"Mark Latham, Ross Cameron and Rowan Dean, or 'Trump's Aussie Mates', have teamed up for a new panel show on Sky News called Outsiders. It'a an answer to the ABC's Insider program, the embodiment of an out-of-touch, inner-city Leftist class, according to the trio. Former Labor Party leader, Latham, former Howard government frontbencher, Cameron, and editor of The Spectator magazine, Rowan Dean, hosted a US election-day function called Trump's Aussie Mates on November 9 in Sydney. High on Donald Trump's unexpected victory, the three men joined Sky's Paul Murray Live that night to discuss and celebrate what had just transpired." (Trio trumpeting views from the outside, Jake Mitchell, The Australian, 21/11/16)
For the dirt on all three of 'Trump's Aussie Mates', just click on the labels below.
All I want to do here is ask whether this is the same Mark Latham who poured scorn on what he called Labor's 'Little Americans', or the 'Big Mac faction', in his 2005 book, The Latham Diaries, and who wrote there (p 393) that:
1) "The Americans have made us a bigger target in the War against Terror."
2) "The truth is, the Americans need us more than we need them."
3) "The Alliance is the last manifestation of the White Australia mentality."
Showing posts with label Rowan Dean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rowan Dean. Show all posts
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Our Most Recently Rambammed
Sarah Ferguson: How do you account for [the Israel lobby] wielding so much power?
Bob Carr: I think political donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel
(7.30 Report, 9/4/14)
The names of the four journalists recently rambammed by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (but not divulged in last week's Australian Jewish News - see my 15/11/14 post Why So Coy? 2) have at last appeared in this week's AJN, along with some of their deathless 'insights'.
Drum roll (or should that be shofar blast?):
David Wroe, Fairfax's defence and national security correspondent:
"Commenting on why the international media is harder on the Israelis than the Palestinians [???!!!], Wroe said it does 'expect more' from Israel. '[They] are the grown-ups [???!!!] in this conflict. They are a relatively wealthy democracy [???!!!], a sophisticated country with high education levels, they have the support of the world's most powerful country. We hold them to a higher standard [???!!!]. Does that let the Palestinians off the hook too frequently, yes, almost certainly, I wouldn't deny that. They literally do get away with murder'." (Media's double standards, 21/11/14)
I imagine Gideon Levy's piece, reproduced in my 28/10/14 post Palestinian Resistance 101, would be wasted on this goose.
Joe Aston, Australian Financial Review columnist and Nine Network roving reporter:
"... said 'very sadly' that he thought peace was 'a dream in the medium term'. 'When [PA president Mahmoud] Abbas talks about the attempted murder of Rabbi Glick and observes that it was committed by a martyr, a hero, it makes a lot of his statements in English very meaningless [but] I think Bibi's continued establishment of settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem is, if not central, certainly incendiary... certainly announcing growth in those settlements during the Kerry negotiations was a difficult sell for Israel'."
Zzzz...
Laura Jayes, Sky News political reporter "was unavailable to present on the evening."
Shucks!
Rowan Dean, editor, The Spectator Australia:
"The crux of the matter is, quite simply, the Palestinians are not interested in anything that allows a Jewish majority state to exist alongside them. Their TV programs, their crossword puzzles, their kids' books are all about demeaning Jews. Arabs are told from birth that Jews are really subhuman and to be got rid of'."
Pretty hardcore, eh? No wonder, this bloke's got real form - just click on the label below.
OK, that's that lot then, but we still don't know who the 4 journalists are who were rambammed by AIJAC at the same time - see my 15/11/14 post Why So Coy? 2.
Bob Carr: I think political donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel
(7.30 Report, 9/4/14)
The names of the four journalists recently rambammed by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (but not divulged in last week's Australian Jewish News - see my 15/11/14 post Why So Coy? 2) have at last appeared in this week's AJN, along with some of their deathless 'insights'.
Drum roll (or should that be shofar blast?):
David Wroe, Fairfax's defence and national security correspondent:
"Commenting on why the international media is harder on the Israelis than the Palestinians [???!!!], Wroe said it does 'expect more' from Israel. '[They] are the grown-ups [???!!!] in this conflict. They are a relatively wealthy democracy [???!!!], a sophisticated country with high education levels, they have the support of the world's most powerful country. We hold them to a higher standard [???!!!]. Does that let the Palestinians off the hook too frequently, yes, almost certainly, I wouldn't deny that. They literally do get away with murder'." (Media's double standards, 21/11/14)
I imagine Gideon Levy's piece, reproduced in my 28/10/14 post Palestinian Resistance 101, would be wasted on this goose.
