Phillip Adams' recent interview with visiting* US human rights lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor under Obama, Michael Posner (The business of human rights, LNL, 23/5/16), managed to expose yet another example of the PEP (Progressive Except for Palestine) phenomenon.
"In your affirmation speech to the Obama administration in 2009," asked Adams, "you said your vocation as a human rights lawyer had been shaped by the lessons of the Holocaust. What were those lessons?
Posner replied, "Well, my family... came from Europe, and on my mother's side, in Hungary, a number of my grandmother's siblings had been killed, and on my father's side, French Jews, had been involved in the Maquis, the underground... so I saw the horror of the human capacity for cruelty but also the resilience of the human spirit, the resistance, and that really influenced my decision."
OK, so Posner failed to answer the question, but, hey, who couldn't warm to a guy whose life's work was inspired by the French Resistance? So far, so good.
As the interview progressed, such egregious abusers of human rights such as China, Russia, Egypt, apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia came up for mention. But not Israel. Interestingly, it was Adams who raised the subject:
"We talked earlier about your work in Uganda and about the efficacy of economic sanctions, and yet you're not in favour of movements like Boycott Divestment Sanctions, BDS, which has been proposed against Israel over the occupation of Palestine."
"Yeah," responded Posner, "I don't believe that's the most effective way to make change there. I am absolutely committed to the notion of a negotiated settlement, a two-state solution. I believe very strongly, and I believe I was the first assistant secretary of the US to go to Israel. I went 5 times after the Gaza war, the Cast Lead war of 2009, to raise human rights issues. You've got to raise the issues. The need is real. Palestinian rights need to be respected, but I think these issues need to be negotiated by the Israelis and the Palestinians. They're obviously not doing it now but I think we need to keep reinforcing that rather than isolating Israel using boycotts."
Sound familiar? That's right, the stock standard Netanyahu line. In fact, the Israeli prime minister reiterated it only days ago:
"In a bid to head off the latest international initiative aimed at pressuring the parties to reach a Mideast peace deal, Israeli Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has offered to clear his calendar and sit down immediately for one-on-one negotiations with Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas." (Netanyahu: Peace comes from direct negotiations, not from 'international conferences, UN-style', Patrick Goodenough, cnsnews.com, 25/5/16)
But apart from that, Posner's talk about his 2009 visits to Israel "to raise human rights issues" was less than honest.
Remember the UN's September 2009 Goldstone Report, which found that Israel's 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead against Gaza constituted "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population," and which accused Israel of war crimes?
In his definitive study of Operation Cast Lead, 'This Time We Went Too Far': Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion (2010), Norman Finkelstein records that Netanyahu condemned the Report as "a kangaroo court against Israel," that the US Israel lobby called it "rigged" and "deeply flawed," and that the Obama administration "quickly fell into line with the Israel lobby," with Assistant US Secretary of State for Democracy Michael Posner condemning it as - ahem - "deeply flawed." (p 136)
But there's more. We now have access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails, which reveal that:
"The State department devoted itself to, in its own words, 'deferring' UN action on Israeli war crimes, 'reframing the debate' about the atrocities, and 'moving away from the UN'... The messages, some of which are written by high-level State Department officials, expose the role of the US government in undermining the international response to the 2009 United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict, also known as the Goldstone Report... Publicly released Clinton emails reveal that the UNHRC, under heavy US pressure, postponed consideration of the Goldstone Report from October 2 until March 2010. While the UNHRC ultimately endorsed the report's findings on October 16, it took nearly 6 months for the body to urge the UN General Assembly and Security Council to refer the Gaza massacre to the ICC pursuant to 13(b) of the Rome Statute, which the US then blocked." (Deferring justice: Clinton emails show how State Department undermined UN action on Israeli war crimes, Jared Flanery & Ben Norton, salon.com, 20/11/15)
Integral to this process of neutering the Goldstone Report was our Assistant Secretary of State for HUMAN RIGHTS, Michael Posner:
"The State Department's attempts to 'defer' UN action on Israeli war crimes in Gaza are further evinced in a message from Michael Posner - a former assistant secretary of state who served as founding Executive Director of Human Rights First and is now a business professor at NYU. In a November 10, 2010 note, Posner discussed multiple trips he and US government officials took to Israel in order to discuss the Goldstone Report with the Israeli government. Posner revealed the US and Israeli governments worked together in order to 'reframe the public debate' around Israel's attack. He wrote: 'Our approach has been to offer our support and willingness to work with the Government of Israel to 'reframe the public debate' from defensive (responding to Goldstone or Flotilla reports and resolutions at the UN, etc) to a more productive narrative focused on the challenges of fighting an urban or asymetrical war. We are having productive, and generally positive preliminary conversations about a possible GOI white paper that would: 1) set the context, outlining the challenges in fighting an asymetrical conflict; 2) spell out the steps the IDF and other agencies have taken to address these challenges; and 3) identify ongoing challenges that Israel and other professional armies will need to address in the future'." (ibid)
[*To deliver the UNSW's Australian Human Rights Centre's annual lecture.]
