Just for the record, ABC Radio National's hosts of The Minefield, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens, interviewed Peter Greste on 12/6/19 under the rubric A free press, sure, but free from what? And free for what?
Free of any mention of Julian Assange, that's what. Here's the relevant portion from Greste, following Aly's contention that the divide between the digital public and the traditional media is now so great as to appear unbridgeable:
"We've got to work a lot harder to regain public confidence in the media," replied Greste, "I hate the idea of talking about a business model that news ought to be a product and commodity that we sell... I don't think we should be thinking of the news as a product to be bought, sold and traded. I think if we see it as a public good, then we can start thinking about what to expect and need from our journalism. Then we can think about how we might design a machine that delivers that outcome. At the moment, what we're doing is allowing the digital environment to unfold in an ad hoc, random kind of way... We need to say: What do we need? and how to design a system to deliver that outcome."
Invoking news as the "public good" is the closest Greste gets in his statement to the subject of Julian Assange. Nitpicking aside, if concepts such as "public good", public interest, and the good, old-fashioned truth are not inextricably interlinked, then what is Greste on about here?
In a letter from the UK's Belmarsh Prison to independent British journalist Gordon Dimmack, who decided to make it public in May this year, following the US Justice Department's decision to lodge additional charges against Assange under the Espionage Act, Assange wrote:
"I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself, no laptop, no internet, no computer, no library so far, but even if I do get access it will be just for half an hour with everyone else once a week. Just two visits a month and it takes weeks to get someone on the call list and the Catch-22 in getting their details to be security screened. Then all calls except [to] lawyer[s] are recorded and are a maximum 10 minutes and in a limited 30 minutes each day in which all prisoners compete for the phone. And credit? Just a few pounds a week and no one can call in. A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case. I am defenceless and am counting on you and others of good character to save my life. I am unbroken albeit literally surrounded by murderers. But the days when I could read and speak and organise to defend myself, my ideals and my people are over until I am free. Everyone else must take my place. The US government or rather those regrettable elements in it that hate truth liberty and justice want to cheat their way into my extradition and death rather than letting the public hear the truth for which I have won the highest awards in journalism and have been nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth is ultimately all we have." (See 'Truth ultimately is all we have': Julian Assange appeals for public support, Oscar Grenfell, wsws.org, 25/5/19)
Greste shows no indication whatever of any desire to "save" Assange's life. Indeed, Assange seems as remote from his thinking as the dark side of the moon. His position would appear beyond callous.
Showing posts with label ABC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Friday, June 7, 2019
One Month Ago in Australia is Now Ancient History
Truly, it seems only yesterday, when on May 5 this year I ventured out to a Sydney Writers Festival (SWF) event called A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth.
Chaired by ABC Four Corners' Sophie McNeill, Mexican reporter Anabel Hernandez, Iraqi-American writer Dunya Mikhail and Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran were discussing the dire threat to journalists in their countries of origin. If my memory serves me correctly, an underlying assumption of the discussion then was that all were speaking in a country, Australia, where freedom of the press could, more or less, be taken for granted. (Palestine, Syria and Iran aside, of course.)
How ironic is it now, in the light of the recent Australian Federal Police (AFP) raids on News Corps reporter Annika Smethurst and the ABC, that, barely a month on from May 5, this assumption can no longer be legitimately entertained?
What with Australia's abandonment of journalist Julian Assange and the plight of whistleblowers such as Richard Boyle (who blew the whistle on the ATO and faces 6 life sentences if found guilty) and David William McBride (a former legal adviser to Australia's special forces in Afghanistan and named alongside three ABC journalists in the ABC's search warrant),* not to mention PM Morrison's wholly unconvincing assertion that his government had been "operationally at complete arm's length" from the raids, it appears as though the comforting assumption of May 5 at the SWF that Australia has a free press and that msm journalists and public-spirited whistleblowers are safe from harm's way was nothing more than an illusion.
[*See Whistleblower caught the eye of storm, Michael Whitbourn, Sydney Morning Herald, 6/6/19. This, mind you, going back to the ABC's then uncontroversial publication on 11/7/17 of The Afghan Files, when Malcolm Turnbull was still prime minister! Note that Morrison succeeded Turnbull on 24/8/18. You can draw your own conclusion about the timing of these raids. I note too that Sophie McNeill has tweeted on the subject of the raids, referencing The New York Times, thus: "Shame. 'Australia stands out. No other developed democracy holds as tight to its secrets, experts say, and the raids are just the latest example of how far the country's conservative government will go to scare officials and reporters into submission'." (Australia: The world's most secretive democracy)]
Chaired by ABC Four Corners' Sophie McNeill, Mexican reporter Anabel Hernandez, Iraqi-American writer Dunya Mikhail and Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran were discussing the dire threat to journalists in their countries of origin. If my memory serves me correctly, an underlying assumption of the discussion then was that all were speaking in a country, Australia, where freedom of the press could, more or less, be taken for granted. (Palestine, Syria and Iran aside, of course.)
How ironic is it now, in the light of the recent Australian Federal Police (AFP) raids on News Corps reporter Annika Smethurst and the ABC, that, barely a month on from May 5, this assumption can no longer be legitimately entertained?
What with Australia's abandonment of journalist Julian Assange and the plight of whistleblowers such as Richard Boyle (who blew the whistle on the ATO and faces 6 life sentences if found guilty) and David William McBride (a former legal adviser to Australia's special forces in Afghanistan and named alongside three ABC journalists in the ABC's search warrant),* not to mention PM Morrison's wholly unconvincing assertion that his government had been "operationally at complete arm's length" from the raids, it appears as though the comforting assumption of May 5 at the SWF that Australia has a free press and that msm journalists and public-spirited whistleblowers are safe from harm's way was nothing more than an illusion.
[*See Whistleblower caught the eye of storm, Michael Whitbourn, Sydney Morning Herald, 6/6/19. This, mind you, going back to the ABC's then uncontroversial publication on 11/7/17 of The Afghan Files, when Malcolm Turnbull was still prime minister! Note that Morrison succeeded Turnbull on 24/8/18. You can draw your own conclusion about the timing of these raids. I note too that Sophie McNeill has tweeted on the subject of the raids, referencing The New York Times, thus: "Shame. 'Australia stands out. No other developed democracy holds as tight to its secrets, experts say, and the raids are just the latest example of how far the country's conservative government will go to scare officials and reporters into submission'." (Australia: The world's most secretive democracy)]
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Zero Gravitas
Before I proceed further with this post, let me nail my colours to the mast: one's position on Palestine is an infallible litmus test of one's moral and intellectual courage. If you willfully ignore the plight of Palestine, look the other way, self-censor, or otherwise hold your tongue on the subject when the need or opportunity comes to speak out, your worth and potential as a moral, thinking human being will be greatly diminished, and whatever you have to say on other matters of concern or importance will be wreathed in the rank odour of hypocrisy.
What follows is a transcript of how 'our' ABC 'handled' the news that Twitter had suspended some pro-BDS accounts at the behest of the Israeli government to enable the Eurovision Song Contest to be staged in Tel Aviv without controversy. Radio National Breakfast presenter, Fran Kelly, a self-proclaimed "activist" (Wikipedia), and rated by Crikey as "one of the most influential media players in the country" (Wikipedia), conducted an interview with an Australian academic on the matter. Now I must confess, as a listener to Radio National, to never having heard Kelly show any indication of knowledge of, or concern over, Israeli brutalities in Palestine, so the way in which she conducted the interview came as no great surprise to me.
More importantly, what possessed the ABC to choose, as an interlocutor on this important issue, an associate professor in international relations at Sydney University, Anika Gauja, whose Twitter profile reads thus: "A/Prof politics USyd. Political parties, members, representation. Ocean swimmer, Eurovision fanatic, Farnham tragic, knife collector & wine student"?
It's clear from this that someone on RN made a decision to dispense with the substance of the matter - blatant Israeli pressure to shield from legitimate criticism its exploitation of Eurovision to burnish its increasingly tarnished image - and opt instead for a "Eurovision fanatic" with no obvious knowledge of, or concern for, Israel's escalating oppression of the Palestinian people. Questions abound: Who made that decision, and why? Why wasn't a BDS spokesperson interviewed? Or at least involved in the interview? What does this choice tell us about the prevailing culture of the ABC, lambasted, hilariously, by the Murdoch press as a hotbed of leftism? What does it tell us about red lines, self-censorship, and fear of pressure from the Israel lobby?
OK, so finally here's the transcript - with my interpolations in square brackets. Read it and weep for the ABC; for what the hell is going on in our neoliberal, corporatised universities; and for our hapless students of international relations and who knows what else:
Fran Kelly: Within a matter of weeks Australia will again take to the stage in the Eurovision Song Contest that's being held in Israel this year. Kate Miller Heidke will perform the song Zero Gravity in Tel Aviv. But the lead up to the contest has been overshadowed by widespread calls for musicians to boycott the event over Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. The effort has been gaining traction with international artists and other public figures. But overnight Twitter announced it had suspended a small network of accounts after complaints from Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs that fake accounts were promoting the boycott. This highlights once again the politicised nature of the world's biggest music competition. Anika Gauja is Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Sydney, and she happens to be a huge Eurovision fan. So who's behind the push for the boycott of Eurovision in Israel? (Calls for Eurovision boycott, Radio National, abc.net.au, 3/5/19)
[Call me old-fashioned and out of touch here, but is there a new breed of academic out there who combines serious scholarship and an obsession with one or another manifestation of mind-numbing trivia? I'm fascinated! Can anyone, perhaps, provide me with other examples?]
