"Former Australian Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has told ABC's Jon Faine that he shares former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr's take on 'the Jewish lobby'. Fraser appeared on The Conversation Hour to discuss his new book Dangerous Allies. The conversation switched to Carr's recent book Diary of a Foreign Minister in which Carr is critical of the Jewish lobby in Australia." (Carr finds a friend, jwire.com.au, 10/5/14)
Faine: Bob Carr has managed to upset a lot of people... with his memoir, saying that he thought the pro-Israel... lobby in Australia wielded too much power. What does Malcolm Fraser think of that?
Fraser: They certainly do.
That's how I began my 17/5/14 post The Truth Will Out: First Carr, Now Fraser.
Feel free to re-visit that post, read the full interview, realise its significance, and then mourn the passing of the only Australian PM (certainly post-war & probably pre-) to speak out honestly on this subject.
Showing posts with label Malcolm Fraser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malcolm Fraser. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2015
Saturday, May 17, 2014
The Truth Will Out: First Carr, Now Fraser
"Former Australian Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has told ABC's Jon Faine that he shares former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr's take on 'the Jewish lobby'. Fraser appeared on The Conversation Hour to discuss his new book Dangerous Allies. The conversation switched to Carr's recent book Diary of a Foreign Minister in which Carr is critical of the Jewish lobby in Australia." (Carr finds a friend, jwire.com.au, 10/5/14):
Faine: Bob Carr has managed to upset a lot of people... with his memoir, saying that he thought that the pro-Israel... lobby* in Australia wielded too much power. What does Malcolm Fraser think of that?
Fraser: They certainly do.
Faine: Now, somebody said this a month or two ago and there was a sense of outrage: No, we don't have immediate access to the Prime Minister. No, we don't have that. We're just another group. Another lobby group.
Fraser: Well, in relation to the Gillard government, certainly. I am sure what Bob Carr said was totally and absolutely correct.
Faine: And other governments? Are you of that view as well?
Fraser: I once said that Israel had exercised excessive power in relation to Lebanon. I got some pretty furious phone calls as a result, and people asked to come up and see me. And I thought it was going to be two or three [of them] and I found, well, there were so many they wouldn't fit in my office. So I said Let's go into the Cabinet Room. They all explained Israel's position, which I understood. And at the end of that discussion I said, Well, gentlemen, I am glad to have listened to you, but you know the Australian government's position. I said that The power Israel used was excessive. That view has not changed. But I have heard you. Thank you. But it's a continuum.
Faine: The Jewish community are generous donors to political parties, and wield and exercise as much influence as they can muster. Any community does the same. The Italian community, the Muslim community, religious groups, ethnic groups, industry groups. What's the difference? It's not unusual to single out one community?
Fraser: I don't think the Italian community, just to take one example, try to get us to follow any particular policies in relation to Italy. And that's the difference. The Jewish community... well, not all the community... because I've got many letters in my office in the files that say No, we don't agree with the publicly proclaimed leaders of the community in Melbourne. We take a different view. But they're not going to say so publicly. The Jewish community seek to get Australia to support policies as defined by Israel. Look, Israel years ago, during one of the wars, killed 30 or 40 Americans on a spy ship [the USS Liberty*] in the Western [sic] Mediterranean.
Faine: That was a mistaken missile hit, if I remember correctly, or an air strike. I can't remember.
Fraser: Well, the Americans tried to cover it up. It wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate.
Faine: You believe so?
Fraser: Yes.
Faine: Based on what?
Fraser: Information I have. I am not going to tell you the source.
Faine: OK, and the purpose would have been to what? To stop intelligence gathering?
Fraser: They wanted to be able to do what they wanted to do without America hearing.
Faine: That's a massive claim to make.
Fraser: It is.
Faine: It borders on the beliefs that some people have, which I have always thought were completely insane, about conspiracy theories like 9/11 and the like. And people believe all sorts of nonsense that they choose to then pursue, with no foundation whatsoever. You can't make that sort of a claim without backing it up, can you, even if you're Malcolm Fraser and you used to be the prime minister?
***
Fraser: Your idea of conspiracy theories about 9/11 [being nonsense] I think I would agree with absolutely... but where the interests of a significant power or the interests of a country are concerned, as they believe, then the interests of individuals... are not worth anything.
[*For the latest on the ongoing cover-up of this massacre, read (and be totally gobsmacked by) American Legion Honchos Betray Liberty Veterans, Alison Weir, Counterpunch, 16/5/14]
Faine: Bob Carr has managed to upset a lot of people... with his memoir, saying that he thought that the pro-Israel... lobby* in Australia wielded too much power. What does Malcolm Fraser think of that?
Fraser: They certainly do.
Faine: Now, somebody said this a month or two ago and there was a sense of outrage: No, we don't have immediate access to the Prime Minister. No, we don't have that. We're just another group. Another lobby group.
Fraser: Well, in relation to the Gillard government, certainly. I am sure what Bob Carr said was totally and absolutely correct.
Faine: And other governments? Are you of that view as well?
Fraser: I once said that Israel had exercised excessive power in relation to Lebanon. I got some pretty furious phone calls as a result, and people asked to come up and see me. And I thought it was going to be two or three [of them] and I found, well, there were so many they wouldn't fit in my office. So I said Let's go into the Cabinet Room. They all explained Israel's position, which I understood. And at the end of that discussion I said, Well, gentlemen, I am glad to have listened to you, but you know the Australian government's position. I said that The power Israel used was excessive. That view has not changed. But I have heard you. Thank you. But it's a continuum.
