A most interesting corporate media phenomenon is the alacrity with which those 'readers' who, like moths to a flame, respond whenever Guardian Australia deigns to allow them the opportunity to do so. I say 'deigns' because these opportunities are quite rare.
In addition to Katharine Murphy's report of November 17, with its categorical assertion that Israeli PM Netanyahu was part of Australian PM Morrison's "circle of trust" in the lead-up to the latter's announcement, during the Wentworth by-election, that he would be moving Australia's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem - a truly stunning revelation which all of our corporate media outlets have, inexplicably, thus far ignored - Guardian Australia also posted an eminently sensible opinion piece by former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr, giving the idea of the embassy move the thumbs-down. (See my 18/11/18 post Morrison's 'Circle of Trust'.)
Guardian Australia allowed comments on Carr's piece, but, interestingly, not on Murphy's, which brings us back to my first paragraph. Carr's piece attracted almost 170 comments, just about every one of which hammered Morrison and his embassy proposal in no uncertain terms. Morrison was slammed variously as stupid, a moron, an idiot, an imbecile, a clown, a buffoon, a blunderer and, even, 'deranged', and his proposal as a brain-fart or a thought-bubble. He was fingered as a plaything of Trump or the US State Department and Defence/ intelligence community and a lickspittle. Many commenters cited his evangelical faith as the reason for his announcement. They spoke of 'fundamentalist Christian apocalypticism', 'prayerful clappers', 'playing the religion card', 'enmeshed in religious extremism', and 'the fanatical US religious right'. His senior ministers were referred to as a rabble and Frydenberg in particular was singled out as 'incredibly immature' and wanting to 'raise awareness of his heritage'. Not one revealed any knowledge of the hold exercised by the Israel lobby over the two major parties. The word 'Zionist' was conspicuous by its absence.
Only one, it seems, had taken the trouble to read Katharine Murphy's article, yet even his/her comment was problematic. I quote it here in full so you'll see exactly what I mean:
"What KM's related reporting suggests is that while the timing might have been all about Morrison's desperation as he saw Wentworth slipping away from the Liberals, this particular idea was hardly unspoken within the Liberal Party right wing faction that has secured power..."
You'll notice at this point that the commenter has failed to register the fact that Murphy includes Netanyahu in Morrison's 'circle of trust'. This is quite an oversight to say the least. He/she goes on to provide a link to Murphy's article and then wanders off course with this comment: "It's worrying how much more of this fundamentalist Christian apocalyptisism is going to inform Liberal Party policy... "
Frankly, one wonders whether even if Guardian Australia had allowed its 'readers' to comment on Murphy's report, just how many would have overlooked her revelation about Netanyahu's involvement in the decision to shift the Australian embassy to Jerusalem.
Let me hazard a generalisation as to why this may be the case here: those who flock to comment on Guardian Australia's (and other such websites) are more interested in hearing the sound of their own voices than in informing themselves through a little wide reading on the subject at hand. Typical of this phenomenon is the following comment from the same thread:
"The whole issue of Israel and Palestine has been going on with various intensity since the day I was born. It has been in the background of all of our lives... for most of our lives. There never seems to be any end to this conflict, the never ending war..."
Makes me want to scream: well, pick up a few reputable books on the subject and find out WHY the issue has been on the boil for as long as you can remember!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
MERC, you are quite correct in your analysis. However, I am wondering if there is an element of self censorship going on. No one wants to be labelled an anti Semite. I suspect that publicly people don't 'speaketh' the dreaded 'Z' or 'I' words. But, as was witnessed in Wentworth, in the privacy of the election booth, people do vote with their feet. The danger, of course with all this re labelling of the term anti Semite, is the topic is skirted around. Fear does strange things to people!
I haven't read the Carr piece or the following comments, MERC, but your synopsis of them leaves me a little surprised. Are these people not aware that they live and have lived for a long time in the most Zionist country in the world, bar perhaps Israel? And I include the US in that assessment. Do they not know about our role (re Evatt) in its founding or about our staunchly pro-Israel voting record in resolutions in the UN and its various agencies? Do they not know about the rorts to Israel by our politicians that you report regularly? There is no debate here about our love of Israel! Just read this piece from the Times of Israel about David Sharma's retirement from the post of Ambassador to Israel - but have a bucket next to you when you do:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-in-our-blood-outgoing-australian-ambassador-says/
Of course, I should not be surprised, because our population meekly accepts the obfuscation promulgated by Australian media. No-one seems to ask questions about the fact that the ABC, paid for by our taxes, is constantly misleading us about the Middle East in general and I/P in particular.
Thanks for that link, G. At the risk of making a right mess of myself, I'll find and read it. As my posts on Sharma indicate, I'm clearly obsessed about the WHY of the man. Why does a guy, who is neither a Christian Zionist nor a Jewish Zionist, a guy who wouldn't know Theodor Herzl from a bar of soap, behave the way he did while Australia's ambassador to Israel? His drafting as the Liberal candidate in the Wentworth by-election only adds to the mystery of the man.
I suspect that the comments have been censored to remove anything "controversial".
G, in light of that Times of Israel report, I've been re-thinking my view of Dave Sharma: there is no mystery. He's just a try-hard. For example, here he is speaking (reportedly in Hebrew!) at his farewell party at the Peres Center for Peace (LOL) in Tel Aviv : "I can honestly say that Israel will always be in our hearts... in our blood... part of our soul... in our veins."
Not sure what you mean by "try-hard", MERC. I would argue that anyone who says what David Sharma said is a full-on Zionist.
A lot of Zionists would not know Theodor Herzl from a bar of soap, particularly the Christian type, but Sharma is not of that kind I imagine. I know some Zionists who are only vaguely aware of David ben Gurion and his role, and who have no knowledge at all of the Zionist terrorism that led up to the founding of Israel. Some people prefer to remain willfully ignorant.
I know, like all of Israel's useful fools down the decades, he's accountable for his words but Sharma's gushing words give the term 'eager to please' a bad name. An explanation of why this is (or maybe) so would require delving deep into his formative childhood years.
"I can honestly say that Israel will always be in our hearts... in our blood... part of our soul... in our veins."
And stuck in our arses.
Frydenberg is yet another object lesson in why Sectionn 44 was placed in the Constitution. Note how Parliament's Jews got away scott-free, while far less interesting propositions were forced to resign and re-contest seats already won.
Post a Comment