Joe Aston, Australian Financial Review columnist and Nine Network roving reporter:
"... said 'very sadly' that he thought peace was 'a dream in the medium term'. 'When [PA president Mahmoud] Abbas talks about the attempted murder of Rabbi Glick and observes that it was committed by a martyr, a hero, it makes a lot of his statements in English very meaningless [but] I think Bibi's continued establishment of settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem is, if not central, certainly incendiary... certainly announcing growth in those settlements during the Kerry negotiations was a difficult sell for Israel'."
Zzzz...
Laura Jayes, Sky News political reporter "was unavailable to present on the evening."
Shucks!
Rowan Dean, editor, The Spectator Australia:
"The crux of the matter is, quite simply, the Palestinians are not interested in anything that allows a Jewish majority state to exist alongside them. Their TV programs, their crossword puzzles, their kids' books are all about demeaning Jews. Arabs are told from birth that Jews are really subhuman and to be got rid of'."
Pretty hardcore, eh? No wonder, this bloke's got real form - just click on the label below.
OK, that's that lot then, but we still don't know who the 4 journalists are who were rambammed by AIJAC at the same time - see my 15/11/14 post Why So Coy? 2.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Everyone Loves Rowan 3
If I had to select an example of what is wrong with the opinion page of the Sydney Morning Herald, a nail in the coffin, as it were, of the paper's precipitous decline into journalistic irrelevence, it'd be Rowan Dean's mendacious and slanderous Fame, not freedom, is the goal of the latest flotilla bound for Gaza (22/6/11).
To begin with, the very reason for its appearance - as a response to a piece by former Greens' MLC Sylvia Hale on why she was joining the second Freedom Flotilla to Gaza - constitutes an enduring outrage, the Herald having long ago adopted the perfectly idiotic and utterly servile position that any opinion piece considered in any way critical of Israel (rare enough in any event) simply cannot be allowed a life of its own on the opinion page without an accompanying right of response, on the very day of its publication, or soon thereafter, by one of the usual suspects from the Israel lobby or one of its useful fools. No other issue gets this kind of treatment.
By what mysterious route, I wonder, does such a response surface in the Herald?
This is how I imagine the process: author sends piece critical of Israel to Herald for publication; alarm bells go off; opinion editor alerts higher up; Herald finally contacts lobby representative; informs him/her that it intends to publish piece in X days time, and presents them with copy; lobby whips up its own or commissions a response; which, often as not, appears on the very same day and page as offending piece.
If I've got the process more or less right, and I'm always open to correction here, I'd still like to know whether the lobby's response is ever subjected to any kind of quality control. Or is it just a matter of gritted teeth and a meek, shamefaced thankyou? Or, even, heaven forbid: Yes, a fine piece indeed! We'd love to publish it.
Actually, I seriously doubt that quality control gets a look in here. After all, why would any halfway serious broadsheet accept a response on this issue from a creature of the advertising industry? I'm talking about the kind of individual who has no problem with inflicting on us all one of the most intensely annoying features of modern life, the televisual variety of which, with its goofy imagery, dumb messages and obscene cacophony, amounting to animated graffiti right there in the privacy of our lounge rooms, drives even those of us with half a brain to lunge for the mute. The kind of individual whose idea of an honest living is to package and perfume the often toxic turds of consumer capitalism. The kind of individual whose bread and butter comes from spinning the often elaborate webs of deception necessary to ensure a purchase. And, yes, the kind of individual who has the chutzpah to accuse others of perpetrating a scam:
"If you want to win lots of international awards and make a name for yourself in the advertising world, there's nothing better than knocking out a quick 'scam ad'. Scam ads are ads designed to be highly provocative*, to whip up controversy and to make the authors famous. The problem is, they are also fakes. Trendy inner-city lefties and Greens have now cottoned on to the scam ad trick. Deprived of anything serious to protest about, three frustrated Australian 'peace' activists have come up with a brilliant scam ad of their own: joining the Freedom Flotilla 2 for Gaza."
[* This from a guy who calls his website 'Rowan Dean Provocations'.]
Yes, just the kind of individual to suggest that the problem here lies not with Israel's genocidal behaviour and apartheid policies but with any manifestation of resistance, however peaceful, to same:
"This protest is a scam because it has no logical or intellectual underpinnings. It is designed solely for the purpose of attempting to recreate the outrage that occurred when last year's flotilla was intercepted by the Israelis and, in the presence of reporters including Paul McGeough, a firefight was provoked that resulted in the tragic, awful and pointless death of 9 activists. So, hey, let's do it again and see what happens!"
The real scam, of course, is Dean's: the vile suggestion that the victims of the Mavi Marmara massacre were responsible for their own deaths because they so provoked the peaceful Israelis falling out of the sky with guns that the poor dears had no option but to shoot them, point blank.