Faine: The Jewish community are generous donors to political parties, and wield and exercise as much influence as they can muster. Any community does the same. The Italian community, the Muslim community, religious groups, ethnic groups, industry groups. What's the difference? It's not unusual to single out one community?
Fraser: I don't think the Italian community, just to take one example, try to get us to follow any particular policies in relation to Italy. And that's the difference. The Jewish community... well, not all the community... because I've got many letters in my office in the files that say No, we don't agree with the publicly proclaimed leaders of the community in Melbourne. We take a different view. But they're not going to say so publicly. The Jewish community seek to get Australia to support policies as defined by Israel. Look, Israel years ago, during one of the wars, killed 30 or 40 Americans on a spy ship [the USS Liberty*] in the Western [sic] Mediterranean.
Faine: That was a mistaken missile hit, if I remember correctly, or an air strike. I can't remember.
Fraser: Well, the Americans tried to cover it up. It wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate.
Faine: You believe so?
Fraser: Yes.
Faine: Based on what?
Fraser: Information I have. I am not going to tell you the source.
Faine: OK, and the purpose would have been to what? To stop intelligence gathering?
Fraser: They wanted to be able to do what they wanted to do without America hearing.
Faine: That's a massive claim to make.
Fraser: It is.
Faine: It borders on the beliefs that some people have, which I have always thought were completely insane, about conspiracy theories like 9/11 and the like. And people believe all sorts of nonsense that they choose to then pursue, with no foundation whatsoever. You can't make that sort of a claim without backing it up, can you, even if you're Malcolm Fraser and you used to be the prime minister?
***
Fraser: Your idea of conspiracy theories about 9/11 [being nonsense] I think I would agree with absolutely... but where the interests of a significant power or the interests of a country are concerned, as they believe, then the interests of individuals... are not worth anything.
[*For the latest on the ongoing cover-up of this massacre, read (and be totally gobsmacked by) American Legion Honchos Betray Liberty Veterans, Alison Weir, Counterpunch, 16/5/14]
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Viva Australian Student Activism 2
Continued from my previous post:
"1975
"The 1975 resolutions [passed at AUS's January 1975 Council] were far clearer in their formulation [than the 1974 resolutions]...
[MERC: These were 1) AUS supports the establishment of a democratic secular State of Palestine (encompassing the area of mandate territory) wherein all people presently residing in Israel and all Palestinian Arabs forcibly exiled from their homeland will have the right to Palestinian citizenship. This motion embodies the right of Palestinian citizens of all religions, race, colour, creed and sex to the protection of the new State and rejects racist legislation, such as the present Zionist 'Law of Return'. 2) AUS concurs with UN Resolution 3236 (XXIX) and the decision of the UN to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. 3) To counter the present media bias, AUS should continue to use its resources to publicise to both students and the general community the plight and continuing oppression of the Palestinian people by both Israeli and Arab nations.]
"As Simon Marginson has pointed out in his paper on the subject in Alternate News Service (No 43, August 4, 1975) the debate in 1975 showed a marked unity and turn to the right in Zionist arguments.
"THE GUPS TOUR
"Nowhere was this turn more evident than in response to the tour by a delegation of two members of the General Union of Palestinian Students in May 1975. At [AUS's] August 1974 Council there was an unanimous vote in favour of the motion: 'That AUS invite a representative of GUPS to do a speaking tour of campuses early in 1975 in order that membership can directly seek clarification of various aspects the Palestinian question.' Shortly afterwards, the then President [of AUS] Neil McLean wrote to GUPS in Cairo issuing an invitation. No reply had been received by Annual Council 1975, and in February Ian McDonald, the new president, issued another invitation. The invitation was delivered verbally by FCC Rodd Webb during a visit to Damascus that month and was accepted and publicised with little reaction.
"Meanwhile the question of allowing a PLO delegation into Australia had become a matter of public controversy. In January 1975, the Prime Minister [Gough Whitlam] had decided not to issue visas to a group of PLO members. This controversy, and the ALP's vacillation over the question, must be dealt with in another place. It is only relevant [in so far as it relates to] the question of the GUPS delegation and the public reaction of AUJS to its visit. The Labor Government, having satisfied itself that the GUPS delegation would not be representing the PLO, issued visas to Eddie Zananiri and Samir Cheikh who duly arrived in Melbourne on May 4, 1975.
"The public controversy in 1974 to the AUS stance paled in comparison to the storm which greeted the arrival of the GUPS delegation. A demonstration by right-wing Zionists outside AUS [headquarters] degenerated into a brawl when some Arab and Australian supporters of the tour diverted a small section of a May Day march to AUS under the impression that the GUPS delegation was under siege. The next day [Opposition Leader Malcolm] Fraser launched an attack against the tour in parliament while daily newspapers and television reported, editorialised [on], and once again scrutinised AUS' activity.
"The tour was eventful and well attended and received by the majority of students. Hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of students turned up to hear Zananiri and Cheikh. However, the speakers were frequently heckled and drowned out by Zionist demonstrators. At the first public campus meeting at Melbourne University, AUJS president Joe Gersh had to appeal to his supporters not to incite violence and held an alternate demonstration in front of the [AUS] building [in Carlton] as the Palestinian speakers were on the other side. Marshals at the Jewish demonstration were extremely anxious that some of their more extreme elements (there were reportedly several ex-Israeli soldiers in the crowd) would become violent. Unfortunately, very little of Zananiri's or Cheikh's speeches was actually heard. Both were drowned out completely, despite an effective PA system, by the constant rival chants of the Zionists and pro-Palestinians. (Imre Salusinszky, Nation Review, May 9-15, 1975)
"On May 7, The Australian reported that one of the leading Zionists at Melbourne University, Michael Danby, had resigned his position as AUS secretary on that campus in protest over the visit. A few days later Danby's resignation was reported in The Australian Jewish News because of: '... the fascist, racist actions and attitudes taken by AUS towards Jews and the scandalous abuse of AUS resources.'
