1) This interview with George Galloway on Julian Assange is well worth a read. Here's a key extract:
"He is the most important publisher in the world today and over the last decade. Not a single story WikiLeaks has ever published has turned out to be wrong, and had to be retracted or significantly corrected. That is a record that neither the New York Times or any other mainstream publisher could ever dream of claiming. I think that the publishing activities of WikiLeaks have changed the world, certainly the world of journalism. Assange is not charged with hacking; he is not a hacker. He is a post box where whistleblowers can bring material which is then investigated so thoroughly that they have never got a story wrong. Then they publish it. Then the New York Times puts it on their front page and the Guardian puts it on theirs. Talk about hypocrisy! These people won prizes for running stories stories given to them by Julian Assange! And yet they have virtually danced on what they imagine to be his grave. That is what is difficult to take. WikiLeak's model of publishing was revolutionary and that is why they are in trouble." (Former British parliamentarian George Galloway speaks out on the violent criminalization of Julian Assange, Dennis J. Bernstein & Randy Credico, covertactionmagazine.com, 2/7/19)
2) Here's an interesting extract on Assange from the recent book by Vicky Ward, Kushner Inc. Greed. Power. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, 2019. (Note my square bracketed insertions.):
"In June, [Alexander] Nix [CEO of Cambridge Analytica} reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange because he had read that WikiLeaks planned to publish a trove of emails related to Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' presidential candidate. Those emails had been [allegedly] stolen - hacked - by Russian intelligence from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and from the Democratic National Committee. (In July 2016, the FBI started an investigation into the [alleged] thefts.) Nix, not one to be troubled by ethics, wanted to know if Assange would share the [allegedly] stolen material with him. More than a year later, The Wall Street Journal would report that Assange's answer was no." (p 82)
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Julian Assange? 6
LH has finally tracked down a Late Night Live broadcast, not found in LNL's archives, which corroborates his contention that Phillip Adams "scooped up" Carr, Greer and the Brisbane Writers Festival audience, no less, on September 7, 2018, and took them all to a Brisbane venue known as The New Farm Cinemas to discuss Carr and Greer's books and broadcast it all on LNL. Called Greer and Carr - uncensored, the LNL broadcast is dated 11/9/18.
Phillip Adams began the session by declaring that:
"I can't begin to fathom why the Brisbane Writers Festival has ejected these two and so what we decided to do was have a salon de refuse and that's why we're here tonight."
Greer was first cab off the rank, discussing her book On Rape. Then Adams broached the subject of Julian Assange with her:
"I want to ask you a personal question. I was involved with WikiLeaks and Assange before both became famous brands, and after the trouble in Sweden I've tended to take the John Pilger/Geoffrey Robertson position because I fear for what will happen to Assange if he is sent to the US, but you in fact made me rethink my position. Your view on the Assange case?"
This 'rethinking' amazed me. Had Adams read Greer's book, or was he just reacting to what she had said on the night?
Without giving Greer's full response to Adams' question, I note her following points on Assange on the night:
"He had sex without consulting them"; "this is rape"; "he took a liberty with these women"; "he did [non-consensual sex] 3 times"; "he's still stuck in the embassy where they desperately want to get rid of him. They do say he has personal hygiene problems, which may be a lie"; "I don't like him or the way he's conducted himself, but he has been unfairly dealt with - but not necessarily by his enemies. He's suffered more at the hands of his friends [such as Robertson]." (Note no applause from audience.)
Adams then moved on to ask Carr:
"You describe yourself strongly in the Zionist camp, and as an unabashed supporter of the Jewish state. What changed your mind was pressure applied to you by the lobby when you presented a peace prize to Palestinian leader and frequent LNL guest Hanan Ashrawi. Talk to that."
Here's Carr's full response on the night:
"It was 2003. I was premier of NSW. A peace institute at Sydney University asked me if I'd present an award to Hanan Ashrawi, a brave Palestinian woman. My response was... to encourage a Palestinian woman like this would be good for Israel. In that spirit, and as a long-term president of Labor Friends of Israel, I accepted. There was a hurricane of activity from leaders of the Israel lobby condemning me for agreeing to present the award and I thought for me to accept the invitation and then pull out would be a message for every Australian of Arab background that they really don't count when the Israel lobby gets moving, and I wasn't bloody well going to do it. And with every day I make it clear that to pull out under this sort of pressure would be disgraceful. That taught me a lot about the bullying which is part of the approach of the Israel lobby in Australia, in the US, and elsewhere, and it's fundamentally wrong when they want to blind us to the fact that they're spreading settlements on the West Bank at a pace and a design that will stop a Palestinian state ever being created.. And if they can't see that's not in Israel's interests, then I can't help it, but I'm darn well going to present the case for an end to settlements, for a humane treatment of the occupied Palestinians, and for recognition of Palestine... And I'm proud of being able to shift the attitude of Labor conferences... and get other state Labor conferences to do the same, with a view to having the next national conference of the Labor Party, say in December, in view of all this... recognising Palestine." (Note loud applause from audience.)
So there you have it. But what I find most intriguing in all of this is that nowhere in the msm media did this quite extraordinary holding of a parallel event elicit a mention (at least as far as I am aware), not even from the participants themselves. And also why the broadcast didn't immediately find its way into the LNL archives. I must say too that for me Phillip Adams here remains just as problematic on the subject of Palestine/Israel as ever.
Phillip Adams began the session by declaring that:
"I can't begin to fathom why the Brisbane Writers Festival has ejected these two and so what we decided to do was have a salon de refuse and that's why we're here tonight."
Greer was first cab off the rank, discussing her book On Rape. Then Adams broached the subject of Julian Assange with her:
"I want to ask you a personal question. I was involved with WikiLeaks and Assange before both became famous brands, and after the trouble in Sweden I've tended to take the John Pilger/Geoffrey Robertson position because I fear for what will happen to Assange if he is sent to the US, but you in fact made me rethink my position. Your view on the Assange case?"
This 'rethinking' amazed me. Had Adams read Greer's book, or was he just reacting to what she had said on the night?
Without giving Greer's full response to Adams' question, I note her following points on Assange on the night:
"He had sex without consulting them"; "this is rape"; "he took a liberty with these women"; "he did [non-consensual sex] 3 times"; "he's still stuck in the embassy where they desperately want to get rid of him. They do say he has personal hygiene problems, which may be a lie"; "I don't like him or the way he's conducted himself, but he has been unfairly dealt with - but not necessarily by his enemies. He's suffered more at the hands of his friends [such as Robertson]." (Note no applause from audience.)
Adams then moved on to ask Carr:
"You describe yourself strongly in the Zionist camp, and as an unabashed supporter of the Jewish state. What changed your mind was pressure applied to you by the lobby when you presented a peace prize to Palestinian leader and frequent LNL guest Hanan Ashrawi. Talk to that."
Here's Carr's full response on the night:
"It was 2003. I was premier of NSW. A peace institute at Sydney University asked me if I'd present an award to Hanan Ashrawi, a brave Palestinian woman. My response was... to encourage a Palestinian woman like this would be good for Israel. In that spirit, and as a long-term president of Labor Friends of Israel, I accepted. There was a hurricane of activity from leaders of the Israel lobby condemning me for agreeing to present the award and I thought for me to accept the invitation and then pull out would be a message for every Australian of Arab background that they really don't count when the Israel lobby gets moving, and I wasn't bloody well going to do it. And with every day I make it clear that to pull out under this sort of pressure would be disgraceful. That taught me a lot about the bullying which is part of the approach of the Israel lobby in Australia, in the US, and elsewhere, and it's fundamentally wrong when they want to blind us to the fact that they're spreading settlements on the West Bank at a pace and a design that will stop a Palestinian state ever being created.. And if they can't see that's not in Israel's interests, then I can't help it, but I'm darn well going to present the case for an end to settlements, for a humane treatment of the occupied Palestinians, and for recognition of Palestine... And I'm proud of being able to shift the attitude of Labor conferences... and get other state Labor conferences to do the same, with a view to having the next national conference of the Labor Party, say in December, in view of all this... recognising Palestine." (Note loud applause from audience.)
So there you have it. But what I find most intriguing in all of this is that nowhere in the msm media did this quite extraordinary holding of a parallel event elicit a mention (at least as far as I am aware), not even from the participants themselves. And also why the broadcast didn't immediately find its way into the LNL archives. I must say too that for me Phillip Adams here remains just as problematic on the subject of Palestine/Israel as ever.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Julian Assange? 4
The matter of Julian Assange and Australian msm journalism just got more and more interesting for me today when I stumbled across a change.org petition update, headed 150,000 signatories then Twitter suspends our petitioner's account on Twitter.
The update, of 19/6/19, was written by... a Phillip Adams, Brisbane, Australia. Of course, the author of the update, is emphatically NOT the well-known Radio National broadcaster despite the identical spelling of their names.
The update set me wondering whether or not any of the 150,000 signatories to the original petition signed it thinking the Brisbane Adams was actually the ABC broadcaster. (You can access the former's update at change.org where he gives his suspended twitter account as @PhillipAdams64.)
Now I may be wrong, but my hunch is that few of them referred to in the update even knew who the broadcaster was.
But then a friend dropped in, assuring me that he'd heard the ABC broadcaster discussing Julian Assange, he seemed to think, positively. This, I thought was most unlike our PEP (Progressive Except Palestine) broadcaster, but felt compelled to check it out anyway.
Adams the broadcaster, of course, runs ABC Radio National's Late Night Live (LNL) program, so I headed to the LNL archives, specifically to the entry labelled 'Journalism', and trawled back in time until I found the only discussion in all of the entries listed there on Julian Assange.
It was dated 2/3/11, and headed Robert Manne: The untold story of Julian Assange. (If Robert Manne is unknown to you, just click on the relevant MERC label below.) Note that Adams and Manne are discussing only that period, in the mid-1990s, well before WikiLeaks, when Assange and others like him were collectively known as cypherpunks.
To cut to the chase, here is Adams' guest, Robert Manne, responding to his request to say where Assange stood in relation to the other 1990s cypherpunks. Note that, while a grudging, highly qualified admiration for Assange is the most we get from Manne, we don't even get that from Phillip Adams. Here's Manne's assessment of Assange, the cypherpunk, vis-a-vis other cypherpunks of the time:
"[Assange] is a real extremist on the hardline, electronic libertarian [model/spectrum?] who just would not put up with any state interference to individual liberties. On the other hand, he was from the point of view of left/right economics, more a left-wing libertarian or a left-wing anarchist in that he just didn't believe in the neoliberal philosophy of dual market and capitalism. So he had quite a complicated position which comes from his postings - which are all available if anyone took the trouble to to read them. So he is very hardline on the question of the struggle against the state trying to suborn individuals who want to communicate privately on the one hand. On the other hand, he's not an Ayn Rand type, whereas a lot of [the cypherpunks] were."
Typically, Phillip Adams asked Manne if Assange was "simply anti-American." Manne disagreed, saying:
"He understands the evils of Communism. One of his great heroes is Alexander Solzhenitsyn... One of the ironies is that people like John Pilger are now his great supporters, but in fact - or Michael Moore, the film maker - Assange doesn't respect people like that in reality... He's not a journalist at all, but even if he was to some extent a journalist... He is a revolutionary, not a non-violent revolutionary... He is the first person who has gotten away with threatening the extremely powerful."
Note that line, "He's not a journalist, but even if he were..."! Not to mention Manne's flabbergasting characterisation of Assange as a "violent" revolutionary because he "got away with threatening the extremely powerful."
Finally, I repeat, this was the only LNL program which touched on the subject of Julian Assange in the LNL archive, and was emphatically NOT any kind of endorsement of him. Consider this for the record.
The update, of 19/6/19, was written by... a Phillip Adams, Brisbane, Australia. Of course, the author of the update, is emphatically NOT the well-known Radio National broadcaster despite the identical spelling of their names.
The update set me wondering whether or not any of the 150,000 signatories to the original petition signed it thinking the Brisbane Adams was actually the ABC broadcaster. (You can access the former's update at change.org where he gives his suspended twitter account as @PhillipAdams64.)
Now I may be wrong, but my hunch is that few of them referred to in the update even knew who the broadcaster was.
But then a friend dropped in, assuring me that he'd heard the ABC broadcaster discussing Julian Assange, he seemed to think, positively. This, I thought was most unlike our PEP (Progressive Except Palestine) broadcaster, but felt compelled to check it out anyway.
Adams the broadcaster, of course, runs ABC Radio National's Late Night Live (LNL) program, so I headed to the LNL archives, specifically to the entry labelled 'Journalism', and trawled back in time until I found the only discussion in all of the entries listed there on Julian Assange.