And that supposed responsibility comes by Dean quietly slipping in the word "firefight," feeding the unsuspecting reader the lie that the Turks also had guns and were giving as good as they got. In fact, neither Israel's own sham report into the events nor the UN's report supports this fiction of a firefight.
While Israel's Turkel Committee report on the subject "found that the IHH activists employed firearms against the IDF soldiers in order to prevent the IDF's takeover of the ship," even it wasn't prepared to venture further: "It should be mentioned that the Commission was not able to reach a definitive finding regarding whether the IHH activists brought firearms with them aboard the Mavi Marmara." Presumably then, assuming they even existed, these were weapons wrested from the invading Israeli pirates.
The UN's Fact-finding Mission on the massacre "found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it." (para 116)
But rewriting history is not all Dean does. He also runs a fine line in smears:
"The purpose of this venture is a dangerous attempt to drum up notoriety for the individuals involved, whip up emotions, and pursue the popular Marrickville pastime known as Jew-baiting (sorry, I mean 'protesting against Israeli aggression and Zionist expansion'."
Concludes Dean, "The awful truth about the Freedom Flotilla 2 is that it's only worthwhile if it makes international headlines, and it will only make headlines if and when people get hurt."
Alas, the really awful truth about the Sydney Morning Herald is that, in publishing Dean's latest 'provocation', it's prepared to take on board much the same toxic sludge as the Murdoch press and Quadrant.
To begin with, the very reason for its appearance - as a response to a piece by former Greens' MLC Sylvia Hale on why she was joining the second Freedom Flotilla to Gaza - constitutes an enduring outrage, the Herald having long ago adopted the perfectly idiotic and utterly servile position that any opinion piece considered in any way critical of Israel (rare enough in any event) simply cannot be allowed a life of its own on the opinion page without an accompanying right of response, on the very day of its publication, or soon thereafter, by one of the usual suspects from the Israel lobby or one of its useful fools. No other issue gets this kind of treatment.
By what mysterious route, I wonder, does such a response surface in the Herald?
This is how I imagine the process: author sends piece critical of Israel to Herald for publication; alarm bells go off; opinion editor alerts higher up; Herald finally contacts lobby representative; informs him/her that it intends to publish piece in X days time, and presents them with copy; lobby whips up its own or commissions a response; which, often as not, appears on the very same day and page as offending piece.
If I've got the process more or less right, and I'm always open to correction here, I'd still like to know whether the lobby's response is ever subjected to any kind of quality control. Or is it just a matter of gritted teeth and a meek, shamefaced thankyou? Or, even, heaven forbid: Yes, a fine piece indeed! We'd love to publish it.
Actually, I seriously doubt that quality control gets a look in here. After all, why would any halfway serious broadsheet accept a response on this issue from a creature of the advertising industry? I'm talking about the kind of individual who has no problem with inflicting on us all one of the most intensely annoying features of modern life, the televisual variety of which, with its goofy imagery, dumb messages and obscene cacophony, amounting to animated graffiti right there in the privacy of our lounge rooms, drives even those of us with half a brain to lunge for the mute. The kind of individual whose idea of an honest living is to package and perfume the often toxic turds of consumer capitalism. The kind of individual whose bread and butter comes from spinning the often elaborate webs of deception necessary to ensure a purchase. And, yes, the kind of individual who has the chutzpah to accuse others of perpetrating a scam:
"If you want to win lots of international awards and make a name for yourself in the advertising world, there's nothing better than knocking out a quick 'scam ad'. Scam ads are ads designed to be highly provocative*, to whip up controversy and to make the authors famous. The problem is, they are also fakes. Trendy inner-city lefties and Greens have now cottoned on to the scam ad trick. Deprived of anything serious to protest about, three frustrated Australian 'peace' activists have come up with a brilliant scam ad of their own: joining the Freedom Flotilla 2 for Gaza."
[* This from a guy who calls his website 'Rowan Dean Provocations'.]
Yes, just the kind of individual to suggest that the problem here lies not with Israel's genocidal behaviour and apartheid policies but with any manifestation of resistance, however peaceful, to same:
"This protest is a scam because it has no logical or intellectual underpinnings. It is designed solely for the purpose of attempting to recreate the outrage that occurred when last year's flotilla was intercepted by the Israelis and, in the presence of reporters including Paul McGeough, a firefight was provoked that resulted in the tragic, awful and pointless death of 9 activists. So, hey, let's do it again and see what happens!"
The real scam, of course, is Dean's: the vile suggestion that the victims of the Mavi Marmara massacre were responsible for their own deaths because they so provoked the peaceful Israelis falling out of the sky with guns that the poor dears had no option but to shoot them, point blank.