"AUJS opposition to the GUPS tour was confused and contradictory. There had been no opposition at all at August 1974 Council; indeed, prominent members of AUJS had supported the tour (Arena, 21/5/75). At January Council [1975], AUJS members had also voted for a resolution condemning the Australian government's decision to ban the PLO tour. Days before the [GUPS] delegation arrived, AUJS condemned the tour and Joe Gersh declined an offer to debate the Palestinians when they arrived. Yet, within two days, Gersh demanded equal time on the platform with the delegation, a theme which repeated itself throughout the interruptions at public meetings. (There was eventually a debate on Monday Conference between Zananiri and Peter Wise).
"In [a] telegram to various ministers in the government, AUJS demanded the immediate deportation of the delegation, pointing out that under the Commonwealth Crimes Act anyone dedicated to the overthrow of an established government could immediately be deported (Australian Jewish Times, 8/5/75). To substantiate this demand AUJS attempted to draw links between GUPS and the PLO."
To be concluded next post...
"1975
"The 1975 resolutions [passed at AUS's January 1975 Council] were far clearer in their formulation [than the 1974 resolutions]...
[MERC: These were 1) AUS supports the establishment of a democratic secular State of Palestine (encompassing the area of mandate territory) wherein all people presently residing in Israel and all Palestinian Arabs forcibly exiled from their homeland will have the right to Palestinian citizenship. This motion embodies the right of Palestinian citizens of all religions, race, colour, creed and sex to the protection of the new State and rejects racist legislation, such as the present Zionist 'Law of Return'. 2) AUS concurs with UN Resolution 3236 (XXIX) and the decision of the UN to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. 3) To counter the present media bias, AUS should continue to use its resources to publicise to both students and the general community the plight and continuing oppression of the Palestinian people by both Israeli and Arab nations.]
"As Simon Marginson has pointed out in his paper on the subject in Alternate News Service (No 43, August 4, 1975) the debate in 1975 showed a marked unity and turn to the right in Zionist arguments.
"THE GUPS TOUR
"Nowhere was this turn more evident than in response to the tour by a delegation of two members of the General Union of Palestinian Students in May 1975. At [AUS's] August 1974 Council there was an unanimous vote in favour of the motion: 'That AUS invite a representative of GUPS to do a speaking tour of campuses early in 1975 in order that membership can directly seek clarification of various aspects the Palestinian question.' Shortly afterwards, the then President [of AUS] Neil McLean wrote to GUPS in Cairo issuing an invitation. No reply had been received by Annual Council 1975, and in February Ian McDonald, the new president, issued another invitation. The invitation was delivered verbally by FCC Rodd Webb during a visit to Damascus that month and was accepted and publicised with little reaction.
"Meanwhile the question of allowing a PLO delegation into Australia had become a matter of public controversy. In January 1975, the Prime Minister [Gough Whitlam] had decided not to issue visas to a group of PLO members. This controversy, and the ALP's vacillation over the question, must be dealt with in another place. It is only relevant [in so far as it relates to] the question of the GUPS delegation and the public reaction of AUJS to its visit. The Labor Government, having satisfied itself that the GUPS delegation would not be representing the PLO, issued visas to Eddie Zananiri and Samir Cheikh who duly arrived in Melbourne on May 4, 1975.
"The public controversy in 1974 to the AUS stance paled in comparison to the storm which greeted the arrival of the GUPS delegation. A demonstration by right-wing Zionists outside AUS [headquarters] degenerated into a brawl when some Arab and Australian supporters of the tour diverted a small section of a May Day march to AUS under the impression that the GUPS delegation was under siege. The next day [Opposition Leader Malcolm] Fraser launched an attack against the tour in parliament while daily newspapers and television reported, editorialised [on], and once again scrutinised AUS' activity.
"The tour was eventful and well attended and received by the majority of students. Hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of students turned up to hear Zananiri and Cheikh. However, the speakers were frequently heckled and drowned out by Zionist demonstrators. At the first public campus meeting at Melbourne University, AUJS president Joe Gersh had to appeal to his supporters not to incite violence and held an alternate demonstration in front of the [AUS] building [in Carlton] as the Palestinian speakers were on the other side. Marshals at the Jewish demonstration were extremely anxious that some of their more extreme elements (there were reportedly several ex-Israeli soldiers in the crowd) would become violent. Unfortunately, very little of Zananiri's or Cheikh's speeches was actually heard. Both were drowned out completely, despite an effective PA system, by the constant rival chants of the Zionists and pro-Palestinians. (Imre Salusinszky, Nation Review, May 9-15, 1975)
"On May 7, The Australian reported that one of the leading Zionists at Melbourne University, Michael Danby, had resigned his position as AUS secretary on that campus in protest over the visit. A few days later Danby's resignation was reported in The Australian Jewish News because of: '... the fascist, racist actions and attitudes taken by AUS towards Jews and the scandalous abuse of AUS resources.'