It was dated 2/3/11, and headed Robert Manne: The untold story of Julian Assange. (If Robert Manne is unknown to you, just click on the relevant MERC label below.) Note that Adams and Manne are discussing only that period, in the mid-1990s, well before WikiLeaks, when Assange and others like him were collectively known as cypherpunks.
To cut to the chase, here is Adams' guest, Robert Manne, responding to his request to say where Assange stood in relation to the other 1990s cypherpunks. Note that, while a grudging, highly qualified admiration for Assange is the most we get from Manne, we don't even get that from Phillip Adams. Here's Manne's assessment of Assange, the cypherpunk, vis-a-vis other cypherpunks of the time:
"[Assange] is a real extremist on the hardline, electronic libertarian [model/spectrum?] who just would not put up with any state interference to individual liberties. On the other hand, he was from the point of view of left/right economics, more a left-wing libertarian or a left-wing anarchist in that he just didn't believe in the neoliberal philosophy of dual market and capitalism. So he had quite a complicated position which comes from his postings - which are all available if anyone took the trouble to to read them. So he is very hardline on the question of the struggle against the state trying to suborn individuals who want to communicate privately on the one hand. On the other hand, he's not an Ayn Rand type, whereas a lot of [the cypherpunks] were."
Typically, Phillip Adams asked Manne if Assange was "simply anti-American." Manne disagreed, saying:
"He understands the evils of Communism. One of his great heroes is Alexander Solzhenitsyn... One of the ironies is that people like John Pilger are now his great supporters, but in fact - or Michael Moore, the film maker - Assange doesn't respect people like that in reality... He's not a journalist at all, but even if he was to some extent a journalist... He is a revolutionary, not a non-violent revolutionary... He is the first person who has gotten away with threatening the extremely powerful."
Note that line, "He's not a journalist, but even if he were..."! Not to mention Manne's flabbergasting characterisation of Assange as a "violent" revolutionary because he "got away with threatening the extremely powerful."
Finally, I repeat, this was the only LNL program which touched on the subject of Julian Assange in the LNL archive, and was emphatically NOT any kind of endorsement of him. Consider this for the record.
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Julian Assange? 3
Just for the record, ABC Radio National's hosts of The Minefield, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens, interviewed Peter Greste on 12/6/19 under the rubric A free press, sure, but free from what? And free for what?
Free of any mention of Julian Assange, that's what. Here's the relevant portion from Greste, following Aly's contention that the divide between the digital public and the traditional media is now so great as to appear unbridgeable:
"We've got to work a lot harder to regain public confidence in the media," replied Greste, "I hate the idea of talking about a business model that news ought to be a product and commodity that we sell... I don't think we should be thinking of the news as a product to be bought, sold and traded. I think if we see it as a public good, then we can start thinking about what to expect and need from our journalism. Then we can think about how we might design a machine that delivers that outcome. At the moment, what we're doing is allowing the digital environment to unfold in an ad hoc, random kind of way... We need to say: What do we need? and how to design a system to deliver that outcome."
Invoking news as the "public good" is the closest Greste gets in his statement to the subject of Julian Assange. Nitpicking aside, if concepts such as "public good", public interest, and the good, old-fashioned truth are not inextricably interlinked, then what is Greste on about here?
In a letter from the UK's Belmarsh Prison to independent British journalist Gordon Dimmack, who decided to make it public in May this year, following the US Justice Department's decision to lodge additional charges against Assange under the Espionage Act, Assange wrote:
"I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself, no laptop, no internet, no computer, no library so far, but even if I do get access it will be just for half an hour with everyone else once a week. Just two visits a month and it takes weeks to get someone on the call list and the Catch-22 in getting their details to be security screened. Then all calls except [to] lawyer[s] are recorded and are a maximum 10 minutes and in a limited 30 minutes each day in which all prisoners compete for the phone. And credit? Just a few pounds a week and no one can call in. A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case. I am defenceless and am counting on you and others of good character to save my life. I am unbroken albeit literally surrounded by murderers. But the days when I could read and speak and organise to defend myself, my ideals and my people are over until I am free. Everyone else must take my place. The US government or rather those regrettable elements in it that hate truth liberty and justice want to cheat their way into my extradition and death rather than letting the public hear the truth for which I have won the highest awards in journalism and have been nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth is ultimately all we have." (See 'Truth ultimately is all we have': Julian Assange appeals for public support, Oscar Grenfell, wsws.org, 25/5/19)
Greste shows no indication whatever of any desire to "save" Assange's life. Indeed, Assange seems as remote from his thinking as the dark side of the moon. His position would appear beyond callous.
Free of any mention of Julian Assange, that's what. Here's the relevant portion from Greste, following Aly's contention that the divide between the digital public and the traditional media is now so great as to appear unbridgeable:
"We've got to work a lot harder to regain public confidence in the media," replied Greste, "I hate the idea of talking about a business model that news ought to be a product and commodity that we sell... I don't think we should be thinking of the news as a product to be bought, sold and traded. I think if we see it as a public good, then we can start thinking about what to expect and need from our journalism. Then we can think about how we might design a machine that delivers that outcome. At the moment, what we're doing is allowing the digital environment to unfold in an ad hoc, random kind of way... We need to say: What do we need? and how to design a system to deliver that outcome."
Invoking news as the "public good" is the closest Greste gets in his statement to the subject of Julian Assange. Nitpicking aside, if concepts such as "public good", public interest, and the good, old-fashioned truth are not inextricably interlinked, then what is Greste on about here?
In a letter from the UK's Belmarsh Prison to independent British journalist Gordon Dimmack, who decided to make it public in May this year, following the US Justice Department's decision to lodge additional charges against Assange under the Espionage Act, Assange wrote:
"I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself, no laptop, no internet, no computer, no library so far, but even if I do get access it will be just for half an hour with everyone else once a week. Just two visits a month and it takes weeks to get someone on the call list and the Catch-22 in getting their details to be security screened. Then all calls except [to] lawyer[s] are recorded and are a maximum 10 minutes and in a limited 30 minutes each day in which all prisoners compete for the phone. And credit? Just a few pounds a week and no one can call in. A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case. I am defenceless and am counting on you and others of good character to save my life. I am unbroken albeit literally surrounded by murderers. But the days when I could read and speak and organise to defend myself, my ideals and my people are over until I am free. Everyone else must take my place. The US government or rather those regrettable elements in it that hate truth liberty and justice want to cheat their way into my extradition and death rather than letting the public hear the truth for which I have won the highest awards in journalism and have been nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth is ultimately all we have." (See 'Truth ultimately is all we have': Julian Assange appeals for public support, Oscar Grenfell, wsws.org, 25/5/19)
Greste shows no indication whatever of any desire to "save" Assange's life. Indeed, Assange seems as remote from his thinking as the dark side of the moon. His position would appear beyond callous.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Assange? 2
Here's a further thoughtful response to Friday's JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME open letter to Morrison, Albanese and Australian MPs in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that merits citing here as an addendum to my last post on Julian Assange:
"I was just about to sign the #journalismisnotacrime petition when I discovered it was all about our recent local federal police raids, which are certainly a major concern. But the petition is a bit parochial for me. What about Julian Assange, an international (Australian) martyr for publishing the truth as he knew it to be? He's about to be extradited to the US where God knows what shocking fates await him, and very few people here seem to care. He appears to have very limited popular support, possibly because he's not a 'proper' journalist. But I would have thought this was a great opportunity for his media sisters and brothers in arms to send a message to our own government that we must continue to support all those who who seek to reveal the truth - no matter what. Our collective blind eyes in the Assange case are a disgrace. Instead of abandoning him, he is entitled to whatever protection and support we are able to give him - and at least as much as our local journalists expect and hope for." (Peter Bower, Naremburn, 15/6/19)
"I was just about to sign the #journalismisnotacrime petition when I discovered it was all about our recent local federal police raids, which are certainly a major concern. But the petition is a bit parochial for me. What about Julian Assange, an international (Australian) martyr for publishing the truth as he knew it to be? He's about to be extradited to the US where God knows what shocking fates await him, and very few people here seem to care. He appears to have very limited popular support, possibly because he's not a 'proper' journalist. But I would have thought this was a great opportunity for his media sisters and brothers in arms to send a message to our own government that we must continue to support all those who who seek to reveal the truth - no matter what. Our collective blind eyes in the Assange case are a disgrace. Instead of abandoning him, he is entitled to whatever protection and support we are able to give him - and at least as much as our local journalists expect and hope for." (Peter Bower, Naremburn, 15/6/19)
Saturday, June 15, 2019
Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Julian Assange?
First, the latest shocking news on the fate of WikiLeak's Julian Assange:
"Julian Assange will face a five-day US extradition hearing in February next year, a judge has ruled. [He] faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice, that includes charges under the Espionage Act... Ben Brandon, representing the US, formally opened the case, a day after an extradition request was signed off by the [UK] home secretary, Sajid Ravid." (Julian Assange to face US extradition in UK next year, Haroon Siddique, theguardian.com, 14/6/19)
The following letter of concern over Assange's fate, naming Australian journalist Peter Greste, appeared in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"Andrew Fowler's article was excellent in its balanced reporting of the facts ('Raids a wake-up to journalists who left Assange swinging', June 12). This was in stark contrast to Peter Greste's article several weeks ago, written with a certain callousness. Assanges's treatment does not reflect well on other journalists or on our successive governments. Fowler is correct that what has occurred to Assange may well occur to other journalists if they do not toe the line." (Virginia Robison, Killara, letter to the editor in Sydney Morning Herald, 14/6/19)
In addition, full page ads placed by journalismisnotacrime.org appeared in both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian yesterday signed by 38 Australian journalists, including Greste, Alliance for Journalists' Freedom. The ad is billed as an "Open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese, Members of the Parliament of Australia," and is headlined "JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME".
Part of the text reads: "A healthy democracy cannot function without its media being free to bring to light uncomfortable truths, to scrutinise the powerful and inform our communities. Investigative journalism cannot survive without the courage of whistleblowers, motivated by concern for their fellow citizens, who seek to bring to light instances of wrongdoing, illegal activities, fraud, corruption and threats to public health and safety. These are issues of public interest, of the public's right to know. Whistleblowers and the journalists who work with them are entitled to protection, not prosecution. Truth-telling is being punished."
There are reference in the text to "whistleblowers Richard Boyle, David McBride and Witness K," but, significantly, not to Julian Assange.
The failure to include Assange in the ad would seem to have a lot to do with Peter Greste's 12/4/19 SMH/Age opinion piece, Julian Assange is no journalist: don't confuse his arrest with press freedom:
"As someone who has been imprisoned by a foreign government [Egypt] for publishing material that it didn't like, I have a certain sympathy for Assange. But my supports stops there. To be clear, Julian Assange is not a journalist, and Wikileaks is not a news organisation... Journalism demands more than just simply acquiring confidential information and releasing it unfiltered on the internet for punters to sort through. It comes with responsibility... We at the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom are committed to restoring public trust in in journalism, which can only happen if its practitioners work with responsibility and respect. I has never been about opening up a hosepipe of information regardless of the consequences."
Parenthetically, has Greste, I wonder, taken the trouble to read The Wikileaks Files: The World According to US Empire (Verso, 2015). It contains an extensive introduction by Julian Assange and contributions by a range of journalists on the various regions covered by the files?
Understandably, aware readers - especially in Melbourne's Age - bridled at Greste's piece. John Wallace, for example, director of the Asia Pacific Journalism Centre, and a former member of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) judiciary committee Victoria, had this to say in the Age's letters pages:
"In Australia MEAA journalist code of ethics offers a less rigid view of journalism, one that allows departures from its standards under certain circumstances. The code's preamble states, in part, that 'Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism'. In its guidance clause, the code recognises that sometimes there will be a conflict in its standards, and that in cases of 'substantial advancement of the public interest' it may be appropriate to override any particular standard. If one accepts the Wikileaks disclosures did substantially advance the public interest, Assange's work can certainly be seen as journalism."
Commented another, "Greste's commentary is especially churlish, given the wholehearted support he enjoyed from the Australian community during his own ordeal. A little less pomposity, please." (Nicholas Grey, Kent Town, SA)
One of the most pointed and relevant comments critiquing Greste's piece came in the form a tweet by an Australian journalist of Palestinian origin, Jennine Khalik: "thinking of being a white male journalist and getting arrested in egypt so people think everything I have to say once im out is relevant and insightful." (May 25)
Greste's assessment of Assange as 'not a journalist' cannot be allowed to stand. In fact, a retraction of his 12 April commentary and an apology seems to me to be in order.
