"Finally, the UN Report indicted Hamas for its 'extrajudicial executions' of suspected collaborators during Protective Edge. 'The fact that the majority of the victims had been arrested and detained before the conflict,' it observed, 'prompts concerns that they were executed in order to increase pressure on Gaza's population, with a view to preventing others from spying.' Most executions 'occurred a day after three [Hamas] commanders were killed by the IDF.' The Report also noted that because of the 'stigma' attached to collaboration, these executions had 'devastating' effects on family members, who had to cope with 'indelible stains' on their 'reputation and honor.' Inasmuch as the Report expressed sympathy for an alleged Israeli quandary (on releasing information), it might have paused to contemplate Hamas's quandary of resisting a brutal invasion while plagued by internal collaborators directly or indirectly on the payroll of the enemy. The Russian revolutionist Leon Trotsky cogently argued that in the midst of a foreign invasion, the threat of incarceration will not deter potential collaborators, because the very premise of aligning with the enemy is that its victory impends: '[T]hey cannot be terrorized by the threat of imprisonment, as [they do] not believe in its duration. It is just this simple but decisive fact that explains the widespread recourse to shooting.' It is in no way to extenuate Hamas executions to pose the inescapable question, How else was Hamas supposed to deter collaborators? The prohibition on executing collaborators would appear to fall into the same category as the prohibition on indiscriminate weapons: an insoluble dilemma. It might be recalled that a leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising expressed as 'our great guilt' that 'immediately from the first day, we didn't kill' the Jewish collaborators. 'If a few of them had been killed, others would have been afraid to join the police. They should have been hanged on lamp poles, to threaten them... I'm sure that whenever there is internal treason, war must begin by destroying it.' The Report determined that these Hamas executions, not 'may' but unquestionably did 'amount to a war crime,' and it exhorted, 'whoever is responsible for the killings... must be brought to justice.' Nowhere in its indictment of Israel did the Report use such unequivocal and emphatic language. It also called upon Hamas to 'combat the stigma faced by families of alleged collaborators.' Although it acknowledged that Hamas had already undertaken to 'support the families of persons accused of collaboration,' the Report concluded that 'the far-reaching effects of stigma call for a stronger response.' Was Hamas legally required to organize a Collaborator Pride parade? " (Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom, Norman Finkelstein, 2018, pp 322-323)
Finish.
Showing posts with label balance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label balance. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Saturday, June 8, 2019
The Balancing Act 1
The British government has just issued an official report called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Annual Human Rights & Democracy Report, which "provides an assessment of global human rights development in 2018 and reports on the human rights situation in the 30 human rights priority countries." Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Hamas are included in the document. According to the Times of Israel, it:
"[S]aw continued violations by the Israeli government of international human rights and international humanitarian law in the context of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, including an increase in settler violence. While Israel's 'robust democracy' is acknowledged, the report expressed concern over 'pressure' exerted on members of civil society who criticize Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. The document also expressed worries that last year's Jewish nation-state law could 'undermine' the rights of non-Jewish minorities. At the same time, the report accused both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas of 'continued human rights abuses'." (New UK human rights report accuses Israel of 'continued violations', Raphael Ahren, 7/6/19)
Note the document's spurious balancing act as reflected in the above news report. These days, sadly, whether such a report on Israeli massacres of Palestinians emanates from the United Nations itself, or from such human rights NGOs as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, it will invariably, and more to the point, criminally, be contaminated by the said spurious balancing act, and hence act as a cover for Israel's serial crimes against the Palestinians.*
It is only the meticulous scholarship of Norman Finkelstein, in his 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, with its laser-like analysis of reports by Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council in particular - listed on the book's contents pages as Betrayal 1 and Betrayal 2 - which alerts us to the depth of this pernicious practice.
To show you what I mean, I intend, in my next two posts, to quote substantially from Betrayal 2, specifically under the (as will be seen ironic) heading, "Hamas War Crimes" (pp 315-324). I hope, in light of this new British government report, you'll bear with me and stay along for the ride. I can assure you that if you have any regard for the facts of the matter, it'll be well worth it.
Finally, do not hesitate to buy, order or steal a copy of Finkelstein's book!
[*As Finkelstein warns us on p 310 of his book: "In general, balance is an admirable quality: it connotes nonpartisanship and objectivity. But balancing out a wildly imbalanced balance sheet amounts to a partisan act of misrepresentation. The findings of UN-appointed commissions in other situations do take note of grossly lopsided balance sheets."]
"[S]aw continued violations by the Israeli government of international human rights and international humanitarian law in the context of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, including an increase in settler violence. While Israel's 'robust democracy' is acknowledged, the report expressed concern over 'pressure' exerted on members of civil society who criticize Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. The document also expressed worries that last year's Jewish nation-state law could 'undermine' the rights of non-Jewish minorities. At the same time, the report accused both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas of 'continued human rights abuses'." (New UK human rights report accuses Israel of 'continued violations', Raphael Ahren, 7/6/19)
Note the document's spurious balancing act as reflected in the above news report. These days, sadly, whether such a report on Israeli massacres of Palestinians emanates from the United Nations itself, or from such human rights NGOs as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, it will invariably, and more to the point, criminally, be contaminated by the said spurious balancing act, and hence act as a cover for Israel's serial crimes against the Palestinians.*
It is only the meticulous scholarship of Norman Finkelstein, in his 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, with its laser-like analysis of reports by Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council in particular - listed on the book's contents pages as Betrayal 1 and Betrayal 2 - which alerts us to the depth of this pernicious practice.
To show you what I mean, I intend, in my next two posts, to quote substantially from Betrayal 2, specifically under the (as will be seen ironic) heading, "Hamas War Crimes" (pp 315-324). I hope, in light of this new British government report, you'll bear with me and stay along for the ride. I can assure you that if you have any regard for the facts of the matter, it'll be well worth it.
Finally, do not hesitate to buy, order or steal a copy of Finkelstein's book!
[*As Finkelstein warns us on p 310 of his book: "In general, balance is an admirable quality: it connotes nonpartisanship and objectivity. But balancing out a wildly imbalanced balance sheet amounts to a partisan act of misrepresentation. The findings of UN-appointed commissions in other situations do take note of grossly lopsided balance sheets."]
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Lest You Forget...
As Fairfax Media is on the cusp of being swallowed up by Nine Entertainment Co.* and so turning into a shadow of its former self, we should not forget that its former self was hardly a paragon of fearless journalism on the subject of Palestine/Israel.
One of its myriad ways of misrepresenting the issue and misleading readers was by resorting to that form of self-censorship known as the doctrine of 'balance' - that is, falsely representing the struggle between colonised Palestinian Arabs and their settler-colonial Israeli Jewish masters as one between equals. Here, for example, in the dying days of the Fairfax press as we know it, is one of the most egregious examples I've ever come across of the application of this pernicious practice:
"The declarations [on the Register of Members' Interests by Australian politicians] also show Israeli and Palestinian groups regularly pay for politicians to visit but not all MPs declared this hospitality.
"In April 2017 Greens senator Janet Rice was hosted by the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network [APAN] but this was not noted on her register. The senator said she paid all expenses associated with the trip personally and had donated to APAN in the past, which is noted on the register.
"The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council sponsored Labor MPs with $10,000 each in 2017 for study tours and many Liberal MPs have also taken up offers to tour Israel." (190 bottles of wine, 21 cases of beer & a pineapple: gifts for MPs interests, Nigel Gladstone, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/11/18)
Seriously, where's the equivalence here between APAN and AIJAC? There is none! (See my 30/3/09 post I've been to Israel too on the subject of Zionist propaganda tours over the decades.)
(Needless to say, not one of the 87 'readers' who commented on the thread following Gladstone's article referred to the above section of his report, yet another another example of 'readers' frittering away their time venting their cynicism and airing their cliches while overlooking entirely the vast difference between bottles of wine and $10,000 propaganda tours which distort our foreign policy so grievously.)
[*See my 10/7/18 post Meet the Chairman of Nine Entertainment Co.]
One of its myriad ways of misrepresenting the issue and misleading readers was by resorting to that form of self-censorship known as the doctrine of 'balance' - that is, falsely representing the struggle between colonised Palestinian Arabs and their settler-colonial Israeli Jewish masters as one between equals. Here, for example, in the dying days of the Fairfax press as we know it, is one of the most egregious examples I've ever come across of the application of this pernicious practice:
"The declarations [on the Register of Members' Interests by Australian politicians] also show Israeli and Palestinian groups regularly pay for politicians to visit but not all MPs declared this hospitality.
"In April 2017 Greens senator Janet Rice was hosted by the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network [APAN] but this was not noted on her register. The senator said she paid all expenses associated with the trip personally and had donated to APAN in the past, which is noted on the register.
"The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council sponsored Labor MPs with $10,000 each in 2017 for study tours and many Liberal MPs have also taken up offers to tour Israel." (190 bottles of wine, 21 cases of beer & a pineapple: gifts for MPs interests, Nigel Gladstone, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/11/18)
Seriously, where's the equivalence here between APAN and AIJAC? There is none! (See my 30/3/09 post I've been to Israel too on the subject of Zionist propaganda tours over the decades.)
(Needless to say, not one of the 87 'readers' who commented on the thread following Gladstone's article referred to the above section of his report, yet another another example of 'readers' frittering away their time venting their cynicism and airing their cliches while overlooking entirely the vast difference between bottles of wine and $10,000 propaganda tours which distort our foreign policy so grievously.)
[*See my 10/7/18 post Meet the Chairman of Nine Entertainment Co.]
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Palestinians are Suffering, But...
I've seen examples of clueless mainstream journalists taking evasive action when writing about the BRUTAL, OCCUPYING (50 years), APARTHEID (50 years) state of Israel, but what follows is not so much evasive action as BENDING OVER BACKWARDS AND THEN SOME:
"Israel has faced rockets and three wars with the Islamist movement Hamas in Gaza, whose members deny Israel's right to exist. Israelis endured two Palestinian uprisings, the second marked by suicide-bomb attacks against civilians. More recently there was a wave of knife and vehicular assaults. Thousands of Israelis have died in Palestinian attacks. That is why Israelis say they need walls and permits." (Mid East ironies, William Booth/ Sufian Taha, Washington Post/ Australian Financial Review, 2/6/17)
Mr Booth, if some THUG with a GOD COMPLEX had been standing on YOUR NECK, and worse, for the past 50 years, how would YOU have reacted?
"Israel has faced rockets and three wars with the Islamist movement Hamas in Gaza, whose members deny Israel's right to exist. Israelis endured two Palestinian uprisings, the second marked by suicide-bomb attacks against civilians. More recently there was a wave of knife and vehicular assaults. Thousands of Israelis have died in Palestinian attacks. That is why Israelis say they need walls and permits." (Mid East ironies, William Booth/ Sufian Taha, Washington Post/ Australian Financial Review, 2/6/17)
Mr Booth, if some THUG with a GOD COMPLEX had been standing on YOUR NECK, and worse, for the past 50 years, how would YOU have reacted?
Monday, July 25, 2016
Gutless Journalism at the SMH
Sydney Morning Herald journalist, Nick Miller, wrote the following, clearly under duress:
"He was in Gaza for a year, and for 11 months it was 'fairly routine', but the final month was Operation Cast Lead, a three-week conflict between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel, which the Palestinians called a massacre. The opening assault was followed by a ground invasion. it ended with more than 1000 Palestinian deaths and a subsequent United Nations mission accused both sides of war crimes." (Buried under the rubble, Nick Miller, 23/7/16)
Fear of the Israel lobby is palpable in every word.
Just to correct the record:
An even stevens conflict?
Really? Why then did the UN's Goldstone Report describe it as "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population..."? (1893)
Only the Palestinians call it a massacre?
Bullshit, only the brass-necked Israelis would call it anything other than a massacre.
More than 1000 Palestinian deaths?
Too bloody right! Add another 400 to that.
UN accused both sides of war crimes?
And also said that it did not "equate the position of Israel as the occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it." (Goldstone Report, 1876)
In the same issue, the Herald's rambammed political editor Peter Hartcher outs himself as a PEP (Progressive Except Palestine).
While he's quite capable of getting Australia right - "British Australia was built on the ruins of Aboriginal Australia, and the modern nation federated on a consensus of racial exclusion." (She's no threat - there's an opportunity, 23/7/16) - don't in a million expect him to write anything like this:
'Israel was built on the ruins of Arab Palestine, and constituted as an exclusively Jewish state.'