Anika Gauja: The movement called the BDS movement - Boycott Divestment & Sanctions - which has been around since the mid 2000s and, as you mentioned, they're trying to highlight what they would say is Israeli war crimes or atrocities against the Palestinians in Israel.
["What they would say... "??? What, only them? Not our recognised repository of international law, the UN? Oh look, here's a snippet from the recently released UN Independent Commission of Inquiry's report on the Gaza border protests: "The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity...? "In Israel"? No, in the occupied Gaza Strip.]
FK: And they've got some high profile people aboard in this camp.
AG: Yeah, yeah. Brian Eno signing a letter and... international celebrities but the European Broadcasting Union which is the body responsible for staging the Eurovision has remained absolutely steadfast in its opposition to the boycott. It basically says that boycotting Eurovision is not a political event and its an event that's geared toward promoting diversity, togetherness, compromise, peace, harmony, so boycotting something like that is boycotting the values and ethos of Eurovision.
[You're kidding me? Do you have any idea how grotesquely irrelevant this Eurovision PR patter is to the manifest horrors being perpetrated by the Israelis in OCCUPIED Palestine?]
FK: And that position has got some high profile support too from people like Stephen Fry.
AG: Exactly.
FK: Well, the EBU, which produces Eurovision, goes against the spirit of the contest celebrating the [inaudible] unity. Last month over 100 public figures endorsed this boycott. We've got this counter thing. Has it made any difference to any of the countries taking part in Eurovision?
[Well, why not interview one?]
AG: No, it hasn't. I mean... there have been protests in Australia when Australia ran its song selection contest, and Madonna is going to perform at the grand final this year, which is quite an interesting and unique event for somebody outside of Europe. There've been calls for her to boycott, but none of the nations officially participating have withdrawn as a result of those calls.
[Seriously, who gives a fuck about Madonna?]
FK: And what do you make of this announcement overnight from Twitter that they've suspended a small network of accounts after complaints by Israel? Just more politicisation, isn't it?
AG: Yeah, absolutely. I think that in terms of Eurovision this is probably quite unprecedented. There's always controversy in the run up to the contest, but to have Twitter come in and and censor social media accounts is very interesting.
["Very interesting"??? A blatant violation of free speech at the behest of a Jewish supremacist apartheid state is merely "very interesting"?]
FK: What does past behaviour tell us? Would you expect to see protests... at the Eurovision Song contest outside and would you expect to see protests on stage... ?
AG: I think that the security this year because of the BDS campaign is going to be absolutely unprecedented, so I would be very very surprised if there are protests outside. Inside I think it's a different matter. We have seen in recent years protesters or pranksters being able to storm the stage... so it is possible for people to compromise security.
FK: What about the contestants themselves though?
AG: What's more common is you have a more subtle process that's built into a performance or a song... Occasionally a comment will be made... which can be interpreted as political but its a sort of subversive process.
FK: Am I right in saying it happens on the election weekend?
AG: Yeah, yeah, this is terrible for me cause my 2 passions conflict and this year I've chosen to go to Israel for the contest rather than hang around for a federal election...
[Gobsmacking!]
PS 6/5/19: Now this FFS: "Prolonged fighting could overshadow Eurovision and potentially deter international travellers from coming in for the festive event." (Israel and Gaza exchange rocket fire as death toll mounts after month-long fighting lull, 5/5/19, 1:31pm, abc.net.au)
What follows is a transcript of how 'our' ABC 'handled' the news that Twitter had suspended some pro-BDS accounts at the behest of the Israeli government to enable the Eurovision Song Contest to be staged in Tel Aviv without controversy. Radio National Breakfast presenter, Fran Kelly, a self-proclaimed "activist" (Wikipedia), and rated by Crikey as "one of the most influential media players in the country" (Wikipedia), conducted an interview with an Australian academic on the matter. Now I must confess, as a listener to Radio National, to never having heard Kelly show any indication of knowledge of, or concern over, Israeli brutalities in Palestine, so the way in which she conducted the interview came as no great surprise to me.
More importantly, what possessed the ABC to choose, as an interlocutor on this important issue, an associate professor in international relations at Sydney University, Anika Gauja, whose Twitter profile reads thus: "A/Prof politics USyd. Political parties, members, representation. Ocean swimmer, Eurovision fanatic, Farnham tragic, knife collector & wine student"?
It's clear from this that someone on RN made a decision to dispense with the substance of the matter - blatant Israeli pressure to shield from legitimate criticism its exploitation of Eurovision to burnish its increasingly tarnished image - and opt instead for a "Eurovision fanatic" with no obvious knowledge of, or concern for, Israel's escalating oppression of the Palestinian people. Questions abound: Who made that decision, and why? Why wasn't a BDS spokesperson interviewed? Or at least involved in the interview? What does this choice tell us about the prevailing culture of the ABC, lambasted, hilariously, by the Murdoch press as a hotbed of leftism? What does it tell us about red lines, self-censorship, and fear of pressure from the Israel lobby?
OK, so finally here's the transcript - with my interpolations in square brackets. Read it and weep for the ABC; for what the hell is going on in our neoliberal, corporatised universities; and for our hapless students of international relations and who knows what else:
Fran Kelly: Within a matter of weeks Australia will again take to the stage in the Eurovision Song Contest that's being held in Israel this year. Kate Miller Heidke will perform the song Zero Gravity in Tel Aviv. But the lead up to the contest has been overshadowed by widespread calls for musicians to boycott the event over Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. The effort has been gaining traction with international artists and other public figures. But overnight Twitter announced it had suspended a small network of accounts after complaints from Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs that fake accounts were promoting the boycott. This highlights once again the politicised nature of the world's biggest music competition. Anika Gauja is Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Sydney, and she happens to be a huge Eurovision fan. So who's behind the push for the boycott of Eurovision in Israel? (Calls for Eurovision boycott, Radio National, abc.net.au, 3/5/19)
[Call me old-fashioned and out of touch here, but is there a new breed of academic out there who combines serious scholarship and an obsession with one or another manifestation of mind-numbing trivia? I'm fascinated! Can anyone, perhaps, provide me with other examples?]
Anika Gauja: The movement called the BDS movement - Boycott Divestment & Sanctions - which has been around since the mid 2000s and, as you mentioned, they're trying to highlight what they would say is Israeli war crimes or atrocities against the Palestinians in Israel.
["What they would say... "??? What, only them? Not our recognised repository of international law, the UN? Oh look, here's a snippet from the recently released UN Independent Commission of Inquiry's report on the Gaza border protests: "The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity...? "In Israel"? No, in the occupied Gaza Strip.]
FK: And they've got some high profile people aboard in this camp.
AG: Yeah, yeah. Brian Eno signing a letter and... international celebrities but the European Broadcasting Union which is the body responsible for staging the Eurovision has remained absolutely steadfast in its opposition to the boycott. It basically says that boycotting Eurovision is not a political event and its an event that's geared toward promoting diversity, togetherness, compromise, peace, harmony, so boycotting something like that is boycotting the values and ethos of Eurovision.
[You're kidding me? Do you have any idea how grotesquely irrelevant this Eurovision PR patter is to the manifest horrors being perpetrated by the Israelis in OCCUPIED Palestine?]
FK: And that position has got some high profile support too from people like Stephen Fry.
AG: Exactly.
FK: Well, the EBU, which produces Eurovision, goes against the spirit of the contest celebrating the [inaudible] unity. Last month over 100 public figures endorsed this boycott. We've got this counter thing. Has it made any difference to any of the countries taking part in Eurovision?
[Well, why not interview one?]
AG: No, it hasn't. I mean... there have been protests in Australia when Australia ran its song selection contest, and Madonna is going to perform at the grand final this year, which is quite an interesting and unique event for somebody outside of Europe. There've been calls for her to boycott, but none of the nations officially participating have withdrawn as a result of those calls.
[Seriously, who gives a fuck about Madonna?]
FK: And what do you make of this announcement overnight from Twitter that they've suspended a small network of accounts after complaints by Israel? Just more politicisation, isn't it?
AG: Yeah, absolutely. I think that in terms of Eurovision this is probably quite unprecedented. There's always controversy in the run up to the contest, but to have Twitter come in and and censor social media accounts is very interesting.
["Very interesting"??? A blatant violation of free speech at the behest of a Jewish supremacist apartheid state is merely "very interesting"?]
FK: What does past behaviour tell us? Would you expect to see protests... at the Eurovision Song contest outside and would you expect to see protests on stage... ?
AG: I think that the security this year because of the BDS campaign is going to be absolutely unprecedented, so I would be very very surprised if there are protests outside. Inside I think it's a different matter. We have seen in recent years protesters or pranksters being able to storm the stage... so it is possible for people to compromise security.
FK: What about the contestants themselves though?
AG: What's more common is you have a more subtle process that's built into a performance or a song... Occasionally a comment will be made... which can be interpreted as political but its a sort of subversive process.
FK: Am I right in saying it happens on the election weekend?
AG: Yeah, yeah, this is terrible for me cause my 2 passions conflict and this year I've chosen to go to Israel for the contest rather than hang around for a federal election...