And that supposed responsibility comes by Dean quietly slipping in the word "firefight," feeding the unsuspecting reader the lie that the Turks also had guns and were giving as good as they got. In fact, neither Israel's own sham report into the events nor the UN's report supports this fiction of a firefight.
While Israel's Turkel Committee report on the subject "found that the IHH activists employed firearms against the IDF soldiers in order to prevent the IDF's takeover of the ship," even it wasn't prepared to venture further: "It should be mentioned that the Commission was not able to reach a definitive finding regarding whether the IHH activists brought firearms with them aboard the Mavi Marmara." Presumably then, assuming they even existed, these were weapons wrested from the invading Israeli pirates.
The UN's Fact-finding Mission on the massacre "found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it." (para 116)
But rewriting history is not all Dean does. He also runs a fine line in smears:
"The purpose of this venture is a dangerous attempt to drum up notoriety for the individuals involved, whip up emotions, and pursue the popular Marrickville pastime known as Jew-baiting (sorry, I mean 'protesting against Israeli aggression and Zionist expansion'."
Concludes Dean, "The awful truth about the Freedom Flotilla 2 is that it's only worthwhile if it makes international headlines, and it will only make headlines if and when people get hurt."
Alas, the really awful truth about the Sydney Morning Herald is that, in publishing Dean's latest 'provocation', it's prepared to take on board much the same toxic sludge as the Murdoch press and Quadrant.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Everyone Loves Rowan 2
Following his first appearance as an instant Middle East expert in The Australian, adman Rowan Dean, next pops up in Quadrant with RIP Hamza, a polemic which asks the burning question, In light of the brutal torture and mutilation of 13 year-old Hamza al-Khatib in Syria, is it time to admit that the Arab Spring will never lead to an Arab Summer of Love? (7/6/11).
Summer of Love?
Well, you can blame that on Obama. No sooner did he refer to the Arab Spring and Israel's 1967 borders in his latest speech on the Middle East, than Rowan's fertile imagination went into top gear: "The western world's Summer of Love began on June 1st, 1967 with the release of the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Switching on their radios from Los Angele to London, millions of excited fans were seduced by the sweet harmonies of the fab four proclaiming: 'With our love, with our love we can save the world'."
Of course, the Beatles started no such thing: "The term 'Summer of Love' originated with the formation of the Council for the Summer of love in the Spring of 1967 as a response to the convergence of young people on the Haight-Ashbury district [of San Francisco]." (Summer of Love, wikipaedia) But what really took place in the West at the time is of little interest to our adman.
No, the point here is to concoct a fictional West, blissed out on peace & love, as a foil to an equally fictional Arab East, focused solely on the destruction of Israel: "June 1st 1967 also saw millions of Arabs from Baghdad to Beirut switching on their radios to hear the mesmerizing incantations of Iraqi president Abdel Rahman Aref proclaiming: 'The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity... to wipe Israel off the map'."
Rowan appears to have cribbed this from the Zionist propaganda site CAMERA, but tweaked the date for Aref's speech, 31 May, to June 1 to coincide with the release of Sergeant Pepper's. But, hey, what's a little fiddle with the facts to one who single-handedly put several London advertising agencies on the map?
Still, you get the picture: while the West was being seduced by the "sweet harmonies" of the "fab four," the Arab East was being hypnotised by the "mesmerizing incantations" of the decidedly unfab Aref.
Having invented his own Summer of Love, Rowan then hypes it as the guiding principle of all post-1967 history, Bush and Blair's little forays into Iraq and Afghanistan notwithstanding: Obama invokes Israel's 1967 borders because he's "a child of the sixties." Vietnam was lost to the commies because "the philosophy of All You Need Is Love spread its tentacles throughout the university campuses of Europe, America and Australia..." And, "[l]ying in a bed with his Japanese girlfriend by his side, a guitar and a bag of acorns, John Lennon redefined a new political strategy. Give Peace A Chance."
But, says Rowan, and here's the rub, Obama's 2011 hit, Give 1967 Borders A Chance, simply doesn't cut the mustard in Israel. Bibi just doesn't dig those "borders of the Summer of Love." In the words of the late Abba Eban, these are 'Auschwitz borders'. But wasn't he the guy who also said: "Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what one does not believe oneself" - which is one hell of a great contextualiser whenever an Israeli politician opens his mouth, no? Anyway, back to Bibi. He's a "pragmatist and soldier who saw his own brother killed in a hostage rescue... He, more than any Israeli Prime Minister since Menachem Begin, does not trust words, only actions."
So here's where Bibi's coming from: "During the lead up to the Six Day War in June '67, the stated goal of numerous Arab nations was the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish race. To this day, echoes of that intent remain, lurking in Hamas's charter and much of the poisonous schoolyard propaganda foisted by their rulers onto impressionable young Arab minds. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, putting the finishing touches to his nuclear arsenal, often repeats his desire for Israel to be engulfed in a sea of flames."