"AUJS opposition to the GUPS tour was confused and contradictory. There had been no opposition at all at August 1974 Council; indeed, prominent members of AUJS had supported the tour (Arena, 21/5/75). At January Council [1975], AUJS members had also voted for a resolution condemning the Australian government's decision to ban the PLO tour. Days before the [GUPS] delegation arrived, AUJS condemned the tour and Joe Gersh declined an offer to debate the Palestinians when they arrived. Yet, within two days, Gersh demanded equal time on the platform with the delegation, a theme which repeated itself throughout the interruptions at public meetings. (There was eventually a debate on Monday Conference between Zananiri and Peter Wise).
"In [a] telegram to various ministers in the government, AUJS demanded the immediate deportation of the delegation, pointing out that under the Commonwealth Crimes Act anyone dedicated to the overthrow of an established government could immediately be deported (Australian Jewish Times, 8/5/75). To substantiate this demand AUJS attempted to draw links between GUPS and the PLO."
To be concluded next post...
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Australia Needs to Talk About Iraq
Below I've posted an important and eloquent appeal by Dr. Sue Wareham, secretary of the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry. It was published in The Age of February 14, 2013 under the title: For democracy's sake, let's talk about our war in Iraq:
"The largest anti-war demonstration in Australian history began 10 years ago today - February 14, 2003. Millions of people protested worldwide, in about 800 cities - including in Australia, Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica.
"In Melbourne more than 100,000 people protested. They clogged Swanston Street for more than three hours, stretching all the way from the State Library down to Federation Square, demanding Australia not follow US President George Bush into war, and that we must allow UN weapons inspectors to do their work.
"Even though globally millions marched, their collective will was ignored, and a tragedy of monstrous proportions unfolded in Iraq. As predicted by many people at the time, the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. It left a trail of death and destruction and millions of refugees. It undermined the role of international law and strengthened terrorism. Australia's role in the war raised serious questions of government honesty and accountability. If we do not learn lessons from this episode, we are at risk of engaging in equally ill-founded wars in the future.
"And now, ten years later, we need to ask ourselves how the Australian government was able to ignore the public expression of outrage about its intentions. The key lesson we must learn is to ensure that Australian governments can never again commit our forces on the decision of a leader in the face of opposition from millions of Australian citizens, without even our Parliament being consulted. Democracy shouldn't work like that.
"The tenth anniversary of the largest outpouring of anti-war protest this country has ever seen is a fitting occasion for an inquiry into the Iraq War.
"The former secretary of the Department of Defence, Paul Barrett, along with former PM Malcolm Fraser, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Gration and many other distinguished Australians have recently formed a campaign for an Iraq War inquiry to facilitate a national conversation about the big questions of how and why the Howard government committed Australian military personnel to invade Iraq in 2003. Their efforts are supported by senior Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Maddox.
"Britain and the Netherlands have both conducted such inquiries, revealing much that was hidden in those countries' Iraq War decision-making. Of course, the government and opposition will resist, counting on the resignation many felt for the past decade to shield them from public pressure. But the demand for an inquiry into what happened ten years ago can sow the seeds for a democratic capacity to ensure it never happens again.
"Instead of simply looking back in horror at how Australia became embroiled in such an ill-conceived and catastrophic conflict, the inquiry would seek to identify the steps that led to Australia participating in the invasion of Iraq in order to understand the lessons to be learnt and how to ensure we follow better procedures in the future.
"The inclusion of our parliament in any decision that puts our troops, and millions of civilians, in harm's way would be a good start. Going to war is one of the biggest steps any country can take and yet John Howard has never been properly called to account for his decision in 2003. Those who, with him, thought it was the right decision at the time, should welcome and support an inquiry. As the war has been severely criticised, its proponents should have the opportunity to defend their actions and views.
"In these days of political disengagement, an inquiry into Australia's involvement in Iraq would provide a powerful route to begin overcoming the sense of powerlessness so many people felt in the face of the travesty of democratic decision-making a decade ago. It is an episode from which we must learn, lest we repeat the mistakes."
[See my 28/7/10 post 'A Mature Democracy'?]
"The largest anti-war demonstration in Australian history began 10 years ago today - February 14, 2003. Millions of people protested worldwide, in about 800 cities - including in Australia, Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica.
"In Melbourne more than 100,000 people protested. They clogged Swanston Street for more than three hours, stretching all the way from the State Library down to Federation Square, demanding Australia not follow US President George Bush into war, and that we must allow UN weapons inspectors to do their work.
"Even though globally millions marched, their collective will was ignored, and a tragedy of monstrous proportions unfolded in Iraq. As predicted by many people at the time, the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. It left a trail of death and destruction and millions of refugees. It undermined the role of international law and strengthened terrorism. Australia's role in the war raised serious questions of government honesty and accountability. If we do not learn lessons from this episode, we are at risk of engaging in equally ill-founded wars in the future.
"And now, ten years later, we need to ask ourselves how the Australian government was able to ignore the public expression of outrage about its intentions. The key lesson we must learn is to ensure that Australian governments can never again commit our forces on the decision of a leader in the face of opposition from millions of Australian citizens, without even our Parliament being consulted. Democracy shouldn't work like that.
"The tenth anniversary of the largest outpouring of anti-war protest this country has ever seen is a fitting occasion for an inquiry into the Iraq War.
"The former secretary of the Department of Defence, Paul Barrett, along with former PM Malcolm Fraser, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Gration and many other distinguished Australians have recently formed a campaign for an Iraq War inquiry to facilitate a national conversation about the big questions of how and why the Howard government committed Australian military personnel to invade Iraq in 2003. Their efforts are supported by senior Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Maddox.