"Julian Assange will face a five-day US extradition hearing in February next year, a judge has ruled. [He] faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice, that includes charges under the Espionage Act... Ben Brandon, representing the US, formally opened the case, a day after an extradition request was signed off by the [UK] home secretary, Sajid Ravid." (Julian Assange to face US extradition in UK next year, Haroon Siddique, theguardian.com, 14/6/19)
The following letter of concern over Assange's fate, naming Australian journalist Peter Greste, appeared in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"Andrew Fowler's article was excellent in its balanced reporting of the facts ('Raids a wake-up to journalists who left Assange swinging', June 12). This was in stark contrast to Peter Greste's article several weeks ago, written with a certain callousness. Assanges's treatment does not reflect well on other journalists or on our successive governments. Fowler is correct that what has occurred to Assange may well occur to other journalists if they do not toe the line." (Virginia Robison, Killara, letter to the editor in Sydney Morning Herald, 14/6/19)
In addition, full page ads placed by journalismisnotacrime.org appeared in both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian yesterday signed by 38 Australian journalists, including Greste, Alliance for Journalists' Freedom. The ad is billed as an "Open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese, Members of the Parliament of Australia," and is headlined "JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME".
Part of the text reads: "A healthy democracy cannot function without its media being free to bring to light uncomfortable truths, to scrutinise the powerful and inform our communities. Investigative journalism cannot survive without the courage of whistleblowers, motivated by concern for their fellow citizens, who seek to bring to light instances of wrongdoing, illegal activities, fraud, corruption and threats to public health and safety. These are issues of public interest, of the public's right to know. Whistleblowers and the journalists who work with them are entitled to protection, not prosecution. Truth-telling is being punished."
There are reference in the text to "whistleblowers Richard Boyle, David McBride and Witness K," but, significantly, not to Julian Assange.
The failure to include Assange in the ad would seem to have a lot to do with Peter Greste's 12/4/19 SMH/Age opinion piece, Julian Assange is no journalist: don't confuse his arrest with press freedom:
"As someone who has been imprisoned by a foreign government [Egypt] for publishing material that it didn't like, I have a certain sympathy for Assange. But my supports stops there. To be clear, Julian Assange is not a journalist, and Wikileaks is not a news organisation... Journalism demands more than just simply acquiring confidential information and releasing it unfiltered on the internet for punters to sort through. It comes with responsibility... We at the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom are committed to restoring public trust in in journalism, which can only happen if its practitioners work with responsibility and respect. I has never been about opening up a hosepipe of information regardless of the consequences."
Parenthetically, has Greste, I wonder, taken the trouble to read The Wikileaks Files: The World According to US Empire (Verso, 2015). It contains an extensive introduction by Julian Assange and contributions by a range of journalists on the various regions covered by the files?
Understandably, aware readers - especially in Melbourne's Age - bridled at Greste's piece. John Wallace, for example, director of the Asia Pacific Journalism Centre, and a former member of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) judiciary committee Victoria, had this to say in the Age's letters pages:
"In Australia MEAA journalist code of ethics offers a less rigid view of journalism, one that allows departures from its standards under certain circumstances. The code's preamble states, in part, that 'Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism'. In its guidance clause, the code recognises that sometimes there will be a conflict in its standards, and that in cases of 'substantial advancement of the public interest' it may be appropriate to override any particular standard. If one accepts the Wikileaks disclosures did substantially advance the public interest, Assange's work can certainly be seen as journalism."
Commented another, "Greste's commentary is especially churlish, given the wholehearted support he enjoyed from the Australian community during his own ordeal. A little less pomposity, please." (Nicholas Grey, Kent Town, SA)
One of the most pointed and relevant comments critiquing Greste's piece came in the form a tweet by an Australian journalist of Palestinian origin, Jennine Khalik: "thinking of being a white male journalist and getting arrested in egypt so people think everything I have to say once im out is relevant and insightful." (May 25)
Greste's assessment of Assange as 'not a journalist' cannot be allowed to stand. In fact, a retraction of his 12 April commentary and an apology seems to me to be in order.
Monday, April 29, 2019
First They Came for Assange
A must-read from Greece's former finance minister and Professor of Economics at the University of Athens, Yanis Varoufakis:
"My meetings with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange all took place in the same small room. As the intelligence services of a variety of countries know, I visited Assange in Ecuador's London embassy many times between the fall of 2015 and December 2018. What these snoops do not know is the relief I felt every time I left.
"I wanted to meet Assange because of my deep appreciation of the original WikiLeaks concept. As a teenager reader George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, I, too, was troubled by the prospect of a high-tech surveillance state and its likely effect on human relations. Assange's early writings - particularly his idea of using states' own technology to create a huge digital mirror that could show everyone what they were up to filled me with hope that we might collectively defeat Big Brother.
"By the time I met Assange, that early hope had faded. Surrounded by bookcases featuring Ecuadorian literature and government publications, we would sit and chat late into the night. A device on top of a bookshelf emitted mind-numbing white noise to counter listening devices. As time passed, the claustrophobic living room, the badly hidden ceiling-mounted camera pointing at me, the white noise, and the stale air made me want to run out into the street.
"Assange's detractors have been saying for years that his confinement was self-inflicted: he hid in Ecuador's embassy because he jumped bail in the United Kingdom to avoid answering sexual assault allegations in Sweden. Women must be heard when reporting assault. Only the violence that men have inflicted upon women for millennia is viler than the disrespect and denigration to which women are subjected when they speak up.
"I recall saying to Julian that, had it been me, I would want to confront my accusers, and listen to them carefully and respectfully, regardless of whether official charges had been brought. He replied that he, too, wanted that. 'But, Yanis,' he said, 'if I were to go to Stockholm, they would throw me in solitary and, before I got a chance to answer any allegations, I would be bundled into a plane heading for a US supermax prison.' To drive the point home, he showed me his lawyers' offer to Swedish authorities to go to Stockholm if they guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the United States on espionage charges. Sweden never considered the proposal.
"During Assange's years in Ecuador's embassy, in circumstances that the United Nations deemed 'arbitrary detention,' many friends and colleagues mocked his fear - and lambasted me for believing him. Last September, the historian and feminist intellectual Germaine Greer summed up that belief on Australian public radio: 'He won't be extradited to the United States,' she said derisively, blaming Julian's lawyers for misleading him into fearing such an extradition while collecting his book's royalties.
"Now he is languishing in Belmarsh, a notorious English high-security prison, in a windowless basement cell with even less fresh air and light than before. Unable to receive visitors, he awaits extradition to the US. 'Let him rot in hell,' is a frequent response from good people around the world who were incensed by WikiLeaks' release of Hillary Clinton's emails ahead of the 2016 US presidential election, which blew fresh wind into Donald Trump's sails. Why, they ask, has Assange not released anything damning on Trump or Russian President Vladimir Putin?
"Before I explain why his detractors should reconsider, let me state for the record my personal frustration with his support of Brexit, his injudicious attacks against his feminist critics, his editorializing in favour of Trump, and, crucially, his communications with Trump's people. I expressed this frustration to his face several times. But castigating WikiLeaks for not publishing leaks that damage all sides equally is to miss the point. WikiLeaks was established as a digital mailbox where whistle-blowers could deposit information that is true and whose revelation is in the public interest. This is WikiLeak's sole obligation. By design, it cannot control who leaks what; its technology prevents even Assange from knowing a whistle-blower's identity. If this means that most leaks will embarrass Western powers, that is WikiLeaks' great, if imperfect, service to us - service that, to my frustration, was diminished by Julian's editorializing.
"Recent developments prove that his current predicament has nothing to do with the Swedish allegations or his role in aiding Trump against Clinton. With Chelsea Manning in prison again for refusing to confess that Assange incited, or helped, her to leak evidence of US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the best explanation of what is going on comes from Mike Pompeo, Trump's first CIA director and now US Secretary of State.
"Pompeo described WikiLeaks as 'a non-state hostile intelligence service.' That is exactly right. But it is an equally accurate description of what every self-respecting news outlet ought to be. As Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky have warned, journalists who fail to oppose Assange's extradition to the US could be next on the hit list of a president who considers them the 'enemy of the people.' Celebrating his arrest and turning a blind eye to Manning's continued suffering is a gift to liberalism's greatest foes.
"Besides liberalism, Assange's persecution by the US security-industrial complex has another victim: women. No woman, in Sweden or elsewhere, will get justice if he is now thrown into a supermax prison for revealing crimes against humanity perpetrated by awful men in or out of uniform. No feminist goal is served by Manning's continued suffering.
"So here is an idea: Let us join forces to block Assange's extradition from any European country to the US, so that he can travel to Stockholm and give his accusers an opportunity to be heard. Let us work together to empower women, while protecting whistle-blowers who reveal nefarious behavior that governments, armies, and corporations would prefer to keep hidden."
"My meetings with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange all took place in the same small room. As the intelligence services of a variety of countries know, I visited Assange in Ecuador's London embassy many times between the fall of 2015 and December 2018. What these snoops do not know is the relief I felt every time I left.
"I wanted to meet Assange because of my deep appreciation of the original WikiLeaks concept. As a teenager reader George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, I, too, was troubled by the prospect of a high-tech surveillance state and its likely effect on human relations. Assange's early writings - particularly his idea of using states' own technology to create a huge digital mirror that could show everyone what they were up to filled me with hope that we might collectively defeat Big Brother.
"By the time I met Assange, that early hope had faded. Surrounded by bookcases featuring Ecuadorian literature and government publications, we would sit and chat late into the night. A device on top of a bookshelf emitted mind-numbing white noise to counter listening devices. As time passed, the claustrophobic living room, the badly hidden ceiling-mounted camera pointing at me, the white noise, and the stale air made me want to run out into the street.
"Assange's detractors have been saying for years that his confinement was self-inflicted: he hid in Ecuador's embassy because he jumped bail in the United Kingdom to avoid answering sexual assault allegations in Sweden. Women must be heard when reporting assault. Only the violence that men have inflicted upon women for millennia is viler than the disrespect and denigration to which women are subjected when they speak up.
"I recall saying to Julian that, had it been me, I would want to confront my accusers, and listen to them carefully and respectfully, regardless of whether official charges had been brought. He replied that he, too, wanted that. 'But, Yanis,' he said, 'if I were to go to Stockholm, they would throw me in solitary and, before I got a chance to answer any allegations, I would be bundled into a plane heading for a US supermax prison.' To drive the point home, he showed me his lawyers' offer to Swedish authorities to go to Stockholm if they guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the United States on espionage charges. Sweden never considered the proposal.
"During Assange's years in Ecuador's embassy, in circumstances that the United Nations deemed 'arbitrary detention,' many friends and colleagues mocked his fear - and lambasted me for believing him. Last September, the historian and feminist intellectual Germaine Greer summed up that belief on Australian public radio: 'He won't be extradited to the United States,' she said derisively, blaming Julian's lawyers for misleading him into fearing such an extradition while collecting his book's royalties.
"Now he is languishing in Belmarsh, a notorious English high-security prison, in a windowless basement cell with even less fresh air and light than before. Unable to receive visitors, he awaits extradition to the US. 'Let him rot in hell,' is a frequent response from good people around the world who were incensed by WikiLeaks' release of Hillary Clinton's emails ahead of the 2016 US presidential election, which blew fresh wind into Donald Trump's sails. Why, they ask, has Assange not released anything damning on Trump or Russian President Vladimir Putin?
"Before I explain why his detractors should reconsider, let me state for the record my personal frustration with his support of Brexit, his injudicious attacks against his feminist critics, his editorializing in favour of Trump, and, crucially, his communications with Trump's people. I expressed this frustration to his face several times. But castigating WikiLeaks for not publishing leaks that damage all sides equally is to miss the point. WikiLeaks was established as a digital mailbox where whistle-blowers could deposit information that is true and whose revelation is in the public interest. This is WikiLeak's sole obligation. By design, it cannot control who leaks what; its technology prevents even Assange from knowing a whistle-blower's identity. If this means that most leaks will embarrass Western powers, that is WikiLeaks' great, if imperfect, service to us - service that, to my frustration, was diminished by Julian's editorializing.
"Recent developments prove that his current predicament has nothing to do with the Swedish allegations or his role in aiding Trump against Clinton. With Chelsea Manning in prison again for refusing to confess that Assange incited, or helped, her to leak evidence of US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the best explanation of what is going on comes from Mike Pompeo, Trump's first CIA director and now US Secretary of State.