"He was in Gaza for a year, and for 11 months it was 'fairly routine', but the final month was Operation Cast Lead, a three-week conflict between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel, which the Palestinians called a massacre. The opening assault was followed by a ground invasion. it ended with more than 1000 Palestinian deaths and a subsequent United Nations mission accused both sides of war crimes." (Buried under the rubble, Nick Miller, 23/7/16)
Fear of the Israel lobby is palpable in every word.
Just to correct the record:
An even stevens conflict?
Really? Why then did the UN's Goldstone Report describe it as "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population..."? (1893)
Only the Palestinians call it a massacre?
Bullshit, only the brass-necked Israelis would call it anything other than a massacre.
More than 1000 Palestinian deaths?
Too bloody right! Add another 400 to that.
UN accused both sides of war crimes?
And also said that it did not "equate the position of Israel as the occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it." (Goldstone Report, 1876)
In the same issue, the Herald's rambammed political editor Peter Hartcher outs himself as a PEP (Progressive Except Palestine).
While he's quite capable of getting Australia right - "British Australia was built on the ruins of Aboriginal Australia, and the modern nation federated on a consensus of racial exclusion." (She's no threat - there's an opportunity, 23/7/16) - don't in a million expect him to write anything like this:
'Israel was built on the ruins of Arab Palestine, and constituted as an exclusively Jewish state.'
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The 'Scuffle' 2
Remember Lincoln's adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time"?
Apparently, the msm think you can.
The other day it was the Sydney Morning Herald and Associated Press doing the fooling when they described an armed Israeli thug torturing a Palestinian kid as a "scuffle." (See my 31/8/15 post The 'Scuffle' 1.)
Well, today, in Peter Beaumont's 'analysis' of the incident in the Guardian (Nabi Saleh images illustrate changing asymmetry of Israeli-Palestinian conflict), it's still a bloody "scuffle" !!!
Then there's this:
"Seen in different ways by different commentators with different agendas..."
FFS, this is not a matter of 100 flowers blooming.
There are only two agendas here: that of the victim, and that of the perpetrator.
And only two possible commentaries: that of those who understand that if your child is being mugged, you go to his aid. No ifs or buts. You just fucking do it!
And that of those who heart the INVASION, OCCUPATION and COLONIZATION of someone else's land, particularly if it's Israel that's doing the INVADING, OCCUPYING and COLONIZING.
Which side is Peter Beaumont on here?
"... the only thing they could agree on was that the images represented a vivid summation of some idea: of the brutality of occupation; of the weakness of the soldier involved..."
The weakness of the soldier involved? So the marauding, military thug is on the same level as his victim? The deluded and aggressive spawn of an INVADING, OCCUPYING, COLONIZING power is on the same level as his INVADED, OCCUPIED, COLONIZED and clearly terrified victim?
Frankly, the only weakness here is the collusive, faux balancing act of Peter Beaumont.
"... of the need to use more or less violence on demonstrators..."
What about the need to END the OCCUPATION by sanctioning the bejesus out of the OCCUPYING power until it gets the fuck out of the OCCUPIED territory, lock, stock and settler barrel?
"... of the use by Palestinians of children as a propaganda tool."
So Palestinians children, described by Israel's 'justice' minister as "little snakes," are realistically supposed to sit on their hands at home while their parents go out to protest the seizure of their land? Should their parents tie them up or shackle them perhaps?
Too bad then if some Israeli settler terrorists come along and firebomb their homes, I guess. What will Peter Beaumont say then, I wonder?
"Amid the disagreements, a pressing question has emerged: what did the images show? The reality is as complex as it is unsettling and contradictory."
Oh yes, what did those images show? Now that's a hard one.
Way too hard, it seems, for Peter Beaumont and the Guardian.
Apparently, the msm think you can.
The other day it was the Sydney Morning Herald and Associated Press doing the fooling when they described an armed Israeli thug torturing a Palestinian kid as a "scuffle." (See my 31/8/15 post The 'Scuffle' 1.)
Well, today, in Peter Beaumont's 'analysis' of the incident in the Guardian (Nabi Saleh images illustrate changing asymmetry of Israeli-Palestinian conflict), it's still a bloody "scuffle" !!!
Then there's this:
"Seen in different ways by different commentators with different agendas..."
FFS, this is not a matter of 100 flowers blooming.
There are only two agendas here: that of the victim, and that of the perpetrator.
And only two possible commentaries: that of those who understand that if your child is being mugged, you go to his aid. No ifs or buts. You just fucking do it!
And that of those who heart the INVASION, OCCUPATION and COLONIZATION of someone else's land, particularly if it's Israel that's doing the INVADING, OCCUPYING and COLONIZING.
Which side is Peter Beaumont on here?
"... the only thing they could agree on was that the images represented a vivid summation of some idea: of the brutality of occupation; of the weakness of the soldier involved..."
The weakness of the soldier involved? So the marauding, military thug is on the same level as his victim? The deluded and aggressive spawn of an INVADING, OCCUPYING, COLONIZING power is on the same level as his INVADED, OCCUPIED, COLONIZED and clearly terrified victim?
Frankly, the only weakness here is the collusive, faux balancing act of Peter Beaumont.
"... of the need to use more or less violence on demonstrators..."
What about the need to END the OCCUPATION by sanctioning the bejesus out of the OCCUPYING power until it gets the fuck out of the OCCUPIED territory, lock, stock and settler barrel?
"... of the use by Palestinians of children as a propaganda tool."
So Palestinians children, described by Israel's 'justice' minister as "little snakes," are realistically supposed to sit on their hands at home while their parents go out to protest the seizure of their land? Should their parents tie them up or shackle them perhaps?
Too bad then if some Israeli settler terrorists come along and firebomb their homes, I guess. What will Peter Beaumont say then, I wonder?
"Amid the disagreements, a pressing question has emerged: what did the images show? The reality is as complex as it is unsettling and contradictory."
Oh yes, what did those images show? Now that's a hard one.
Way too hard, it seems, for Peter Beaumont and the Guardian.
Friday, August 7, 2015
Another Standout Australian Performance at the UN
"Australia was one of only 2 countries out of 54 nations to vote against a motion singling out Israel at the UN Economic and Social council (ECOSOC) late last month. The text of the motion accused Israel of, among other things, 'destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural lands and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as well as in the occupied Syrian Golan', the 'exploitation of natural resources' and of 'the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian territory... and in the occupied Syrian Golan'." (Australia stands up for Israel at the UN, The Australian Jewish News, 7/8/15)
The only other country to vote against the motion was the United States.
"Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop told The AJN Australia voted against the resolution 'because it was unbalanced. It unfairly singled out Israel for criticism and made no mention of Hamas' role in perpetuating the conflict which has done so much to impoverish the Palestinian people', she said."
Yes, Jools, there must be balance!
Hamas simply cannot be allowed to get away with the pretence that it isn't equally involved in the destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural lands and orchards in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Not to mention the dumping of waste materials in the West Bank and the Golan Heights... And in blockading and starving the Gaza Strip... And in shelling and bombing the bejesus out of it every year or so... And in...
The only other country to vote against the motion was the United States.
"Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop told The AJN Australia voted against the resolution 'because it was unbalanced. It unfairly singled out Israel for criticism and made no mention of Hamas' role in perpetuating the conflict which has done so much to impoverish the Palestinian people', she said."
Yes, Jools, there must be balance!
Hamas simply cannot be allowed to get away with the pretence that it isn't equally involved in the destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural lands and orchards in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Not to mention the dumping of waste materials in the West Bank and the Golan Heights... And in blockading and starving the Gaza Strip... And in shelling and bombing the bejesus out of it every year or so... And in...
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Moir: The Herald's Gift to Israel
Moir's cartoon in today's Sydney Morning Herald is an utter disgrace.
It incorporates the standard Zionist propaganda line about Palestinian 'militants' using civilians as human shields, with a Hamas fighter aiming an RPG from behind a baby carriage at an incoming missile fired from an Israeli helicopter. Both the Hamas fighter and the helicopter are screaming 'COWARD!' at each other. The piece is irrelevantly titled 'WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS'.
Moir's cartoon of July 16, where he had Israeli shells and Palestinian rockets criss-crossing the sky with each saying 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE', was almost as bad, misrepresenting Israel's latest genocidal rampage as some kind of biblical feud between equals.
Moir's faux balancing act betrays him for what he really is: just another ignorant, both-as-bad-as-each-other, hack at best, a clueless cog in Israel's propaganda mill at worst.
In case you think I'm being too harsh here, merely contemplate the bloody murder so graphically depicted in the half-page photograph of the Gaza holocaust on the front cover of today's Herald, and tell me if you see any balance there.
Those interested might like to read about Moir's pathetic grovel to the Israel lobby, which followed a comparison he drew back in 2003 between the Warsaw Ghetto and Israel's West Bank wall, cited in my 24/1/08 post We Remember Warsaw. It's been all down hill since then.
Thank God for Fairfax cartoonists Glen LeLievre and Michael Leunig.
It incorporates the standard Zionist propaganda line about Palestinian 'militants' using civilians as human shields, with a Hamas fighter aiming an RPG from behind a baby carriage at an incoming missile fired from an Israeli helicopter. Both the Hamas fighter and the helicopter are screaming 'COWARD!' at each other. The piece is irrelevantly titled 'WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS'.
Moir's cartoon of July 16, where he had Israeli shells and Palestinian rockets criss-crossing the sky with each saying 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE', was almost as bad, misrepresenting Israel's latest genocidal rampage as some kind of biblical feud between equals.
Moir's faux balancing act betrays him for what he really is: just another ignorant, both-as-bad-as-each-other, hack at best, a clueless cog in Israel's propaganda mill at worst.
In case you think I'm being too harsh here, merely contemplate the bloody murder so graphically depicted in the half-page photograph of the Gaza holocaust on the front cover of today's Herald, and tell me if you see any balance there.
Those interested might like to read about Moir's pathetic grovel to the Israel lobby, which followed a comparison he drew back in 2003 between the Warsaw Ghetto and Israel's West Bank wall, cited in my 24/1/08 post We Remember Warsaw. It's been all down hill since then.
Thank God for Fairfax cartoonists Glen LeLievre and Michael Leunig.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
No Difference Between Blood & Blood?
"Violent clashes rocked Jerusalem yesterday following the discovery in a forest of the charred body of a 16-year-old Arab boy..." (Arab boy's murder unleashes fury, John Lyons, The Australian, 4/7/14)
His name: Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
"Naftali Fraenkel and Gilad Sha'er, both 16, and Eyal Yifrah, 19, were found on Monday dumped in a pit near Hebron in the West Bank after being kidnapped on June 12... The family of Naftali Fraenkel condemned Muhammed's murder. 'There is no difference between blood and blood,' Naftali's uncle, Yishai Fraenkel said." (ibid)
So there's no difference between Naftali's and Mohammed's blood? Really? Who is Yishai Fraenkel trying to fool?
The very reason - in fact, the only reason - the Fraenkels were able to move from Brooklyn to Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine so seamlessly is because Israel's blatantly apartheid Law of Return privileges their 'Jewish' blood over that of the non-Jewish Abu Khdeirs.
The fact that Mohammed was actually born in Palestine (as were his parents, and his grandparents, and his...) advantages him (and them) not a whit. Indeed, the Israeli government would have them all over the border in Jordan in an instant if it thought it could get away with it.
And it's all down, literally, to an accident of birth: none of them, you see, have Jewish mothers! So, no Jewish mothers... no 'Jewish' blood.
That precious commodity allows American Jews like the Fraenkels to move to, and settle just about anywhere in, Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine - as though it actually belonged to them!
Palestinian Arab blood, on the other hand, condemns folk like the Abu Khdeirs to all that living under the Israeli jackboot has to offer: humiliation, confinement, caging, detention, imprisonment, torture, dispossession, expulsion and... death.
'Jewish' blood means the Fraenkels have two homes, Occupied Palestine and the United States.
Arab blood means that the Abu Khdeirs can't even feel secure in their one, Palestinian home.
No, sorry, thanks to Zionist apartheid, there's a world of difference between blood and blood in Occupied (River-to Sea) Palestine.
(I am assuming, of course, that Yishai Fraenkel's statement is genuine. In a land where carefully crafted and targeted government PR, fed to a lazy, ignorant, and often partisan international media, tends to drown out the baying of settler mobs for Arab blood, one can never be certain.)
"Mohammed's cousin, Majdi Abu Khdeir, said the kidnappers should suffer the same fate as the kidnappers of the three Jewish teenagers, whose houses in Hebron have been destroyed with explosives." (ibid)
The same fate, Majdi? Fat chance! As you know, equality's most emphatically not what Occupation and apartheid are all about.
Under Israeli apartheid, there's one law for you and yours - that of the jungle - and another for them and theirs.