I'm sorry, but there's far too much folderol* here to overburden this post with rebuttals, so I'll restrict my commentary to Ahmadinejad's supposed oft-repeated "desire for Israel to be engulfed in a sea of flames." Of consuming interest, of course, but, like the Yeti, I've been able to find neither hide nor hair of the creature.
[*On the hollowness of Arab threats in '67 see my 14/6/11 post Straight for the Jugular. On Israel's supposed vulnerability, propaganda line, and eagerness for a stoush with Nasser, see my 24/9/09 post Koutsoukis Gets Real. Just click on the 1967 tag below. On the Hamas charter see my 30/3/08 post Jerusalem Prize Syndrome.]
What with Syria in murderous convulsions, the Egyptian army throwing its weight around, mayhem in Libya, and the Saudi crackdown at home and in Bahrain, reckons Rowan, "[t]his is hardly the dawning of a Middle Eastern Age of Aquarius."
Maybe, maybe not. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
But it's obvious Rowan doesn't really give a rats for the Hamza al-Khatibs of the Arab intifadas. Their heroic struggle to break the shackles imposed on them for decades by authoritarian regimes, many of them US clients, pales into insignificance beside the only issue of consequence in the Middle East today - ensuring Israel's peace of mind: "Only when Israel can escape the ever-present fear and threat of imminent annihilation, with the mental security that gives her the confidence to cede the appropriate territory, will the option of two peaceful states co-existing side by side be feasible."
The confidence to cede the appropriate territory?! Takes your breath away, doesn't it?
Actually, Rowan (or is it now Dr Dean?), has hit on something here. He's spot on in acknowledging that his patient has a serious mental condition, but as usual, his diagnosis is off with the pixies. Israel is no naked, trembling virgin transfixed with fear as the swarthy, hairy, moustache-twirling members of the Arab chapter of the Hell's Angels circle her in drooling anticipation of an imminent collective deflowering. For starters, she's a he. (Trust Rowan to stuff that one up.) And a right piece of work he is too, judging by his case summary, which I just happen to have before me.
The following two extracts from the case summary of Dr Dorit Oz, his treating psychiatist at the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center in Jerusalem, should set the picture straight.
First his attitude towards the Arab world:
1) "Fear of loss of control torments Israel, and his aggressive behavior provides catharsis. When his feelings of vulnerability become unbearable, he imposes the destruction he fears others would impose on him. Although he characterizes his perceived foes as foolish and weak, he behaves as if they were implacable and more robust than he, lashing out in a manner others call disproportionate. This dynamic only reinforces his construct of a hostile universe in which his aggression is necessary and justified (and, paradoxically, nuanced)." (Israel in nut house, documents reveal, circusisrael.blogspot.com, 8/7/09)
Second (and here it gets kinky) his attitude towards the Palestinians:
2) "Israel's sexuality is ambiguous. Compulsive and earthy virility vies with a stifling, shame-based revulsion towards eroticism. Functionally, he cohabits with the Palestinians, whom he alternately regards as a treacherous but exotic concubine and a sullen, ungrateful wife. He rages that they 'take up all my time' and that his life would be a virtual paradise if they would 'just leave'. Yet his life is organized around controlling and disciplining them, and they provide a ready outlet for his aggression. Quiet interludes make him especially anxious, and he inevitably resumes intimacy through belligerent overtures." (ibid)
Stay tuned for the third fun-filled episode of Everyone Loves Rowan.
Summer of Love?
Well, you can blame that on Obama. No sooner did he refer to the Arab Spring and Israel's 1967 borders in his latest speech on the Middle East, than Rowan's fertile imagination went into top gear: "The western world's Summer of Love began on June 1st, 1967 with the release of the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Switching on their radios from Los Angele to London, millions of excited fans were seduced by the sweet harmonies of the fab four proclaiming: 'With our love, with our love we can save the world'."
Of course, the Beatles started no such thing: "The term 'Summer of Love' originated with the formation of the Council for the Summer of love in the Spring of 1967 as a response to the convergence of young people on the Haight-Ashbury district [of San Francisco]." (Summer of Love, wikipaedia) But what really took place in the West at the time is of little interest to our adman.
No, the point here is to concoct a fictional West, blissed out on peace & love, as a foil to an equally fictional Arab East, focused solely on the destruction of Israel: "June 1st 1967 also saw millions of Arabs from Baghdad to Beirut switching on their radios to hear the mesmerizing incantations of Iraqi president Abdel Rahman Aref proclaiming: 'The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity... to wipe Israel off the map'."