"Britain and the Netherlands have both conducted such inquiries, revealing much that was hidden in those countries' Iraq War decision-making. Of course, the government and opposition will resist, counting on the resignation many felt for the past decade to shield them from public pressure. But the demand for an inquiry into what happened ten years ago can sow the seeds for a democratic capacity to ensure it never happens again.
"Instead of simply looking back in horror at how Australia became embroiled in such an ill-conceived and catastrophic conflict, the inquiry would seek to identify the steps that led to Australia participating in the invasion of Iraq in order to understand the lessons to be learnt and how to ensure we follow better procedures in the future.
"The inclusion of our parliament in any decision that puts our troops, and millions of civilians, in harm's way would be a good start. Going to war is one of the biggest steps any country can take and yet John Howard has never been properly called to account for his decision in 2003. Those who, with him, thought it was the right decision at the time, should welcome and support an inquiry. As the war has been severely criticised, its proponents should have the opportunity to defend their actions and views.
"In these days of political disengagement, an inquiry into Australia's involvement in Iraq would provide a powerful route to begin overcoming the sense of powerlessness so many people felt in the face of the travesty of democratic decision-making a decade ago. It is an episode from which we must learn, lest we repeat the mistakes."
[See my 28/7/10 post 'A Mature Democracy'?]
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Bucking the Zionist Dybbuk
Isi Leibler misdiagnoses Malcolm Fraser:
"I retain fond memories of my genuinely warm association with Malcolm Fraser when he was prime minister and I headed the Australian Jewish community. Our relationship was based on shared values and my appreciation for his inestimable assistance on behalf of Soviet Jewry, ensuring that, while I was in Moscow, the Australian embassy provided support for my efforts on behalf of Jewish dissidents. I also recollect that in those days he was enthralled with Israel and he would spend hours discussing and enthusiastically lauding the achievements of the Jewish state. In Jewish mystical folklore we relate to a dybbuk - a malevolent spirit capable of dramatically transforming a person's entire outlook. I am tempted to attribute Malcolm Fraser's dramatic reversal of attitude to a dybbuk. In his recent Age column [It's now time for the West to recognise Palestinian statehood, 4/10/11], Fraser repeated his now standard portrayal of Israelis as villains and Palestinians as noble underdogs." (Israel loses an old friend in Fraser & we long for his return, The Age, 5/10/11)
You've got it the wrong way around, Isi.
If your recollection of Fraser's alleged past enthusiam for Israel is correct, I'd say he's since managed to shrug off the grip of the malign Zionist dybbuk that once had him in its thrall. Good on him. Maybe he could help you with your problem.
"I retain fond memories of my genuinely warm association with Malcolm Fraser when he was prime minister and I headed the Australian Jewish community. Our relationship was based on shared values and my appreciation for his inestimable assistance on behalf of Soviet Jewry, ensuring that, while I was in Moscow, the Australian embassy provided support for my efforts on behalf of Jewish dissidents. I also recollect that in those days he was enthralled with Israel and he would spend hours discussing and enthusiastically lauding the achievements of the Jewish state. In Jewish mystical folklore we relate to a dybbuk - a malevolent spirit capable of dramatically transforming a person's entire outlook. I am tempted to attribute Malcolm Fraser's dramatic reversal of attitude to a dybbuk. In his recent Age column [It's now time for the West to recognise Palestinian statehood, 4/10/11], Fraser repeated his now standard portrayal of Israelis as villains and Palestinians as noble underdogs." (Israel loses an old friend in Fraser & we long for his return, The Age, 5/10/11)
You've got it the wrong way around, Isi.
If your recollection of Fraser's alleged past enthusiam for Israel is correct, I'd say he's since managed to shrug off the grip of the malign Zionist dybbuk that once had him in its thrall. Good on him. Maybe he could help you with your problem.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Pot Calls Kettle Black
Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian, Australian ms media's most ardent (if not the world's) Israeluvvie, has the claws out for former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983) on the grounds, wait for it, that "[m]etaphorically, he has crossed the Berlin Wall, except he went from West to East":
Charges Sheridan: "Malcolm Fraser's memoirs, co-authored with Margaret Simons, are the most error-riddled, factually unbelievable, tendentious, consistently nasty and overall disgraceful political memoirs I have ever read." (Fraser's unreliable memoirs rewrite history books, 26/5/11)
Gee golly gosh! Is this pot calling the kettle black or what?
What can I say? I've done 97 posts this far on Sheridan's error-ridden, factually unbelievable, tendentious, consistently nasty and overall disgraceful columns. I sometimes feel, like Macbeth in blood, that 'I am in Sheridan stepped in so far that should I wade no more/ Returning were as tedious as go o'er'.
So, I'll just touch on this one quote from the man's latest emission: "But it is not really this sloppiness and inaccuracy that is the main problem. It is the tendentious misrepesentation of the past."
As if this joker ever had a problem with misrepresenting the past. But forget about tendentiously misrepresenting the past for the moment. What about denying that one of the pivotal events of modern times, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israeli forces in 1948, ever happened?
"It's all rubbish... just rubbish," was Sheridan's dismissive response on a 2009 Q&A episode when Guy Rundle referred to Israeli historian Benny Morris' "use [of] the Israel Defense Forces archives to document dozens of massacres of Palestinian people in 1948; men, women and children lined up against a wall and machined gun by, among other people, Menachem Begin, who became a prime minister of Israel..." (See my 9/5/09 post Sheridan: Nakba Denier)
Nakba denial. 2009. Enough said.