Their murderers will, of course, never be found.
Incredibly, yours are 'known' and routinely dispatched, as often as not even before they strike.
But then, you'd know all about that.
His name: Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
"Naftali Fraenkel and Gilad Sha'er, both 16, and Eyal Yifrah, 19, were found on Monday dumped in a pit near Hebron in the West Bank after being kidnapped on June 12... The family of Naftali Fraenkel condemned Muhammed's murder. 'There is no difference between blood and blood,' Naftali's uncle, Yishai Fraenkel said." (ibid)
So there's no difference between Naftali's and Mohammed's blood? Really? Who is Yishai Fraenkel trying to fool?
The very reason - in fact, the only reason - the Fraenkels were able to move from Brooklyn to Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine so seamlessly is because Israel's blatantly apartheid Law of Return privileges their 'Jewish' blood over that of the non-Jewish Abu Khdeirs.
The fact that Mohammed was actually born in Palestine (as were his parents, and his grandparents, and his...) advantages him (and them) not a whit. Indeed, the Israeli government would have them all over the border in Jordan in an instant if it thought it could get away with it.
And it's all down, literally, to an accident of birth: none of them, you see, have Jewish mothers! So, no Jewish mothers... no 'Jewish' blood.
That precious commodity allows American Jews like the Fraenkels to move to, and settle just about anywhere in, Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine - as though it actually belonged to them!
Palestinian Arab blood, on the other hand, condemns folk like the Abu Khdeirs to all that living under the Israeli jackboot has to offer: humiliation, confinement, caging, detention, imprisonment, torture, dispossession, expulsion and... death.
'Jewish' blood means the Fraenkels have two homes, Occupied Palestine and the United States.
Arab blood means that the Abu Khdeirs can't even feel secure in their one, Palestinian home.
No, sorry, thanks to Zionist apartheid, there's a world of difference between blood and blood in Occupied (River-to Sea) Palestine.
(I am assuming, of course, that Yishai Fraenkel's statement is genuine. In a land where carefully crafted and targeted government PR, fed to a lazy, ignorant, and often partisan international media, tends to drown out the baying of settler mobs for Arab blood, one can never be certain.)
"Mohammed's cousin, Majdi Abu Khdeir, said the kidnappers should suffer the same fate as the kidnappers of the three Jewish teenagers, whose houses in Hebron have been destroyed with explosives." (ibid)
The same fate, Majdi? Fat chance! As you know, equality's most emphatically not what Occupation and apartheid are all about.
Under Israeli apartheid, there's one law for you and yours - that of the jungle - and another for them and theirs.
Their murderers will, of course, never be found.
Incredibly, yours are 'known' and routinely dispatched, as often as not even before they strike.
But then, you'd know all about that.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Those Reservations Aside...
Would anyone writing today (or yesterday for that matter) on Germany's occupation of Europe in WW2 bother telling us that said occupation was 'illegal'?
Of course not. Hello? Occupation? we'd scoff.
What if they told us that it was 'considered illegal under international law'?
We'd probably respond here with sarcasm: Oh really, we had no idea. Who would have thought?
What then if they'd bothered to add the qualification 'a point that was disputed by Germany,' as in 'Germany's occupation was considered illegal under international law - a point Germany disputed'?
We'd probably write the author of the piece off as a Nazi sympathiser or apologist.
And yet, Ruth Pollard, Fairfax's Middle East correspondent appears to have no problem writing as follows: "All of [the Israeli-occupied West Bank] is considered illegal under international law - a point Israel has disputed for decades." (Israel fights back against boycott, 8/2/14)
Again, can you imagine anyone writing of the German occupation of France as follows: 'The French resistance movement has taken up arms to drive the Germans out of occupied France. Its detractors label the movement as anti-German.'
Here we'd start by scratching our heads: Who are these mysterious 'detractors' we'd be wondering. Then the penny would drop. Oh, he means the Germans! So why the f**k doesn't he say so?
And yet Pollard can write, seemingly without pause: "Formed in 2005 by 170 Palestinian individuals and civil society groups, [the BDS movement] calls for the boycott of Israeli companies and products that profit from Israel's occupation... Its detractors label the movement anti-Semitic..."
Can you also imagine an article on the subject of the Nazi occupation giving the same weight to Germans (whether officials complaining about 'Germany-bashing' or heads of German universities telling us what champions of 'free speech, academic freedom and human rights' they are) as French resistance fighters?
And what would you think of its author if he gave them space to whine that 'the resistance movement was undermining all this and damaging efforts of collaboration'?
Well, Fairfax's cowardly adherence to the insidious dogma of 'balance' ensures that this is effectively what we get in Pollard's piece on the BDS movement.
And while I'm bitching, here are my quibbles about Pollard's report:
a) "Dan Avnon has spent most of his career promoting co-existence between Jewish and Arab Israelis." Name one instance of Avnon having called for or worked for equal rights for 'Arab Israelis,' or else insert the adverb 'allegedly';
b) "The BDS movement has powerful backers" ???!!! Name them!;
c) "While the BDS movement may have appeared... extreme when it began eight years ago." Extreme?! What, after 57 years of Palestinian exile and 38 years of occupation? Give me a break!
Those reservations aside, at least Pollard has raised the issue of BDS (and, in particular, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin's unprecedented hauling of Sydney University academic Jake Lynch before the courts this month), only the second Fairfax employee after Richard Ackland* to touch on this most appalling challenge to free speech and academic freedom.
[*See my 18/1/14 post With My Own Eyes.]
Of course not. Hello? Occupation? we'd scoff.
What if they told us that it was 'considered illegal under international law'?
We'd probably respond here with sarcasm: Oh really, we had no idea. Who would have thought?
What then if they'd bothered to add the qualification 'a point that was disputed by Germany,' as in 'Germany's occupation was considered illegal under international law - a point Germany disputed'?
We'd probably write the author of the piece off as a Nazi sympathiser or apologist.
And yet, Ruth Pollard, Fairfax's Middle East correspondent appears to have no problem writing as follows: "All of [the Israeli-occupied West Bank] is considered illegal under international law - a point Israel has disputed for decades." (Israel fights back against boycott, 8/2/14)
Again, can you imagine anyone writing of the German occupation of France as follows: 'The French resistance movement has taken up arms to drive the Germans out of occupied France. Its detractors label the movement as anti-German.'
Here we'd start by scratching our heads: Who are these mysterious 'detractors' we'd be wondering. Then the penny would drop. Oh, he means the Germans! So why the f**k doesn't he say so?
And yet Pollard can write, seemingly without pause: "Formed in 2005 by 170 Palestinian individuals and civil society groups, [the BDS movement] calls for the boycott of Israeli companies and products that profit from Israel's occupation... Its detractors label the movement anti-Semitic..."
Can you also imagine an article on the subject of the Nazi occupation giving the same weight to Germans (whether officials complaining about 'Germany-bashing' or heads of German universities telling us what champions of 'free speech, academic freedom and human rights' they are) as French resistance fighters?
And what would you think of its author if he gave them space to whine that 'the resistance movement was undermining all this and damaging efforts of collaboration'?
Well, Fairfax's cowardly adherence to the insidious dogma of 'balance' ensures that this is effectively what we get in Pollard's piece on the BDS movement.
And while I'm bitching, here are my quibbles about Pollard's report:
a) "Dan Avnon has spent most of his career promoting co-existence between Jewish and Arab Israelis." Name one instance of Avnon having called for or worked for equal rights for 'Arab Israelis,' or else insert the adverb 'allegedly';
b) "The BDS movement has powerful backers" ???!!! Name them!;
c) "While the BDS movement may have appeared... extreme when it began eight years ago." Extreme?! What, after 57 years of Palestinian exile and 38 years of occupation? Give me a break!
Those reservations aside, at least Pollard has raised the issue of BDS (and, in particular, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin's unprecedented hauling of Sydney University academic Jake Lynch before the courts this month), only the second Fairfax employee after Richard Ackland* to touch on this most appalling challenge to free speech and academic freedom.
[*See my 18/1/14 post With My Own Eyes.]
Friday, April 19, 2013
A Conga Line of BDS Bashers
Whenever Murdoch's Australian takes its hatchet to one or other manifestation of Australia's pro-Palestinian BDS campaign, a virtual conga line of Israel lobbyists and Zionist dupes is invariably trotted out to condemn it.
Christian Kerr's BDS targets uni over campus shop in yesterday's paper is a case in point.
But first the scene-setting:
"The University of NSW has been targeted by the anti-Israeli BDS movement over plans to open a Max Brenner chocolate shop on its main Sydney campus. Students for Justice in Palestine has launched a campaign against the campus outlet, expected to open in June, calling on the university to cancel the contract. Spokesman Damian Ridgewell warned of protests. 'There will be an active campaign on campus to encourage students and staff to boycott the shop', he told The Australian. BDS activists claim the Max Brenner chain is owned by the Strauss Group of food and confectionary manufacturers, which produces some rations for the Israeli Defence Forces, and accuses it of complicity in 'war crimes'. The company insists that it is wholly Australian owned and operated."
Then, one by one, the BDS bashers take the floor. There's the clueless spokesperson from admin:
"A UNSW spokeswoman said the university 'deplores any form of racism and discrimination' but added: 'Free expression of views and open debate are central to the life of a university'. The spokeswoman said staff and students had been surveyed over new stores on campus. 'Max Brenner was the equal second most popular choice'."
Oh, so that's an informed endorsement, is it? According to a 2012 Lowy Institute poll, only 39% of the 18 to 29 year olds surveyed expressed support for Australian democracy, while 23% didn't really care what kind of political system we had. All I can say is thank God we've got groups like Students for Justice in Palestine to promote a concern for the content of the student mind, as opposed to what goes into the student belly and the corporate coffers.
There's the rambammed politician 1:
"Tertiary Education Minister Craig Emerson slammed the boycott. 'The Australian government has always been firm and clear in its opposition to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign', he said. 'Such boycotts against Israel in addition to harming Palestinian people economically, are unhelpful to the Middle East peace process'."
But seriously, what else is he going to say? After all:
"Emerson is an alumni of AIJAC's Rambam program, which sends politicians to Israel to learn the facts on the ground. As acting foreign minister he has condemned terrorist activities against Israel, and as trade minister condemned the NSW Greens' BDS policy, labeling it 'reprehensible'. 'Craig Emerson is somebody we've got to know well', [AIJAC director Colin] Rubenstein said. 'He's also a very quick learner and I think very positive and quite knowledgeable about the world and certainly about the Middle East'." (Australia-Israel relations after the fall of Rudd, The Australian Jewish News, 1/3/12)
There's the lobbyist:
"Executive Council of Australian Jewry head Peter Wertheim said action against Max Brenner had failed. 'Since the boycott campaign against Max Brenner Australia began in 2011, their business has really boomed', he said. 'Their shops are crowded with Australians of all backgrounds, including families with women wearing hijabs."
But he would say that, wouldn't he? In fact, he may have said too much! I mean, is Wertheim not perhaps concerned that the mere mention of hijabs patronising a Max Brenner outlet will scare away the hijab-hating shock troops of the Australian Protectionist Party who love Max so much that, whenever a BDS protest heaves into view, they're there with bells and whistles to protect him?
There's the rambammed politician 2:
"NSW opposition frontbencher Walt Secord urged 'a reverse boycott' of the shop."
LOL! If only you'd seen the memorable photograph of Walt at Jerusalem's 'Wailing Wall' on the front page of the March 22 edition of The Australian Jewish News, you'd swear the guy's been reverse-boycotting chocolate ever since he was knee high to the proverbial grasshopper.
And finally, there's the trainee lobbyist:
"Australian Union of Jewish Students political affairs director Dean Sherr... called BDS 'an ugly attempt to delegitimise an entire nation. The problem with BDS is that it does nothing to offer solutions or initiatives for peace', he said. 'It's about attributing all the blame to Israel and punishing it, and calling into question the Jewish state's very right to exist'."
Political affairs director, eh? How grand! A trawl through Dean's tweets suggest a guy who's more into footie than politics. This, I'm afraid, is about as good as it gets with Dean: "We should let them [asylum seekers] in as long as they promise to buy a Dogs, Roos or Port membership." (22/10/12)
What can I say? Herzl would be turning in his grave.
Best show in town, folks!