"Pompeo described WikiLeaks as 'a non-state hostile intelligence service.' That is exactly right. But it is an equally accurate description of what every self-respecting news outlet ought to be. As Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky have warned, journalists who fail to oppose Assange's extradition to the US could be next on the hit list of a president who considers them the 'enemy of the people.' Celebrating his arrest and turning a blind eye to Manning's continued suffering is a gift to liberalism's greatest foes.
"Besides liberalism, Assange's persecution by the US security-industrial complex has another victim: women. No woman, in Sweden or elsewhere, will get justice if he is now thrown into a supermax prison for revealing crimes against humanity perpetrated by awful men in or out of uniform. No feminist goal is served by Manning's continued suffering.
"So here is an idea: Let us join forces to block Assange's extradition from any European country to the US, so that he can travel to Stockholm and give his accusers an opportunity to be heard. Let us work together to empower women, while protecting whistle-blowers who reveal nefarious behavior that governments, armies, and corporations would prefer to keep hidden."
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Reading Brendan O'Neill
What happens when you just make it up as you go along? Well, chances are that what you write will end up looking something like an opinion piece by Brendan O'Neill - half-baked, propagandist.
O'Neill, editor of Spiked, is often recycled in Murdoch's Australian, and it's easy to see why:
"[F]ocus too much on Islamist terrorism these days and you risk being accused of Islamophobia. 'Christians used to do this kind of thing,' they will say, inaccurately, to deflect attention from their own unwillingness to take a strong moral stance on Islamist extreme violence. Or they will point out that the US and Britain and other nations are still engaged in violent conflicts in the Middle East... even though they must know, somewhere inside their moral universe, that there is an immeasurable difference between America's military campaigns in the Middle East (which are wrong)... " (Islamist barbarism thrives on West's weak response, 26/4/19)
"Which are wrong"? Why the brackets, Brendan? Why the dropped voice? Why not say it loud and clear: AMERICA'S MILITARY CAMPAIGNS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE WRONG? And why not say why? Because Islamist terrorism has been the result of such campaigns - from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya and to Syria.
"... and the wilful slaughter of children queuing for sweets..."
Of course, our USraeli friends are never "wilful" when they slaughter children queuing for sweets:
"Witnesses to Sunday's incident said a missile that appeared to be a rocket hit an area just outside the gates of the Rafah Preparatory, a boys school where children were queuing to buy sweets and biscuits from stalls. The school had been providing shelter to more than 3,000 people - the same number that had been seeking refuge at a girls school in Jabaliya last Wednesday when it came under attack from a hail of Israeli shells. In contrast to that strike, which wrecked a classroom full of sleeping woman and children, the physical destruction this time appeared minimal: just a small but deep hole in the road where the missile had landed. But that clinical effect masked a devastating human cost. Pools of blood... were seen inside and outside the school, demonstrating how the blast's powerful impact had wished inside the grounds of what was supposed to be a safe haven." (Gaza school attacked as children queue for sweets, Robert Tait, telegraph.co.uk, 3/8/14)
Nothing personal there, of course, just good, clean collateral damage, right? Sorry about that, kids.
"Whether it is their accusations of Islamophobia or their morally relativistic comparison of today's new barbarism with the behaviour of Western armies, the liberal elites key aim seems to be to avoid having to take a strong position on this new, strange, spectacularly anti-human violence."
And, Brendan, what precisely do you mean by "liberal elites"? Do you mean someone like Obama's Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton?
Was her position on "today's new barbarism" not "strong"? Didn't she propose defeating ISIS "on the battlefield" and working "with our allies to dismantle global terror networks"? (See Combating terrorism & keeping the homeland safe, hillaryclinton.com)
And yet you've already said, "America's military campaigns in the Middle East are wrong." So cut the crap and tell us what you mean by "a strong position."
The trouble with Clinton is that she doesn't seem at all interested in taking on certain regimes who inspire and stoke Islamist terrorism, and for obvious reasons:
"On the contributions given by state actors to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was US Secretary of State, Assange discusses one email in particular: 'There's an early 2014 email from Hilary Clinton... to her campaign manager, that states that ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.' He states, 'Actually, I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection, perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the place including into many media institutions. Analysts know, even the US government has mentioned, or agreed with, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS, funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it's just some rogue princes using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like but actually the government disapproves, but that email says that no, it's the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have been funding ISIS." (Never forget: the towering exposure of Hillary Clinton by Assange and WikiLeaks, Clinton Emerald, 21stcenturywire.com, 13/11/16)
Nor, for that matter, does the other side of the US coin, non-liberal, populist Donald Trump.
"A weak and morally disoriented West that will not strongly condemn the nihilistic ideology behind the slaughter of Christians in Sri Lanka..."
Now that "nihilistic ideology" wouldn't be Saudi Wahhabism, would it, Brendan?
"... is a West that cannot feign surprise when such violence continues. It is no longer enough to say 'that's awful' and then move on; we need a serious reckoning with the war on Christians, the rise of seventh-century barbarism and the collapse of any semblance of moral restraint among the new terrorists."
And Brendan, isn't your phrase, "the rise of seventh-century barbarism," just a sneaky euphemism for Islam? Please explain why this isn't Islamophobia.
Bet you'd never conflate the barbarity of the Crusades with Christianity, or for that matter "America's military campaigns" - which you admit are ("wrong").
O'Neill, editor of Spiked, is often recycled in Murdoch's Australian, and it's easy to see why:
"[F]ocus too much on Islamist terrorism these days and you risk being accused of Islamophobia. 'Christians used to do this kind of thing,' they will say, inaccurately, to deflect attention from their own unwillingness to take a strong moral stance on Islamist extreme violence. Or they will point out that the US and Britain and other nations are still engaged in violent conflicts in the Middle East... even though they must know, somewhere inside their moral universe, that there is an immeasurable difference between America's military campaigns in the Middle East (which are wrong)... " (Islamist barbarism thrives on West's weak response, 26/4/19)
"Which are wrong"? Why the brackets, Brendan? Why the dropped voice? Why not say it loud and clear: AMERICA'S MILITARY CAMPAIGNS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE WRONG? And why not say why? Because Islamist terrorism has been the result of such campaigns - from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya and to Syria.
"... and the wilful slaughter of children queuing for sweets..."
Of course, our USraeli friends are never "wilful" when they slaughter children queuing for sweets:
"Witnesses to Sunday's incident said a missile that appeared to be a rocket hit an area just outside the gates of the Rafah Preparatory, a boys school where children were queuing to buy sweets and biscuits from stalls. The school had been providing shelter to more than 3,000 people - the same number that had been seeking refuge at a girls school in Jabaliya last Wednesday when it came under attack from a hail of Israeli shells. In contrast to that strike, which wrecked a classroom full of sleeping woman and children, the physical destruction this time appeared minimal: just a small but deep hole in the road where the missile had landed. But that clinical effect masked a devastating human cost. Pools of blood... were seen inside and outside the school, demonstrating how the blast's powerful impact had wished inside the grounds of what was supposed to be a safe haven." (Gaza school attacked as children queue for sweets, Robert Tait, telegraph.co.uk, 3/8/14)
Nothing personal there, of course, just good, clean collateral damage, right? Sorry about that, kids.
"Whether it is their accusations of Islamophobia or their morally relativistic comparison of today's new barbarism with the behaviour of Western armies, the liberal elites key aim seems to be to avoid having to take a strong position on this new, strange, spectacularly anti-human violence."
And, Brendan, what precisely do you mean by "liberal elites"? Do you mean someone like Obama's Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton?
Was her position on "today's new barbarism" not "strong"? Didn't she propose defeating ISIS "on the battlefield" and working "with our allies to dismantle global terror networks"? (See Combating terrorism & keeping the homeland safe, hillaryclinton.com)
And yet you've already said, "America's military campaigns in the Middle East are wrong." So cut the crap and tell us what you mean by "a strong position."
The trouble with Clinton is that she doesn't seem at all interested in taking on certain regimes who inspire and stoke Islamist terrorism, and for obvious reasons:
"On the contributions given by state actors to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was US Secretary of State, Assange discusses one email in particular: 'There's an early 2014 email from Hilary Clinton... to her campaign manager, that states that ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.' He states, 'Actually, I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection, perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the place including into many media institutions. Analysts know, even the US government has mentioned, or agreed with, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS, funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it's just some rogue princes using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like but actually the government disapproves, but that email says that no, it's the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have been funding ISIS." (Never forget: the towering exposure of Hillary Clinton by Assange and WikiLeaks, Clinton Emerald, 21stcenturywire.com, 13/11/16)
Nor, for that matter, does the other side of the US coin, non-liberal, populist Donald Trump.
"A weak and morally disoriented West that will not strongly condemn the nihilistic ideology behind the slaughter of Christians in Sri Lanka..."
Now that "nihilistic ideology" wouldn't be Saudi Wahhabism, would it, Brendan?
"... is a West that cannot feign surprise when such violence continues. It is no longer enough to say 'that's awful' and then move on; we need a serious reckoning with the war on Christians, the rise of seventh-century barbarism and the collapse of any semblance of moral restraint among the new terrorists."
And Brendan, isn't your phrase, "the rise of seventh-century barbarism," just a sneaky euphemism for Islam? Please explain why this isn't Islamophobia.
Bet you'd never conflate the barbarity of the Crusades with Christianity, or for that matter "America's military campaigns" - which you admit are ("wrong").
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Julian Assange: Free Speech Warrior
The hypocrisy of the fake free speech warriors at The Australian is exposed in the Murdoch rag's editorial on the arrest of genuine free speech warrior Julian Assange:
"It is not known when Assange might face a US court, but he should. He could not hide forever. In the interests of all Western nations and the fight against terror, US security and military services need to protect sensitive information and close loopholes that allowed so much data to be extracted and dispersed." (Assange must be accountable, 13/4/19)
Here is Assange's compelling rationale for the over 2 million US diplomatic cables published up to 2015 from his introduction to The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015):
"While national archives have produced impressive collections of internal state communications, their material is intentionally withheld or made difficult to access for decades, until it is stripped of potency... What makes the revelation of secret communications potent is that we were not supposed to read them. The internal communications of the US Department of State are the logistical by-product of its activities: their publication is the vivisection of a living empire, showing what substance flowed from which state organ and when.
"Diplomatic cables are not produced in order to manipulate the public, but are aimed at elements of the rest of the US state apparatus, and are therefore relatively free from the distorting influence of public relations. Reading them is a much more effective way of understanding an institution like the State Department than reading reports by journalists on the public pronouncements of Hilary Clinton, or Jen Psaki.
"Whilst in their internal communications State Department officials must match their pens to the latest DC orthodoxies should they wish to stand out in Washington for the 'right' reasons and not the 'wrong' ones, these elements of political correctness are themselves noteworthy and visible to outsiders who are not sufficiently indoctrinated. Many cables are deliberative or logistical, and their causal relationships across time and space with other cables and with externally documented events create a web of interpretive constraints that reliably show how the US Department of State and the agencies that inter-operate with its cable system understand their place in the world.
"Only by approaching this corpus holistically - over and above the documentation of each individual abuse, each localized atrocity - does the true human cost of empire heave into view." (pp 5-6)
"It is not known when Assange might face a US court, but he should. He could not hide forever. In the interests of all Western nations and the fight against terror, US security and military services need to protect sensitive information and close loopholes that allowed so much data to be extracted and dispersed." (Assange must be accountable, 13/4/19)
Here is Assange's compelling rationale for the over 2 million US diplomatic cables published up to 2015 from his introduction to The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015):
"While national archives have produced impressive collections of internal state communications, their material is intentionally withheld or made difficult to access for decades, until it is stripped of potency... What makes the revelation of secret communications potent is that we were not supposed to read them. The internal communications of the US Department of State are the logistical by-product of its activities: their publication is the vivisection of a living empire, showing what substance flowed from which state organ and when.
"Diplomatic cables are not produced in order to manipulate the public, but are aimed at elements of the rest of the US state apparatus, and are therefore relatively free from the distorting influence of public relations. Reading them is a much more effective way of understanding an institution like the State Department than reading reports by journalists on the public pronouncements of Hilary Clinton, or Jen Psaki.
"Whilst in their internal communications State Department officials must match their pens to the latest DC orthodoxies should they wish to stand out in Washington for the 'right' reasons and not the 'wrong' ones, these elements of political correctness are themselves noteworthy and visible to outsiders who are not sufficiently indoctrinated. Many cables are deliberative or logistical, and their causal relationships across time and space with other cables and with externally documented events create a web of interpretive constraints that reliably show how the US Department of State and the agencies that inter-operate with its cable system understand their place in the world.