[Gobsmacking!]
PS 6/5/19: Now this FFS: "Prolonged fighting could overshadow Eurovision and potentially deter international travellers from coming in for the festive event." (Israel and Gaza exchange rocket fire as death toll mounts after month-long fighting lull, 5/5/19, 1:31pm, abc.net.au)
Monday, February 11, 2019
The Jury's in on Morrison's Jerusalem Surprise
No wonder the Morrison government's got it in for the ABC:
"Australian embassies were put on notice to upgrade travel warnings and boost security BEFORE the Government's shock Israel embassy [16/10] announcement during the Wentworth by-election, sensitive documents reveal." (Australian embassies warned over security before Scott Morrison's Israel announcement, Dan Conifer & Michael McKinnon, abc.net.au, 9/2/19)
Note that was "JUST ONE DAY BEFORE"! (ibid)
So there you go. Damn the travelling public - as long as Dave Sharma gets in!
Speaking of the guy who once gushed that "Israel will always be in our hearts, blood, souls, veins":
"The documents... emphasised Mr Sharma's role in the decision. 'The Prime Minister will announce he has found the arguments put forward by Australia's former Ambassador to Israel [Dave Sharma]... persuasive,' it said." (ibid)
And yet, at the time the announcement was made:
"The Coalition denied the policy was aimed at wooing Jewish voters in the inner-Sydney electorate, which is home to the largest proportion of Jewish voters in Australia." (ibid)
The jury's in then: Scott Morrison's Jerusalem surprise - for the buck stops with the prime minister - was nothing more than a shameless grab for the Jewish vote, initiated by an Israel-besotted, wannabe politician and undertaken without regard for potential security, diplomatic or commercial consequences.
This commendable ABC sleuthing should be front-page news, but I won't be holding my breath for too long.
"Australian embassies were put on notice to upgrade travel warnings and boost security BEFORE the Government's shock Israel embassy [16/10] announcement during the Wentworth by-election, sensitive documents reveal." (Australian embassies warned over security before Scott Morrison's Israel announcement, Dan Conifer & Michael McKinnon, abc.net.au, 9/2/19)
Note that was "JUST ONE DAY BEFORE"! (ibid)
So there you go. Damn the travelling public - as long as Dave Sharma gets in!
Speaking of the guy who once gushed that "Israel will always be in our hearts, blood, souls, veins":
"The documents... emphasised Mr Sharma's role in the decision. 'The Prime Minister will announce he has found the arguments put forward by Australia's former Ambassador to Israel [Dave Sharma]... persuasive,' it said." (ibid)
And yet, at the time the announcement was made:
"The Coalition denied the policy was aimed at wooing Jewish voters in the inner-Sydney electorate, which is home to the largest proportion of Jewish voters in Australia." (ibid)
The jury's in then: Scott Morrison's Jerusalem surprise - for the buck stops with the prime minister - was nothing more than a shameless grab for the Jewish vote, initiated by an Israel-besotted, wannabe politician and undertaken without regard for potential security, diplomatic or commercial consequences.
This commendable ABC sleuthing should be front-page news, but I won't be holding my breath for too long.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
'We Wait in Fear'
"I spent time with BBC journalists and a senior producer said to me 'We wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis. I have had journalists on the phone to me minutes before a broadcast checking what they can say, which words they can use'." - Professor Greg Philo, Glasgow Media Group, SOAS, 19/5/11
Shit, here's one now:
"@BBCWorld this is a formal complaint by @IsraelMFA. This title [Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby'] This title is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that's the polite equivalent of 'this is a LIE', if you don't get it). Israelis were targeted by Hamas and IDF acts to protect them. Change it IMMEDIATELY!!! @IsraelMFA" - Emmanuel Nahshon tweet, 9/8/18
So they did, and in double time too: "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel" - 9/8/18
***
Don't tell me this isn't happening with our ABC.
Shit, here's one now:
"@BBCWorld this is a formal complaint by @IsraelMFA. This title [Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby'] This title is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that's the polite equivalent of 'this is a LIE', if you don't get it). Israelis were targeted by Hamas and IDF acts to protect them. Change it IMMEDIATELY!!! @IsraelMFA" - Emmanuel Nahshon tweet, 9/8/18
So they did, and in double time too: "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel" - 9/8/18
***
Don't tell me this isn't happening with our ABC.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Associated Press: 'Gaza is a Troubled Territory'
Heard on yesterday's Breakfast program on Radio National. Gormless ABC interviewer Matt Bevan trots out "bloody clashes"* yet again. It seems Matt wouldn't know a massacre if it hit him in the face:
"The UN has called for an independent investigation into the deaths and injuries of Palestinian protesters who were involved in bloody clashes with Israeli security forces on the Gaza border on Friday. At least 17 Palestinians were killed and an estimated 1,400 injured after Israeli forces opened fire on the protesters, making it the deadliest day in the Israel-Palestine conflict since the 2014 war. Israel has rejected calls for an independent inquiry. They have blamed Hamas for the violence and Israel says that it could take further action against what it says are terrorist targets inside the Gaza Strip... Joe Federman is the Associated Press bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories. Why has violence flared up in the last week?"
OFFS. The "violence" just "flares up", like a volcano. You just never know when. But seriously, folks, just listen to Federman's reply. Matt's a veritable paragon of objectivity compared to this bloke:
JF: Well, this is something that has been in the works for some time...
Err, right... since the British issued the Balfour Declaration, flooding Arab Palestine with Zionist colons, or at least since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist terror gangs in 1948.
Gaza is a troubled territory.
You know that autistic kid that's driving his teachers bonkers, Matt? Gaza!
It's controlled by a group called Hamas [which] took over a decade ago...
Miserable half-truth: Hamas was democratically elected (taking 74 seats in a 132 seat Palestinian legislative body) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in January 2006 after Bush junior insisted that elections be held, against Israeli wishes, in the occupied territories. Israel went ballistic at the result and, by way of collective punishment, imposed an economic stranglehold on Gaza, withholding Palestinian tax and customs revenues. This in fact was the actual beginning of its ruinous blockade of the territory. Sharon adviser Dov Weissglass famously described the move as putting Gazans on "a diet."
... and since then it's been under a blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt and conditions are getting worse... And it just seems to be boiling over right now. Hamas is kind of running out of options.. It's become isolated internationally, it's fought 3 wars against Israel, and it's running out of options so now it's turned to these mass protests along the border.
MB: So why specifically last week? Was their some sort of occasion for these protests to be held...?
JF: Um, it's hard to point to a single spark.
Sooo hard! Of course, you wouldn't expect this blockhead from New York to have heard of Palestinian Land Day - commemorated every 30 March ever since Israeli troops massacred 6 Palestinian Israelis and wounded around 100 others on that date in 1976, during a protest against Israel's theft of Palestinian land in the Galilee. After all, he hasn't even heard of the Palestinian Nakba/Catastrophe FFS:
This has kind of been in the works for a while and we're hitting a time in the calendar with Israel celebrating its 70th anniversary very soon. You have some holidays coming up and you have the Palestinians marking the 70th anniversary of what they call their tragedy.
And this is just the opening Q&A!
"The UN has called for an independent investigation into the deaths and injuries of Palestinian protesters who were involved in bloody clashes with Israeli security forces on the Gaza border on Friday. At least 17 Palestinians were killed and an estimated 1,400 injured after Israeli forces opened fire on the protesters, making it the deadliest day in the Israel-Palestine conflict since the 2014 war. Israel has rejected calls for an independent inquiry. They have blamed Hamas for the violence and Israel says that it could take further action against what it says are terrorist targets inside the Gaza Strip... Joe Federman is the Associated Press bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories. Why has violence flared up in the last week?"
OFFS. The "violence" just "flares up", like a volcano. You just never know when. But seriously, folks, just listen to Federman's reply. Matt's a veritable paragon of objectivity compared to this bloke:
JF: Well, this is something that has been in the works for some time...
Err, right... since the British issued the Balfour Declaration, flooding Arab Palestine with Zionist colons, or at least since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist terror gangs in 1948.
Gaza is a troubled territory.
You know that autistic kid that's driving his teachers bonkers, Matt? Gaza!
It's controlled by a group called Hamas [which] took over a decade ago...
Miserable half-truth: Hamas was democratically elected (taking 74 seats in a 132 seat Palestinian legislative body) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in January 2006 after Bush junior insisted that elections be held, against Israeli wishes, in the occupied territories. Israel went ballistic at the result and, by way of collective punishment, imposed an economic stranglehold on Gaza, withholding Palestinian tax and customs revenues. This in fact was the actual beginning of its ruinous blockade of the territory. Sharon adviser Dov Weissglass famously described the move as putting Gazans on "a diet."
... and since then it's been under a blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt and conditions are getting worse... And it just seems to be boiling over right now. Hamas is kind of running out of options.. It's become isolated internationally, it's fought 3 wars against Israel, and it's running out of options so now it's turned to these mass protests along the border.
MB: So why specifically last week? Was their some sort of occasion for these protests to be held...?
JF: Um, it's hard to point to a single spark.