PS (19/4/13): The Conga Line of BDS Bashers grows even longer in today's Australian with yet another rambammed politician, Liberal Senator Brett Mason, "accus[ing] the BDS movement of promoting an anti-Israel agenda rather than supporting the Middle East peace process." (Students were told about Brenner, Christian Kerr) Which sounds a bit like a corporate heavy accusing environmentalists of promoting an anti-development agenda rather than supporting the cloning of extinct species, no? Then we have a medicine man with a UNSW connection, Dr David Adler, who says, "Boycotting a party is contrary to the mission of the university and in this particular case will not advance the cause of peace one inch." Is this the same David Adler, I wonder, who "recently visited Israel and was deeply inspired by his personal journey of discovery there," so much so, in fact, that he'll be lecturing to guests at a Young Adult Chabad function in May on "How many Miracles can you fit on the head of a Pin?"? (youngadult chabad.org) All about advancing the cause of peace by miles, of course.
Christian Kerr's BDS targets uni over campus shop in yesterday's paper is a case in point.
But first the scene-setting:
"The University of NSW has been targeted by the anti-Israeli BDS movement over plans to open a Max Brenner chocolate shop on its main Sydney campus. Students for Justice in Palestine has launched a campaign against the campus outlet, expected to open in June, calling on the university to cancel the contract. Spokesman Damian Ridgewell warned of protests. 'There will be an active campaign on campus to encourage students and staff to boycott the shop', he told The Australian. BDS activists claim the Max Brenner chain is owned by the Strauss Group of food and confectionary manufacturers, which produces some rations for the Israeli Defence Forces, and accuses it of complicity in 'war crimes'. The company insists that it is wholly Australian owned and operated."
Then, one by one, the BDS bashers take the floor. There's the clueless spokesperson from admin:
"A UNSW spokeswoman said the university 'deplores any form of racism and discrimination' but added: 'Free expression of views and open debate are central to the life of a university'. The spokeswoman said staff and students had been surveyed over new stores on campus. 'Max Brenner was the equal second most popular choice'."
Oh, so that's an informed endorsement, is it? According to a 2012 Lowy Institute poll, only 39% of the 18 to 29 year olds surveyed expressed support for Australian democracy, while 23% didn't really care what kind of political system we had. All I can say is thank God we've got groups like Students for Justice in Palestine to promote a concern for the content of the student mind, as opposed to what goes into the student belly and the corporate coffers.
There's the rambammed politician 1:
"Tertiary Education Minister Craig Emerson slammed the boycott. 'The Australian government has always been firm and clear in its opposition to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign', he said. 'Such boycotts against Israel in addition to harming Palestinian people economically, are unhelpful to the Middle East peace process'."
But seriously, what else is he going to say? After all:
"Emerson is an alumni of AIJAC's Rambam program, which sends politicians to Israel to learn the facts on the ground. As acting foreign minister he has condemned terrorist activities against Israel, and as trade minister condemned the NSW Greens' BDS policy, labeling it 'reprehensible'. 'Craig Emerson is somebody we've got to know well', [AIJAC director Colin] Rubenstein said. 'He's also a very quick learner and I think very positive and quite knowledgeable about the world and certainly about the Middle East'." (Australia-Israel relations after the fall of Rudd, The Australian Jewish News, 1/3/12)
There's the lobbyist:
"Executive Council of Australian Jewry head Peter Wertheim said action against Max Brenner had failed. 'Since the boycott campaign against Max Brenner Australia began in 2011, their business has really boomed', he said. 'Their shops are crowded with Australians of all backgrounds, including families with women wearing hijabs."
But he would say that, wouldn't he? In fact, he may have said too much! I mean, is Wertheim not perhaps concerned that the mere mention of hijabs patronising a Max Brenner outlet will scare away the hijab-hating shock troops of the Australian Protectionist Party who love Max so much that, whenever a BDS protest heaves into view, they're there with bells and whistles to protect him?
There's the rambammed politician 2:
"NSW opposition frontbencher Walt Secord urged 'a reverse boycott' of the shop."
LOL! If only you'd seen the memorable photograph of Walt at Jerusalem's 'Wailing Wall' on the front page of the March 22 edition of The Australian Jewish News, you'd swear the guy's been reverse-boycotting chocolate ever since he was knee high to the proverbial grasshopper.
And finally, there's the trainee lobbyist:
"Australian Union of Jewish Students political affairs director Dean Sherr... called BDS 'an ugly attempt to delegitimise an entire nation. The problem with BDS is that it does nothing to offer solutions or initiatives for peace', he said. 'It's about attributing all the blame to Israel and punishing it, and calling into question the Jewish state's very right to exist'."
Political affairs director, eh? How grand! A trawl through Dean's tweets suggest a guy who's more into footie than politics. This, I'm afraid, is about as good as it gets with Dean: "We should let them [asylum seekers] in as long as they promise to buy a Dogs, Roos or Port membership." (22/10/12)
What can I say? Herzl would be turning in his grave.
Best show in town, folks!
PS (19/4/13): The Conga Line of BDS Bashers grows even longer in today's Australian with yet another rambammed politician, Liberal Senator Brett Mason, "accus[ing] the BDS movement of promoting an anti-Israel agenda rather than supporting the Middle East peace process." (Students were told about Brenner, Christian Kerr) Which sounds a bit like a corporate heavy accusing environmentalists of promoting an anti-development agenda rather than supporting the cloning of extinct species, no? Then we have a medicine man with a UNSW connection, Dr David Adler, who says, "Boycotting a party is contrary to the mission of the university and in this particular case will not advance the cause of peace one inch." Is this the same David Adler, I wonder, who "recently visited Israel and was deeply inspired by his personal journey of discovery there," so much so, in fact, that he'll be lecturing to guests at a Young Adult Chabad function in May on "How many Miracles can you fit on the head of a Pin?"? (youngadult chabad.org) All about advancing the cause of peace by miles, of course.
Monday, November 26, 2012
'Rebuilding Lives in Gaza & Tel Aviv'
The pernicious Israel lobby-mandated doctrine of balance was impossible to miss on SBS World News last night. Newsreader Lee Lin-Chin set the tone early in the bulletin: "And later, Coming to terms with the conflict: rebuilding lives in Gaza and Tel Aviv."
Shattered lives! Palestinian and Israeli.
Israelis first? But of course!
Li Lin-Chin: Earlier this week there was a bomb on a bus in Tel Aviv which injured 29 people, the first such attack in more than 6 years. Today the ceasefire with Hamas is still holding and the city is pretty much back to normal. On the surface anyway, with a little tension underneath. Here's SBS correspondent Luke Waters reporting from Tel Aviv:
It's difficult to believe but less than a week ago Israel was on the brink of all-out war. It's Saturday night here in Tel Aviv. The bars and restaurants are back in full swing. But just how do locals cope with being on the brink of war one day and face normal existence the next?
[Barfly 1] 'It's not new for us. It's kind of normal and we try to continue with our life.'
[Barfly 2] 'This is the situation. This is where we live. That's what you do about it. You one day live like this and the next day like that.'
That's life indeed in Tel Aviv where bars are full and optimism and fun go hand in hand. [Pan to string quartet playing on promenade] On the surface the sentiment on Golden Beach promenade is similar. Even in less than ideal conditions the waves attract a crowd. [Pan to hang glider] Some even take to the air for entertainment. [Pan to surfboard rider] Tel Aviv resident Arik Cohen says all is not what it seems. Despite the bravado, everyone's aware of the dark reality: 'You live your life but you know something can change at any day.' Arik finds his peace in the water.
[Pan to two fatties] Sisters Aviva and Yael now live in Paris but returned to Tel Aviv last week. 'When we heard that the war started that's why we decided to come because we want to share with our friends and family the situation.'
Giving some confidence: Israel's Iron Dome anti-war missile system which intercepts rockets as they bear down on populated targets. In the 8 days of violence, the system intercepted more than 400 missiles, a success rate of 84%.
[Restaurant patron] 'In a couple of years we'll have 13 of them which will cover Israel completely and then Iran will not be a problem which they are today.'
And with more modern weapons from Libya and Sudan now making their way to Gaza, the range and accuracy of the enemy's arsenal is improved. [Pans to high rise with hole in side] But as this badly damaged building shows, the system certainly isn't fallible and 16% of rockets that did get through like the one which fell here at Rishon LeZion*, the 4th biggest city in Israel and only 15km from central Tel Aviv.
[Man] 'What is new here is that this is the first time some missiles arrived to this area.'
[Woman] 'We are not scared. We are very brave in Israel.'
So far Israel's technology will help temper an old problem, with hopes it will prolong peace. But beyond the bars and the beaches a grim, deadly reality prevails. Everyone hopes differently.
[Arik Cohen] 'It's like you're in another world when you're in the water, so yeah, it's definitely a good escape.'
Ultimately, hope for a peaceful solution remains the ideal outcome.
***
Lee Lin-Chin: On the other side of the border, schools in Gaza have reopened for the first time since the ceasefire was declared in the territory. But, while the children have turned up, the lessons are yet to start:
Nadim Baba, Al-Jazeera: Back with their friends, but for these children there's only one thing on their minds. Many at this school witnessed Israeli air strikes. Some lost their homes. No one can forget what they saw.
[Girl] 'A piece of shrapnel hit my sister in the arm and my uncle's house was hit by a missile.'
And this is what they're doing on their first day - no lessons, just fun.
[Fatima Abu Ahmad, School Principal] 'Psychologically, they're not ready to resume their studies because of the awful things they've seen. They have stories of death and destruction and rubble and fear, things that are not normal.'
But when it's time for drawing it's clear war has traumatised many of these young Palestinians. 'I couldn't sleep all night,' says this girl. 'I was so scared they'd bomb our house. Nobody in our house could sleep.'
The school was badly damaged when a missile hit the mosque next door, meaning several classrooms can't be used. In the middle of the morning more people have arrived. They're the second shift. Like many schools in Gaza this school has two shifts because of overcrowding, and the damage to the classrooms has only made that problem worse. Trained counsellors will also be working with these children, the beginning of a long process, especially because the older ones still display signs of trauma from the war with Israel 4 years ago.
[Counsellor] 'Most of the children which we've seen suffer from nightmares, some behavioural problems such as aggression, bed-wetting, some learning problems, concentration and attention impairment and other problems.'
The physical damage to the school should be repaired in a few weeks but the emotional trauma that these children carry with them will take much longer to heal.
***
[* I love the way Waters had to go to Rishon LeZion to find a damaged building for inclusion in a report on Tel Aviv.]
Shattered lives! Palestinian and Israeli.
Israelis first? But of course!
Li Lin-Chin: Earlier this week there was a bomb on a bus in Tel Aviv which injured 29 people, the first such attack in more than 6 years. Today the ceasefire with Hamas is still holding and the city is pretty much back to normal. On the surface anyway, with a little tension underneath. Here's SBS correspondent Luke Waters reporting from Tel Aviv:
It's difficult to believe but less than a week ago Israel was on the brink of all-out war. It's Saturday night here in Tel Aviv. The bars and restaurants are back in full swing. But just how do locals cope with being on the brink of war one day and face normal existence the next?
[Barfly 1] 'It's not new for us. It's kind of normal and we try to continue with our life.'
[Barfly 2] 'This is the situation. This is where we live. That's what you do about it. You one day live like this and the next day like that.'
That's life indeed in Tel Aviv where bars are full and optimism and fun go hand in hand. [Pan to string quartet playing on promenade] On the surface the sentiment on Golden Beach promenade is similar. Even in less than ideal conditions the waves attract a crowd. [Pan to hang glider] Some even take to the air for entertainment. [Pan to surfboard rider] Tel Aviv resident Arik Cohen says all is not what it seems. Despite the bravado, everyone's aware of the dark reality: 'You live your life but you know something can change at any day.' Arik finds his peace in the water.
[Pan to two fatties] Sisters Aviva and Yael now live in Paris but returned to Tel Aviv last week. 'When we heard that the war started that's why we decided to come because we want to share with our friends and family the situation.'
Giving some confidence: Israel's Iron Dome anti-war missile system which intercepts rockets as they bear down on populated targets. In the 8 days of violence, the system intercepted more than 400 missiles, a success rate of 84%.
[Restaurant patron] 'In a couple of years we'll have 13 of them which will cover Israel completely and then Iran will not be a problem which they are today.'
And with more modern weapons from Libya and Sudan now making their way to Gaza, the range and accuracy of the enemy's arsenal is improved. [Pans to high rise with hole in side] But as this badly damaged building shows, the system certainly isn't fallible and 16% of rockets that did get through like the one which fell here at Rishon LeZion*, the 4th biggest city in Israel and only 15km from central Tel Aviv.
[Man] 'What is new here is that this is the first time some missiles arrived to this area.'
[Woman] 'We are not scared. We are very brave in Israel.'
So far Israel's technology will help temper an old problem, with hopes it will prolong peace. But beyond the bars and the beaches a grim, deadly reality prevails. Everyone hopes differently.