Rowan appears to have cribbed this from the Zionist propaganda site CAMERA, but tweaked the date for Aref's speech, 31 May, to June 1 to coincide with the release of Sergeant Pepper's. But, hey, what's a little fiddle with the facts to one who single-handedly put several London advertising agencies on the map?
Still, you get the picture: while the West was being seduced by the "sweet harmonies" of the "fab four," the Arab East was being hypnotised by the "mesmerizing incantations" of the decidedly unfab Aref.
Having invented his own Summer of Love, Rowan then hypes it as the guiding principle of all post-1967 history, Bush and Blair's little forays into Iraq and Afghanistan notwithstanding: Obama invokes Israel's 1967 borders because he's "a child of the sixties." Vietnam was lost to the commies because "the philosophy of All You Need Is Love spread its tentacles throughout the university campuses of Europe, America and Australia..." And, "[l]ying in a bed with his Japanese girlfriend by his side, a guitar and a bag of acorns, John Lennon redefined a new political strategy. Give Peace A Chance."
But, says Rowan, and here's the rub, Obama's 2011 hit, Give 1967 Borders A Chance, simply doesn't cut the mustard in Israel. Bibi just doesn't dig those "borders of the Summer of Love." In the words of the late Abba Eban, these are 'Auschwitz borders'. But wasn't he the guy who also said: "Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what one does not believe oneself" - which is one hell of a great contextualiser whenever an Israeli politician opens his mouth, no? Anyway, back to Bibi. He's a "pragmatist and soldier who saw his own brother killed in a hostage rescue... He, more than any Israeli Prime Minister since Menachem Begin, does not trust words, only actions."
So here's where Bibi's coming from: "During the lead up to the Six Day War in June '67, the stated goal of numerous Arab nations was the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish race. To this day, echoes of that intent remain, lurking in Hamas's charter and much of the poisonous schoolyard propaganda foisted by their rulers onto impressionable young Arab minds. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, putting the finishing touches to his nuclear arsenal, often repeats his desire for Israel to be engulfed in a sea of flames."
I'm sorry, but there's far too much folderol* here to overburden this post with rebuttals, so I'll restrict my commentary to Ahmadinejad's supposed oft-repeated "desire for Israel to be engulfed in a sea of flames." Of consuming interest, of course, but, like the Yeti, I've been able to find neither hide nor hair of the creature.
[*On the hollowness of Arab threats in '67 see my 14/6/11 post Straight for the Jugular. On Israel's supposed vulnerability, propaganda line, and eagerness for a stoush with Nasser, see my 24/9/09 post Koutsoukis Gets Real. Just click on the 1967 tag below. On the Hamas charter see my 30/3/08 post Jerusalem Prize Syndrome.]
What with Syria in murderous convulsions, the Egyptian army throwing its weight around, mayhem in Libya, and the Saudi crackdown at home and in Bahrain, reckons Rowan, "[t]his is hardly the dawning of a Middle Eastern Age of Aquarius."
Maybe, maybe not. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
But it's obvious Rowan doesn't really give a rats for the Hamza al-Khatibs of the Arab intifadas. Their heroic struggle to break the shackles imposed on them for decades by authoritarian regimes, many of them US clients, pales into insignificance beside the only issue of consequence in the Middle East today - ensuring Israel's peace of mind: "Only when Israel can escape the ever-present fear and threat of imminent annihilation, with the mental security that gives her the confidence to cede the appropriate territory, will the option of two peaceful states co-existing side by side be feasible."
The confidence to cede the appropriate territory?! Takes your breath away, doesn't it?
Actually, Rowan (or is it now Dr Dean?), has hit on something here. He's spot on in acknowledging that his patient has a serious mental condition, but as usual, his diagnosis is off with the pixies. Israel is no naked, trembling virgin transfixed with fear as the swarthy, hairy, moustache-twirling members of the Arab chapter of the Hell's Angels circle her in drooling anticipation of an imminent collective deflowering. For starters, she's a he. (Trust Rowan to stuff that one up.) And a right piece of work he is too, judging by his case summary, which I just happen to have before me.
The following two extracts from the case summary of Dr Dorit Oz, his treating psychiatist at the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center in Jerusalem, should set the picture straight.