Showing posts with label Goldstone Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goldstone Report. Show all posts
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Norm & Jason
Just look at the kind of Israel-friendly language used by Sydney Morning Herald Middle East correspondent Jason Koutsoukis in his 19/11/09 report Netanyahu shrugs off world criticism:
"Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem"/"built on land [which] is regarded as an illegal settlement by the United Nations"/"Gilo is home to 40,000 Jewish residents and completes a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods."
Jewish neighbourhoods, not Israeli colonies. Jewish residents, not Israeli colonists. Is regarded as illegal by the UN [presumably just another source of subjective opinion], not 'is illegal under international law'. And the 'o' word, occupied - banished entirely!
Contrast this with the no-nonsense language of another news report in the same issue on Sahrawi activist Aminatou Haidar ('African Gandhi' risks life, Xan Rice): "The Moroccan Government, which considers Western Sahara to be its southern provinces, even though this has no foundation in international law..." Render this into Morocco-friendly language and "no foundation in international law" becomes 'regarded as illegal by the UN'...
Israeli propaganda, peddled in the mainstream media by the likes of Koutsoukis, wreaks havoc on the public's understanding of the criminal Israeli colonization underway in occupied Palestine. Look what happened when one of these know-nothing peddler hacks bumped into the formidable Norman Finkelstein on Danish TV (You can enjoy the video on Finkelstein's website):
Norman Finkelstein: Any talks or resolution of the [Israel/Arab] conflict has to be based on international law, and the law is clear: the basic priciple of international law is that it's inadmissable to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war, and therefore, in international law, it has no title to any of the Golan Heights. There has to be a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 4 border. That's a precondition. You can't resolve any conflict unless there are basic principles - and the principles for resolving the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Syrian conflict has to be international law.
Adam Holms: Just a couple of days ago Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon paid a visit to our studios. Just listen to what he says: 'Hamas is the real enemy of peace. Hamas is the enemy of Palestinian interests. By the way, Hamas does not represent Palestinian interests but Iranian interests. They're being helped and supplied and financed and equipped by Iran with the same ideology of sharia - a very radical Islamist entity...' It's pretty clear what he's saying: the onus rests with Hamas. What's your take on this?
Norman Finkelstein: Well it's not as if Hamas has been around since eternity. The Israelis had the option of settling the conflict with the Palestinians before January 2006 when Hamas was elected to office. If Hamas is the obstacle, then why weren't they able to settle the conflict before Hamas was elected into office? Because they refused the terms of the international community. Every year, as it happens, in November, the international community votes on a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly to settle the conflict and every year the vote is the same. The whole world on one side, 161 nations last year, and then there are the US, Israel, Naurau, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and sometimes Australia on the other side. The problem is not Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly said it's willing to settle the conflict in the June 67 border.
Adam Holms: But still they refuse to recognise the state of Israel.
Norman Finkelstein: Well they refuse to recognise what they call the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but under international law they're not obliged to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel. If you go back to 1947, Gandhi said he'd accept the reality of Pakistan but he would never accept the legitimacy of the state of Pakistan. And Hamas is not expected to be held to a higher level of diplomacy than Gandhi. Gandhi said Pakistan is a reality which I'm forced to accept but I don't accept it as legitimate and that's the same as the position of Hamas.
Adam Holms: But this is what makes Jerusalem wary of Hamas because they keep saying how can you have a neighbour that doesn't recognise our legitimacy?
Norman Finkelstein: You see the problem is... listen to your own language. You're just spouting Israeli propaganda. Why are you saying Jerusalem? East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. That was the ruling of the International Criminal Court in 2004, and if you look at the Goldstone Report that just came out... they refer to East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory. But now you've given over Jerusalem to the Israelis. You're just repeating Israeli propaganda. They have no title under international law to East Jerusalem.
Adam Holms (sheepish & defensive): Speaking of what you call my Israeli propaganda, which I refute, but anyway you're on record for saying that Israel is a terrorist state, a lunatic state... Why do you use such stark language about a state which is essentially just defending its own right to exist?
Norman Finkelstein: OK, you accuse me of using stark and provocative language, so let's take the renowned international jurist Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor for the war crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia - he came out a few weeks ago with a report on what Israel did in Gaza approximately a year ago and he said... Israel's purpose was to 'punish, humiliate and terrorise' a civilian population - terrorise a civilian population. So is Mr Goldstone guilty of incendiary language or is he simply accurately reporting on what happened? Terrorism is a fact and refers to the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve a political end, and Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals, so it's terrorism. I can't help it if that's what Israel chooses as its targets...
Adam Holms: Terrorist state or self-defence? It depends on the eye that looks at it.