[Arik Cohen] 'It's like you're in another world when you're in the water, so yeah, it's definitely a good escape.'
Ultimately, hope for a peaceful solution remains the ideal outcome.
***
Lee Lin-Chin: On the other side of the border, schools in Gaza have reopened for the first time since the ceasefire was declared in the territory. But, while the children have turned up, the lessons are yet to start:
Nadim Baba, Al-Jazeera: Back with their friends, but for these children there's only one thing on their minds. Many at this school witnessed Israeli air strikes. Some lost their homes. No one can forget what they saw.
[Girl] 'A piece of shrapnel hit my sister in the arm and my uncle's house was hit by a missile.'
And this is what they're doing on their first day - no lessons, just fun.
[Fatima Abu Ahmad, School Principal] 'Psychologically, they're not ready to resume their studies because of the awful things they've seen. They have stories of death and destruction and rubble and fear, things that are not normal.'
But when it's time for drawing it's clear war has traumatised many of these young Palestinians. 'I couldn't sleep all night,' says this girl. 'I was so scared they'd bomb our house. Nobody in our house could sleep.'
The school was badly damaged when a missile hit the mosque next door, meaning several classrooms can't be used. In the middle of the morning more people have arrived. They're the second shift. Like many schools in Gaza this school has two shifts because of overcrowding, and the damage to the classrooms has only made that problem worse. Trained counsellors will also be working with these children, the beginning of a long process, especially because the older ones still display signs of trauma from the war with Israel 4 years ago.
[Counsellor] 'Most of the children which we've seen suffer from nightmares, some behavioural problems such as aggression, bed-wetting, some learning problems, concentration and attention impairment and other problems.'
The physical damage to the school should be repaired in a few weeks but the emotional trauma that these children carry with them will take much longer to heal.
***
[* I love the way Waters had to go to Rishon LeZion to find a damaged building for inclusion in a report on Tel Aviv.]
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Shared Pain?
"There is pain on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide today, as the names of the 477 prisoners set to be released in the first stage of the deal for Gilad Shalit's freedom were revealed on the Israeli Prison Services website. For many in Israel it is inconceivable that men and women sentenced to multiple life sentences for terrorist attacks such as the 2001 bombing of a Tel-Aviv night club that killed 21, and a suicide bombing of a restaurant in Haifa in 2002 in which 14 people died, could be released.." (Anger in Israel over price paid for Shalit's freedom, Ruth Pollard, Sydney Morning Herald, 17/10/11)
A night club and a restaurant. Thirty-five Israeli deaths*. Ouch!
What about the Palestinian side of the divide?
Although so many Palestinian structures have disappeared under Israeli bombs, shells, missiles and bulldozers that Pollard wouldn't have had the space to list even a fraction of them - even had she been so inclined - none are mentioned. Neither are Palestinian deaths, which number 6,540 between 29/9/00 and 30/9/11, according to B'tselem.
Give me Israeli pain any day.
[*1,095, 9/00-9/11]
A night club and a restaurant. Thirty-five Israeli deaths*. Ouch!
What about the Palestinian side of the divide?
Although so many Palestinian structures have disappeared under Israeli bombs, shells, missiles and bulldozers that Pollard wouldn't have had the space to list even a fraction of them - even had she been so inclined - none are mentioned. Neither are Palestinian deaths, which number 6,540 between 29/9/00 and 30/9/11, according to B'tselem.
Give me Israeli pain any day.
[*1,095, 9/00-9/11]
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Absolutely Typical
As Basil Fawlty would say, "This is typical. Absolutely typical..."
Yesterday, the Sydney Morning Herald actually deigned to publish an opinion piece by Randa Abdel-Fattah (Freedom & dignity are basic rights for all, even Palestinians), Sydney lawyer, novelist and daughter of Palestinian refugee parents.
How seldom, you reflect, is a Palestinian voice such as hers heard in the Herald - compared to the incessant yapping of Zionist propagandists. Still, you console yourself absurdly, it's better than nothing. Absurdly - because any lift experienced, any feeling that, well, maybe the Herald isn't quite as bad as you think it is, is dashed by the certainty that, in the very next issue, as surely as night follows day, there will appear a 'response' from a Zionist lobbyist. If you'll bear with me here, it's like finding you've walked dogshit into the carpet after completing your usual exhilirating 5km morning walk.
Sure enough, in today's Herald, instead of an honest letter or two from readers, the Herald has given over enough space for 3 letters to Israel lobbyist Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
Under the thoroughly deceitful headline Israel a home for both Jews & Arabs, Wertheim argues, contra Abdel-Fattah, that Israel is really no different to any other place, including Australia. Sure there's "serious racial discrimination," but hey, no way is it "a state based on racial purity."
What he's counting on, of course, is that the average Herald reader is simply unaware that, radically unlike Australia, Israel's key laws enshrine a fundamental distinction between Jews and non-Jews which determines who gets into the country (Jews) and who is kept out (Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967), and who has access to 93% of Israel's land area (Jews) and who doesn't (the minority of Palestinians who, for whatever reason, escaped expulsion in 1948).
In addition to glossing over the creation and maintenance of a majority Jewish ethnographic state in Palestine, the ultimate in Middle Eastern sectarianism, Wertheim brazenly represents the Palestinian Authority's pathetic search for a bit of breathing space in the West Bank, a little wriggle room under the IDF jackboot, aka a Palestinian state, as an attempt to set up "a specifically Arab and Muslim state which will exclude Jews." This attempt to smear the Palestinians as anti-Semites is akin to the Chinese government accusing occupied and oppressed Tibetans, swamped by Chinese settlers, of wanting to exclude Chinese simply because they're racists.
Wertheim concludes: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the simplistic 'goodies versus baddies' contest some people make it out to be. It's about the real world struggle of two nations, each of which is determined to live in freedom, independence and security."
Total bullshit of course, but as long as he and his kind can sow seeds of doubt and confusion among the ill-informed, such letters will be seen by apologists for Israeli apartheid and occupation to have been worth the effort.
Yesterday, the Sydney Morning Herald actually deigned to publish an opinion piece by Randa Abdel-Fattah (Freedom & dignity are basic rights for all, even Palestinians), Sydney lawyer, novelist and daughter of Palestinian refugee parents.
How seldom, you reflect, is a Palestinian voice such as hers heard in the Herald - compared to the incessant yapping of Zionist propagandists. Still, you console yourself absurdly, it's better than nothing. Absurdly - because any lift experienced, any feeling that, well, maybe the Herald isn't quite as bad as you think it is, is dashed by the certainty that, in the very next issue, as surely as night follows day, there will appear a 'response' from a Zionist lobbyist. If you'll bear with me here, it's like finding you've walked dogshit into the carpet after completing your usual exhilirating 5km morning walk.
Sure enough, in today's Herald, instead of an honest letter or two from readers, the Herald has given over enough space for 3 letters to Israel lobbyist Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
Under the thoroughly deceitful headline Israel a home for both Jews & Arabs, Wertheim argues, contra Abdel-Fattah, that Israel is really no different to any other place, including Australia. Sure there's "serious racial discrimination," but hey, no way is it "a state based on racial purity."
What he's counting on, of course, is that the average Herald reader is simply unaware that, radically unlike Australia, Israel's key laws enshrine a fundamental distinction between Jews and non-Jews which determines who gets into the country (Jews) and who is kept out (Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967), and who has access to 93% of Israel's land area (Jews) and who doesn't (the minority of Palestinians who, for whatever reason, escaped expulsion in 1948).
In addition to glossing over the creation and maintenance of a majority Jewish ethnographic state in Palestine, the ultimate in Middle Eastern sectarianism, Wertheim brazenly represents the Palestinian Authority's pathetic search for a bit of breathing space in the West Bank, a little wriggle room under the IDF jackboot, aka a Palestinian state, as an attempt to set up "a specifically Arab and Muslim state which will exclude Jews." This attempt to smear the Palestinians as anti-Semites is akin to the Chinese government accusing occupied and oppressed Tibetans, swamped by Chinese settlers, of wanting to exclude Chinese simply because they're racists.
Wertheim concludes: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the simplistic 'goodies versus baddies' contest some people make it out to be. It's about the real world struggle of two nations, each of which is determined to live in freedom, independence and security."
Total bullshit of course, but as long as he and his kind can sow seeds of doubt and confusion among the ill-informed, such letters will be seen by apologists for Israeli apartheid and occupation to have been worth the effort.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Ho hum, what's this? Murdoch's Likudnik rag, The Australian, is now whinging about an outbreak of so-called left-wing bias over at the ABC's opinion website, The Drum:
"This means, for example, that of all the writers who are given a regular platform on the ABC website, I could find only 4 articles that were in some way supportive of Israel and none in favour of the war in Afghanistan. By comparison, there are dozens of anti-Israel and anti-Afghan war pieces on the taxpayer-funded website, most of them accusatory and damning. For example, there are at least 9 anti-Israel articles by Antony Loewenstein alone, 12 anti-Afghanistan war rants by Kellie tranter, and many more from Labor Party speechwriter Bob Ellis scattered among his 110 contributions." (Aunty makes no secret of prejudice: The ABC should focus on the news rather than The Drum's blatant left-wing puffery, Gavin Atkins, 11/5/11)
Oh dear!
OK, so let's check out The Australian's April crop of wholesome, organic, totally bias-free opinion pieces on such matters, shall we?
2/4/11
Greg Sheridan: How I lost faith in multiculturalism
In summary, multiculturalism sux because of Muslims. We need to be more choosy who we let into Australia, know what I mean?
Christopher Hitchens: Iraq cleared the way for Arab revolts
In summary, viva mission creep!
Simon Sebag Montefiore: It's what comes after revolution that matters
In summary, a little air power should do the trick.
4/4/11
Michael Gerson: After rubbishing the Bush doctrine, Obama is being forced to follow suit
In summary, after Bush comes Bushama.
David Burchell: Carping critics betray ideal
In summary, Go get Gaddafi!
12/4/11
Colin Rubenstein: Israel will pay price for Gaza report fiction
In summary, Goldstone, you're a very, very naughty boy!
13/4/11
Zvi Barel: Israel should bite the bullet on Palestine
In summary, Israel should accept a Palestinian state or face a political tsunami in September.
14/4/11
Ted Lapkin: Minister unleashes his inner Germaine Greer
In summary, don't put our daughters on the front line, Mr Smith!
19/4/11
Daniel Pipes: Ankara aims for sheer authority
In summary, Ankara is the new Tehran
25/4/11
Brett Stephens: Syria should be called to account
In summary, go get Assad!
David Ignatius: Security spending all upside down
In summary, we should be spending less on Afghanistan and more on Egypt.
28/4/11
Fouad Ajami: Syria paved way for tyrants of the Arab world
In summary, go get Assad!
30/4/11
Rowan Dean: How an advertising campaign can solve the Middle East crisis
Dean says it so much better than I: "[B]ased on humanity's universal and insatiable desire for personal freedom, opportunity for your offspring, liberty and equality, virtually every man, woman and child in the Middle East will want to move to Israel. Impractical, I know. But it may make them a little less keen to blow up the place."
"This means, for example, that of all the writers who are given a regular platform on the ABC website, I could find only 4 articles that were in some way supportive of Israel and none in favour of the war in Afghanistan. By comparison, there are dozens of anti-Israel and anti-Afghan war pieces on the taxpayer-funded website, most of them accusatory and damning. For example, there are at least 9 anti-Israel articles by Antony Loewenstein alone, 12 anti-Afghanistan war rants by Kellie tranter, and many more from Labor Party speechwriter Bob Ellis scattered among his 110 contributions." (Aunty makes no secret of prejudice: The ABC should focus on the news rather than The Drum's blatant left-wing puffery, Gavin Atkins, 11/5/11)
Oh dear!
OK, so let's check out The Australian's April crop of wholesome, organic, totally bias-free opinion pieces on such matters, shall we?
2/4/11
Greg Sheridan: How I lost faith in multiculturalism
In summary, multiculturalism sux because of Muslims. We need to be more choosy who we let into Australia, know what I mean?
Christopher Hitchens: Iraq cleared the way for Arab revolts
In summary, viva mission creep!
Simon Sebag Montefiore: It's what comes after revolution that matters
In summary, a little air power should do the trick.
4/4/11
Michael Gerson: After rubbishing the Bush doctrine, Obama is being forced to follow suit
In summary, after Bush comes Bushama.
David Burchell: Carping critics betray ideal
In summary, Go get Gaddafi!
12/4/11
Colin Rubenstein: Israel will pay price for Gaza report fiction
In summary, Goldstone, you're a very, very naughty boy!