Sooo hard! Of course, you wouldn't expect this blockhead from New York to have heard of Palestinian Land Day - commemorated every 30 March ever since Israeli troops massacred 6 Palestinian Israelis and wounded around 100 others on that date in 1976, during a protest against Israel's theft of Palestinian land in the Galilee. After all, he hasn't even heard of the Palestinian Nakba/Catastrophe FFS:
This has kind of been in the works for a while and we're hitting a time in the calendar with Israel celebrating its 70th anniversary very soon. You have some holidays coming up and you have the Palestinians marking the 70th anniversary of what they call their tragedy.
And this is just the opening Q&A!
Friday, February 9, 2018
Radio National's Clueless Fran Kelly
Radio National's Fran Kelly interviews Robbie Sabel, an Israeli professor of international law at the Hebrew University and - ahem - former adviser to the Israeli foreign affairs ministry (Israel issues deportation notices for African migrants, 7/2/18).
Throughout the entire interview, Kelly makes no reference whatever to Israel's expulsion of Palestinian refugees, driven out of their homeland in 1948, and again in 1967, for one reason and one reason only: they were not Jews. Nor does she pick up on the word 'infiltrator', introduced by Sabel. Kelly clearly has no idea that any Palestinian refugee who tried to return was shot on sight as an 'infiltrator'. She is clearly clueless that African refugees, for Sabel and most other Israelis, Africans are simply non-Jews and therefore unwelcome in a Zionist, Jews-only state. Zionism's been around for over 100 years but this simple fact hasn't registered with Fran Kelly:
Fran Kelly: Uganda is denying reports that it's done a deal with Israeli PM Netanyahu to accept thousands more refugees from Sudan and Eritrea who are facing deportation from Israel... Robbie Sabel, why has Israel decided to deport thousands of men, Eritreans and Sudanese, many of whom have been seeking asylum... in Israel for some years now?
Robbie Sabel: Well, these people are not political refugees... Israel is a tiny country which can't absorb large numbers of these people.
FK: Robbie, can I just clarify... when you say they're not political refugees have they been assessed as genuine political refugees?
RS: Everybody who requests political asylum we assess and do not deport until the assessment is finished.
FK: So some have been living there for years. How long have they had their assessment done and have they been deemed to be genuine refugees?
RS: Most of them haven't been given but those who have requested political asylum. there's a backlog and it takes a long time but we do asses them... BTW, even political refugees can be deported but not to a country where they're liable to be persecuted.
FK: So why is Israel doing this now? You say it's about the numbers. How many are we talking about?
RS: Twenty thousand.
FK: That's not very many, is it?
RS: But we're allowing people with families and children to stay. We're talking only about single men and they've moved into the poorer parts of Tel Aviv and it's causing social unrest... And there has been political pressure in Israel to refuse to allow these people to stay permanently.
FK: Where's this pressure coming from?
RS: From the population of Tel Aviv... They say tiny little Israel can't solve the problems of the terrible situation in some African countries.
FK: Nevertheless it does seem there is something else going on here rather than just worrying about the numbers. The language being used. The government is describing some of these people as infiltrators. What is that supposed to mean?
RS: Well, legally they are. They entered the country illegally. In other words, they didn't request visas. They passed into Israel illegally. So legally they are infiltrators... But we don't deport them to countries where they're likely to be persecuted, like Sudan and Eritrea. However, African countries where there's no danger of persecution and they're wanting to go and the countries will accept them we do so.
FK: The countries you're talking about, I've heard Rwanda, Uganda, these are poor countries. Why would other African countries accept these people?
RS: Well, Rwanda had accepted nearly 180 000... These people come with a small sum and Israel is very happy to find a country. Presumably, if Canada or Australia is willing to accept them, we might support them there.
FK: Is this a bit of a moral dilemma for many in Israel [!!!], a state founded as a safe haven for Jews fleeing from persecution [!!!]... And here is it chucking out people who come seeking sanctuary. Is that causing a moral debate within your country?
RS: It is causing a moral debate, although these people are not political refugees. They're economic refugees but the mere fact of expelling people is not pleasant... But when it becomes large numbers, 50,000, we have a problem. This is not people being sent to concentration camps. People come here seeking work and they're leaving with a small sum.
FK: I understand there is resistance from some in the community. People are offering to take in migrants.
RS: There is. In fact, as an Israeli I am proud of the people of Israel. Israel is an open, democratic society but logically and economically Israel can't absorb enormous amounts of people who would prefer to work in a prosperous Israel.
FK: What is the population of Israel?
RS: It's about 8m now.
FK: So twenty thousand in 8m, is that really such a threat?
RS: No it's not, but if 50,000 is already a problem and we continue to allow them to come in it would be a problem.
FK: But it's already slowing. Israel built a fence over the past few years on the border with Egypt.
RS: The fence is just the border. If Sinai becomes peaceful again, we might see this issue. Israel can't absorb enormous numbers of refugees.
Throughout the entire interview, Kelly makes no reference whatever to Israel's expulsion of Palestinian refugees, driven out of their homeland in 1948, and again in 1967, for one reason and one reason only: they were not Jews. Nor does she pick up on the word 'infiltrator', introduced by Sabel. Kelly clearly has no idea that any Palestinian refugee who tried to return was shot on sight as an 'infiltrator'. She is clearly clueless that African refugees, for Sabel and most other Israelis, Africans are simply non-Jews and therefore unwelcome in a Zionist, Jews-only state. Zionism's been around for over 100 years but this simple fact hasn't registered with Fran Kelly:
Fran Kelly: Uganda is denying reports that it's done a deal with Israeli PM Netanyahu to accept thousands more refugees from Sudan and Eritrea who are facing deportation from Israel... Robbie Sabel, why has Israel decided to deport thousands of men, Eritreans and Sudanese, many of whom have been seeking asylum... in Israel for some years now?
Robbie Sabel: Well, these people are not political refugees... Israel is a tiny country which can't absorb large numbers of these people.
FK: Robbie, can I just clarify... when you say they're not political refugees have they been assessed as genuine political refugees?
RS: Everybody who requests political asylum we assess and do not deport until the assessment is finished.
FK: So some have been living there for years. How long have they had their assessment done and have they been deemed to be genuine refugees?
RS: Most of them haven't been given but those who have requested political asylum. there's a backlog and it takes a long time but we do asses them... BTW, even political refugees can be deported but not to a country where they're liable to be persecuted.
FK: So why is Israel doing this now? You say it's about the numbers. How many are we talking about?
RS: Twenty thousand.
FK: That's not very many, is it?
RS: But we're allowing people with families and children to stay. We're talking only about single men and they've moved into the poorer parts of Tel Aviv and it's causing social unrest... And there has been political pressure in Israel to refuse to allow these people to stay permanently.
FK: Where's this pressure coming from?
RS: From the population of Tel Aviv... They say tiny little Israel can't solve the problems of the terrible situation in some African countries.
FK: Nevertheless it does seem there is something else going on here rather than just worrying about the numbers. The language being used. The government is describing some of these people as infiltrators. What is that supposed to mean?
RS: Well, legally they are. They entered the country illegally. In other words, they didn't request visas. They passed into Israel illegally. So legally they are infiltrators... But we don't deport them to countries where they're likely to be persecuted, like Sudan and Eritrea. However, African countries where there's no danger of persecution and they're wanting to go and the countries will accept them we do so.
FK: The countries you're talking about, I've heard Rwanda, Uganda, these are poor countries. Why would other African countries accept these people?
RS: Well, Rwanda had accepted nearly 180 000... These people come with a small sum and Israel is very happy to find a country. Presumably, if Canada or Australia is willing to accept them, we might support them there.
FK: Is this a bit of a moral dilemma for many in Israel [!!!], a state founded as a safe haven for Jews fleeing from persecution [!!!]... And here is it chucking out people who come seeking sanctuary. Is that causing a moral debate within your country?
RS: It is causing a moral debate, although these people are not political refugees. They're economic refugees but the mere fact of expelling people is not pleasant... But when it becomes large numbers, 50,000, we have a problem. This is not people being sent to concentration camps. People come here seeking work and they're leaving with a small sum.
FK: I understand there is resistance from some in the community. People are offering to take in migrants.
RS: There is. In fact, as an Israeli I am proud of the people of Israel. Israel is an open, democratic society but logically and economically Israel can't absorb enormous amounts of people who would prefer to work in a prosperous Israel.
FK: What is the population of Israel?
RS: It's about 8m now.
FK: So twenty thousand in 8m, is that really such a threat?
RS: No it's not, but if 50,000 is already a problem and we continue to allow them to come in it would be a problem.
FK: But it's already slowing. Israel built a fence over the past few years on the border with Egypt.
RS: The fence is just the border. If Sinai becomes peaceful again, we might see this issue. Israel can't absorb enormous numbers of refugees.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Move Over Geraldine, Fauziah's Here!
Unbelievable! I've just listened to Israel's 'most hated' columnist on Radio National's Sunday Extra (26/11). Visiting Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy was being interviewed by RN presenter Fauziah Ibrahim. (Despite the Arabic name, it seems she's actually from Singapore, and has been working in broadcast journalism for 15 years, including for Al-Jazeera.)
I can't remember, however, when I last heard questions/statements quite as excruciatingly slanted in Israel's favour as Ms Ibrahim's. So much so that I found myself paying more heed to her questions than to Levy's answers!
See what I mean:
*When you say 'automatic [Israeli] soldiers' are you implying they're brainwashed, they don't actually know what they're doing, and they don't have an understanding of the larger context of their role?