Charges Sheridan: "Malcolm Fraser's memoirs, co-authored with Margaret Simons, are the most error-riddled, factually unbelievable, tendentious, consistently nasty and overall disgraceful political memoirs I have ever read." (Fraser's unreliable memoirs rewrite history books, 26/5/11)
Gee golly gosh! Is this pot calling the kettle black or what?
What can I say? I've done 97 posts this far on Sheridan's error-ridden, factually unbelievable, tendentious, consistently nasty and overall disgraceful columns. I sometimes feel, like Macbeth in blood, that 'I am in Sheridan stepped in so far that should I wade no more/ Returning were as tedious as go o'er'.
So, I'll just touch on this one quote from the man's latest emission: "But it is not really this sloppiness and inaccuracy that is the main problem. It is the tendentious misrepesentation of the past."
As if this joker ever had a problem with misrepresenting the past. But forget about tendentiously misrepresenting the past for the moment. What about denying that one of the pivotal events of modern times, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israeli forces in 1948, ever happened?
"It's all rubbish... just rubbish," was Sheridan's dismissive response on a 2009 Q&A episode when Guy Rundle referred to Israeli historian Benny Morris' "use [of] the Israel Defense Forces archives to document dozens of massacres of Palestinian people in 1948; men, women and children lined up against a wall and machined gun by, among other people, Menachem Begin, who became a prime minister of Israel..." (See my 9/5/09 post Sheridan: Nakba Denier)
Nakba denial. 2009. Enough said.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
'Quality Journalism' Alert
"'Quality journalism is not cheap', said Murdoch. 'The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites'." (Murdoch plans charge for all news websites by next summer, Andrew Clark, Guardian, 6/8/09)
Here's some QJ from The Australian, circa 27/2/10. Bet you can't wait to pay for it:
Cameron Stewart*: Israel warned before: diplomat [*Associate Editor; 2009 winner of "the highest honour in Australian newspapers, the Graham Perkins Award for Australian Journalist of the Year"]:
"Ian Wilcock, who was Australia's ambassador in Israel from 1997 to 1999, has told The Weekend Australian that he met Israeli Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem twice during his posting to convey to them strong concerns about the potential abuse of Australian passports by Israeli intelligence... Mr Wilcock declined to comment on the Israeli response to his warning."
Why? What's he scared of? Did Stewart bother asking him?
"But diplomatic sources say Israeli officials had given no promises and had appeared to be offended by the suggestion they might abuse the identity of Australian citizens."
Appeared to be offended? Either they were or they weren't. And why is Stewart pulling punches when only the day before he wrote: "The Australian has been told that during that meeting with Israeli government officials, the Israelis responded with 'enraged self-righteousness' at the suggestion that they would condone such identity theft"?
Which is it, Mr Quality Journalist? Did the Israelis merely appear to be offended, or did they respond with enraged self-righteousness?
Parenthetically, after reading Stewart's piece, I've come to the conclusion that Wilcock is a better representative of Israel than he is of Australia. Not only does he decline to comment on the Israeli response to his warning, but, such is the quality of his solicitude for Israelis, he does a better job of Mark Regev than Mark Regev: "The former ambassador said the willingness of Israelis to go to such extremes reflected their deep fears about national security. 'It is important to understand the psychology of Israelis in dealing with national security threats', he said. 'The Holocaust may be old news to a great part of the world but it is a living and deeply painful memory to Israelis and to Jews everywhere. Israel will never leave the security of the country to others. The belief is that Jews must be able to look after themselves'." (ibid)
Indeed Malcolm Fraser could well have had Wilcock in mind when he was quoted (on the same page) as saying that "the Jewish state could no longer use the Holocaust as an excuse to justify state-sanctioned murder, and criticism of its policies should not be dismissed as anti-Semitism." (Holocaust no excuse for murder: Fraser, Mark Dodd)
Anyway, I bet his warning to the Israelis about messing with Australian passports had them shaking in their (jack)boots.
John Lyons*: Locals accept Dubai assassination was a Mossad operation [*Middle East correspondent]:
"Things are heating up in the Middle East. They are getting worse rather than better."
The profundity! The profundity!
"Unless the pattern of history has suddenly changed, Hamas and its supporters will now do everything they can to target and kill a senior Israeli or Jewish figure abroad. And so the cycle continues."
Says who? Where's the evidence? Since when has Hamas ever killed anyone abroad?
And here's The Australian's idea of a Quality Opinion Piece: Pre-emptive attack inevitable when international law fails: If the UN had more backbone, Israel wouldn't need to act unilaterally, Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science fiction at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and president of NGO Monitor:
"In 1981, the Israeli Air force destroyed the Osiraq [sic: Osirak] nuclear reactor, the core of Saddam Hussein's effort to acquire nuclear weapons... Israeli leaders had the responsibility of preventing a power-mad dictator who threatened to blow up half of Israel from getting nuclear weapons."
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Super Israeli Air Force selflessly taking on the responsibility of saving half of Israel (& the planet) from another power-mad dictator bent on frying half of Israel (& the planet) with non-existant WMDs.
"If [the international legal system, including the UN] had any relation to justice, terrorists such as al-Mabhouh would be apprehended and brought to trial, and any country that gave them shelter would be punished by the UN."
The UN should act as Israel's hitman, just as the US did in Iraq.
"Al-Mabhouh was a cold-blooded murderer; he bragged about having kidnapped and killing two Israeli soldiers."
Mossad death squaddies are warm, cuddly softies who lie awake at night wrestling with the morality of it all. Oh yeah, and post-Dubai, extremely photogenic.
"The bitter reality is that for Israel, and for others, such as Hezbollah's Lebanese targets, the international legal frameworks provide no protection."
