The power of the Israel/Palestine issue to remove the mask and reveal the true face of our political representatives was evident once again on Monday night's Q&A.
The following ludicrous question, in compere Tony Jones rephrasing, was lobbed at Labor's shadow foreign affairs minister Tanya Plibersek:
"What do you say to the general notion that... the Israeli mentality, the Israeli way of dealing with [terrorism] is something that Australia should learn from?"
You will of course recall Plibersek's 2002 assertion (in federal parliament) that, in so many words, Israel was a US-funded rogue state which massacres civilians. (See my 17/10/13 post A Heretic Recants)
That, it goes without saying, was a rare case (as was Liberal MP Craig Laundy's December 2014 speech in the same place) of a simple, bleeding obvious truth spoken by a political neophyte who, critically, had not yet undergone a lobbyotomy.
Now listen to the opening two sentences of Plibersek's Q&A response - the only ones of any consequence in her entire performance:
"I'm not sure that the premise of the question that Israel hasn't been attacked by IS holds, as Eldad [Beck] has said. There has been a series of knife attacks at bus stops and so on as well."
The rogue state and the massacres of 2002, obviously, are conspicuous by their absence, seemingly erased from memory.
The opportunity to reference a representative of the rogue state which massacres civilians, thoughtfully provided by Q&A, is taken full advantage of.
Desperate acts of resistance (those not concocted by the rogue state itself, that is) by a people groaning under the tyranny of a brutal near 60-year occupation are vilely and casually tarred with the IS brush.
And the incredible hold of the Israel lobby over the minds of our elected representatives is once again manifest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would have thought that the lesson from the Israeli experience is that Australia should never again steal other people's land, using it colonists and soldiers to kill them if they object, and imprisoning them and abusing them at will.
We did it once, very successfully, on the basis of a legal fiction, and got away with it, albeit with ongoing repercussions for the colonised. Never again.
The correct response to the questioner was that the question itself is a disgraceful misrepresentation of what is happening in Israel/Palestine.
Whatever became of the proposal to ensure Q&A achieved more 'balance' ?
Since then we have the sad spectacle of wall to wall Zionists and Zionist apologists appearing on the program. No dissenters to [Zionist] orthodoxy are invited to provide real balance, despite public opinion. The producers have decided to play it safe.
Pre-approved 'questions' from the closely vetted audience ensure a seamless predictability.
That makes for very dull and boring television.
Post a Comment