Norman Finkelstein: No. Let's say for argument's sake that Israel were engaged in a war of self-defence in Gaza - that still means you can engage in terrorism. You can be engaged in a war of self-defence, but if, in the course of the war, you're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure then you're engaged in terrorism. That's the basic distinction in international law between the reason why you went to war and how you're conducting the war.
Adam Holms: What do you think the international community should do about Israel? How should the case of Israel be handled?
Norman Finkelstein: There's a very simple way to handle it. They should enforce the law. That is the easiest and most efficacious way to resolve the conflict.
Adam Holms: So Israel's been granted special treatment you say.
Norman Finkelstein: The law is not being enforced against it. Richard Goldstone is saying Israel is committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court if those who are guilty of these crimes are not prosecuted. Just enforce the law. These are not radical ideas...
Koutsoukis and his kind need a similar whipping.
"Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem"/"built on land [which] is regarded as an illegal settlement by the United Nations"/"Gilo is home to 40,000 Jewish residents and completes a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods."
Jewish neighbourhoods, not Israeli colonies. Jewish residents, not Israeli colonists. Is regarded as illegal by the UN [presumably just another source of subjective opinion], not 'is illegal under international law'. And the 'o' word, occupied - banished entirely!
Contrast this with the no-nonsense language of another news report in the same issue on Sahrawi activist Aminatou Haidar ('African Gandhi' risks life, Xan Rice): "The Moroccan Government, which considers Western Sahara to be its southern provinces, even though this has no foundation in international law..." Render this into Morocco-friendly language and "no foundation in international law" becomes 'regarded as illegal by the UN'...
Israeli propaganda, peddled in the mainstream media by the likes of Koutsoukis, wreaks havoc on the public's understanding of the criminal Israeli colonization underway in occupied Palestine. Look what happened when one of these know-nothing peddler hacks bumped into the formidable Norman Finkelstein on Danish TV (You can enjoy the video on Finkelstein's website):
Norman Finkelstein: Any talks or resolution of the [Israel/Arab] conflict has to be based on international law, and the law is clear: the basic priciple of international law is that it's inadmissable to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war, and therefore, in international law, it has no title to any of the Golan Heights. There has to be a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 4 border. That's a precondition. You can't resolve any conflict unless there are basic principles - and the principles for resolving the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Syrian conflict has to be international law.
Adam Holms: Just a couple of days ago Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon paid a visit to our studios. Just listen to what he says: 'Hamas is the real enemy of peace. Hamas is the enemy of Palestinian interests. By the way, Hamas does not represent Palestinian interests but Iranian interests. They're being helped and supplied and financed and equipped by Iran with the same ideology of sharia - a very radical Islamist entity...' It's pretty clear what he's saying: the onus rests with Hamas. What's your take on this?
Norman Finkelstein: Well it's not as if Hamas has been around since eternity. The Israelis had the option of settling the conflict with the Palestinians before January 2006 when Hamas was elected to office. If Hamas is the obstacle, then why weren't they able to settle the conflict before Hamas was elected into office? Because they refused the terms of the international community. Every year, as it happens, in November, the international community votes on a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly to settle the conflict and every year the vote is the same. The whole world on one side, 161 nations last year, and then there are the US, Israel, Naurau, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and sometimes Australia on the other side. The problem is not Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly said it's willing to settle the conflict in the June 67 border.
Adam Holms: But still they refuse to recognise the state of Israel.
Norman Finkelstein: Well they refuse to recognise what they call the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but under international law they're not obliged to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel. If you go back to 1947, Gandhi said he'd accept the reality of Pakistan but he would never accept the legitimacy of the state of Pakistan. And Hamas is not expected to be held to a higher level of diplomacy than Gandhi. Gandhi said Pakistan is a reality which I'm forced to accept but I don't accept it as legitimate and that's the same as the position of Hamas.
Adam Holms: But this is what makes Jerusalem wary of Hamas because they keep saying how can you have a neighbour that doesn't recognise our legitimacy?
Norman Finkelstein: You see the problem is... listen to your own language. You're just spouting Israeli propaganda. Why are you saying Jerusalem? East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. That was the ruling of the International Criminal Court in 2004, and if you look at the Goldstone Report that just came out... they refer to East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory. But now you've given over Jerusalem to the Israelis. You're just repeating Israeli propaganda. They have no title under international law to East Jerusalem.
Adam Holms (sheepish & defensive): Speaking of what you call my Israeli propaganda, which I refute, but anyway you're on record for saying that Israel is a terrorist state, a lunatic state... Why do you use such stark language about a state which is essentially just defending its own right to exist?