What are you whinging about, Gerald? ILFs haven't done much to protect millions of Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and Egyptians from Israel either.
Hezbollah's Lebanese targets? Israel's been bombing, invading and occupying Lebanon for decades, killing thousands of Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians, and Hezbollah's the danger?
"In the Dubai operation, there was no collateral damage, no innocent civilians were hurt. No buildings were bombed and no country's air space or sovereignty was violated..."
Why did Israel leave Gaza to those klutzes in the IDF then? Why didn't it employ Mossad instead? And to return to the Osirak operation for a minute, weren't innocent civilians killed there? Wasn't Saudi and Jordanian air space violated? Wasn't Iraqi sovereignty trampled?
OK, that was Quality Journalism at The Weekend Australian, which comes out on Saturdays. Should you require more of it on Sunday, the place to go - and I'm sure I don't really need to remind you of this - is, of course, The Sunday Telegraph:
Yoni Bashan*: Aussie spy stooges go into hiding (28/2) [*Ex-Australian Jewish News and Young Journalist of the Year courtesy of News Limited's 2009 News Awards]:
"Australian officials are still yet to [still yet to?!] speak to 2 of the 3 Australian passport holders whose lives were thrown into turmoil when their identities were stolen by assassins thought to be an Israeli secret service hit squad."
Lives thrown into turmoil? Memo from Tony Abbott to Julie Bishop: 'Hey, Jules, listen up! While we've got Rudd on the run and in apology mode, I want you to insist that he immediately don sackcloth & ashes and crawl on his hands and knees all the way to Israel to apologise on his hands and knees (Hang on, he's already assumed that position, hasn't he? Forget that bit!) for the turmoil into which he, personally, has thrown these poor Israelis... er, Aussies... er, Israelaussies... er, Austraelis... whatever, or else resign! Also, I want you to offer all such unfortunates carte blanche, rolled-gold, no-questions-asked, Christmas Island- No Way, Joshua! asylum in Australia. Hang on, aren't our Zionist mates pulling out all stops to entice Australian Jews to Israel? Yeah, better forget that bit too'.
Thought to be an Israeli secret service hit squad? No, no, no! Only a churl would think that!
"The trio's names and passports were cloned during an execution plot targeting Hamas strongman Mahmoud Rauf al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month."
Hamas strongman? You bet, labelling al-Mabhouh merely 'a senior Hamas leader' doesn't do him justice! He was in fact The Hamas Terror Master's Hamas Terror Master, if you can follow that, and 2009 winner of the Osama bin Laden Terror Master of the Year award.
"Ms McCabe, who is married and pregnant, has gone into hiding, complaining she was 'terrified', unable to sleep and worried for her baby's health."
Memo from Tony Abbott to Julie Bishop: 'Jules, me again. Seeing this McCabe chick's gone into hiding, I want you also to demand that Rudd drop whatever else he's doing and, still in his best sackcloth & ashes gear, and still on his hands and knobblies, broadcast the following: 'Nicole, Nicole, Wherefore art thou, Nicole? Please email details of your whereabouts to me at krudd @ i'm so sorry, sorry as a pm can be dot gov dot au so that I'll know where to crawl'.
"Mr Bruce, a student living in Jerusalem, was being shielded by relatives."
Strewth, I thought only Hamas and Hezbollah did the human shield thing! Must be catching on.
"The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Australian Jewish leaders have been told not to comment following an email circulated by the Zionist Federation of Australia."
Omerta rules among the Kosher Nostra, OK?
You can't beat Quality Journalism over at News Limited. But I'd like to.
Here's some QJ from The Australian, circa 27/2/10. Bet you can't wait to pay for it:
Cameron Stewart*: Israel warned before: diplomat [*Associate Editor; 2009 winner of "the highest honour in Australian newspapers, the Graham Perkins Award for Australian Journalist of the Year"]:
"Ian Wilcock, who was Australia's ambassador in Israel from 1997 to 1999, has told The Weekend Australian that he met Israeli Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem twice during his posting to convey to them strong concerns about the potential abuse of Australian passports by Israeli intelligence... Mr Wilcock declined to comment on the Israeli response to his warning."
Why? What's he scared of? Did Stewart bother asking him?
"But diplomatic sources say Israeli officials had given no promises and had appeared to be offended by the suggestion they might abuse the identity of Australian citizens."
Appeared to be offended? Either they were or they weren't. And why is Stewart pulling punches when only the day before he wrote: "The Australian has been told that during that meeting with Israeli government officials, the Israelis responded with 'enraged self-righteousness' at the suggestion that they would condone such identity theft"?
Which is it, Mr Quality Journalist? Did the Israelis merely appear to be offended, or did they respond with enraged self-righteousness?
Parenthetically, after reading Stewart's piece, I've come to the conclusion that Wilcock is a better representative of Israel than he is of Australia. Not only does he decline to comment on the Israeli response to his warning, but, such is the quality of his solicitude for Israelis, he does a better job of Mark Regev than Mark Regev: "The former ambassador said the willingness of Israelis to go to such extremes reflected their deep fears about national security. 'It is important to understand the psychology of Israelis in dealing with national security threats', he said. 'The Holocaust may be old news to a great part of the world but it is a living and deeply painful memory to Israelis and to Jews everywhere. Israel will never leave the security of the country to others. The belief is that Jews must be able to look after themselves'." (ibid)
Indeed Malcolm Fraser could well have had Wilcock in mind when he was quoted (on the same page) as saying that "the Jewish state could no longer use the Holocaust as an excuse to justify state-sanctioned murder, and criticism of its policies should not be dismissed as anti-Semitism." (Holocaust no excuse for murder: Fraser, Mark Dodd)
Anyway, I bet his warning to the Israelis about messing with Australian passports had them shaking in their (jack)boots.