13/4/11
Zvi Barel: Israel should bite the bullet on Palestine
In summary, Israel should accept a Palestinian state or face a political tsunami in September.
14/4/11
Ted Lapkin: Minister unleashes his inner Germaine Greer
In summary, don't put our daughters on the front line, Mr Smith!
19/4/11
Daniel Pipes: Ankara aims for sheer authority
In summary, Ankara is the new Tehran
25/4/11
Brett Stephens: Syria should be called to account
In summary, go get Assad!
David Ignatius: Security spending all upside down
In summary, we should be spending less on Afghanistan and more on Egypt.
28/4/11
Fouad Ajami: Syria paved way for tyrants of the Arab world
In summary, go get Assad!
30/4/11
Rowan Dean: How an advertising campaign can solve the Middle East crisis
Dean says it so much better than I: "[B]ased on humanity's universal and insatiable desire for personal freedom, opportunity for your offspring, liberty and equality, virtually every man, woman and child in the Middle East will want to move to Israel. Impractical, I know. But it may make them a little less keen to blow up the place."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Words Behind Words
Read the following exchange between Senator Ludlam of The Greens and Mark Scott, Managing Director of the ABC at a Senate Estimates hearing on 27 October. It's classic fan dancing - on both sides. In the spirit of keeping it real, I've added the words behind the words, those that must have come to mind but never quite made it to the tongue, and those that never even got that far, in square brackets bold:
Senator Ludlam: Can you provide us with an update of whether the ABC has reconsidered its position [not to screen the Australian doco, Hope in a Slingshot,] and how you have gone about finding some other points of view to balance out the point of view in that documentary?
Mr Scott: We reviewed it and will not be showing it. I think when we first reviewed it there were questions as to the plurality of viewpoints, whether in fact it took a certain perspective [dared to portray Palestinians as human beings] and how under our editorial policies we would look to balance that [to nobble that] ... But it has been reviewed by our television division... I think finally the television division came to the view that it was not to the standard that they would want to acquire... They did not feel it was particularly compelling for the kinds of audiences that we would be seeking on ABC 1 [for the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) crowd], and that was the final judgment on it.
Senator Ludlam: But it was initially accepted. You said the issue was quality, so it was nothing to do with the political view? [nothing to do with portraying the Palestinians as human beings?]
Mr Scott:... I think finally they came to that view irrespective of editorial policy issues. That was not finally the driving force in their decision. They finally came to a view that they just did not think it was a particularly compelling film. [They finally came to a view that they couldn't afford to upset AIJAC.]
Senator Ludlam: Are you aware that the producers have updated and edited the film to address the interpretation that they believe have been placed on it?
Mr Scott: I am not sure which edit they have seen, but I understood that they did review the film again... and tried to look at it with a fresh set of eyes. We have some new people in key roles in our television division [people who know who must be appeased, and who can safely be ignored] - a new head of factual, a new controller of ABC1 and ABC2. I am not quite sure whether the final sign-off has come, but they have decided to pass...
Senator Ludlam: [But] this one caught our interest in particular because it was [initially] accepted.
Mr Scott: I understand that.
Senator Ludlam:... Step us through how you balance this out. You commission or acquire what you call opinion content, which does express a certain point of view.
Mr Scott: Yes, and we do run them. We have run Richard Dawkins... Dick Smith. I will explain what we often do, though, if it is contentious and opinionated - and there is a place for opinion on the ABC. It is allowed. It is in our editorial policies. You want to have some debate. So what you often do... is have a discussion afterwards... [However,] I think the feeling was that this film was not up to the standard for that kind of treatment. [I think the feeling was that, with this film, we would only be throwing fuel on the fire if we followed it with a discussion. I mean, take that bloody Israeli propaganda piece Murder on the Med (or Collision Course as we called it), the Foreign Correspondent website was deluged with anti-Israel comments for days afterwards. A discussion after Hope in a Slingshot would've gone the same way. We simply weren't prepared to risk it. Anything for a quiet life as they say.]
Senator Ludlam: Can you advise, then, how the program Death in the Med - or Collision Course, I think it is also called - satisfied your editorial policies?
Mr Scott: Which one, sorry? [Death in the Med? What Death in the Med?]
Senator Ludlam: Death in the Med... Was there a forum that followed that one?
Mr Scott: I am not sure - what was that one about? [Nothing. I know nothing.]
Senator Ludlam: I believe they rioted in the UK when it was screened because it was seen to be...
Mr Scott: We did have some complaints around that program. [Oh, that Death in the Med!]
Senator Ludlam: Was there a forum after that one?
Mr Scott: No, there was no forum after that.
Senator Ludlam: I struggle to understand how on the one hand you can run opinion content... and on the other you have got an impartiality requirement...
Mr Scott: [It's all coming back to me now.] That was the one that we received 90 alleged complaints of pro-Israel bias. Yes, now I remember.
Senator Ludlam: [What the f... !] Were they complaints, or alleged complaints?
Mr Scott: They were alleged complaints. [Look, tree hugger, it's really very simple. If the complaint is about Israeli propaganda, it's not really a complaint, just an alleged complaint... Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it.] But the program was viewed by audience consumer affairs, who advised that the program was balanced and that they believed those complaints were without basis... I think if we had come to an editorial judgment about that program, or our television or news division which is responsible for Foreign Correspondent had come to a view that this was opinion, rather than a topical and factual program or news program, then it would have needed a different treatment. That was not the judgment they came to about that program. It might be that some people who watched it have a different view, but that is the judgment of our television team and news team have had to make.
Senator Ludlam: Can you provide us with an update of whether the ABC has reconsidered its position [not to screen the Australian doco, Hope in a Slingshot,] and how you have gone about finding some other points of view to balance out the point of view in that documentary?
Mr Scott: We reviewed it and will not be showing it. I think when we first reviewed it there were questions as to the plurality of viewpoints, whether in fact it took a certain perspective [dared to portray Palestinians as human beings] and how under our editorial policies we would look to balance that [to nobble that] ... But it has been reviewed by our television division... I think finally the television division came to the view that it was not to the standard that they would want to acquire... They did not feel it was particularly compelling for the kinds of audiences that we would be seeking on ABC 1 [for the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) crowd], and that was the final judgment on it.
Senator Ludlam: But it was initially accepted. You said the issue was quality, so it was nothing to do with the political view? [nothing to do with portraying the Palestinians as human beings?]
Mr Scott:... I think finally they came to that view irrespective of editorial policy issues. That was not finally the driving force in their decision. They finally came to a view that they just did not think it was a particularly compelling film. [They finally came to a view that they couldn't afford to upset AIJAC.]
Senator Ludlam: Are you aware that the producers have updated and edited the film to address the interpretation that they believe have been placed on it?
Mr Scott: I am not sure which edit they have seen, but I understood that they did review the film again... and tried to look at it with a fresh set of eyes. We have some new people in key roles in our television division [people who know who must be appeased, and who can safely be ignored] - a new head of factual, a new controller of ABC1 and ABC2. I am not quite sure whether the final sign-off has come, but they have decided to pass...
Senator Ludlam: [But] this one caught our interest in particular because it was [initially] accepted.
Mr Scott: I understand that.
Senator Ludlam:... Step us through how you balance this out. You commission or acquire what you call opinion content, which does express a certain point of view.
Mr Scott: Yes, and we do run them. We have run Richard Dawkins... Dick Smith. I will explain what we often do, though, if it is contentious and opinionated - and there is a place for opinion on the ABC. It is allowed. It is in our editorial policies. You want to have some debate. So what you often do... is have a discussion afterwards... [However,] I think the feeling was that this film was not up to the standard for that kind of treatment. [I think the feeling was that, with this film, we would only be throwing fuel on the fire if we followed it with a discussion. I mean, take that bloody Israeli propaganda piece Murder on the Med (or Collision Course as we called it), the Foreign Correspondent website was deluged with anti-Israel comments for days afterwards. A discussion after Hope in a Slingshot would've gone the same way. We simply weren't prepared to risk it. Anything for a quiet life as they say.]
Senator Ludlam: Can you advise, then, how the program Death in the Med - or Collision Course, I think it is also called - satisfied your editorial policies?
Mr Scott: Which one, sorry? [Death in the Med? What Death in the Med?]
Senator Ludlam: Death in the Med... Was there a forum that followed that one?
Mr Scott: I am not sure - what was that one about? [Nothing. I know nothing.]
Senator Ludlam: I believe they rioted in the UK when it was screened because it was seen to be...
Mr Scott: We did have some complaints around that program. [Oh, that Death in the Med!]
Senator Ludlam: Was there a forum after that one?
Mr Scott: No, there was no forum after that.
Senator Ludlam: I struggle to understand how on the one hand you can run opinion content... and on the other you have got an impartiality requirement...
Mr Scott: [It's all coming back to me now.] That was the one that we received 90 alleged complaints of pro-Israel bias. Yes, now I remember.
Senator Ludlam: [What the f... !] Were they complaints, or alleged complaints?
Mr Scott: They were alleged complaints. [Look, tree hugger, it's really very simple. If the complaint is about Israeli propaganda, it's not really a complaint, just an alleged complaint... Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it.] But the program was viewed by audience consumer affairs, who advised that the program was balanced and that they believed those complaints were without basis... I think if we had come to an editorial judgment about that program, or our television or news division which is responsible for Foreign Correspondent had come to a view that this was opinion, rather than a topical and factual program or news program, then it would have needed a different treatment. That was not the judgment they came to about that program. It might be that some people who watched it have a different view, but that is the judgment of our television team and news team have had to make.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Return to Sender
"Most people can see what is taking place on the ground in the Middle East. And they can see who needs our support. Everyone knows who's under the boot and who's got the mouthful of broken glass. The Palestinians are a prisoner nation, refugees and exiles treated as ghosts." (Here's hoping: Why I'm playing Britain's first major gig for Palestine, Bobby Gillespie of Primal Scream, guardian.co.uk, 15/10/04)
Most people... but not a certain letters editor:
Here's what the Sydney Morning Herald's letters editor, Mike Ticher, wrote today:
"Arguments about Israel and Palestine often seem to go in parallel tunnels with no connecting passages, and that was neatly illustrated by the response to Thursday's pieces by Antony Loewenstein and Colin Rubenstein. Many argued strenuously and coherently against one or the other, but almost no one tried to draw conclusions from a synthesis or overview of the two." (Postscript)
And here's the same guy on 17 January 2009:
"As ever most letters focused on moral rights and wrongs: who did what 40 or 60 years ago, who had or had not broken international law and was or was not justified in certain actions. Those certainly should be debated, but it would make a change to have a more pragmatic debate about what might realistically work to change the situation." (Postscript) [See my 20/1/09 post The SMH: Puerile & Pusillanimous.]
Oh, what a yawn it all is! Why can't they all just get together over a few bottles of chardonnay and sort things out sensibly?
Ticher's problem is that he just doesn't get it. He hasn't the nous to see that you can't synthesise colonialism and anti-colonialism, or occupation and resistance, or injustice and justice. He thinks history is merely academic. He cannot comprehend that, in the case of the Middle East conflict, the crimes of 1948 have been repeated every day since. For that matter, he probably knows nothing of 1948, and cares even less. He hasn't got a clue about the assymetric struggle against an utterly ruthless genocidal force that the Palestinian people are condemned to wage daily, whether they like it or not. He's obviously never had his back to the wall, the knife at his throat, or the boot on his neck. Hammer and anvil - it's all the same to him.
Our problem is that Ticher's inability to grasp such elementary matters determines that, for every honest and insightful letter on the conflict on his letters page, there will be, cheek by jowl, a thoroughly dishonest diatribe from one of the usual suspects.
Is it really too much to expect the letters editor of a paper such as the Herald to do a little honest reading on the Middle East conflict - a perennial subject for letter writers - before reflexively inflicting Zioprop or his own banal comments on us?
Most people... but not a certain letters editor:
Here's what the Sydney Morning Herald's letters editor, Mike Ticher, wrote today:
"Arguments about Israel and Palestine often seem to go in parallel tunnels with no connecting passages, and that was neatly illustrated by the response to Thursday's pieces by Antony Loewenstein and Colin Rubenstein. Many argued strenuously and coherently against one or the other, but almost no one tried to draw conclusions from a synthesis or overview of the two." (Postscript)
And here's the same guy on 17 January 2009:
"As ever most letters focused on moral rights and wrongs: who did what 40 or 60 years ago, who had or had not broken international law and was or was not justified in certain actions. Those certainly should be debated, but it would make a change to have a more pragmatic debate about what might realistically work to change the situation." (Postscript) [See my 20/1/09 post The SMH: Puerile & Pusillanimous.]