Norman Finkelstein: OK, you accuse me of using stark and provocative language, so let's take the renowned international jurist Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor for the war crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia - he came out a few weeks ago with a report on what Israel did in Gaza approximately a year ago and he said... Israel's purpose was to 'punish, humiliate and terrorise' a civilian population - terrorise a civilian population. So is Mr Goldstone guilty of incendiary language or is he simply accurately reporting on what happened? Terrorism is a fact and refers to the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve a political end, and Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals, so it's terrorism. I can't help it if that's what Israel chooses as its targets...
Adam Holms: Terrorist state or self-defence? It depends on the eye that looks at it.
Norman Finkelstein: No. Let's say for argument's sake that Israel were engaged in a war of self-defence in Gaza - that still means you can engage in terrorism. You can be engaged in a war of self-defence, but if, in the course of the war, you're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure then you're engaged in terrorism. That's the basic distinction in international law between the reason why you went to war and how you're conducting the war.
Adam Holms: What do you think the international community should do about Israel? How should the case of Israel be handled?
Norman Finkelstein: There's a very simple way to handle it. They should enforce the law. That is the easiest and most efficacious way to resolve the conflict.
Adam Holms: So Israel's been granted special treatment you say.
Norman Finkelstein: The law is not being enforced against it. Richard Goldstone is saying Israel is committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court if those who are guilty of these crimes are not prosecuted. Just enforce the law. These are not radical ideas...
Koutsoukis and his kind need a similar whipping.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
No Hidden Agenda
If Sydney Morning Herald international editor Peter Hartcher seriously intended the contents of his puff piece on Israel (Israel feels tarnished as critics apply apartheid tag, 17/11/09) to be the story, he was fooling himself.
It was in fact his accompanying disclosure that he had "travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies"* that became the real story, acting as a lightning rod for reader scepticism and dissent. Of the 114 comments** posted on the Herald's website by sun-up today, 23 zeroed in on Hartcher's JBOD junket and its journalistic spin-off.
[*Actually a defensive measure since his Herald colleague Paul Sheehan was caught out. See my posts Oriana Fallaci Meets Israeli PR at the SMH (13/1/09) & Oriana Fallaci Meets Israeli PR at the SMH 2 (19/1/09); **81 were critical of Hartcher and/or Israel]
Obviously stung, Hartcher felt the need to post the following addendum: "A number of comments attach great significance to the fact that, as pointed out at the end of the column, I travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Some impute a hidden agenda. Earlier this year I wrote about the United Arab Emirates after travelling there as a guest of the Lowy Institute for International Policy. This attracted no comment. It is routine for journalists to accept paid travel. The question is not whether journalists take trips; it is whether they disclose them. Disclosure means that readers can take this into account in forming their views. This is the exact opposite of a hidden agenda."
In a nutshell: 'I travelled to the UAE on a Lowy Institute junket and no one complained so why now? And anyway, press junkets are fine, so long as they're disclosed.'
Such disingenuousness warrants scrutiny. Hartcher did in fact go on a Lowy Institute-sponsored trip to the UAE and disclosed this at the foot of an opinion piece on 31/3/09. (See my 2/4/09 post Say It Isn't So) What he didn't disclose, however, was that he is listed as a "Visiting Fellow" on the Institute's website, with all that that entails by way of the Institute's provenance. Nor would the average reader necessarily be aware of its Zionist agenda. (See my 18/10/09 post Lowy's Elephantine Agenda)
Be that as it may, Hartcher was not whisked off to the UAE for a puff piece. Just look at the opening paragraph: "Australia has a new friend in the Middle East. It's not the prettiest regime in the world but as Arab autocracies go, it's about as good as it gets. In this case the real estate adage applies - as far as Australia is concerned it's about location, location, location."
No, Hartcher was there for one reason only - to report (quite uncritically I might add) that "The Federal Government has moved to permanently base Australia's various Middle Eastern regional military assets in the UAE. In return, Australia has about 30 personnel in the UAE training its fast-growing special forces troopers... Both countries are now girding for the coming crisis with Iran, which lies just across the Gulf from the UAE."
Comparing the circumstances surrounding his UAE trip with those surrounding his Israel trip is like comparing apples with oranges, and Hartcher knows it.
As to Hartcher's contention that sponsored trips are kosher provided they're disclosed, how does he reconcile this with the requirements of The Fairfax Code of Conduct?: "We will not accept gifts or inducements which could impair our judgement or be perceived to be a conflict of interest, bribe or inappropriate gift."
Has Hartcher's judgement been impaired? Just how much pro-Israel spin is there in Israel feels tarnished...? Let me count the ways:
1) The UN is derogatively described, Israeli-style, as an "international resolution factory."
2) The Israeli talking point It's All About Rockets is uncritically regurgitated: "After enduring some 800* rocket attacks... Israel sent its armed forces into Gaza last December to stop the firings at source." Where's the context? The Israeli siege of Gaza? The unilateral Hamas ceasefire? The never-ending Israeli incursions and extra-judicial killings? The Israeli murders that finally prompted a renewal of Palestinian rocket and mortar fire? - all of which has been canvassed in my 22/8/09 post Gillard: Sychophant.