"Only by approaching this corpus holistically - over and above the documentation of each individual abuse, each localized atrocity - does the true human cost of empire heave into view." (pp 5-6)
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Assange on the Israel Lobby
An interesting piece from Alex Mitchell's Weekly Notebook, News not reported here, cometherevolution.com.au, 5/10/17:
"Julian Assange is an alleged rapist who is wanted in the US to face charges as a 'world terrorist' and spend a lifetime behind bars. On the other hand, to a majority of civilised people across the globe he is a hero whistleblower who has blown open the atrocities of the US military in Iraq and around the world. Now he's done it again with a statement issued from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he lives in self-imposed incarceration. On 22 September 2017 Assange told reporters via telecast:
"'Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the US through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian Government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.
"'Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognise that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn [retired US Army Lieutenant-General Flynn who was sacked as National Security Adviser on February 13, after just 24 days in the job], who has rather a different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. There is, however, another country that has interfered in US elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favourable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American assets and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That government is, of course, Israel."
Mitchell follows this with Buying the US Congress:
"If you think Assange is exaggerating you should be aware that in the past week the US Senate unanimously passed (99 votes to 0) the Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill. The legislation makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class that is immune from criticism. In future, Americans will be able to burn the Stars and Stripes, sell pornography and automatic guns and attack the Christian religion - but they won't be able to criticise Israel as that effectively becomes a 'hate crime'. The legislation was demanded by the Israeli lobby which bribes its way across Capitol Hill to propagandise on behalf of the apartheid-style Zionist regime in Tel Aviv."
"Julian Assange is an alleged rapist who is wanted in the US to face charges as a 'world terrorist' and spend a lifetime behind bars. On the other hand, to a majority of civilised people across the globe he is a hero whistleblower who has blown open the atrocities of the US military in Iraq and around the world. Now he's done it again with a statement issued from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he lives in self-imposed incarceration. On 22 September 2017 Assange told reporters via telecast:
"'Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the US through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian Government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.
"'Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognise that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn [retired US Army Lieutenant-General Flynn who was sacked as National Security Adviser on February 13, after just 24 days in the job], who has rather a different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. There is, however, another country that has interfered in US elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favourable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American assets and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That government is, of course, Israel."
Mitchell follows this with Buying the US Congress:
"If you think Assange is exaggerating you should be aware that in the past week the US Senate unanimously passed (99 votes to 0) the Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill. The legislation makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class that is immune from criticism. In future, Americans will be able to burn the Stars and Stripes, sell pornography and automatic guns and attack the Christian religion - but they won't be able to criticise Israel as that effectively becomes a 'hate crime'. The legislation was demanded by the Israeli lobby which bribes its way across Capitol Hill to propagandise on behalf of the apartheid-style Zionist regime in Tel Aviv."
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Clinton Emailed
From John Pilger's interview with Julian Assange, Emails show Clinton Foundation funders also bankroll ISIS: the explosive interview with John Pilger, newmatilda.com, 5/11/16:
Pilger: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she's benefiting politically are quite extraordinary. I'm thinking of when the Qatari representative was given 5 minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.
Assange: And 12m from Morocco... For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party]
Pilger: In terms of US foreign policy, that's where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIS, in the Middle East. Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate [that] those who are meant to be fighting the ISIS jihadists are actually those who have helped create it?
Assange: There's an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton... to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is the most significant email in the whole collection, and... because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the US government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS. But the dodge has always been that it's just some rogue princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but that, actually, the government disapproves. But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.
Pilger: The Saudis, Qataris, Moroccans, Bahrainis... were giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and the State Department was approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
Assange: Under Hillary Clinton the world's largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as secretary of state, total arms exports from the United States, in terms of dollar value, have doubled.
Pilger: Of course, the consequence of that is that ISIS has been created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
Assange: Yes.
(Assange goes on to reveal that Clinton is the public face of Wall Street and that "half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from City Bank.")
Pilger: Why was she so enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? What have the emails told us about what happened there, because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria... and it was almost Hillary Clinton's invasion?
Assange: Libya... was Hillary Clinton's war. Obama initially opposed it, Hillary Clinton championed it. That's documented throughout her emails. She'd put her favorite agent, Sidney Blumenthal onto it. More than 1,700 out of the 33,000 of the emails we've published are just about Libya. It wasn't about cheap oil. She saw the removal of Gaddafi... as something she could use in her run-up to election as president. In late 2011, an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock was produced for her. It's a chronology of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths in Libya. Jihadists, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee crisis... As Gaddafi said at the time: 'What do these Europeans think they're doing, trying to bomb and destroy Libya? There's going to be a flood of migrants and jihadists out of Africa and into Europe,' and that's exactly what happened.
Pilger: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she's benefiting politically are quite extraordinary. I'm thinking of when the Qatari representative was given 5 minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.
Assange: And 12m from Morocco... For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party]
Pilger: In terms of US foreign policy, that's where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIS, in the Middle East. Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate [that] those who are meant to be fighting the ISIS jihadists are actually those who have helped create it?
Assange: There's an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton... to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is the most significant email in the whole collection, and... because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the US government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS. But the dodge has always been that it's just some rogue princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but that, actually, the government disapproves. But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.
Pilger: The Saudis, Qataris, Moroccans, Bahrainis... were giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and the State Department was approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
Assange: Under Hillary Clinton the world's largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as secretary of state, total arms exports from the United States, in terms of dollar value, have doubled.
Pilger: Of course, the consequence of that is that ISIS has been created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
Assange: Yes.
(Assange goes on to reveal that Clinton is the public face of Wall Street and that "half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from City Bank.")
Pilger: Why was she so enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? What have the emails told us about what happened there, because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria... and it was almost Hillary Clinton's invasion?
Assange: Libya... was Hillary Clinton's war. Obama initially opposed it, Hillary Clinton championed it. That's documented throughout her emails. She'd put her favorite agent, Sidney Blumenthal onto it. More than 1,700 out of the 33,000 of the emails we've published are just about Libya. It wasn't about cheap oil. She saw the removal of Gaddafi... as something she could use in her run-up to election as president. In late 2011, an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock was produced for her. It's a chronology of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths in Libya. Jihadists, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee crisis... As Gaddafi said at the time: 'What do these Europeans think they're doing, trying to bomb and destroy Libya? There's going to be a flood of migrants and jihadists out of Africa and into Europe,' and that's exactly what happened.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Lifting the Lid on Saudi Influence in Australia
One to watch:
"WikiLeaks has revealed secret Saudi Arabian influence in Arabic media and Islamic religious groups in Australia, as well as covert monitoring of Saudi students studying at Australian universities. More than 60,000 leaked Saudi diplomatic documents have been released by WikiLeaks in what the international transparency group says will be the first instalment of the publication of more than 500,000 secret papers in batches over coming weeks...
"The leaked Saudi government documents include extensive correspondence between the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the kingdom's embassy in Canberra that reveals sustained Saudi efforts to influence political and religious opinion within Australia's Arabic and Islamic communities.
"The documents include instructions from the Saudi government to its embassy relating to the payment of large subsidies from the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information to prominent Arabic newspapers and media organisations in Australia, with reference made to cheques to the value of $10,000 and $40,000.
"The Saudi embassy is also revealed to pay close attention to the political and religious beliefs of Saudi university students studying in Australia with reports sent to the Mabahith, the General Investigation Directorate of the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the kingdom's brutal secret police that deals with domestic security and counter-intelligence.
"The directorate is also revealed to make recommendations in relation to Saudi government funding for building mosques and supporting Islamic community activities in Australia.
"The documents show the Sunni kingdom's strong concern about efforts by Shiite Islamic leaders to engage with the Federation of Islamic Councils and the kingdom's funding of visits to Australia by Sunni Islamic clerics to counter Shiite influence.
"WikiLeaks said the reports... 'provide key insights into the kingdom's operations and how it has managed its alliances and consolidated its position as a regional Middle East superpower, including through bribing and co-opting individuals and institutions.'
"The documents reveal extensive Saudi efforts to influence and neutralise critical opinion in foreign media, including widespread use of monetary contributions and subsidies..." (Saudi influence in Australia revealed, Philip Dorling, The Sun-Herald, 21/6/15)
Those extensive efforts to influence and neutralise critical opinion in foreign media must be working here, because Dorling's piece is the only report of these WikiLeak documents, as far as I'm aware, to surface in the Australian msm.
"WikiLeaks has revealed secret Saudi Arabian influence in Arabic media and Islamic religious groups in Australia, as well as covert monitoring of Saudi students studying at Australian universities. More than 60,000 leaked Saudi diplomatic documents have been released by WikiLeaks in what the international transparency group says will be the first instalment of the publication of more than 500,000 secret papers in batches over coming weeks...
"The leaked Saudi government documents include extensive correspondence between the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the kingdom's embassy in Canberra that reveals sustained Saudi efforts to influence political and religious opinion within Australia's Arabic and Islamic communities.
"The documents include instructions from the Saudi government to its embassy relating to the payment of large subsidies from the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information to prominent Arabic newspapers and media organisations in Australia, with reference made to cheques to the value of $10,000 and $40,000.
"The Saudi embassy is also revealed to pay close attention to the political and religious beliefs of Saudi university students studying in Australia with reports sent to the Mabahith, the General Investigation Directorate of the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the kingdom's brutal secret police that deals with domestic security and counter-intelligence.
"The directorate is also revealed to make recommendations in relation to Saudi government funding for building mosques and supporting Islamic community activities in Australia.
"The documents show the Sunni kingdom's strong concern about efforts by Shiite Islamic leaders to engage with the Federation of Islamic Councils and the kingdom's funding of visits to Australia by Sunni Islamic clerics to counter Shiite influence.
"WikiLeaks said the reports... 'provide key insights into the kingdom's operations and how it has managed its alliances and consolidated its position as a regional Middle East superpower, including through bribing and co-opting individuals and institutions.'
"The documents reveal extensive Saudi efforts to influence and neutralise critical opinion in foreign media, including widespread use of monetary contributions and subsidies..." (Saudi influence in Australia revealed, Philip Dorling, The Sun-Herald, 21/6/15)
Those extensive efforts to influence and neutralise critical opinion in foreign media must be working here, because Dorling's piece is the only report of these WikiLeak documents, as far as I'm aware, to surface in the Australian msm.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Hypocrites Unmasked
Whatever the recent visit of Australian WikiLeaks Party representatives to Syria achieves, one thing's for sure - it's exposed the following hypocrites:
"As experts described the WikiLeaks Party visit as a 'propaganda coup' for the pariah regime, the Prime Minister labelled the Assad regime 'one of the worst in the world. It's been guilty of serial atrocities against its own people, and it (the WikiLeaks Party visit) was an extraordinary error of judgment,' Mr Abbott told The Australian yesterday." (Abbott blasts WikiLeaks Party, Jared Owen & Mark Coultan, The Australian, 2/1/14)
Every time Abbottoir votes in the UNGA for the pariah regime of Israel, whose serial atrocities against the Palestinian people stretch back to 1948, he furnishes it with a propaganda coup.
"Lowy Institute for International Policy executive director Michael Fullilove... said the mission was at odds with international criticism of the regime." (ibid)
Frank Lowy's support for apartheid Israel is wildly at odds with international criticism of same.
"Greens acting leader Richard Di Natale yesterday broke his party's silence on the topic by backing international sanctions against Syria and describing the delegation as 'naive and misguided'." (ibid)
Is this the same Richard Di Natale who said support for the Boycott, Divestment & SANCTIONS movement by the NSW Greens was a huge mistake? (See my 5/12/13 post Spot the Hypocrite.)
"As experts described the WikiLeaks Party visit as a 'propaganda coup' for the pariah regime, the Prime Minister labelled the Assad regime 'one of the worst in the world. It's been guilty of serial atrocities against its own people, and it (the WikiLeaks Party visit) was an extraordinary error of judgment,' Mr Abbott told The Australian yesterday." (Abbott blasts WikiLeaks Party, Jared Owen & Mark Coultan, The Australian, 2/1/14)
Every time Abbottoir votes in the UNGA for the pariah regime of Israel, whose serial atrocities against the Palestinian people stretch back to 1948, he furnishes it with a propaganda coup.
"Lowy Institute for International Policy executive director Michael Fullilove... said the mission was at odds with international criticism of the regime." (ibid)
Frank Lowy's support for apartheid Israel is wildly at odds with international criticism of same.
"Greens acting leader Richard Di Natale yesterday broke his party's silence on the topic by backing international sanctions against Syria and describing the delegation as 'naive and misguided'." (ibid)
Is this the same Richard Di Natale who said support for the Boycott, Divestment & SANCTIONS movement by the NSW Greens was a huge mistake? (See my 5/12/13 post Spot the Hypocrite.)