[Oh no, Fauziah, they're all Einsteins! No, better, budding high-tech entrepreneurs!]
*This military has been in existence for a long time... are you seeing a difference between this generation and the one you served [in the army] with?
*Have you ever apologised to the parents of the soldiers who died defending this country?
[OFFS!!!???]
*Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations. That's an undisputable [sic] fact. Don't you think it's unfair to target the young men and women who were serving their country, risking their lives to protect and defend the country?
[OFFS!!!??? second time around.]
*I want to talk about the elite or the decision-makers. Is there a slow change in mindset? Recently, Israel's president rejected an appeal to pardon Elor Azaria. He was jailed for 18 months for killing a wounded Palestinian attacker. Do you see this refusal to pardon him as a shift in mindset?
*Can you blame [the Israelis] though, when they are surrounded by hostile neighbours and everywhere you go in the media you continually hear about Islamic extremism, and that threat seems to be larger than ever against Israel?
[Hostile neighbours again! This woman sounds like the proverbial broken record.]
*You have been quoted as saying that 'My biggest enemy is the [Israeli] centre and the Zionist left.' How do you counter the arguments of a group of people whose memories still hold the hurt of Nazi persecution and in Israel they have found finally their sanctuary?
[So the Zionist project in Palestine, even though it kicked off in the late 19th century, is all about the Holocaust? There were no Jewish settlers in Palestine before the Holocaust? Every Israeli is a Holocaust survivor, or the descendant of one?]
*How do you counter the views of a group of people who believe it is their God-given right that they live on the land their faith has promised them?
*When you first visited the Palestinian territories in 1967... Take us back to that time. What was your sense then?
*How did you feel about the war at age 14? It was a non-choice war!
[Oh, was it? Israel attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground in a pre-emptive strike on 5 June, 1967, and according to Israel's General Peled, Chief of Logistical Command at the time: "All those stories about the huge danger we were facing... an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our 'defence' against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army." (Le Monde, 3/6/72)
*When did you start to question your birth country's actions against the Palestinians?
*How do you deal with the the animosity from your own fellow Israelis? Do you find it frustrating that your voice is a minority in Israel?
*Do you think you may have any common ground with PM Netanyahu?
[!!!???]
*I want to go back to another leader, Shimon Peres... His politics started very hawkish then he became a dove. Explain how that shift came about.
*Another leader who started off hawkish and then became, not a dove, a little more centre, Ariel Sharon... He orchestrated Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and he had plans to withdraw from the West Bank. If a solution comes with a soldier, how much does politics sway them away from that solution?
[Ah, Sharon the peacemaker. Not at all sorry about the cold water here: "[C]ontrary to the prevailing assumptions, Sharon did not evacuate the Gaza settlements of his own free will. He cooked up his disengagement plan as a means to gain time, at the peak of international pressure that followed Israel's sabotaging of the Road Map. Yet still, at every moment since then, up until the very moment of disengagement, he was looking for ways to renege on this commitment, as he had done so many times previously. But this time he was forced to follow through with the Gaza pullout by the Bush administration. Though it was kept fully behind the scenes, US pressure on Sharon was massive, and included military sanctions on Israel." (The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine since 2003, Tanya Reinhart, 2006, p 4)]
*You are a champion of Palestinian rights. Are you also a champion of Palestinian politics?
*Do you feel guilty being an Israeli?
*How effective is BDS?
*It's not fair to target the Israeli citizen or companies through this boycott.
[But it's fine to target - literally - occupied Palestinians?]
*You support a one-state solution, but isn't that unrealistic? It means a whole rethink, a whole shift from Zionism, the Israeli identity. Where do you start?
[OMG, expecting Israeli Jews to think - Gideon, how could you?!]
I can't remember, however, when I last heard questions/statements quite as excruciatingly slanted in Israel's favour as Ms Ibrahim's. So much so that I found myself paying more heed to her questions than to Levy's answers!
See what I mean:
*When you say 'automatic [Israeli] soldiers' are you implying they're brainwashed, they don't actually know what they're doing, and they don't have an understanding of the larger context of their role?
[Oh no, Fauziah, they're all Einsteins! No, better, budding high-tech entrepreneurs!]
*This military has been in existence for a long time... are you seeing a difference between this generation and the one you served [in the army] with?
*Have you ever apologised to the parents of the soldiers who died defending this country?
[OFFS!!!???]
*Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations. That's an undisputable [sic] fact. Don't you think it's unfair to target the young men and women who were serving their country, risking their lives to protect and defend the country?
[OFFS!!!??? second time around.]
*I want to talk about the elite or the decision-makers. Is there a slow change in mindset? Recently, Israel's president rejected an appeal to pardon Elor Azaria. He was jailed for 18 months for killing a wounded Palestinian attacker. Do you see this refusal to pardon him as a shift in mindset?
*Can you blame [the Israelis] though, when they are surrounded by hostile neighbours and everywhere you go in the media you continually hear about Islamic extremism, and that threat seems to be larger than ever against Israel?
[Hostile neighbours again! This woman sounds like the proverbial broken record.]
*You have been quoted as saying that 'My biggest enemy is the [Israeli] centre and the Zionist left.' How do you counter the arguments of a group of people whose memories still hold the hurt of Nazi persecution and in Israel they have found finally their sanctuary?
[So the Zionist project in Palestine, even though it kicked off in the late 19th century, is all about the Holocaust? There were no Jewish settlers in Palestine before the Holocaust? Every Israeli is a Holocaust survivor, or the descendant of one?]
*How do you counter the views of a group of people who believe it is their God-given right that they live on the land their faith has promised them?
*When you first visited the Palestinian territories in 1967... Take us back to that time. What was your sense then?
*How did you feel about the war at age 14? It was a non-choice war!
[Oh, was it? Israel attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground in a pre-emptive strike on 5 June, 1967, and according to Israel's General Peled, Chief of Logistical Command at the time: "All those stories about the huge danger we were facing... an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our 'defence' against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army." (Le Monde, 3/6/72)
*When did you start to question your birth country's actions against the Palestinians?
*How do you deal with the the animosity from your own fellow Israelis? Do you find it frustrating that your voice is a minority in Israel?
*Do you think you may have any common ground with PM Netanyahu?
[!!!???]
*I want to go back to another leader, Shimon Peres... His politics started very hawkish then he became a dove. Explain how that shift came about.
*Another leader who started off hawkish and then became, not a dove, a little more centre, Ariel Sharon... He orchestrated Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and he had plans to withdraw from the West Bank. If a solution comes with a soldier, how much does politics sway them away from that solution?
[Ah, Sharon the peacemaker. Not at all sorry about the cold water here: "[C]ontrary to the prevailing assumptions, Sharon did not evacuate the Gaza settlements of his own free will. He cooked up his disengagement plan as a means to gain time, at the peak of international pressure that followed Israel's sabotaging of the Road Map. Yet still, at every moment since then, up until the very moment of disengagement, he was looking for ways to renege on this commitment, as he had done so many times previously. But this time he was forced to follow through with the Gaza pullout by the Bush administration. Though it was kept fully behind the scenes, US pressure on Sharon was massive, and included military sanctions on Israel." (The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine since 2003, Tanya Reinhart, 2006, p 4)]
*You are a champion of Palestinian rights. Are you also a champion of Palestinian politics?
*Do you feel guilty being an Israeli?
*How effective is BDS?
*It's not fair to target the Israeli citizen or companies through this boycott.
[But it's fine to target - literally - occupied Palestinians?]
*You support a one-state solution, but isn't that unrealistic? It means a whole rethink, a whole shift from Zionism, the Israeli identity. Where do you start?
[OMG, expecting Israeli Jews to think - Gideon, how could you?!]
Thursday, November 16, 2017
The Balfour What?
In a month rich with historical anniversaries, namely the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and the centenaries of the Bolshevik Revolution and Balfour Declaration. The first two, of course, are done and dusted, history if you like. But the Balfour Declaration, just keeps on keeping on, a grinding, slo-mo genocide of the Palestinian people - for anyone with eyes to see.
Now here's the thing. Whenever of late I've tuned in to the ABC's Radio National, never religiously I might add, the Protestant Reformation and the Bolshevik Revolution seem to be under discussion in one context or another. But of the Balfour Declaration... nothing.
OK, thought I, maybe I simply missed instances of RN chatter on the Balfour Declaration.
So I thought I'd conduct a little experiment. I typed each event into the ABC search bar, selecting mentions over the preceding 3 month period. (Keep in mind that these mentions could have been anything from a news item to an entire program.) Here's what I found:
Protestant Reformation - 21
Bolshevik Revolution - 5
Balfour Declaration - 3
Go figure...
Now here's the thing. Whenever of late I've tuned in to the ABC's Radio National, never religiously I might add, the Protestant Reformation and the Bolshevik Revolution seem to be under discussion in one context or another. But of the Balfour Declaration... nothing.
OK, thought I, maybe I simply missed instances of RN chatter on the Balfour Declaration.
So I thought I'd conduct a little experiment. I typed each event into the ABC search bar, selecting mentions over the preceding 3 month period. (Keep in mind that these mentions could have been anything from a news item to an entire program.) Here's what I found:
Protestant Reformation - 21
Bolshevik Revolution - 5
Balfour Declaration - 3
Go figure...