[*This appears to be a typo - the cited ITP demands a figure in the thousands, anywhere from 6 -10 thousand. See my 5/1/09 post Go Figure 1]
3) Israel's turkey shoot in Gaza (13 Israeli to 1,417 Palestinian deaths (PCHR)) is casually described as a "clash."
4) "This was the whole point of the Hamas strategy. By deliberately positioning themselves in residential areas, the Hamas fighters were goading Israel to shoot back at civilians' homes." On the contrary, Mr Hartcher, Amnesty International's investigation produced no evidence to support this claim. They did, however, find evidence that Israeli troops used Palestinians as human shields. See my 4/10/09 post Operation Get Goldstone.
5) Hamas is described as an "Islamic terrorist group banned by the US, the EU and Australia." Standard Israeli rhetoric here.
6) Meet Hartcher's interviewees, both standard issue Zionist axe-grinders: Gerald Steinberg, "professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and the head of a think tank called NGO Watch [sic]"; Isi Leibler, "the businessman and former chairman of the World Jewish Congress." At least that (partially?) answers the question of who Hartcher spoke to in Israel.
7) Steinberg is quoted as saying, "[The Goldstone report] is an attempt to turn Israel into a new apartheid state."
A little googling, however, would have told Hartcher that the apartheid experts over at South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council had already found Israel to be an apartheid state. (See my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In)
Whatever Steinberg's academic worth, his role as president of NGO Monitor (Hartcher can't even get the name of Steinberg's outfit right, calling it NGO Watch) should alert any journalist worth his salt to the existence of an agenda. According to NGO Monitor's website, its objective is "to end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian' NGOs of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas." One example of Steinberg's oeuvre is Human Rights Watch: White (phosphorous) lies (The Jerusalem Post, 17/1/09). Keeping in mind Goldstone's finding "that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas," I'll leave it to you to decide who is actually running an agenda here. If anything, Goldstone, a self-confessed Zionist, is pulling his punches. (See Did Richard Goldstone hide more sinister crimes in Gaza? - Part 1: White Phosphorus & Flechettes at paltelegraph.com)
8) "The Israeli objection is to the emphasis in the report. Goldstone directs the great bulk of his scrutiny and criticism to the Israeli side. He does not give weight to the fact that Israel was responding to hundreds of rocket attacks from Hamas." See point 2.
Hartcher is correct, however - there is no "hidden agenda" behind his puff piece. It's actually out in plain view - on his sleeve.
Postscript: Interestingly, when I last looked, I couldn't find any mention whatever of Hartcher's junket on the JBOD's website. Why so coy, guys? And the Herald's website has just closed off comments on Israel feels tarnished... at 133. Why so soon, guys?
It was in fact his accompanying disclosure that he had "travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies"* that became the real story, acting as a lightning rod for reader scepticism and dissent. Of the 114 comments** posted on the Herald's website by sun-up today, 23 zeroed in on Hartcher's JBOD junket and its journalistic spin-off.
[*Actually a defensive measure since his Herald colleague Paul Sheehan was caught out. See my posts Oriana Fallaci Meets Israeli PR at the SMH (13/1/09) & Oriana Fallaci Meets Israeli PR at the SMH 2 (19/1/09); **81 were critical of Hartcher and/or Israel]
Obviously stung, Hartcher felt the need to post the following addendum: "A number of comments attach great significance to the fact that, as pointed out at the end of the column, I travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Some impute a hidden agenda. Earlier this year I wrote about the United Arab Emirates after travelling there as a guest of the Lowy Institute for International Policy. This attracted no comment. It is routine for journalists to accept paid travel. The question is not whether journalists take trips; it is whether they disclose them. Disclosure means that readers can take this into account in forming their views. This is the exact opposite of a hidden agenda."
In a nutshell: 'I travelled to the UAE on a Lowy Institute junket and no one complained so why now? And anyway, press junkets are fine, so long as they're disclosed.'
Such disingenuousness warrants scrutiny. Hartcher did in fact go on a Lowy Institute-sponsored trip to the UAE and disclosed this at the foot of an opinion piece on 31/3/09. (See my 2/4/09 post Say It Isn't So) What he didn't disclose, however, was that he is listed as a "Visiting Fellow" on the Institute's website, with all that that entails by way of the Institute's provenance. Nor would the average reader necessarily be aware of its Zionist agenda. (See my 18/10/09 post Lowy's Elephantine Agenda)
Be that as it may, Hartcher was not whisked off to the UAE for a puff piece. Just look at the opening paragraph: "Australia has a new friend in the Middle East. It's not the prettiest regime in the world but as Arab autocracies go, it's about as good as it gets. In this case the real estate adage applies - as far as Australia is concerned it's about location, location, location."
