'm willing to give Dean the benefit of the doubt, and assume for the moment that it was just an unfortunate choice of words. at any rate, it represents progress from his earlier stance on the ME.

...I've someone very close to me who visited there for a while just before the Infitada <sp> began, whose opinion I value highly. Something overlooked, in both Israel/Palestine AND Iraq... HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY AMONG THE DISSAFFECTED YOUTH. I can not emphasize enough how gravely this impacts the problem as a whole. And with Bush wanting to privatize a country that had been running a socialist system in which 60% of the population was employed by the state, he'll cause unemployment there worse than he has here, which will cause the SAME PROBLEMS that occur in every society where there is a sharp incline in poverty and unemployment amongst the young males. We're paying a stipend to the former Iraqi soldiers, to "pacify them"...but we still aren't giving them ANYTHING TO DO, when we should be employing them, encouraging them to take an active part in the rebuilding of their nation. Nice that they get unemployment over there while the same can't be said here at home, eh? I'm not so sure that formenting unrest and rebellion, thus "justifying" further 'crack-downs' isn't part of the Bush/PNAC game plan, both in other nations AND HERE AT HOME...

even handed being tied to the fair and balanced of Fox...

HOW

DARE

YOU.

I am serious. If the Democratic party has sunk to this level--we're all fucked.

said the he needed to be "evenhanded" in his treatment of Al Quaeda and the United States, and spoke of the need to be an "honest broker" between the two sides. In short, he'd be saying that the United States and Al Quada are in morally equivalent positions.

I realize that many DU'ers consider Israel to be a terrorist state and the Palestinian suicide bombers to be "freedom fighters." But those DU'ers should acknowledge that most Americans feel differently, and that their views are not representative of American policy on this issue. I don't see the moral equivalency between a Palestinian Authority that refuses to take the steps necessary to dismantle the Palestinian groups that are sponsoring these attacks on Israeli civilians and the Israeli government that responds to these attacks by targeting the leaders of these terrorist groups. International law recognizes the right of a country to defend itself against terrorist attacks. International law does recognize the right of terrorists to murder civilians. But that's exactly what Dean was implying when he spoke of evenhanded

What a vile comparison to make.

To link 9/11...words fail me. The lack of logic. The lack of understanding. The lack of knowledge of the history.

This is too disgusting for words...

And you know it. You continue to equate all Palestinians with terrorists.

It's a very simple concept; even you can understand it. By "evenhanded" he means that if the U.S. is to be the "honest broker" that will bring the parties to a final agreement, it should not be biased. If you went before a judge or an arbitrator, wouldn't you want he or she to be "evenhanded"?

had said that there was a need for evenhandedness in the treatment of the French Resistance and the German occupying forces.

Or if, in 1988, some world leader had called for evenhandedness in the treatment of the Black resistance movement and the Boer government in South Africa. (Of course, racism being so popular and widespread, there actually were. oops.)



There are a lot of DUers who aren't very evolved.

Why do I bother. dolstein no longer debates on DU. dolstein now engages in hit and run tactics.

because this board has become so incredibly biased as it relates to to I/P issue that he cannot stand to waste his time. I don't blame him.

He used to debate a whole lot on DU before the invasion.

but those are two different issues. Does being pro Iraq invasion disqualify ones views on the I/P conflict?

"Even handedness" implies a moral equivalency between the two. I for one reject that completely.

...and sometimes phrases like "even handed" mean what they say. I think it's silly when somebody has to criticize a candidate for using "code words" that say one thing but supposedly mean another.

The slightest turns of phrase can give a green light to something you didn't even know had traffic.

Example in real world speak: The difference between seeing each other and dating. Seems like the same thing - BUT IT'S NOT! We are NOT dating! I repeat - NOT dating! We're just seeing each other. Friends plus benefits, you know?

"...objecting to his comment that the United States should "not take sides" in the Middle East dispute. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the two agreed that the United States should be an honest broker, but must remain committed to Israel's right to exist."

Even-handed ignores our long commitment to Israel's right to exist and could give Palestinians the impression that the US might be willing to give more concessions to them in the future.