Sunday, October 15, 2017
He's Just Fine & Danby
Breaking: Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan has just come out swinging at the Little Red Book-carrying, green left ABC, in defence of his old mate, Michael Danby, Labor's shadow minister for Israel:
"Melbourne Ports is one of the two federal seats with the highest proportion of Jewish voters. Danby is not a single-issue politician but a strong supporter of Israel who believes the ABC does not report the nation fairly. Frankly no one could seriously contest that proposition." (Its response to Danby lays bare ABC's hubris, The Australian, 14/10/17)
But, Greg, think of it this way: Danby's strolling along the riverbank, right? And he sees Netanyahu and the Dalai Lama struggling in the water, right? We all know who he's going to rescue, right? Frankly, you couldn't seriously contest that proposition, right?
"A former chairman of the parliamentary joint standing committee on foreign affairs, he is an old-style social democratic internationalist with a passionate concern for human rights, free trade unions and the like."
C'mon, Greg, can the crap. He's an uber Zionist with a knee-jerk response to any criticism of Israel, however slight, and zero concern for Palestinian rights. Just like you, actually.
"The ABC is consistently biased against Israel in a similar way to the BBC and for similar reasons. The overwhelming majority of ABC reporters and general broadcast commentators share a fairly narrow spectrum of world view, ranging from the middle left of Labor to the green left."
OFFS, Greg, what planet are you on? I've been blogging away at this subject now for ten long years and, in all that time, I cannot recall a time when Israel's ever taken a hit from the ABC. Just the opposite, in fact!
"Melbourne Ports is one of the two federal seats with the highest proportion of Jewish voters. Danby is not a single-issue politician but a strong supporter of Israel who believes the ABC does not report the nation fairly. Frankly no one could seriously contest that proposition." (Its response to Danby lays bare ABC's hubris, The Australian, 14/10/17)
But, Greg, think of it this way: Danby's strolling along the riverbank, right? And he sees Netanyahu and the Dalai Lama struggling in the water, right? We all know who he's going to rescue, right? Frankly, you couldn't seriously contest that proposition, right?
"A former chairman of the parliamentary joint standing committee on foreign affairs, he is an old-style social democratic internationalist with a passionate concern for human rights, free trade unions and the like."
C'mon, Greg, can the crap. He's an uber Zionist with a knee-jerk response to any criticism of Israel, however slight, and zero concern for Palestinian rights. Just like you, actually.
"The ABC is consistently biased against Israel in a similar way to the BBC and for similar reasons. The overwhelming majority of ABC reporters and general broadcast commentators share a fairly narrow spectrum of world view, ranging from the middle left of Labor to the green left."
OFFS, Greg, what planet are you on? I've been blogging away at this subject now for ten long years and, in all that time, I cannot recall a time when Israel's ever taken a hit from the ABC. Just the opposite, in fact!
Thursday, October 5, 2017
The Hounding of Sophie McNeill 1
"Federal Labor MP Michael Danby has paid* for an advertisement in the Australian Jewish News that accuses ABC Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeill of being biased in her reporting of Jews and Palestinians. The ABC's director of news, Gaven Morris, is so appalled by the prominent ad... he has written to the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, calling on him to curb the Victorian MP's attack... This is not the first time Danby has taken aim at McNeill... She has been a particular target and the Israel lobby has also openly campaigned for the ABC to cancel her posting. In 2015 former managing director Mark Scott strongly defended McNeill from attacks by Liberal senator Eric Abetz... In July former Middle East correspondent for the Australian John Lyons revealed that pro-Israel advocacy groups in Australia targeted McNeill, fellow ABC correspondent Peter Cave and himself. Lyons said he was subjected to consistent pressure from the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council while based in Jerusalem for the Australian for six years. In his Middle East memoir, Balcony Over Jerusalem, Lyons said there was a campaign against McNeill before she set foot in the Middle East." (ABC's Sophie McNeill accused of anti-Israel bias in ad by Labor MP, Amanda Meade, theguardian.com, 4/10/17)
Here's John Lyons' account of that campaign from Balcony Over Jerusalem:
"I came to realise that hardline Jewish groups in Australia commonly targeted journalists. One such campaign led to an extraordinary process inside the ABC.
"The ABC's Sophie McNeill was targeted from the moment her appointment was announced in February 2015. AIJAC published a dossier which amounted to a comprehensive attack on her. It was authored by Ahron Shapiro and posted on AIJAC's website. Headlined 'Should the ABC have given advocacy journalist Sophie McNeill the keys to its Jerusalem bureau?', it went on: 'There are serious questions that must be raised about whether Sophie McNeill, who has recently been appointed the ABC's exclusive Jerusalem-based Middle East correspondent, can comply with the obligations contained in ABC's Code of Practice.'
"The dossier said that McNeill had appeared on a panel where she was 'speaking alongside' two people who had supported Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The case against McNeill included that she once said in an interview: 'One of the saddest things I've seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children's cancer ward in Gaza.' On this charge, I could also be indicted - one of the saddest things I've ever seen was a baby dying in a children's hospital in Gaza because the hospital could not get through the Israeli checkpoint the medicines required to keep him alive.
"The sourcing of much of AIJAC's material was questionable. It said: 'According to the account of a Palestinian student who summarised from a personal video she made of the event... ' AIJAC said McNeill's 'apparent role at the event was to inspire student activities through her first-hand accounts from Gaza, and she appeared eager to play the part'. Apparent role? It continued, 'according to the Tweet of one attendee, she spurred the audience on.' The Tweet of one attendeee? McNeill's appearance at the conference, AIJAC said, 'was tantamount to joining a protest movement'. Tantamount to? The standard of allegation made in AIJAC's attacks on journalists often did not come anywhere near the standard of sourcing of material that they demanded from the journalists they were attacking.
"The dossier also targeted McNeill for a story she had done looking at Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. 'McNeill promotes the narrative that Israeli Jewry as a society is radicalising in terms of its Jewish character through the demographic growth of the ultra-Orthodox.' The 'implied message', AIJAC said, was that 'Israel is not really the pluralistic Western society it purports to be but is shifting towards religious radicalism'. Implied message? Of all the absurdities in the dossier, to me this was the most bizarre. Israel's own media is full of stories about the rising number - and power - of the ultra-Orthodox. Given their high birth rates - many have seven or eight children - they are increasing as a proportion of the community.
"After publishing the dossier, AIJAC wrote to the board of the ABC, referencing it. The letter set off an extraordinary - perhaps unprecedented - chain of events. The chairman of the board, Jim Spigelman, asked the managing director, Mark Scott, for a response. Scott then instructed the corporation's editorial policies department to prepare a response. Senior managers in the news and current affairs department were also enlisted. Scott believed that the ABC's selection process was thorough, and was unhappy that a lobby group had the power to require the ABC to have to defend an appointment. 'I will not cower to AIJAC,' he told his managers.
"The ABC's managers answered each claim, taking more than three weeks. The process included putting to McNeill each AIJAC accusation against her. The AIJAC attack also said that McNeill had credited British journalist John Pilger as being an influence on her - when she was 15. To her managers, McNeill pleaded guilty to this charge but said his influence was in alerting her to the situation in East Timor when she was 15. In fact, McNeill was critical of Pilger - she said that she believed Pilger's politics had 'blinded him' to the situation in Syria.
"Mark Scott was particularly angered by parts of the dossier which attacked McNeill for who she may have spoken alongside on panels. 'Here is a professional journalist like Sophie McNeill subject to a whole lot of attacks which in my view were trying to taint her by association,' Scott told his managers.
"Scott wrote for the ABC board a 12-page response to AIJAC's letter. In it he said that while AIJAC did not call for McNeill's appointment to be reversed, despite raising a series of critical questions and concerns about her 'past activities' - 'they were letting us know they would be watching'. Scott told the board that he had engaged in dialogue as a media executive for almost two decades. 'In that time, I have seen similar dossiers to the one created on Sophie McNeill on other journalists and around coverage of issues. The AIJAC website contains detailed, negative coverage of many leading Australian journalists who have reported on the Middle East, including Paul McGeough, John Lyons, Ed O'Loughlin and Ruth Pollard, as well as reporters from the BBC and The Guardian.'
"Scott added: 'The article demonstrates to Sophie McNeill and to the ABC that her every word will be watched closely by AIJAC and she starts on the ground with this key interest group sceptical. We are all aware she will be under even closer scrutiny now. As they seek to influence our coverage, this is a pre-emptive "shot across the bows". It should be noted, of course, that fair, impartial, accurate and balanced coverage from McNeill will not guarantee her immunity from ongoing criticism.' Scott told the board: 'The pre-emptive attack on McNeill is similar to the approach employed by lobby groups internationally. The US reporter, Jodi Rudoren, was targeted when she was appointed Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times in 2012 and accused of being biased against Israel and unsuitable for the post ... The New York Times refused to bow to the pressure and Rudoren remained in the position.'