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Mossad & Associates 2
Meir Dagan's Lawfare Programme
"The National Security Council (NSC) appears to be the central node in the Israeli Government's attempts to use deniable civil actions against alleged terrorist financing. According to veteran Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman, this strategy was initiated by Meir Dagan when he headed the NSC in the late 1990s, before becoming chief of the Mossad. In a 2007 article, Melman went on to suggest that Israeli intelligence was connected to a lawsuit brought against the Arab Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East. The law firm which brought the Arab Bank case, Mann Mairone, moved into terrorism litigation around 2001, having previously specialised in taxation and commercial law. In the process, it acquired a roster of researchers and advisors drawn largely from Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence.
"WikiLeaks cables show that the Arab Bank was a frequent subject of discussions between Israeli NSC officials and US diplomats during the case. At one such meeting with US Treasury officials in 2005, ILC contacts Udi Levi and Uzi Shaya were prominent in defending the litigation, although vague as to the justification for it:
Levi said the bank had stopped all transactions to the territories after it was sued in US court. He cautioned, however, that the bank is 'playing with evidence, cleaning the records, and deleting accounts' to cover its tracks. Shaya said that the GOI had unspecified proof that the Arab Bank is still dealing with Hizballah in Lebanon.
"Levi went on to suggest further litigation:
Levi called INTERPAL and other European groups that channel funds to Hamas 'a problem we do not know how to solve,' but added that lawsuits similar to the ones filed against the Arab Bank might help. He suggested that another option to restrict funding would be to prevent INTERPAL from clearing dollar donations through New York.
"Interpal, a British charity focused on Palestine, had been a source of friction between the Israeli and British governments for several years. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported in 2004 that Foreign Minister Jack Straw had refused a request from his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom to put an end to Interpal's activities. Significantly, Haaretz noted that even if the Israeli intelligence on Interpal were made public, it would not necessarily meet the threshold for banning a UK charity and that 'it is therefore not at all certain that even if the evidence were to be revealed, it would lead to a curbing of Interpal in Britain.'
"Interpal was also targeted in 2007 by a British think tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, as chronicled in Spinwatch's pamphlet, The Cold War on British Muslims. In their attack, the CSC cited 'allegations made by Israel and the USA,' as well as a 2006 BBC Panorama documentary, which had also relied extensively on evidence provided by current and former Israeli security officials. In 2009, an inquiry by the UK Charity Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to take actions over claims that Interpal beneficiaries were supporting terrorism, because it could not verify 'the provenance or accuracy' of material provided by the Israeli government.
"Udi Levi's comments suggest that such developments are in line with the wider strategy being pursued by the NSC.
Key Questions
"If a firm that has received covert support from the Israeli government is now targeting BDS activists, does this mean that the Israeli government has widened its use of lawfare in a bid to silence its critics? As we have noted, firms like the ILC are prepared to take on the Israeli government over issues like the Bank of China case. Yet that case itself illustrates the extent to which they are nevertheless dependent on a government which is prepared to use and then abandon terror victims for cynical political reasons. The fact that the Israeli Government is prepared to support organisations whose hardline stances are at odds with its own public positions must also create doubts about how sincerely held those positions are. The targeting of the Palestinian Authority in particular, in cases largely dependent on official Israeli sources, is surely inconsistent with any commitment to a genuine peace process."
"The National Security Council (NSC) appears to be the central node in the Israeli Government's attempts to use deniable civil actions against alleged terrorist financing. According to veteran Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman, this strategy was initiated by Meir Dagan when he headed the NSC in the late 1990s, before becoming chief of the Mossad. In a 2007 article, Melman went on to suggest that Israeli intelligence was connected to a lawsuit brought against the Arab Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East. The law firm which brought the Arab Bank case, Mann Mairone, moved into terrorism litigation around 2001, having previously specialised in taxation and commercial law. In the process, it acquired a roster of researchers and advisors drawn largely from Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence.
"WikiLeaks cables show that the Arab Bank was a frequent subject of discussions between Israeli NSC officials and US diplomats during the case. At one such meeting with US Treasury officials in 2005, ILC contacts Udi Levi and Uzi Shaya were prominent in defending the litigation, although vague as to the justification for it:
Levi said the bank had stopped all transactions to the territories after it was sued in US court. He cautioned, however, that the bank is 'playing with evidence, cleaning the records, and deleting accounts' to cover its tracks. Shaya said that the GOI had unspecified proof that the Arab Bank is still dealing with Hizballah in Lebanon.
"Levi went on to suggest further litigation:
Levi called INTERPAL and other European groups that channel funds to Hamas 'a problem we do not know how to solve,' but added that lawsuits similar to the ones filed against the Arab Bank might help. He suggested that another option to restrict funding would be to prevent INTERPAL from clearing dollar donations through New York.
"Interpal, a British charity focused on Palestine, had been a source of friction between the Israeli and British governments for several years. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported in 2004 that Foreign Minister Jack Straw had refused a request from his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom to put an end to Interpal's activities. Significantly, Haaretz noted that even if the Israeli intelligence on Interpal were made public, it would not necessarily meet the threshold for banning a UK charity and that 'it is therefore not at all certain that even if the evidence were to be revealed, it would lead to a curbing of Interpal in Britain.'
"Interpal was also targeted in 2007 by a British think tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, as chronicled in Spinwatch's pamphlet, The Cold War on British Muslims. In their attack, the CSC cited 'allegations made by Israel and the USA,' as well as a 2006 BBC Panorama documentary, which had also relied extensively on evidence provided by current and former Israeli security officials. In 2009, an inquiry by the UK Charity Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to take actions over claims that Interpal beneficiaries were supporting terrorism, because it could not verify 'the provenance or accuracy' of material provided by the Israeli government.
"Udi Levi's comments suggest that such developments are in line with the wider strategy being pursued by the NSC.
Key Questions
"If a firm that has received covert support from the Israeli government is now targeting BDS activists, does this mean that the Israeli government has widened its use of lawfare in a bid to silence its critics? As we have noted, firms like the ILC are prepared to take on the Israeli government over issues like the Bank of China case. Yet that case itself illustrates the extent to which they are nevertheless dependent on a government which is prepared to use and then abandon terror victims for cynical political reasons. The fact that the Israeli Government is prepared to support organisations whose hardline stances are at odds with its own public positions must also create doubts about how sincerely held those positions are. The targeting of the Palestinian Authority in particular, in cases largely dependent on official Israeli sources, is surely inconsistent with any commitment to a genuine peace process."
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Mossad & Associates 1
The following investigation into the Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) by the UK organisation, Spinwatch (spinwatch.org), is a must-read. You may remember Shurat HaDin's characterisation in the Murdoch press here as a 'civil rights' organisation. As Spinwatch's research shows there's a little more to it than that. Given its length, I'm posting it in two parts:
BDS campaigner targeted by law firm with links to Israeli intelligence
by Tom Griffin & David Miller (5/10/13)
"A law firm targeting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement has close links to Israeli intelligence, US government cables leaked by Wikileaks show:
"Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission last month against Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University, over Lynch's support for BDS. The ILC, set up in 2003, claims to be 'a fully independent non-profit organization, unaffiliated with any political party or government body.' However, the organisation's director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, has privately admitted to taking direction from the Israeli Government over which causes to pursue and relying on Israeli intelligence contacts for witnesses and evidence.
"Darshan-Leitner made the comments in 2007 to diplomats from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, who reported the conversation in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks four years later. It states:
Leitner said that in many of her cases she receives evidence from GOI [Government of Israel] officials, and added that in its early years ILC took direction from the GOI on which cases to pursue. 'The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do,' claimed Leitner. Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation. Leitner offered a case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as [an] example of ILC's close cooperation with the GOI. After obtaining a judgement against PIJ for NIS 100 million (USD 25 million), ILC requested a lien for that amount against the Abu Akker Trading Company as a third party defendant. At the time, Abu Akker was one of the largest Palestinian importing companies, and Leitner said the Mossad provided her with the intelligence (similar to information provided to USG officials in a classified briefing) to prove that the company was funneling money to PIJ. According to Leitner, the ILC now decides its cases independently, but continues to receive evidence and witnesses from Israeli intelligence.
"The US cable goes on to comment that:
While the ILC's mission dovetails with GOI objectives of putting financial pressure on Israel's adversaries, the often uncompromising approach of ILC's attorney's seems to overreach official GOI policy goals. ILC's relentless litigation has proven to be an obstacle to the GOI's releasing of all customs revenues previously withheld from the PA [Palestinian Authority].
"ILC has engaged in a wide variety of other actions in the US, Australia, Israel itself and in Egypt as well as targeting Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Palestinian Authority. Amongst its targets have been financial situations including UBS, American Express Bank and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank, President Jimmy Carter, World Vision Australia (a Christian aid agency) and, most notably, the largely successful attempt to stop the second Free Gaza Flotilla. This involved a blizzard of legal threats against insurance companies, port authorities and satellite firms. They were informed they would open themselves to criminal liability for 'aiding and abetting' a 'terrorist' organisation or would become 'legally liable' for any future attacks by Hamas.
The Bank of China Affair
"Further details of the ILC's links with Israeli intelligence have emerged amid fallout from a case brought by the firm against the Bank of China. According to accounts in the Israeli press, officials from the NSC approached Darshan-Leitner, after identifying the bank as a conduit for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Darshan-Leitner found a suitable plaintiff to bring the case in the family of Daniel Wultz, a 16-year-old American citizen killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in 2006. Yediot Ahronot reported: 'In her discussions with the intelligence agents, Darshan-Leitner insisted that she receives massive assistance from the government. She demanded convicting information on the bank's activities, affidavits from authorized people and a commitment to provide for the trial an authorized witness who will say that the Chinese knew about the nature of the accounts and refused to close them. The consent was given - orally. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to the NY Federal Court.'
"This arrangement began to collapse in the face of Chinese Government pressure ahead of a visit to Beijing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. The Wultz family has accused the Israeli Government of sabotaging the case by failing to provide the documents it promised at the outset. The standoff is particularly embarrassing because Daniel Wultz's mother, Sheryl Cantor Wultz, is a cousin of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader in the US Congress.
"Among the key documents at the centre of the case is an affidavit by Uzi Shaya, who may be the same person as 'Uzi Beshaya', the Israeli security official named in the 2007 cable as a contact of both Shurat HaDin and the US Embassy. Another US cable describes Shaya as an officer of Israel's Shin Bet [security] service, working in the Counter Terror Finance Bureau of the Israeli NSC alongside Udi Levi, Darshan-Leitner's other intelligence contact."
To be continued...
BDS campaigner targeted by law firm with links to Israeli intelligence
by Tom Griffin & David Miller (5/10/13)
"A law firm targeting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement has close links to Israeli intelligence, US government cables leaked by Wikileaks show:
"Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission last month against Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University, over Lynch's support for BDS. The ILC, set up in 2003, claims to be 'a fully independent non-profit organization, unaffiliated with any political party or government body.' However, the organisation's director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, has privately admitted to taking direction from the Israeli Government over which causes to pursue and relying on Israeli intelligence contacts for witnesses and evidence.
"Darshan-Leitner made the comments in 2007 to diplomats from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, who reported the conversation in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks four years later. It states:
Leitner said that in many of her cases she receives evidence from GOI [Government of Israel] officials, and added that in its early years ILC took direction from the GOI on which cases to pursue. 'The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do,' claimed Leitner. Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation. Leitner offered a case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as [an] example of ILC's close cooperation with the GOI. After obtaining a judgement against PIJ for NIS 100 million (USD 25 million), ILC requested a lien for that amount against the Abu Akker Trading Company as a third party defendant. At the time, Abu Akker was one of the largest Palestinian importing companies, and Leitner said the Mossad provided her with the intelligence (similar to information provided to USG officials in a classified briefing) to prove that the company was funneling money to PIJ. According to Leitner, the ILC now decides its cases independently, but continues to receive evidence and witnesses from Israeli intelligence.
"The US cable goes on to comment that:
While the ILC's mission dovetails with GOI objectives of putting financial pressure on Israel's adversaries, the often uncompromising approach of ILC's attorney's seems to overreach official GOI policy goals. ILC's relentless litigation has proven to be an obstacle to the GOI's releasing of all customs revenues previously withheld from the PA [Palestinian Authority].