First his attitude towards the Arab world:
1) "Fear of loss of control torments Israel, and his aggressive behavior provides catharsis. When his feelings of vulnerability become unbearable, he imposes the destruction he fears others would impose on him. Although he characterizes his perceived foes as foolish and weak, he behaves as if they were implacable and more robust than he, lashing out in a manner others call disproportionate. This dynamic only reinforces his construct of a hostile universe in which his aggression is necessary and justified (and, paradoxically, nuanced)." (Israel in nut house, documents reveal, circusisrael.blogspot.com, 8/7/09)
Second (and here it gets kinky) his attitude towards the Palestinians:
2) "Israel's sexuality is ambiguous. Compulsive and earthy virility vies with a stifling, shame-based revulsion towards eroticism. Functionally, he cohabits with the Palestinians, whom he alternately regards as a treacherous but exotic concubine and a sullen, ungrateful wife. He rages that they 'take up all my time' and that his life would be a virtual paradise if they would 'just leave'. Yet his life is organized around controlling and disciplining them, and they provide a ready outlet for his aggression. Quiet interludes make him especially anxious, and he inevitably resumes intimacy through belligerent overtures." (ibid)
Stay tuned for the third fun-filled episode of Everyone Loves Rowan.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Everyone Loves Rowan 1
Ever noticed how the Australian ms media never seem to run out of instant Middle East experts to grace their opinion pages? And how sold on Israel they all are?
Now in case you hadn't noticed, no sooner had instant Middle East expert David Burchell mysteriously departed from the pages of The Australian (or, to recall his signature simile, "vanished like a wraith" - see my 25/4/11 post Spooky!) than up popped another, name of Rowan Dean, to take his place.
Rowan who?
Billing Rowan merely as "a regular panellist on ABC1's The Gruen Transfer and a social media commentator," as The Australian did, really doesn't tell us much about the man. A quick scan of his ABC bio reveals so much more:
"Rowan dropped out of the Australian National University in 1978 and headed to England. As a junior copywriter, he launched Fosters lager (and Paul Hogan) onto an unsuspecting British public. He worked for London agencies Ogilvy and Mather and Collett Dickenson Pearce, winning many awards. In the industry, he is best known for co-writing 'Photobooth' for Hamlet Cigars, an ad regularly voted among the best of all time. He has also run his own production company and been Chair of AWARD (the Australasian Writers & Art Directors Association). In 2006 he joined Euro RSCG as Executive Creative Director." (abc.net.au)
Pretty impressive, eh?
So impressive that our opinion editors have been fairly beating a path to Rowan's door - resulting thus far in three bold-as-brass polemics on the Middle East in The Australian (30/4), Quadrant (7/6), and the Sydney Morning Herald (22/6). Seems everyone loves Rowan.
Now in case you were off exploring the craters of the moon and missed these priceless contributions to the sum total of our knowledge on today's Middle East, I've decided to devote this and two coming posts to each of the adman's gems, beginning with the first:
Rowan's opening number is suitably big picture, in inverse proportion to his knowledge maybe, but befitting the length, breadth and depth of his chutzpah.
In How an ad campaign can solve the crisis, the genius behind the Hamlet Cigars ad (Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet) boldy informs us how he's finally "worked out how to solve the Middle East conflict..."
And yes, it's "... with advertising."
But of course, why didn't we think of that?
In Rowan's ingenious prescription, the Arab states and Israel would each mount an advertising campaign, "selling the benefits of living in their countries to each other." And then, "based solely on the ads," the oppressed masses of the area could apply "to come and live" in the country of their choice. To give but one example: "If you're at your wit's end with life on the West Bank, apply to ilovesaudi.com and you're off to a life of luxury in a high-rise in Riyadh."
Of course, you're not supposed to ask why said West Bankers might be at their wit's end - that'd impede the adman's narrative flow somewhat, know what I mean? - but you get the idea, no?
"There's only one catch," however, cautions the man who "launched Fosters Lager (and Paul Hogan) onto an unsuspecting British public." It's got to be an ethical campaign: "No propaganda. No spin. Just the truth." Oh, and "you're not allowed to demonise the competition."
Rowan himself, however, is bound by no such injunction, and demonises to his heart's content. "Numerous Arab states," he asserts, have spent "squillions" on "literature and news programs claiming Jews are all pigs who will drink the blood of your babies." He also advises the Arabs to "go easy on the blood and gore when advertising the benefits to the community of limb amputation for thieving, gang rape for apostasy or death by stoning for adultery." And, after ruling out any references to religion, he simply can't resist this little jab: "If your product's any good it will sell itself without relying on threats of eternal damnation or unsubstantiated claims of frolicking with virgins in the afterlife."
No surprises then to find that Rowan "bags working on the Israel account."
Or that this is how he sees the outcome of the campaign:
"[B]ased on humanity's universal and insatiable desire for personal freedom, opportunity for your offspring, liberty and equality, virtually every man, woman and child in the Middle East will want to move to Israel. Impractical, I know. But it might make them a little less keen to blow up the place."
Pretty neat, eh?
But flawed, fatally flawed.
Sure there's the hint in his sentence "Impractical, I know," but no explanation of why it's impractical.
Not that Rowan has any idea, mind you.