"On 30 March 2015, Scott presented the response to Spigelman. The defence, and AIJAC's attack, went to the April meeting of the board. The board supported Scott. The whole process had taken enormous resources inside the ABC. In my view, no other lobby group in Australia would be able to command that level of response. This is real power. And as a journalist I believe that such efforts can have the effect of making a journalist or organisation self-censor. This would not prove to be the case with McNeill. However, in my opinion such a process certainly puts pressure on a reporter, raising the possibility of what is known in journalism as 'the pre-emptive buckle'." (pp 282-86)
Finally, some high comedy on the matter from today's Sydney Morning Herald: "It is not the first time the MP for Melbourne Ports has criticised McNeill's reporting. In the past, he has called her an 'advocacy journalist' on social media and has claimed she is obsessed with the 'Palestinian narrative'." (Labor MP used taxpayer funds to attack ABC reporter, Adam Gartrell & Broede Carmody)
Of course, Danby is nothing if not a pro-Israel 'advocacy politician', utterly obsessed with ensuring that only the 'Zionist narrative' is heard in public discourse.
[*The Herald account, says that Danby "admitted he had used a 'small amount' from his taxpayer-funded electoral allowance."]
Here's John Lyons' account of that campaign from Balcony Over Jerusalem:
"I came to realise that hardline Jewish groups in Australia commonly targeted journalists. One such campaign led to an extraordinary process inside the ABC.
"The ABC's Sophie McNeill was targeted from the moment her appointment was announced in February 2015. AIJAC published a dossier which amounted to a comprehensive attack on her. It was authored by Ahron Shapiro and posted on AIJAC's website. Headlined 'Should the ABC have given advocacy journalist Sophie McNeill the keys to its Jerusalem bureau?', it went on: 'There are serious questions that must be raised about whether Sophie McNeill, who has recently been appointed the ABC's exclusive Jerusalem-based Middle East correspondent, can comply with the obligations contained in ABC's Code of Practice.'
"The dossier said that McNeill had appeared on a panel where she was 'speaking alongside' two people who had supported Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The case against McNeill included that she once said in an interview: 'One of the saddest things I've seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children's cancer ward in Gaza.' On this charge, I could also be indicted - one of the saddest things I've ever seen was a baby dying in a children's hospital in Gaza because the hospital could not get through the Israeli checkpoint the medicines required to keep him alive.
"The sourcing of much of AIJAC's material was questionable. It said: 'According to the account of a Palestinian student who summarised from a personal video she made of the event... ' AIJAC said McNeill's 'apparent role at the event was to inspire student activities through her first-hand accounts from Gaza, and she appeared eager to play the part'. Apparent role? It continued, 'according to the Tweet of one attendee, she spurred the audience on.' The Tweet of one attendeee? McNeill's appearance at the conference, AIJAC said, 'was tantamount to joining a protest movement'. Tantamount to? The standard of allegation made in AIJAC's attacks on journalists often did not come anywhere near the standard of sourcing of material that they demanded from the journalists they were attacking.
"The dossier also targeted McNeill for a story she had done looking at Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. 'McNeill promotes the narrative that Israeli Jewry as a society is radicalising in terms of its Jewish character through the demographic growth of the ultra-Orthodox.' The 'implied message', AIJAC said, was that 'Israel is not really the pluralistic Western society it purports to be but is shifting towards religious radicalism'. Implied message? Of all the absurdities in the dossier, to me this was the most bizarre. Israel's own media is full of stories about the rising number - and power - of the ultra-Orthodox. Given their high birth rates - many have seven or eight children - they are increasing as a proportion of the community.
"After publishing the dossier, AIJAC wrote to the board of the ABC, referencing it. The letter set off an extraordinary - perhaps unprecedented - chain of events. The chairman of the board, Jim Spigelman, asked the managing director, Mark Scott, for a response. Scott then instructed the corporation's editorial policies department to prepare a response. Senior managers in the news and current affairs department were also enlisted. Scott believed that the ABC's selection process was thorough, and was unhappy that a lobby group had the power to require the ABC to have to defend an appointment. 'I will not cower to AIJAC,' he told his managers.
"The ABC's managers answered each claim, taking more than three weeks. The process included putting to McNeill each AIJAC accusation against her. The AIJAC attack also said that McNeill had credited British journalist John Pilger as being an influence on her - when she was 15. To her managers, McNeill pleaded guilty to this charge but said his influence was in alerting her to the situation in East Timor when she was 15. In fact, McNeill was critical of Pilger - she said that she believed Pilger's politics had 'blinded him' to the situation in Syria.
"Mark Scott was particularly angered by parts of the dossier which attacked McNeill for who she may have spoken alongside on panels. 'Here is a professional journalist like Sophie McNeill subject to a whole lot of attacks which in my view were trying to taint her by association,' Scott told his managers.
"Scott wrote for the ABC board a 12-page response to AIJAC's letter. In it he said that while AIJAC did not call for McNeill's appointment to be reversed, despite raising a series of critical questions and concerns about her 'past activities' - 'they were letting us know they would be watching'. Scott told the board that he had engaged in dialogue as a media executive for almost two decades. 'In that time, I have seen similar dossiers to the one created on Sophie McNeill on other journalists and around coverage of issues. The AIJAC website contains detailed, negative coverage of many leading Australian journalists who have reported on the Middle East, including Paul McGeough, John Lyons, Ed O'Loughlin and Ruth Pollard, as well as reporters from the BBC and The Guardian.'
"Scott added: 'The article demonstrates to Sophie McNeill and to the ABC that her every word will be watched closely by AIJAC and she starts on the ground with this key interest group sceptical. We are all aware she will be under even closer scrutiny now. As they seek to influence our coverage, this is a pre-emptive "shot across the bows". It should be noted, of course, that fair, impartial, accurate and balanced coverage from McNeill will not guarantee her immunity from ongoing criticism.' Scott told the board: 'The pre-emptive attack on McNeill is similar to the approach employed by lobby groups internationally. The US reporter, Jodi Rudoren, was targeted when she was appointed Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times in 2012 and accused of being biased against Israel and unsuitable for the post ... The New York Times refused to bow to the pressure and Rudoren remained in the position.'
"On 30 March 2015, Scott presented the response to Spigelman. The defence, and AIJAC's attack, went to the April meeting of the board. The board supported Scott. The whole process had taken enormous resources inside the ABC. In my view, no other lobby group in Australia would be able to command that level of response. This is real power. And as a journalist I believe that such efforts can have the effect of making a journalist or organisation self-censor. This would not prove to be the case with McNeill. However, in my opinion such a process certainly puts pressure on a reporter, raising the possibility of what is known in journalism as 'the pre-emptive buckle'." (pp 282-86)
Finally, some high comedy on the matter from today's Sydney Morning Herald: "It is not the first time the MP for Melbourne Ports has criticised McNeill's reporting. In the past, he has called her an 'advocacy journalist' on social media and has claimed she is obsessed with the 'Palestinian narrative'." (Labor MP used taxpayer funds to attack ABC reporter, Adam Gartrell & Broede Carmody)
Of course, Danby is nothing if not a pro-Israel 'advocacy politician', utterly obsessed with ensuring that only the 'Zionist narrative' is heard in public discourse.
[*The Herald account, says that Danby "admitted he had used a 'small amount' from his taxpayer-funded electoral allowance."]
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
John Lyons Jumps Ship
August 14 tweet from John Lyons:
Delighted to announce am joining ABC News as Head, Investigative & in-depth journalism. Tks Oz for 10 great years. Thanks ABC for the opportunity!
I'm very pleased for you, John. Now will Palestine finally get an airing on the ABC?
Delighted to announce am joining ABC News as Head, Investigative & in-depth journalism. Tks Oz for 10 great years. Thanks ABC for the opportunity!
I'm very pleased for you, John. Now will Palestine finally get an airing on the ABC?
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Four Corners' Hatchet Job on Lee Rhiannon
It is always worth keeping in mind that, despite the lurid fantasies of the right-wing nut jobs at News Corpse to the effect that the ABC is a bastion of leftist radicalism, the state broadcaster is in fact merely the propaganda arm of the Australian establishment.
Last night's Four Corners program, Inside the Greens: A Party in Turmoil, which featured former Greens leader Bob Brown and others attacking NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, was a case in point.
Cast your mind back to 2010-2011, when Sydney's Marrickville Council, dominated at the time by The Greens, bravely took a stand for Palestine by adopting a pro-BDS policy against the purchase of Israeli products, and when its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne only narrowly failed to snatch the NSW state seat of Marrickville from Labor for her party at the 2011 state election.
Many of Rhiannon's detractors on Four Corners have form going back to that time. Here's a reminder:
Sally Neighbour, the current executive producer of Four Corners, used to write for Murdoch's Australian, and earlier took The Greens to task (Divided we fall) in Morry Schwartz's The Monthly. (See my 3/2/12 post Get Rhiannon! 2)
Richard Di Natale, the current federal leader of the party, once cluelessly agreed to the proposition that the Palestinians should "recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish state," before later backtracking when apprised of the implications of what he'd said. (See my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified.)
Bob Brown, the party's founder, has attacked the NSW Greens in the Murdoch press, claiming NSW Greens' support for BDS was "against his advice" and urging the branch to stick to "bread-and-butter issues." (See Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage, 1/4/11)
Ian Cohen, a former NSW Greens MLC, has condemned his party's support for BDS as "old style" and expressed concern about "Jewish community outrage." (See my 31/3/11 post Kahane Down Under?)