"ILC has engaged in a wide variety of other actions in the US, Australia, Israel itself and in Egypt as well as targeting Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Palestinian Authority. Amongst its targets have been financial situations including UBS, American Express Bank and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank, President Jimmy Carter, World Vision Australia (a Christian aid agency) and, most notably, the largely successful attempt to stop the second Free Gaza Flotilla. This involved a blizzard of legal threats against insurance companies, port authorities and satellite firms. They were informed they would open themselves to criminal liability for 'aiding and abetting' a 'terrorist' organisation or would become 'legally liable' for any future attacks by Hamas.
The Bank of China Affair
"Further details of the ILC's links with Israeli intelligence have emerged amid fallout from a case brought by the firm against the Bank of China. According to accounts in the Israeli press, officials from the NSC approached Darshan-Leitner, after identifying the bank as a conduit for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Darshan-Leitner found a suitable plaintiff to bring the case in the family of Daniel Wultz, a 16-year-old American citizen killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in 2006. Yediot Ahronot reported: 'In her discussions with the intelligence agents, Darshan-Leitner insisted that she receives massive assistance from the government. She demanded convicting information on the bank's activities, affidavits from authorized people and a commitment to provide for the trial an authorized witness who will say that the Chinese knew about the nature of the accounts and refused to close them. The consent was given - orally. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to the NY Federal Court.'
"This arrangement began to collapse in the face of Chinese Government pressure ahead of a visit to Beijing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. The Wultz family has accused the Israeli Government of sabotaging the case by failing to provide the documents it promised at the outset. The standoff is particularly embarrassing because Daniel Wultz's mother, Sheryl Cantor Wultz, is a cousin of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader in the US Congress.
"Among the key documents at the centre of the case is an affidavit by Uzi Shaya, who may be the same person as 'Uzi Beshaya', the Israeli security official named in the 2007 cable as a contact of both Shurat HaDin and the US Embassy. Another US cable describes Shaya as an officer of Israel's Shin Bet [security] service, working in the Counter Terror Finance Bureau of the Israeli NSC alongside Udi Levi, Darshan-Leitner's other intelligence contact."
To be continued...
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Rats in the Ranks
No surprises here:
"Bob Carr may have been Foreign Minister for only 12 months, but he started talking to American diplomats about internal Labor politics nearly 40 years ago. Previously secret US embassy and consulate reports incorporated into a new searchable database unveiled by WikiLeaks on Monday reveal that Senator Carr was a source for US diplomats seeking information on the Whitlam government and the broader Labor movement in the mid-1970s... A former Australian Young Labor president and then education officer with the NSW Labor Council, Senator Carr later 'expressed deep concern to [the US] consul-general over [the] impact of Labor disputes on the prospects of [the] Labor government'. The once confidential cables also suggest US envoys turned to him as a source of background information on Labor figures. For example, Senator Carr explained that a speaker at a pro-Palestinian protest in 1975 - left-wing Labor parliamentarian George Petersen - was 'a NSW equivalent of Victoria's [Bill] Hartley', another prominent Labor Left figure who developed close ties with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.* Senator Carr has long been a strong supporter of Australia's alliance with the US. He was a prominent participant in the Australian American Leadership Dialogue while serving as NSW premier." (Hawke & Carr were US sources on Whitlam turmoil, Philip Dorling, Sydney Morning Herald, 9/4/13)
The late, great George Petersen had Carr figured out decades ago:
"Paul Landa was succeeded as [NSW] Attorney-General by Terry Sheahan. The Cabinet vacancy was filled by Bob Carr, who is an unabashed admirer of United States capitalism, and who became Minister for Environment & Planning. He has been Premier since 1995. Together with the Treasurer, Michael Egan, he represents a total commitment to the ideology of economic rationalism." (George Petersen Remembers: The Contradictions, Problems & Betrayals of Labor in Government in New South Wales, 1998, p 356)
No surprises here either:
"Then ACTU president Bob Hawke was the US embassy's most valued Labor contact, conferring regularly with embassy officers and the consulate in Melbourne... Mr Hawke was especially critical of what he called Mr Whitlam's 'immoral, unethical and ungrateful attitude' towards Israel. He told the US consulate he felt unable to approach the Jewish community for campaign funds because of 'Whitlam's 'unprintable' even-handed 'unprintable' Arab policy'." (ibid)
George Petersen also had Hawke's number, describing him as a "reliable servant of the Australian capitalist class and United States imperialism." (George Petersen Remembers, p 185)
[*This is misleading. Saddam Hussein did not become Secretary of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party until 1979.]
"Bob Carr may have been Foreign Minister for only 12 months, but he started talking to American diplomats about internal Labor politics nearly 40 years ago. Previously secret US embassy and consulate reports incorporated into a new searchable database unveiled by WikiLeaks on Monday reveal that Senator Carr was a source for US diplomats seeking information on the Whitlam government and the broader Labor movement in the mid-1970s... A former Australian Young Labor president and then education officer with the NSW Labor Council, Senator Carr later 'expressed deep concern to [the US] consul-general over [the] impact of Labor disputes on the prospects of [the] Labor government'. The once confidential cables also suggest US envoys turned to him as a source of background information on Labor figures. For example, Senator Carr explained that a speaker at a pro-Palestinian protest in 1975 - left-wing Labor parliamentarian George Petersen - was 'a NSW equivalent of Victoria's [Bill] Hartley', another prominent Labor Left figure who developed close ties with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.* Senator Carr has long been a strong supporter of Australia's alliance with the US. He was a prominent participant in the Australian American Leadership Dialogue while serving as NSW premier." (Hawke & Carr were US sources on Whitlam turmoil, Philip Dorling, Sydney Morning Herald, 9/4/13)
The late, great George Petersen had Carr figured out decades ago:
"Paul Landa was succeeded as [NSW] Attorney-General by Terry Sheahan. The Cabinet vacancy was filled by Bob Carr, who is an unabashed admirer of United States capitalism, and who became Minister for Environment & Planning. He has been Premier since 1995. Together with the Treasurer, Michael Egan, he represents a total commitment to the ideology of economic rationalism." (George Petersen Remembers: The Contradictions, Problems & Betrayals of Labor in Government in New South Wales, 1998, p 356)
No surprises here either:
"Then ACTU president Bob Hawke was the US embassy's most valued Labor contact, conferring regularly with embassy officers and the consulate in Melbourne... Mr Hawke was especially critical of what he called Mr Whitlam's 'immoral, unethical and ungrateful attitude' towards Israel. He told the US consulate he felt unable to approach the Jewish community for campaign funds because of 'Whitlam's 'unprintable' even-handed 'unprintable' Arab policy'." (ibid)
George Petersen also had Hawke's number, describing him as a "reliable servant of the Australian capitalist class and United States imperialism." (George Petersen Remembers, p 185)
[*This is misleading. Saddam Hussein did not become Secretary of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party until 1979.]
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
More to the Fall of Rudd Than Meets Maxine's Eye
With the publication of Maxine McKew's new book, Tales from the Political Trenches, the controversial ousting of Kevin Rudd from the prime ministership in June 2010 is once more in the spotlight. McKew's thesis is that the current PM, Julia Gillard, despite claiming that she was a loyal deputy to Rudd till the very day she asked him for a leadership ballot, was as involved in the plot to oust him as the so-called faceless men (Mark Arbib, Karl Bitar, Bill Shorten, David Feeney, Don Farrell and Paul Howes) who have hitherto received the lion's share of the blame. (See Gillard was a disloyal deputy, says McKew, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 26/10/12).
We are of course familiar with the story that Gillard and the 'faceless' ones were hawking internal Labor research critical of Rudd in the days before the challenge, research which Gillard later claimed she couldn't recall. And we're also familiar with the fact that Gillard's staff had prepared an acceptance speech for her in the event she won the prime ministership two weeks before the coup, a speech Gillard claimed wasn't written at her her direction.
I can't help wondering, however, to what extent (if any) commentators and researchers on the subject of the coup have bothered to consult the relevant WikiLeaks cables emanating from the US embassy in Canberra.
Take WikiLeaks cable 1074 of 6/10/09, for example, the subject heading for which is GILLARD: ON TRACK TO BECOME AUSTRALIA'S NEXT PRIME MINISTER.
Go to paragraph 11 and you'll see this particular sentence:
"Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is 'campaigning for the leadership' and at this point is front-runner to succeed Rudd..."
And then this:
"Several Rudd confidantes have told us that Rudd appreciates Gillard and sees her as a possible PM, but that he wants to avoid anointing her to head off a possible leadership challenge when his poll numbers inevitably sag."
And finally this:
"[A]nother Rudd advisor told us that while the PM respects Gillard, his reluctance to share power will eventually lead to a falling out, while Gillard will not want to acquiesce in creating potential rivals."
As interesting as these are, however, they're still not the most interesting aspect of cable 1074. As I've already noted in other posts on WikiLeaks cables relating to Australia, particularly in numbers 4, 5 and 7 of my WikiLeaks series (just click on the label below), the more interesting aspect of these US embassy cables is the extraordinary prominence they accord to a small country not only many thousands of kilometres distance from these shores but from those of the United States as well.
To return to cable 1074. Consider its format. It has 11 paragraphs, each with its own heading.
Spot, if you will, the odd one out: 1: Summary; 2: The Gang of Four; 3: A Good Listener with an Even Disposition; 4: A Star at Question Time; 5-6: A Left-Winger Now a Pragmatist; 7: Pro-Israel; 8-9: Labor Reform Passes; 10: The Education Revolution; 11: The Front Runner.
That's right, paragraph 7, Pro-Israel. While one can readily understand an interest on the part of those responsible for the cable in whether or not the then rising star of Australian politics, Julia Gillard, was pro- or anti-American, the burning question, surely, is: Why should whether Gillard is pro- or anti-Israel matter any more than whether she's pro- or anti-Bulgaria?
Now consider the contents of paragraph 7:
"Gillard has thrown off the baggage of being from what one analyst called the 'notoriously anti-Israel faction' of the ALP. As acting Prime Minister in late December 2008, Gillard was responsible for negotiating the Government's position on Israel's incursion into Gaza. Left-wing ALP MPs, a group to which Gillard used to belong, wanted her to take a harder line against Israel. Instead, she said Hamas had broken the ceasefire first by attacking Israel - a stance welcomed by Israel's supporters in Australia. MP Michael Danby, one of two Jewish members of Parliament and a strong supporter of Israel, told us that after the Gaza statement he had a new appreciation of Gillard's leadership within the ALP. Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem told us that Gillard has gone out of her way to build a relationship with Israel and that she asked him to arrange an early opportunity to visit. He will accompany Gillard and a delegation of Australian officials (including newly-appointed Minister Mark Arbib and Liberal Party heavyweights former Treasurer Peter Costello and Chris Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) to a meeting of the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum later this month."
It is interesting to speculate what the author(s) of this cable would have written if Gillard had been a) critical of Israel's barbarity in Gaza, (b) had not impressed Michael Danby, and (c) had not thrown herself at the Israeli ambassador. Perhaps Rudd would still be prime minister. Maybe serious analysts of the Rudd prime ministership and the circumstances of its demise should be asking themselves the following questions:
1) To what extent was the issue of uncritical support for Israel a factor in Rudd's fall?
2) Why should this issue have played any role at all in it?
3) Why has the ms media thus far avoided this issue?
And before anyone out there dismisses such questions as fanciful, in addition to the aforementioned WikiLeaks posts, please read my two posts The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy (22/6/10) and Julia Irwin Spills the Beans (11/8/10).
We are of course familiar with the story that Gillard and the 'faceless' ones were hawking internal Labor research critical of Rudd in the days before the challenge, research which Gillard later claimed she couldn't recall. And we're also familiar with the fact that Gillard's staff had prepared an acceptance speech for her in the event she won the prime ministership two weeks before the coup, a speech Gillard claimed wasn't written at her her direction.
I can't help wondering, however, to what extent (if any) commentators and researchers on the subject of the coup have bothered to consult the relevant WikiLeaks cables emanating from the US embassy in Canberra.
Take WikiLeaks cable 1074 of 6/10/09, for example, the subject heading for which is GILLARD: ON TRACK TO BECOME AUSTRALIA'S NEXT PRIME MINISTER.
Go to paragraph 11 and you'll see this particular sentence:
"Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is 'campaigning for the leadership' and at this point is front-runner to succeed Rudd..."
And then this:
"Several Rudd confidantes have told us that Rudd appreciates Gillard and sees her as a possible PM, but that he wants to avoid anointing her to head off a possible leadership challenge when his poll numbers inevitably sag."
And finally this:
"[A]nother Rudd advisor told us that while the PM respects Gillard, his reluctance to share power will eventually lead to a falling out, while Gillard will not want to acquiesce in creating potential rivals."