Oh, what a yawn it all is! Why can't they all just get together over a few bottles of chardonnay and sort things out sensibly?
Ticher's problem is that he just doesn't get it. He hasn't the nous to see that you can't synthesise colonialism and anti-colonialism, or occupation and resistance, or injustice and justice. He thinks history is merely academic. He cannot comprehend that, in the case of the Middle East conflict, the crimes of 1948 have been repeated every day since. For that matter, he probably knows nothing of 1948, and cares even less. He hasn't got a clue about the assymetric struggle against an utterly ruthless genocidal force that the Palestinian people are condemned to wage daily, whether they like it or not. He's obviously never had his back to the wall, the knife at his throat, or the boot on his neck. Hammer and anvil - it's all the same to him.
Our problem is that Ticher's inability to grasp such elementary matters determines that, for every honest and insightful letter on the conflict on his letters page, there will be, cheek by jowl, a thoroughly dishonest diatribe from one of the usual suspects.
Is it really too much to expect the letters editor of a paper such as the Herald to do a little honest reading on the Middle East conflict - a perennial subject for letter writers - before reflexively inflicting Zioprop or his own banal comments on us?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Herald Robs Loewenstein to Pay Rubenstein
On June 4 this year, on the occasion of Israel's Mavi Marmara massacre, the Sydney Morning Herald boldly - for the Herald that is - editorialised that "We believe that it is time for Jews of the diaspora to question Israel's actions. For too long the spectrum of Jewish opinion outside Israel has been narrowed on Middle East questions to a compulsory, unquestioning support for the Israeli government of the day, no matter what. A few brave individuals challenge this orthodoxy - to their cost." (Candour is not Israel's enemy)* [* See my 7/6/10 post The Herald Gets Bolshie.]
At the time, I fondly took this criticism for an indication that past editorial practice, which invariably involved the faux 'balancing' of any item critical of Israel (rare at best) with one taking the contrary view, always penned by a representative of one or other of the Zionist organisations that make up the Israel lobby, was about to change. Foolish me.
One of those few brave individuals referred to - anti-Zionist Jew, blogger and freelance journalist Antony Loewenstein - has, as far as I'm aware, only managed to crack the opinion pages of the Herald twice - twice! -on the issue of the Middle East conflict.
The first time was on January 5 (Gaza's suffering is Israel's shame). The second was today: Western politicians prefer to ignore Israel's inherent racism. The reference point for Loewenstein's piece was Israel's racist and discriminatory proposal to require non-Jews (mainly Palestinians) wishing to marry non-Jewish (ie Palestinian-) Israelis (and so becoming Israeli citizens) to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as 'a Jewish & democratic state'. Loewenstein's was predictably the kind of well-researched and insightful commentary we've come to expect from him. And good on the Herald for giving space on its opinion page to one of those aforementioned few brave individuals.
Except that the Herald has inexplicably reverted to past bad practice by publishing, bang next to Loewenstein's piece, a defence of the oath by those Jews of the diaspora it had earlier criticised for their compulsory, unquestioning support for the Israeli government of the day, no matter what, a sad reminder that the Herald did not have the courage of its convictions and was still in thrall to pressure from the Israel lobby to exclude or otherwise mute such voices as Loewenstein's. On no other issue can an independent writer know, with almost complete certainty, that, in the rare instance he manages to have an opinion piece published in the ms press, it will be accompanied, like the proverbial albatross around the neck, by a putrid propaganda piece.
To pick through just 3 strands of same - Oath's emphasis on a democratic nation state is soundly based, by the executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Colin Rubenstein:
1) "[Israel's] oath is not dissimilar to the pledge new Australians recite."
See for yourself. Here's the text of Australia's Pledge of Commitment: "From this time forward, under God (optional), I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey." For it to be in any way similar to Israel's proposed new loyalty oath, Australia's PoC would need to be expanded to democratic and Christian beliefs.
2) "Let's go back to basics. The UN's 1947 Partition Plan called explicitly for the creation of a 'Jewish state', as well as an Arab state..."
Is Rubenstein seriously suggesting here that, in partitioning Palestine, the UN had anything in mind other than that the 'Jewish' state was for those Jews actually living within its confines at the time? There is no evidence whatever that the UN was in the business of rubber-stamping the Zionist fantasy that the 'Jewish' state referred to in the partition resolution was the sole property of Jews wherever in the world they happen to reside. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the UN intended that the then existing Jewish community in Palestine had carte blanche to turf out the non-Jewish population (comprising almost 50% of the population) residing within its borders in order to make way for the likes of Colin Rubenstein, Vic Alhadeff and Co. (See my 11/11/08 post Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution)
3) "Many democracies have 'established' religions, including Britain..."
I'm sorry, but the acquisition of UK citizenship is not, repeat not, based on birth to a Christian, let alone a Church of England, mother. (See my 30/6/09 post Calling Italy a Christian State which covers some of this territory.)
To return to the Herald editorial, in particular the sentence, "A few brave individuals challenge this orthodoxy - to their cost." What about a brave editor doing his/her bit? And if advertising revenue is affected, blow the bloody whistle! Now wouldn't that do wonders for the Herald's relevance?
At the time, I fondly took this criticism for an indication that past editorial practice, which invariably involved the faux 'balancing' of any item critical of Israel (rare at best) with one taking the contrary view, always penned by a representative of one or other of the Zionist organisations that make up the Israel lobby, was about to change. Foolish me.
One of those few brave individuals referred to - anti-Zionist Jew, blogger and freelance journalist Antony Loewenstein - has, as far as I'm aware, only managed to crack the opinion pages of the Herald twice - twice! -on the issue of the Middle East conflict.
The first time was on January 5 (Gaza's suffering is Israel's shame). The second was today: Western politicians prefer to ignore Israel's inherent racism. The reference point for Loewenstein's piece was Israel's racist and discriminatory proposal to require non-Jews (mainly Palestinians) wishing to marry non-Jewish (ie Palestinian-) Israelis (and so becoming Israeli citizens) to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as 'a Jewish & democratic state'. Loewenstein's was predictably the kind of well-researched and insightful commentary we've come to expect from him. And good on the Herald for giving space on its opinion page to one of those aforementioned few brave individuals.
Except that the Herald has inexplicably reverted to past bad practice by publishing, bang next to Loewenstein's piece, a defence of the oath by those Jews of the diaspora it had earlier criticised for their compulsory, unquestioning support for the Israeli government of the day, no matter what, a sad reminder that the Herald did not have the courage of its convictions and was still in thrall to pressure from the Israel lobby to exclude or otherwise mute such voices as Loewenstein's. On no other issue can an independent writer know, with almost complete certainty, that, in the rare instance he manages to have an opinion piece published in the ms press, it will be accompanied, like the proverbial albatross around the neck, by a putrid propaganda piece.
To pick through just 3 strands of same - Oath's emphasis on a democratic nation state is soundly based, by the executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Colin Rubenstein:
1) "[Israel's] oath is not dissimilar to the pledge new Australians recite."
See for yourself. Here's the text of Australia's Pledge of Commitment: "From this time forward, under God (optional), I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey." For it to be in any way similar to Israel's proposed new loyalty oath, Australia's PoC would need to be expanded to democratic and Christian beliefs.
2) "Let's go back to basics. The UN's 1947 Partition Plan called explicitly for the creation of a 'Jewish state', as well as an Arab state..."
Is Rubenstein seriously suggesting here that, in partitioning Palestine, the UN had anything in mind other than that the 'Jewish' state was for those Jews actually living within its confines at the time? There is no evidence whatever that the UN was in the business of rubber-stamping the Zionist fantasy that the 'Jewish' state referred to in the partition resolution was the sole property of Jews wherever in the world they happen to reside. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the UN intended that the then existing Jewish community in Palestine had carte blanche to turf out the non-Jewish population (comprising almost 50% of the population) residing within its borders in order to make way for the likes of Colin Rubenstein, Vic Alhadeff and Co. (See my 11/11/08 post Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution)
3) "Many democracies have 'established' religions, including Britain..."
I'm sorry, but the acquisition of UK citizenship is not, repeat not, based on birth to a Christian, let alone a Church of England, mother. (See my 30/6/09 post Calling Italy a Christian State which covers some of this territory.)
To return to the Herald editorial, in particular the sentence, "A few brave individuals challenge this orthodoxy - to their cost." What about a brave editor doing his/her bit? And if advertising revenue is affected, blow the bloody whistle! Now wouldn't that do wonders for the Herald's relevance?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Perfect Mix
Quality journalism is all about balance and harmony. At The Australian we believe that our feature articles on the Middle East conflict should contain the perfect balance of Israeli settler pain with Palestinian inconvenience:
"Two baby boys, one Jewish and one Palestinian; two men, one Jewish and one Palestinian. Four lives that have never intersected but this week were all touched by one relentless tragedy, the Middle East conflict." (Peace hostage to old hatreds, John Lyons, 2/10/10)
Muhammed Abu Shara, 1, an asthma sufferer, died after inhaling Israeli tear gas after "clashes" between Israeli police and Palestinian demonstrators following the murder of a Palestinian man by a settler in East Jerusalem's Silwan district. However, "Three days later another baby became a victim."
Yeah? You mean he's dead too?
Well, not quite, but remember we've got a magic formula going here: "Sharon Zucker and his wife Neta, 9 months pregnant, were driving near their settlement. A car drove next to them and opened fire. They survived and drove to the nearest hospital, where a boy was born. The baby survived, but what a way to enter the world."
Right.
"Then there are the 2 adults. the first is Atta Jaber, a Palestinian whose farm is opposite the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, which adjoins Hebron and is home to some hardline settlers... Jaber says his family has farmed this land for 7 generations but lately settlers have been attacking with the aim, he believes, of forcing him out. He says they have pulled out his crops and begun arriving at 5am, trying to break in. 'They yell, 'You are a thief, this is Israeli state land, this belongs to Abraham and Moses', he says."
Poor man. "But the settlers point to violence against them, such as the recent drive-by killings."
Oh yes, drive-by killings followed by driving the natives off their land, or is it the other way around? It's all so terribly confusing, John! Old hatreds indeed. Stretching back to time immemorial, no doubt. Lost in the proverbial mists of time... I'll just pop it into the too-hard basket, shall I?
"Under international law, all Jewish settlements on occupied territory are illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: 'The occuping power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies'."
Enough said? Definitely not: "Israel insists the settlements are legal."
Man, that's sooo beautifully yin and yang! And the second victim of this relentless tragedy whose orgins go back to the Flintstones?
"Born in the US as David Axelrod, he changed his name to David Ha'Ivri, or David the Hebrew. As director of the Shomron Liaison Office, Ha'Ivri has become a spokesman [a Mark Regev?] for settlers and has travelled to Australia** and elsewhere to enlist support for them. As I stand with him watching a ceremony he has organised to mark the end of the freeze, he looks anything but a victim. He doesn't have to endure 5am intimidation from settlers."
Er, John, could it be he doesn't look like a victim because he isn't? Just asking.
"But his home is in doubt. He lives in a small settlement, and if Israel signs an agreement with the Palestinians, Ha'Ivri will probably have to leave."
Shucks. Definitely a victim. Like the Zucker baby.
"So life goes on in the West Bank. The only common ground is the disputed [!] rocky and sandy ground we're standing on, which has absorbed so much blood and may absorb much more yet."
What a tragedy! So, John, you a betting man? Whose blood do you reckon that stony ground's going to absorb, Jaber's or Ha'Ivri's? What's that? Both? Oh, yes, the formula...
[*"Ha'Ivri was in Australia as a guest of Australian Friends of Gush Katif & the Shomron - a small organization that encourages Jewish people to settle across the biblical land of Israel, and which strongly opposed the disengagement from Gaza. During Ha'Ivri's visit, he met community leaders, journalists and Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby." (Another side of the debate, The Australian Jewish News, 2/11/09)]
PS (10/10/10): In its AJN 'Media Week' column of 8/10/10, taking issue with Lyons' piece, AIJAC's Jamie Hyams writes, "Article 49 only applies to the forced transfer of population, such as the Nazis perpetrated, and therefore has not been breached by Israel." Don't you just love Zionist lawyering? In The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective (1990), John Quigley writes, "The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure... To [Israel's claim that its settlement policy in the occupied territories doesn't breach Article 49] it was replied that Israel funded the settlements and that it had used the IDF to establish many of them. One particular use was that the government placed many recent immigrants in the settlements." (pp 177-178)
"Two baby boys, one Jewish and one Palestinian; two men, one Jewish and one Palestinian. Four lives that have never intersected but this week were all touched by one relentless tragedy, the Middle East conflict." (Peace hostage to old hatreds, John Lyons, 2/10/10)
Muhammed Abu Shara, 1, an asthma sufferer, died after inhaling Israeli tear gas after "clashes" between Israeli police and Palestinian demonstrators following the murder of a Palestinian man by a settler in East Jerusalem's Silwan district. However, "Three days later another baby became a victim."