You see his painstakingly constructed house of cards collapses in a heap when you learn that all of those freedom-seeking Arabs, particularly those in refugee camps dotted around the Middle East who still call Palestine home after 63 years, haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of ever living in Israel as presently constituted, regardless of their wishes.
And why not?
Simple: they don't have Jewish mothers.
'Israel: For Jews only!' Now how are you going to sell that to the Arab world?
Back to the drawing board, Rowan.
Stay tuned for the next fun-filled episode of Everyone Loves Rowan.
Now in case you hadn't noticed, no sooner had instant Middle East expert David Burchell mysteriously departed from the pages of The Australian (or, to recall his signature simile, "vanished like a wraith" - see my 25/4/11 post Spooky!) than up popped another, name of Rowan Dean, to take his place.
Rowan who?
Billing Rowan merely as "a regular panellist on ABC1's The Gruen Transfer and a social media commentator," as The Australian did, really doesn't tell us much about the man. A quick scan of his ABC bio reveals so much more:
"Rowan dropped out of the Australian National University in 1978 and headed to England. As a junior copywriter, he launched Fosters lager (and Paul Hogan) onto an unsuspecting British public. He worked for London agencies Ogilvy and Mather and Collett Dickenson Pearce, winning many awards. In the industry, he is best known for co-writing 'Photobooth' for Hamlet Cigars, an ad regularly voted among the best of all time. He has also run his own production company and been Chair of AWARD (the Australasian Writers & Art Directors Association). In 2006 he joined Euro RSCG as Executive Creative Director." (abc.net.au)
Pretty impressive, eh?
So impressive that our opinion editors have been fairly beating a path to Rowan's door - resulting thus far in three bold-as-brass polemics on the Middle East in The Australian (30/4), Quadrant (7/6), and the Sydney Morning Herald (22/6). Seems everyone loves Rowan.
Now in case you were off exploring the craters of the moon and missed these priceless contributions to the sum total of our knowledge on today's Middle East, I've decided to devote this and two coming posts to each of the adman's gems, beginning with the first:
Rowan's opening number is suitably big picture, in inverse proportion to his knowledge maybe, but befitting the length, breadth and depth of his chutzpah.
In How an ad campaign can solve the crisis, the genius behind the Hamlet Cigars ad (Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet) boldy informs us how he's finally "worked out how to solve the Middle East conflict..."
And yes, it's "... with advertising."
But of course, why didn't we think of that?
In Rowan's ingenious prescription, the Arab states and Israel would each mount an advertising campaign, "selling the benefits of living in their countries to each other." And then, "based solely on the ads," the oppressed masses of the area could apply "to come and live" in the country of their choice. To give but one example: "If you're at your wit's end with life on the West Bank, apply to ilovesaudi.com and you're off to a life of luxury in a high-rise in Riyadh."
Of course, you're not supposed to ask why said West Bankers might be at their wit's end - that'd impede the adman's narrative flow somewhat, know what I mean? - but you get the idea, no?
"There's only one catch," however, cautions the man who "launched Fosters Lager (and Paul Hogan) onto an unsuspecting British public." It's got to be an ethical campaign: "No propaganda. No spin. Just the truth." Oh, and "you're not allowed to demonise the competition."
Rowan himself, however, is bound by no such injunction, and demonises to his heart's content. "Numerous Arab states," he asserts, have spent "squillions" on "literature and news programs claiming Jews are all pigs who will drink the blood of your babies." He also advises the Arabs to "go easy on the blood and gore when advertising the benefits to the community of limb amputation for thieving, gang rape for apostasy or death by stoning for adultery." And, after ruling out any references to religion, he simply can't resist this little jab: "If your product's any good it will sell itself without relying on threats of eternal damnation or unsubstantiated claims of frolicking with virgins in the afterlife."
No surprises then to find that Rowan "bags working on the Israel account."
Or that this is how he sees the outcome of the campaign:
"[B]ased on humanity's universal and insatiable desire for personal freedom, opportunity for your offspring, liberty and equality, virtually every man, woman and child in the Middle East will want to move to Israel. Impractical, I know. But it might make them a little less keen to blow up the place."
Pretty neat, eh?
But flawed, fatally flawed.
Sure there's the hint in his sentence "Impractical, I know," but no explanation of why it's impractical.
Not that Rowan has any idea, mind you.
You see his painstakingly constructed house of cards collapses in a heap when you learn that all of those freedom-seeking Arabs, particularly those in refugee camps dotted around the Middle East who still call Palestine home after 63 years, haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of ever living in Israel as presently constituted, regardless of their wishes.
And why not?
Simple: they don't have Jewish mothers.
'Israel: For Jews only!' Now how are you going to sell that to the Arab world?
Back to the drawing board, Rowan.
Stay tuned for the next fun-filled episode of Everyone Loves Rowan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)