As interesting as these are, however, they're still not the most interesting aspect of cable 1074. As I've already noted in other posts on WikiLeaks cables relating to Australia, particularly in numbers 4, 5 and 7 of my WikiLeaks series (just click on the label below), the more interesting aspect of these US embassy cables is the extraordinary prominence they accord to a small country not only many thousands of kilometres distance from these shores but from those of the United States as well.
To return to cable 1074. Consider its format. It has 11 paragraphs, each with its own heading.
Spot, if you will, the odd one out: 1: Summary; 2: The Gang of Four; 3: A Good Listener with an Even Disposition; 4: A Star at Question Time; 5-6: A Left-Winger Now a Pragmatist; 7: Pro-Israel; 8-9: Labor Reform Passes; 10: The Education Revolution; 11: The Front Runner.
That's right, paragraph 7, Pro-Israel. While one can readily understand an interest on the part of those responsible for the cable in whether or not the then rising star of Australian politics, Julia Gillard, was pro- or anti-American, the burning question, surely, is: Why should whether Gillard is pro- or anti-Israel matter any more than whether she's pro- or anti-Bulgaria?
Now consider the contents of paragraph 7:
"Gillard has thrown off the baggage of being from what one analyst called the 'notoriously anti-Israel faction' of the ALP. As acting Prime Minister in late December 2008, Gillard was responsible for negotiating the Government's position on Israel's incursion into Gaza. Left-wing ALP MPs, a group to which Gillard used to belong, wanted her to take a harder line against Israel. Instead, she said Hamas had broken the ceasefire first by attacking Israel - a stance welcomed by Israel's supporters in Australia. MP Michael Danby, one of two Jewish members of Parliament and a strong supporter of Israel, told us that after the Gaza statement he had a new appreciation of Gillard's leadership within the ALP. Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem told us that Gillard has gone out of her way to build a relationship with Israel and that she asked him to arrange an early opportunity to visit. He will accompany Gillard and a delegation of Australian officials (including newly-appointed Minister Mark Arbib and Liberal Party heavyweights former Treasurer Peter Costello and Chris Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) to a meeting of the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum later this month."
It is interesting to speculate what the author(s) of this cable would have written if Gillard had been a) critical of Israel's barbarity in Gaza, (b) had not impressed Michael Danby, and (c) had not thrown herself at the Israeli ambassador. Perhaps Rudd would still be prime minister. Maybe serious analysts of the Rudd prime ministership and the circumstances of its demise should be asking themselves the following questions:
1) To what extent was the issue of uncritical support for Israel a factor in Rudd's fall?
2) Why should this issue have played any role at all in it?
3) Why has the ms media thus far avoided this issue?
And before anyone out there dismisses such questions as fanciful, in addition to the aforementioned WikiLeaks posts, please read my two posts The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy (22/6/10) and Julia Irwin Spills the Beans (11/8/10).
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Look Who's Talking!
"The moment [Julian Assange] decided to seek shelter in Ecuador... he betrayed the principles he claimed to represent... Why? Because Ecuador... has become one of the world's leading oppressors of free speech." (Hypocrisy ends hero's freedom to preach, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/8/12)
The moment Peter Hartcher, the SMH's international editor, travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in 2009* and returned, parroting Israeli propaganda tropes about Hamas' rockets and human shields* and arrogantly dismissing discussion of the historical roots of the Palestine problem as "old grudges and illusions on a Marrickville Council scale,"*** he not only violated the Fairfax Code of Conduct ("We will not accept gifts or inducements which could impair our judgment or be perceived to be a conflict of interest, bribe or inappropriate gift."**), but lost whatever credibility he may have had as an independent journalist along with any moral authority he may have had to pontificate about hypocrisy.
Oh, and unlike Assange, Hartcher had the luxury of choice.
[*See my 18/11/09 post No Hidden Agenda; **See my 20/6/11 post Hartcher Brings the House Down; ***See my 15/3/10 post Pawns in a Propaganda Game.]
The moment Peter Hartcher, the SMH's international editor, travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in 2009* and returned, parroting Israeli propaganda tropes about Hamas' rockets and human shields* and arrogantly dismissing discussion of the historical roots of the Palestine problem as "old grudges and illusions on a Marrickville Council scale,"*** he not only violated the Fairfax Code of Conduct ("We will not accept gifts or inducements which could impair our judgment or be perceived to be a conflict of interest, bribe or inappropriate gift."**), but lost whatever credibility he may have had as an independent journalist along with any moral authority he may have had to pontificate about hypocrisy.
Oh, and unlike Assange, Hartcher had the luxury of choice.
[*See my 18/11/09 post No Hidden Agenda; **See my 20/6/11 post Hartcher Brings the House Down; ***See my 15/3/10 post Pawns in a Propaganda Game.]
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Ms Fixit
Thanks to WikiLeaks we now have a first hand account of USrael's bitch down under, sucking up to, and running errands for, her man. (See my 26/2/08 post Israeli Cluster Bombs in Australian Arsenals?) Sick-making:
"Australia secretly worked with the United States to weaken a key international treaty to ban cluster bombs, leaked US diplomatic cables show. Despite taking a high-profile stance against cluster munitions - condemned as the cause of large numbers of civilian casualties - Australia was privately prepared to pull out of international negotiations on a global ban of the weapons if this threatened ties with US forces... Diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Canberra... reveal Kevin Rudd's newly elected government in 2007 immediately told the US it was prepared to withdraw from the negotiations if key 'red line' issues were not addressed - especially the inclusion of a loophole to allow signatories to the convention to co-operate with military forces using cluster bombs...
"The US embassy in Canberra expressed appreciation for Labor's position in February 2008, which was considered critical to efforts to defeat 'hardline' countries and non-government organisations seeking a comprehensive ban. The US diplomatic reports show Australia secretly lobbied Asian countries, including Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, on the issue and Canberra sought advice from Washington on which African countries engaged in military cooperation with the US might be recruited to vote with Australia on key parts of the treaty text... In April 2008, a Foreign Affairs arms control expert... told the US embassy that Australia 'shared US frustration and concern with Germany's obstinacy' on the issue of defence co-operation, and that Australia would make formal representations to Berlin once the US had provided Canberra with 'specific' points to raise." (Canberra lobbied secretly to dilute cluster bomb ban, Philip Dorling, Sydney Morning Herald, 2/5/11)
"Australia secretly worked with the United States to weaken a key international treaty to ban cluster bombs, leaked US diplomatic cables show. Despite taking a high-profile stance against cluster munitions - condemned as the cause of large numbers of civilian casualties - Australia was privately prepared to pull out of international negotiations on a global ban of the weapons if this threatened ties with US forces... Diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Canberra... reveal Kevin Rudd's newly elected government in 2007 immediately told the US it was prepared to withdraw from the negotiations if key 'red line' issues were not addressed - especially the inclusion of a loophole to allow signatories to the convention to co-operate with military forces using cluster bombs...
"The US embassy in Canberra expressed appreciation for Labor's position in February 2008, which was considered critical to efforts to defeat 'hardline' countries and non-government organisations seeking a comprehensive ban. The US diplomatic reports show Australia secretly lobbied Asian countries, including Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, on the issue and Canberra sought advice from Washington on which African countries engaged in military cooperation with the US might be recruited to vote with Australia on key parts of the treaty text... In April 2008, a Foreign Affairs arms control expert... told the US embassy that Australia 'shared US frustration and concern with Germany's obstinacy' on the issue of defence co-operation, and that Australia would make formal representations to Berlin once the US had provided Canberra with 'specific' points to raise." (Canberra lobbied secretly to dilute cluster bomb ban, Philip Dorling, Sydney Morning Herald, 2/5/11)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A Day In the Life of The Herald
February 22, 2011
In one and the same editorial, Democracy genie out of the bottle (22/2/11), the Sydney Morning Herald refers to "Gulf fiefdoms," some of which, like Bahrain, are "home to large numbers of Shiites under Iran's influence," while agreeing with foreign minister Rudd that "blaming protest on external interference is a 'tried but predictable script' in the Middle East."
In fact, as the Herald itself had reported only days earlier: "The US has repeatedly dismissed claims by the Bahraini government that Shiite unrest in the Persian Gulf island state is backed by Iran. Us diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show the accusation made by the government - which is facing street protests demanding political reforms from an opposition inspired by the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings - is not backed by hard evidence." (Cables show no sign of Iranian meddling, 17/2/11)
And how's this for an anodyne description of the entirely dependent (for arms, money and diplomatic backing) relationship between the dominant imperial power and its client collaborator regimes, as James petras calls them: "America has relied on regimes now facing popular uprisings." (Democracy genie)
Was 'propped up' deemed too harsh or is the author just plain clueless?
Then there's stuff and nonsense from Herald pundit Gerard Henderson who complains that "[t]he [global BDS] campaign does not distinguish between Israel's pre- and post-1967 borders..." (Don won't, but Libs can stop left)
For Christ's sake, does Israel? Give us a break!
Still, the cake must surely go to yesterday's Herald for an op-ed by Mirko Bagaric, Not having a whale of a time behind farm fence. Introduced in a footnote as "the author of a coming book Humanising Animals - Civilising People, funded by a grant from Voiceless, the animal protection institute," Bagaric wrote:
"Suffering is suffering. It is always ugly. It is always unwelcome. It always needs to be stopped. There are no exceptions. A person with the capacity but not the inclination to cease suffering is morally incomplete... Mahatma Gandi noted: 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated'. What he did not observe was that there is normally a direct correlation between human prosperity and animal welfare."
Fine words! And who could possibly disagree?
Except that the same Mirko Bagaric, footnoted as "professor of law and head of the Deakin Law School," wrote a piece for The Age back in 2005 called A case for torture. In it he wrote:
"The belief that torture is always wrong is... misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators... Torture is permissable where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person." (17/5/05)
That kind of doo-doo, of course, was what was circulating in the heyday of Dubya's so-called War on Terror, and provided the rationale for what was going on in Mubarak's prisons, to cite but one example. It might've helped if Bagaric had sorted this contradiction out in the first few paragraphs of his piece, but maybe he just assumed readers had forgotten. Not only, therefore, is his credibility in question, but so too is that of the opinion editor for failing to host a more deserving voice.
In one and the same editorial, Democracy genie out of the bottle (22/2/11), the Sydney Morning Herald refers to "Gulf fiefdoms," some of which, like Bahrain, are "home to large numbers of Shiites under Iran's influence," while agreeing with foreign minister Rudd that "blaming protest on external interference is a 'tried but predictable script' in the Middle East."
In fact, as the Herald itself had reported only days earlier: "The US has repeatedly dismissed claims by the Bahraini government that Shiite unrest in the Persian Gulf island state is backed by Iran. Us diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show the accusation made by the government - which is facing street protests demanding political reforms from an opposition inspired by the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings - is not backed by hard evidence." (Cables show no sign of Iranian meddling, 17/2/11)
And how's this for an anodyne description of the entirely dependent (for arms, money and diplomatic backing) relationship between the dominant imperial power and its client collaborator regimes, as James petras calls them: "America has relied on regimes now facing popular uprisings." (Democracy genie)
Was 'propped up' deemed too harsh or is the author just plain clueless?
Then there's stuff and nonsense from Herald pundit Gerard Henderson who complains that "[t]he [global BDS] campaign does not distinguish between Israel's pre- and post-1967 borders..." (Don won't, but Libs can stop left)
For Christ's sake, does Israel? Give us a break!
Still, the cake must surely go to yesterday's Herald for an op-ed by Mirko Bagaric, Not having a whale of a time behind farm fence. Introduced in a footnote as "the author of a coming book Humanising Animals - Civilising People, funded by a grant from Voiceless, the animal protection institute," Bagaric wrote:
"Suffering is suffering. It is always ugly. It is always unwelcome. It always needs to be stopped. There are no exceptions. A person with the capacity but not the inclination to cease suffering is morally incomplete... Mahatma Gandi noted: 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated'. What he did not observe was that there is normally a direct correlation between human prosperity and animal welfare."
Fine words! And who could possibly disagree?
Except that the same Mirko Bagaric, footnoted as "professor of law and head of the Deakin Law School," wrote a piece for The Age back in 2005 called A case for torture. In it he wrote:
"The belief that torture is always wrong is... misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators... Torture is permissable where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person." (17/5/05)
That kind of doo-doo, of course, was what was circulating in the heyday of Dubya's so-called War on Terror, and provided the rationale for what was going on in Mubarak's prisons, to cite but one example. It might've helped if Bagaric had sorted this contradiction out in the first few paragraphs of his piece, but maybe he just assumed readers had forgotten. Not only, therefore, is his credibility in question, but so too is that of the opinion editor for failing to host a more deserving voice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)