Yeah? You mean he's dead too?
Well, not quite, but remember we've got a magic formula going here: "Sharon Zucker and his wife Neta, 9 months pregnant, were driving near their settlement. A car drove next to them and opened fire. They survived and drove to the nearest hospital, where a boy was born. The baby survived, but what a way to enter the world."
Right.
"Then there are the 2 adults. the first is Atta Jaber, a Palestinian whose farm is opposite the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, which adjoins Hebron and is home to some hardline settlers... Jaber says his family has farmed this land for 7 generations but lately settlers have been attacking with the aim, he believes, of forcing him out. He says they have pulled out his crops and begun arriving at 5am, trying to break in. 'They yell, 'You are a thief, this is Israeli state land, this belongs to Abraham and Moses', he says."
Poor man. "But the settlers point to violence against them, such as the recent drive-by killings."
Oh yes, drive-by killings followed by driving the natives off their land, or is it the other way around? It's all so terribly confusing, John! Old hatreds indeed. Stretching back to time immemorial, no doubt. Lost in the proverbial mists of time... I'll just pop it into the too-hard basket, shall I?
"Under international law, all Jewish settlements on occupied territory are illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: 'The occuping power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies'."
Enough said? Definitely not: "Israel insists the settlements are legal."
Man, that's sooo beautifully yin and yang! And the second victim of this relentless tragedy whose orgins go back to the Flintstones?
"Born in the US as David Axelrod, he changed his name to David Ha'Ivri, or David the Hebrew. As director of the Shomron Liaison Office, Ha'Ivri has become a spokesman [a Mark Regev?] for settlers and has travelled to Australia** and elsewhere to enlist support for them. As I stand with him watching a ceremony he has organised to mark the end of the freeze, he looks anything but a victim. He doesn't have to endure 5am intimidation from settlers."
Er, John, could it be he doesn't look like a victim because he isn't? Just asking.
"But his home is in doubt. He lives in a small settlement, and if Israel signs an agreement with the Palestinians, Ha'Ivri will probably have to leave."
Shucks. Definitely a victim. Like the Zucker baby.
"So life goes on in the West Bank. The only common ground is the disputed [!] rocky and sandy ground we're standing on, which has absorbed so much blood and may absorb much more yet."
What a tragedy! So, John, you a betting man? Whose blood do you reckon that stony ground's going to absorb, Jaber's or Ha'Ivri's? What's that? Both? Oh, yes, the formula...
[*"Ha'Ivri was in Australia as a guest of Australian Friends of Gush Katif & the Shomron - a small organization that encourages Jewish people to settle across the biblical land of Israel, and which strongly opposed the disengagement from Gaza. During Ha'Ivri's visit, he met community leaders, journalists and Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby." (Another side of the debate, The Australian Jewish News, 2/11/09)]
PS (10/10/10): In its AJN 'Media Week' column of 8/10/10, taking issue with Lyons' piece, AIJAC's Jamie Hyams writes, "Article 49 only applies to the forced transfer of population, such as the Nazis perpetrated, and therefore has not been breached by Israel." Don't you just love Zionist lawyering? In The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective (1990), John Quigley writes, "The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure... To [Israel's claim that its settlement policy in the occupied territories doesn't breach Article 49] it was replied that Israel funded the settlements and that it had used the IDF to establish many of them. One particular use was that the government placed many recent immigrants in the settlements." (pp 177-178)
Sunday, April 4, 2010
SBS Frames Palestinians
Did you notice how SBS World News' 6:30 bulletin framed the Palestinians last night? The item, US urges Gaza restraint, began with newsreader Lee Lin Chin (of the hedgehog hair and outlandish clothes) intoning, "Leaders of the Hamas militant group which controls the Gaza Strip say they're working to curb rocket attacks against Israel by smaller factions," and ended with her declaring, quite gratuitously, "Nearly 20 rockets have been fired into Israel in the past month." Which, if you think about it, is part of the larger Palestinians attack, Israelis respond frame. Which, in turn, is part of the even larger Palestinians are perpetrators and Israelis are victims frame.
Nor was the body of the report, a little BBC number by correspondent Tim Franks, any better.
Despite Palestinians being shot at, murdered and wounded on a near daily basis in the Gaza Strip, Franks had the gall to say that "over the past year it's been a relatively rare sight but once again Palestinian hospitals were taking in the wounded, in this case 3 children with minor injuries."
This was followed by a round of Israel Says: "Israel says it's not the one provoking violence. Last week 2 Israeli soldiers died along with 2 Palestinian gunmen after the Israeli army staged a brief incursion into Gaza. The army said it was pursuing Palestinian militants who were attempting to lay bombs along the border. The week before a missile hit this farm inside Israel killing a worker."
Finally, we had Israeli Army PR flak Lt Col Avital Leibovich (Blonde? But of course!) singing that hoary old Israeli number It's Raining Rockets: "If the situation in Israel will be quiet, it will also be quiet in the Gaza Strip. If we will continue to face this war zone, this rain of rockets from the Gaza Strip... then Gaza will not be quiet."
The only fleeting insight into what the Israelis have been up to inside Gaza these days came in that bit about the Israeli army staging a brief incursion into Gaza.
Let's look at the record for the period 1/3/10-1/4/10, shall we? The following data has been abstracted from the Farming Under Fire blog:
1/3/10: Israeli troops shell northern Gaza Strip, fire on Palestinian and ISM demonstrators, and shell Palestinian resistance fighters with 4 flechettes, killing 1 and wounding 1.
3/3/10: Israeli army penetrates northern Gaza Strip and levels land previously razed.
4/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinian houses in northern Gaza Strip.
5/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting bricks in northern Gaza Strip.
11/3/10: Israeli warplanes bomb village near Egyptian border.
12/3/10: Israeli troops penetrate northern Gaza Strip and level land already razed. Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting bricks.
16/3/10: Israeli troops fire into air to disperse peaceful protest over Israel's establishment of a 300-metre wide 'buffer zone' on Gazan side of border.
17/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians protesting 'buffer zone'.
18/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians protesting 'buffer zone'. (Thai worker in Israel killed by Palestinian rocket.)
19/3/10: Israeli warplanes bomb Khan Yunis farm and rocket ruins of Gaza International Airport, wounding 13 Palestinians collecting aggregate.
20/3/10: Israeli army penetrates northern Gaza Strip and abducts 17 Palestinians collecting aggregate from ruined site.
22/3/10: Israeli warplane rockets Rafah tunnel. Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting bricks in northern Gaza Strip. Israeli troops wound Palestinian in central Gaza. Israeli warplane rockets Gaza City, damaging houses and wounding 8 Palestinians with glass shards.
23/3/10: Israeli army penetrates northern Gaza Strip and levels land.
24/3/10: Israeli troops penetrate Gaza Strip and abduct 5 Palestinians collecting construction materials.
25/3/10: Israeli troops wound 2 Palestinians collecting aggregate near Khan Yunis.
26/3/10: Israeli army penetrates Gaza Strip near Khan Yunis accompanied by tanks and warplanes, killing 4 Palestinians and wounding 8. (This was the BBC's aforementioned brief incursion resulting in the deaths of 2 Israeli soldiers.)
27/3/10: Israeli army demolish house and raze land.
28-29/3/10: Israeli army levels land previously razed.
30/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians commemorating Land Day, wounding 4.
31/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting aggregate. Israeli army penetrates Gaza Strip near Khan Yunis and levels land already razed.
1/4/10: Israeli air raids (13) wound 3 Palestinians in Gaza City. Israeli navy shells Palestinian fisherman. Israeli tanks shell northern Gaza Strip.
Had SBS News presented a more balanced report, hedgehog hair's 2nd bookend might have looked more like this: Nearly 20 rockets have been fired into Israel in the past month, resulting in the death of a foreign worker. The Palestinians, for their part, have been shelled, bombed, rocketed and fired on by Israeli forces at least 22 times in the same period, with 5 killed and 30 wounded. Furthermore, the Gaza Strip has endured 6 Israeli incursions, resulting in 22 Palestinians being abducted and the destruction of much property and agricultural land.
Nor was the body of the report, a little BBC number by correspondent Tim Franks, any better.
Despite Palestinians being shot at, murdered and wounded on a near daily basis in the Gaza Strip, Franks had the gall to say that "over the past year it's been a relatively rare sight but once again Palestinian hospitals were taking in the wounded, in this case 3 children with minor injuries."
This was followed by a round of Israel Says: "Israel says it's not the one provoking violence. Last week 2 Israeli soldiers died along with 2 Palestinian gunmen after the Israeli army staged a brief incursion into Gaza. The army said it was pursuing Palestinian militants who were attempting to lay bombs along the border. The week before a missile hit this farm inside Israel killing a worker."
Finally, we had Israeli Army PR flak Lt Col Avital Leibovich (Blonde? But of course!) singing that hoary old Israeli number It's Raining Rockets: "If the situation in Israel will be quiet, it will also be quiet in the Gaza Strip. If we will continue to face this war zone, this rain of rockets from the Gaza Strip... then Gaza will not be quiet."
The only fleeting insight into what the Israelis have been up to inside Gaza these days came in that bit about the Israeli army staging a brief incursion into Gaza.
Let's look at the record for the period 1/3/10-1/4/10, shall we? The following data has been abstracted from the Farming Under Fire blog:
1/3/10: Israeli troops shell northern Gaza Strip, fire on Palestinian and ISM demonstrators, and shell Palestinian resistance fighters with 4 flechettes, killing 1 and wounding 1.
3/3/10: Israeli army penetrates northern Gaza Strip and levels land previously razed.
4/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinian houses in northern Gaza Strip.
5/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting bricks in northern Gaza Strip.
11/3/10: Israeli warplanes bomb village near Egyptian border.
12/3/10: Israeli troops penetrate northern Gaza Strip and level land already razed. Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting bricks.
16/3/10: Israeli troops fire into air to disperse peaceful protest over Israel's establishment of a 300-metre wide 'buffer zone' on Gazan side of border.
17/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians protesting 'buffer zone'.
18/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians protesting 'buffer zone'. (Thai worker in Israel killed by Palestinian rocket.)
19/3/10: Israeli warplanes bomb Khan Yunis farm and rocket ruins of Gaza International Airport, wounding 13 Palestinians collecting aggregate.
20/3/10: Israeli army penetrates northern Gaza Strip and abducts 17 Palestinians collecting aggregate from ruined site.
22/3/10: Israeli warplane rockets Rafah tunnel. Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting bricks in northern Gaza Strip. Israeli troops wound Palestinian in central Gaza. Israeli warplane rockets Gaza City, damaging houses and wounding 8 Palestinians with glass shards.
23/3/10: Israeli army penetrates northern Gaza Strip and levels land.
24/3/10: Israeli troops penetrate Gaza Strip and abduct 5 Palestinians collecting construction materials.
25/3/10: Israeli troops wound 2 Palestinians collecting aggregate near Khan Yunis.
26/3/10: Israeli army penetrates Gaza Strip near Khan Yunis accompanied by tanks and warplanes, killing 4 Palestinians and wounding 8. (This was the BBC's aforementioned brief incursion resulting in the deaths of 2 Israeli soldiers.)
27/3/10: Israeli army demolish house and raze land.
28-29/3/10: Israeli army levels land previously razed.
30/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians commemorating Land Day, wounding 4.
31/3/10: Israeli troops fire on Palestinians collecting aggregate. Israeli army penetrates Gaza Strip near Khan Yunis and levels land already razed.
1/4/10: Israeli air raids (13) wound 3 Palestinians in Gaza City. Israeli navy shells Palestinian fisherman. Israeli tanks shell northern Gaza Strip.
Had SBS News presented a more balanced report, hedgehog hair's 2nd bookend might have looked more like this: Nearly 20 rockets have been fired into Israel in the past month, resulting in the death of a foreign worker. The Palestinians, for their part, have been shelled, bombed, rocketed and fired on by Israeli forces at least 22 times in the same period, with 5 killed and 30 wounded. Furthermore, the Gaza Strip has endured 6 Israeli incursions, resulting in 22 Palestinians being abducted and the destruction of much property and agricultural land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)