No, Hartcher was there for one reason only - to report (quite uncritically I might add) that "The Federal Government has moved to permanently base Australia's various Middle Eastern regional military assets in the UAE. In return, Australia has about 30 personnel in the UAE training its fast-growing special forces troopers... Both countries are now girding for the coming crisis with Iran, which lies just across the Gulf from the UAE."
Comparing the circumstances surrounding his UAE trip with those surrounding his Israel trip is like comparing apples with oranges, and Hartcher knows it.
As to Hartcher's contention that sponsored trips are kosher provided they're disclosed, how does he reconcile this with the requirements of The Fairfax Code of Conduct?: "We will not accept gifts or inducements which could impair our judgement or be perceived to be a conflict of interest, bribe or inappropriate gift."
Has Hartcher's judgement been impaired? Just how much pro-Israel spin is there in Israel feels tarnished...? Let me count the ways:
1) The UN is derogatively described, Israeli-style, as an "international resolution factory."
2) The Israeli talking point It's All About Rockets is uncritically regurgitated: "After enduring some 800* rocket attacks... Israel sent its armed forces into Gaza last December to stop the firings at source." Where's the context? The Israeli siege of Gaza? The unilateral Hamas ceasefire? The never-ending Israeli incursions and extra-judicial killings? The Israeli murders that finally prompted a renewal of Palestinian rocket and mortar fire? - all of which has been canvassed in my 22/8/09 post Gillard: Sychophant.
[*This appears to be a typo - the cited ITP demands a figure in the thousands, anywhere from 6 -10 thousand. See my 5/1/09 post Go Figure 1]
3) Israel's turkey shoot in Gaza (13 Israeli to 1,417 Palestinian deaths (PCHR)) is casually described as a "clash."
4) "This was the whole point of the Hamas strategy. By deliberately positioning themselves in residential areas, the Hamas fighters were goading Israel to shoot back at civilians' homes." On the contrary, Mr Hartcher, Amnesty International's investigation produced no evidence to support this claim. They did, however, find evidence that Israeli troops used Palestinians as human shields. See my 4/10/09 post Operation Get Goldstone.
5) Hamas is described as an "Islamic terrorist group banned by the US, the EU and Australia." Standard Israeli rhetoric here.
6) Meet Hartcher's interviewees, both standard issue Zionist axe-grinders: Gerald Steinberg, "professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and the head of a think tank called NGO Watch [sic]"; Isi Leibler, "the businessman and former chairman of the World Jewish Congress." At least that (partially?) answers the question of who Hartcher spoke to in Israel.
7) Steinberg is quoted as saying, "[The Goldstone report] is an attempt to turn Israel into a new apartheid state."
A little googling, however, would have told Hartcher that the apartheid experts over at South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council had already found Israel to be an apartheid state. (See my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In)
Whatever Steinberg's academic worth, his role as president of NGO Monitor (Hartcher can't even get the name of Steinberg's outfit right, calling it NGO Watch) should alert any journalist worth his salt to the existence of an agenda. According to NGO Monitor's website, its objective is "to end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian' NGOs of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas." One example of Steinberg's oeuvre is Human Rights Watch: White (phosphorous) lies (The Jerusalem Post, 17/1/09). Keeping in mind Goldstone's finding "that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas," I'll leave it to you to decide who is actually running an agenda here. If anything, Goldstone, a self-confessed Zionist, is pulling his punches. (See Did Richard Goldstone hide more sinister crimes in Gaza? - Part 1: White Phosphorus & Flechettes at paltelegraph.com)
8) "The Israeli objection is to the emphasis in the report. Goldstone directs the great bulk of his scrutiny and criticism to the Israeli side. He does not give weight to the fact that Israel was responding to hundreds of rocket attacks from Hamas." See point 2.
Hartcher is correct, however - there is no "hidden agenda" behind his puff piece. It's actually out in plain view - on his sleeve.
Postscript: Interestingly, when I last looked, I couldn't find any mention whatever of Hartcher's junket on the JBOD's website. Why so coy, guys? And the Herald's website has just closed off comments on Israel feels tarnished... at 133. Why so soon, guys?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Israel's Pacific Solution
On 5 November, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed (GA/10883) the report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (aka Goldstone Report), which concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed possible war crimes. The vote was 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44 abstentions and 16 absences.
Australia, of course, voted against. The UN website reported as follows on its whys and wherefores:
"Australia's representative said his delegation had been deeply saddened by the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel and that it regretted how efforts to address the situation since had stalled. Australia had voted against the resolution on the Goldstone Report because of its flawed content. However, that did not undermine the humanitarian welfare of of the Palestinian people before, during and after that crisis, which remained unacceptable. Australia did support a proper investigation of any breach of humanitarian rights and laws. It was crucial for such a serious matter to be dealt with properly. He called on both parties to investigate them and to inform the Member States of their results."