John Lyons*: Locals accept Dubai assassination was a Mossad operation [*Middle East correspondent]:
"Things are heating up in the Middle East. They are getting worse rather than better."
The profundity! The profundity!
"Unless the pattern of history has suddenly changed, Hamas and its supporters will now do everything they can to target and kill a senior Israeli or Jewish figure abroad. And so the cycle continues."
Says who? Where's the evidence? Since when has Hamas ever killed anyone abroad?
And here's The Australian's idea of a Quality Opinion Piece: Pre-emptive attack inevitable when international law fails: If the UN had more backbone, Israel wouldn't need to act unilaterally, Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science fiction at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and president of NGO Monitor:
"In 1981, the Israeli Air force destroyed the Osiraq [sic: Osirak] nuclear reactor, the core of Saddam Hussein's effort to acquire nuclear weapons... Israeli leaders had the responsibility of preventing a power-mad dictator who threatened to blow up half of Israel from getting nuclear weapons."
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Super Israeli Air Force selflessly taking on the responsibility of saving half of Israel (& the planet) from another power-mad dictator bent on frying half of Israel (& the planet) with non-existant WMDs.
"If [the international legal system, including the UN] had any relation to justice, terrorists such as al-Mabhouh would be apprehended and brought to trial, and any country that gave them shelter would be punished by the UN."
The UN should act as Israel's hitman, just as the US did in Iraq.
"Al-Mabhouh was a cold-blooded murderer; he bragged about having kidnapped and killing two Israeli soldiers."
Mossad death squaddies are warm, cuddly softies who lie awake at night wrestling with the morality of it all. Oh yeah, and post-Dubai, extremely photogenic.
"The bitter reality is that for Israel, and for others, such as Hezbollah's Lebanese targets, the international legal frameworks provide no protection."
What are you whinging about, Gerald? ILFs haven't done much to protect millions of Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and Egyptians from Israel either.
Hezbollah's Lebanese targets? Israel's been bombing, invading and occupying Lebanon for decades, killing thousands of Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians, and Hezbollah's the danger?
"In the Dubai operation, there was no collateral damage, no innocent civilians were hurt. No buildings were bombed and no country's air space or sovereignty was violated..."
Why did Israel leave Gaza to those klutzes in the IDF then? Why didn't it employ Mossad instead? And to return to the Osirak operation for a minute, weren't innocent civilians killed there? Wasn't Saudi and Jordanian air space violated? Wasn't Iraqi sovereignty trampled?
OK, that was Quality Journalism at The Weekend Australian, which comes out on Saturdays. Should you require more of it on Sunday, the place to go - and I'm sure I don't really need to remind you of this - is, of course, The Sunday Telegraph:
Yoni Bashan*: Aussie spy stooges go into hiding (28/2) [*Ex-Australian Jewish News and Young Journalist of the Year courtesy of News Limited's 2009 News Awards]:
"Australian officials are still yet to [still yet to?!] speak to 2 of the 3 Australian passport holders whose lives were thrown into turmoil when their identities were stolen by assassins thought to be an Israeli secret service hit squad."
Lives thrown into turmoil? Memo from Tony Abbott to Julie Bishop: 'Hey, Jules, listen up! While we've got Rudd on the run and in apology mode, I want you to insist that he immediately don sackcloth & ashes and crawl on his hands and knees all the way to Israel to apologise on his hands and knees (Hang on, he's already assumed that position, hasn't he? Forget that bit!) for the turmoil into which he, personally, has thrown these poor Israelis... er, Aussies... er, Israelaussies... er, Austraelis... whatever, or else resign! Also, I want you to offer all such unfortunates carte blanche, rolled-gold, no-questions-asked, Christmas Island- No Way, Joshua! asylum in Australia. Hang on, aren't our Zionist mates pulling out all stops to entice Australian Jews to Israel? Yeah, better forget that bit too'.
Thought to be an Israeli secret service hit squad? No, no, no! Only a churl would think that!
"The trio's names and passports were cloned during an execution plot targeting Hamas strongman Mahmoud Rauf al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month."
Hamas strongman? You bet, labelling al-Mabhouh merely 'a senior Hamas leader' doesn't do him justice! He was in fact The Hamas Terror Master's Hamas Terror Master, if you can follow that, and 2009 winner of the Osama bin Laden Terror Master of the Year award.
"Ms McCabe, who is married and pregnant, has gone into hiding, complaining she was 'terrified', unable to sleep and worried for her baby's health."
Memo from Tony Abbott to Julie Bishop: 'Jules, me again. Seeing this McCabe chick's gone into hiding, I want you also to demand that Rudd drop whatever else he's doing and, still in his best sackcloth & ashes gear, and still on his hands and knobblies, broadcast the following: 'Nicole, Nicole, Wherefore art thou, Nicole? Please email details of your whereabouts to me at krudd @ i'm so sorry, sorry as a pm can be dot gov dot au so that I'll know where to crawl'.
"Mr Bruce, a student living in Jerusalem, was being shielded by relatives."
Strewth, I thought only Hamas and Hezbollah did the human shield thing! Must be catching on.
"The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Australian Jewish leaders have been told not to comment following an email circulated by the Zionist Federation of Australia."
Omerta rules among the Kosher Nostra, OK?
You can't beat Quality Journalism over at News Limited. But I'd like to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)