To amplify on this:
a) Australia's representative was so deeply saddened he had to have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
b) For Australia's representative, Israel's brutal hammering of Gaza was in reality more of a border dispute, involving Gaza and Southern Israel in equal measure. He was, in fact, so burdened with sadness and regret that he was quite oblivious to the mutterings of 114 other representatives to the effect that, if they'd had to choose, they'd sooner have seen out the conflict on the Israeli side of the border, thankyou very much.
c) Yes, for Australia's representative, the Goldstone Report was hopelessly flawed. It existed. Perhaps if it'd been a Regev Report...
d) Oh yes, the humanitarian welfare of the Palestinian people... Of course, the poor buggers were up Shit Creek minus the proverbial paddle before, during and after that crisis, weren't they? Australia's representative finds that unacceptable. But not unacceptable enough, apparently, to provide them with said paddle.
e) Crisis? Yeah, like when you can't find a corkscrew to access the chardonnay.
f) And the Australian representative's idea of a proper investigation? A proper investigation is strictly in-house, know what I mean?
Mind you, Australia wasn't alone in voting Goldstone down. So too did Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel (naturally!), Italy, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States. And, of course, it was joined by its mini-mates in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Now when it comes to lining up in the General Assembly with Israel, the United States, and Australia, these Pacific minnows, need I say, have real form. To take but one example, when the UN General Assembly passed resolution GA/10534 on 17/11/06, condemning an earlier Israeli hammerings of the Gaza Strip, only 7 countries voted against: Israel, the US, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. What's going on here?
A little googling casts some light on this bizarre alignment. Take Palau (pop:20,000), for example, a cluster of 300 islands administered by the US until 1994 when it became 'independent'. Palau's UN 'ambassador' (2004-), Stuart Beck, an American-Jewish television company executive married to a Palauan, is described on palauun.org as a man who "champions Israel." And how did Beck become Palau's ambassador? Simple: "I said to them, 'Look, you don't produce anything, you don't manufacture anything, nobody's after your labor pool, you don't have anything that anyone wants... so the only thing of value you have is your UN vote... So they said to me, 'Why don't you do it?'"
Then there's Narau: The New Zealand Herald (12/4/04) provides this thumbnail sketch: "The tiny Pacific nation of Nauru came under scrutiny during the 90s when it acted as a money-launderer for the Russian mafia. The tax haven filtered an estimated $107 billion through 400 off-shore banks, all registered to a single Nauru government mailbox. It also sold its passports to non-citizens... The 21 sq km nation of just 12,000 people is now paid by the Australian government to house asylum-seekers in detention centres. It has been on the verge of bankruptcy after nearly a century of phosphate strip mining left it a nation of bleached coral pinnacles."
Israeli historian, Tom Segev, tells the amusing story (Nauru on our side, Haaretz, 11/12/06) of how he tried to place a call to Nauru's UN 'ambassador', Marlene Moses, "to thank her for her country having stood by my country in its time of difficulty" and "ask her how they decide there in Nauru to support, for example, Israel's refusal to return East Jerusalem to the Palestinians": "'Yes, it's a country', I insisted to the operator... She had been working there for years and no one had ever asked her to connect them with Nauru. 'It's a country?' 'Yes, a small one. And it supports Israel'. 'You're kidding', the young woman said. 'It supports Israel?' 'Yes, though it's even smaller than Sderot'. 'That doesn't matter', said the operator, 'as long as it supports us'. The telephone connection to Nauru is out of order. The operator promises to make a special effort, perhaps via Australia. It didn't work. Later, I read on the Foreign Ministry website that there are no phones in Nauru." On finding out that both water and electricity on the island are strictly rationed, and recalling the Australian TV series 'Embassy', set in East Timor, Segev was prompted to entertain "a thoroughly arrogant colonialist sort of idea: 'Was it possible', I wondered, 'that Nauru automatically votes as Australia does?'" So he rang Jonathon Chew, first secretary in the Australian Embassy. Mr Chew "gently but firmly" set him straight. "'Nauru is an independent nation', he explained to me. He could assure me that Australia does not dictate to independent nations how to vote in the UN. Australia opposed the draft resolution [calling on Israel to dismantle its West Bank settlements] this time, too, as it has before, because it felt that it was not sufficiently balanced and therefore would do nothing to promote peace, and Australia, of course, supports efforts to promote peace." Segev was left to reflect: "Evidently this is also the view of the United States, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Nauru. At least half the people of Israel support the main points of the UN resolution, as does the vast majority of the people on the planet, but it's nice to know that we have friends and that we're not alone." Oh, and he never did get through to Marlene Moses.
Australia, of course, voted against. The UN website reported as follows on its whys and wherefores:
"Australia's representative said his delegation had been deeply saddened by the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel and that it regretted how efforts to address the situation since had stalled. Australia had voted against the resolution on the Goldstone Report because of its flawed content. However, that did not undermine the humanitarian welfare of of the Palestinian people before, during and after that crisis, which remained unacceptable. Australia did support a proper investigation of any breach of humanitarian rights and laws. It was crucial for such a serious matter to be dealt with properly. He called on both parties to investigate them and to inform the Member States of their results."
To amplify on this:
a) Australia's representative was so deeply saddened he had to have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
b) For Australia's representative, Israel's brutal hammering of Gaza was in reality more of a border dispute, involving Gaza and Southern Israel in equal measure. He was, in fact, so burdened with sadness and regret that he was quite oblivious to the mutterings of 114 other representatives to the effect that, if they'd had to choose, they'd sooner have seen out the conflict on the Israeli side of the border, thankyou very much.
c) Yes, for Australia's representative, the Goldstone Report was hopelessly flawed. It existed. Perhaps if it'd been a Regev Report...
d) Oh yes, the humanitarian welfare of the Palestinian people... Of course, the poor buggers were up Shit Creek minus the proverbial paddle before, during and after that crisis, weren't they? Australia's representative finds that unacceptable. But not unacceptable enough, apparently, to provide them with said paddle.
e) Crisis? Yeah, like when you can't find a corkscrew to access the chardonnay.
f) And the Australian representative's idea of a proper investigation? A proper investigation is strictly in-house, know what I mean?
Mind you, Australia wasn't alone in voting Goldstone down. So too did Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel (naturally!), Italy, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States. And, of course, it was joined by its mini-mates in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Now when it comes to lining up in the General Assembly with Israel, the United States, and Australia, these Pacific minnows, need I say, have real form. To take but one example, when the UN General Assembly passed resolution GA/10534 on 17/11/06, condemning an earlier Israeli hammerings of the Gaza Strip, only 7 countries voted against: Israel, the US, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. What's going on here?
A little googling casts some light on this bizarre alignment. Take Palau (pop:20,000), for example, a cluster of 300 islands administered by the US until 1994 when it became 'independent'. Palau's UN 'ambassador' (2004-), Stuart Beck, an American-Jewish television company executive married to a Palauan, is described on palauun.org as a man who "champions Israel." And how did Beck become Palau's ambassador? Simple: "I said to them, 'Look, you don't produce anything, you don't manufacture anything, nobody's after your labor pool, you don't have anything that anyone wants... so the only thing of value you have is your UN vote... So they said to me, 'Why don't you do it?'"
Then there's Narau: The New Zealand Herald (12/4/04) provides this thumbnail sketch: "The tiny Pacific nation of Nauru came under scrutiny during the 90s when it acted as a money-launderer for the Russian mafia. The tax haven filtered an estimated $107 billion through 400 off-shore banks, all registered to a single Nauru government mailbox. It also sold its passports to non-citizens... The 21 sq km nation of just 12,000 people is now paid by the Australian government to house asylum-seekers in detention centres. It has been on the verge of bankruptcy after nearly a century of phosphate strip mining left it a nation of bleached coral pinnacles."
Israeli historian, Tom Segev, tells the amusing story (Nauru on our side, Haaretz, 11/12/06) of how he tried to place a call to Nauru's UN 'ambassador', Marlene Moses, "to thank her for her country having stood by my country in its time of difficulty" and "ask her how they decide there in Nauru to support, for example, Israel's refusal to return East Jerusalem to the Palestinians": "'Yes, it's a country', I insisted to the operator... She had been working there for years and no one had ever asked her to connect them with Nauru. 'It's a country?' 'Yes, a small one. And it supports Israel'. 'You're kidding', the young woman said. 'It supports Israel?' 'Yes, though it's even smaller than Sderot'. 'That doesn't matter', said the operator, 'as long as it supports us'. The telephone connection to Nauru is out of order. The operator promises to make a special effort, perhaps via Australia. It didn't work. Later, I read on the Foreign Ministry website that there are no phones in Nauru." On finding out that both water and electricity on the island are strictly rationed, and recalling the Australian TV series 'Embassy', set in East Timor, Segev was prompted to entertain "a thoroughly arrogant colonialist sort of idea: 'Was it possible', I wondered, 'that Nauru automatically votes as Australia does?'" So he rang Jonathon Chew, first secretary in the Australian Embassy. Mr Chew "gently but firmly" set him straight. "'Nauru is an independent nation', he explained to me. He could assure me that Australia does not dictate to independent nations how to vote in the UN. Australia opposed the draft resolution [calling on Israel to dismantle its West Bank settlements] this time, too, as it has before, because it felt that it was not sufficiently balanced and therefore would do nothing to promote peace, and Australia, of course, supports efforts to promote peace." Segev was left to reflect: "Evidently this is also the view of the United States, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Nauru. At least half the people of Israel support the main points of the UN resolution, as does the vast majority of the people on the planet, but it's nice to know that we have friends and that we're not alone." Oh, and he never did get through to Marlene Moses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)