Christine Milne, Di Natale's predecessor, has spoken out against BDS, travelled to Israel (although whether or not at her own expense we do not know), and once spoke in favour of regime change in Libya. (See Some Questions for Christine Milne (21/4/12), Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed? (11/7/14), A Gripe About The Greens (24/3/11))
Jeremy Buckingham, a NSW Greens MLC, joined the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel and signed the so-called London Declaration on Combatting Antisemitism. (See my 27/5/13 post Et tu, Jeremy?)
The issue of the NSW Greens' support for Palestine emerged only obliquely in the program. Presenter Louise Milligan's bias against that support, however, was clear at this point:
Milligan: While her leader is travelling the country, trying to hold his party together, Lee Rhiannon has flown to the Middle East and is crossing into Palestine.
Rhiannon: When you see it like that you can see why they call it an apartheid wall. What you see when you arrive in this country is apartheid. From the West Bank to Gaza, people are treated as second class citizens. Their human rights are ignored or abused.
Milligan: And she's still lobbing political grenades at her party: reviving a campaign to boycott Israeli businesses in Australia which has seen a backlash against the Greens in the past.
Rhiannon: There is a value in this campaign, and it's a reminder of why people like ourselves in Australia and around the world... it's time to reassess this form of struggle, because there are very clear examples of the value it brings to solidarity and the results it can achieve.
Milligan: Her leader disagrees.
Di Natale: It's not something that the Australian Greens have ever supported. It's not something that I support.
Milligan: It's these sorts of clashes with the federal party that have prompted the Greens elders to tell Four Corners it's time for Senator Lee Rhiannon to go.
Brown: Oh, well, you know, I've been living with Lee for 30 years, but it's the end of Lee's reign. The end is nigh, and I look toward the future.
Last night's Four Corners program, Inside the Greens: A Party in Turmoil, which featured former Greens leader Bob Brown and others attacking NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, was a case in point.
Cast your mind back to 2010-2011, when Sydney's Marrickville Council, dominated at the time by The Greens, bravely took a stand for Palestine by adopting a pro-BDS policy against the purchase of Israeli products, and when its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne only narrowly failed to snatch the NSW state seat of Marrickville from Labor for her party at the 2011 state election.
Many of Rhiannon's detractors on Four Corners have form going back to that time. Here's a reminder:
Sally Neighbour, the current executive producer of Four Corners, used to write for Murdoch's Australian, and earlier took The Greens to task (Divided we fall) in Morry Schwartz's The Monthly. (See my 3/2/12 post Get Rhiannon! 2)
Richard Di Natale, the current federal leader of the party, once cluelessly agreed to the proposition that the Palestinians should "recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish state," before later backtracking when apprised of the implications of what he'd said. (See my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified.)
Bob Brown, the party's founder, has attacked the NSW Greens in the Murdoch press, claiming NSW Greens' support for BDS was "against his advice" and urging the branch to stick to "bread-and-butter issues." (See Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage, 1/4/11)
Ian Cohen, a former NSW Greens MLC, has condemned his party's support for BDS as "old style" and expressed concern about "Jewish community outrage." (See my 31/3/11 post Kahane Down Under?)
Christine Milne, Di Natale's predecessor, has spoken out against BDS, travelled to Israel (although whether or not at her own expense we do not know), and once spoke in favour of regime change in Libya. (See Some Questions for Christine Milne (21/4/12), Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed? (11/7/14), A Gripe About The Greens (24/3/11))
Jeremy Buckingham, a NSW Greens MLC, joined the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel and signed the so-called London Declaration on Combatting Antisemitism. (See my 27/5/13 post Et tu, Jeremy?)
The issue of the NSW Greens' support for Palestine emerged only obliquely in the program. Presenter Louise Milligan's bias against that support, however, was clear at this point:
Milligan: While her leader is travelling the country, trying to hold his party together, Lee Rhiannon has flown to the Middle East and is crossing into Palestine.
Rhiannon: When you see it like that you can see why they call it an apartheid wall. What you see when you arrive in this country is apartheid. From the West Bank to Gaza, people are treated as second class citizens. Their human rights are ignored or abused.
Milligan: And she's still lobbing political grenades at her party: reviving a campaign to boycott Israeli businesses in Australia which has seen a backlash against the Greens in the past.
Rhiannon: There is a value in this campaign, and it's a reminder of why people like ourselves in Australia and around the world... it's time to reassess this form of struggle, because there are very clear examples of the value it brings to solidarity and the results it can achieve.
Milligan: Her leader disagrees.
Di Natale: It's not something that the Australian Greens have ever supported. It's not something that I support.
Milligan: It's these sorts of clashes with the federal party that have prompted the Greens elders to tell Four Corners it's time for Senator Lee Rhiannon to go.
Brown: Oh, well, you know, I've been living with Lee for 30 years, but it's the end of Lee's reign. The end is nigh, and I look toward the future.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
John Lyons' Book Featured in Guardian
Some choice excerpts from Pro-Israel advocates in Australia targeted three journalists, new book claims (Amanda Meade, 29/7/17):
*Lyons, Sophie McNeill (ABC) and Peter Cave (ABC) "were subjected to consistent pressure from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)." AIJAC "prepared dossiers on Cave and other ABC reporters 'and sent them to like-minded journalists and members of parliament'."
*Lyons "says the former editor of the Weekend Australian Nick Cater refused to publish [Lyon's] work and the pro-Israel lobby bombarded editors with criticism of his reports. 'I phoned Cater and he confirmed that he'd asked for my work to no longer appear in the Inquirer... I let [editor-in-chief Chris] Mitchell know that... the exclusion from the Inquirer was just the latest in a long series of disagreements with Nick Cater... he intervened and told Cater that excluding me from the Inquirer was not acceptable."
*"Lyons writes that an Israeli embassy official was invited by Cater to the Australian's head office in Canberra, and told editors that the embassy was not happy with them. 'To me the idea of an officer of a foreign government wandering the floor of my newsroom criticising me was outrageous'."
*"In 2015, AIJAC sent a file on McNeill to Jewish members of the ABC board, including the then chairman James Spigelman, and this file claimed among other things that she was unsuitable because she had said 'one of the saddest things I've seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children's cancer ward in Gaza'." The then ABC managing director Mark Scott ordered a detailed response from corporate affairs, which he took to the board. 'I will not cower to the AIJAC,' Scott said, according to Lyons. Scott was also forced to defend McNeill from attacks at Senate estimates after the dossier was sent to key parliamentarians."
*"Lyons writes that AIJAC director Colin Rubenstein had unprecedented access to the Australian, speaking regularly to editors and even suggesting articles the paper should run... Mitchell, who was supportive of Lyons, later told him that Rubenstein would go behind his back and call Cater if he refused to take his call, Lyons writes."
*"Lyons argues that Australian journalists should not accept the trips to Israel organised by the lobby - 'During my time in Israel I would come to believe that Australia's uncritical support of Israel is both illogical and unhealthy,' he writes. 'For more than 20 years, Australians have read and heard pro-Israel positions from journalists, editors, politicians, trade union leaders, academics and students who have returned from the all-expenses-paid Israel lobby trips. In my opinion, no editors, journalists or others should take those trips: they grotesquely distort the reality and are dangerous in the sense that they allow people with a very small amount of knowledge to pollute Australian public opinion'."
*Lyons, Sophie McNeill (ABC) and Peter Cave (ABC) "were subjected to consistent pressure from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)." AIJAC "prepared dossiers on Cave and other ABC reporters 'and sent them to like-minded journalists and members of parliament'."
*Lyons "says the former editor of the Weekend Australian Nick Cater refused to publish [Lyon's] work and the pro-Israel lobby bombarded editors with criticism of his reports. 'I phoned Cater and he confirmed that he'd asked for my work to no longer appear in the Inquirer... I let [editor-in-chief Chris] Mitchell know that... the exclusion from the Inquirer was just the latest in a long series of disagreements with Nick Cater... he intervened and told Cater that excluding me from the Inquirer was not acceptable."
*"Lyons writes that an Israeli embassy official was invited by Cater to the Australian's head office in Canberra, and told editors that the embassy was not happy with them. 'To me the idea of an officer of a foreign government wandering the floor of my newsroom criticising me was outrageous'."
*"In 2015, AIJAC sent a file on McNeill to Jewish members of the ABC board, including the then chairman James Spigelman, and this file claimed among other things that she was unsuitable because she had said 'one of the saddest things I've seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children's cancer ward in Gaza'." The then ABC managing director Mark Scott ordered a detailed response from corporate affairs, which he took to the board. 'I will not cower to the AIJAC,' Scott said, according to Lyons. Scott was also forced to defend McNeill from attacks at Senate estimates after the dossier was sent to key parliamentarians."
*"Lyons writes that AIJAC director Colin Rubenstein had unprecedented access to the Australian, speaking regularly to editors and even suggesting articles the paper should run... Mitchell, who was supportive of Lyons, later told him that Rubenstein would go behind his back and call Cater if he refused to take his call, Lyons writes."
*"Lyons argues that Australian journalists should not accept the trips to Israel organised by the lobby - 'During my time in Israel I would come to believe that Australia's uncritical support of Israel is both illogical and unhealthy,' he writes. 'For more than 20 years, Australians have read and heard pro-Israel positions from journalists, editors, politicians, trade union leaders, academics and students who have returned from the all-expenses-paid Israel lobby trips. In my opinion, no editors, journalists or others should take those trips: they grotesquely distort the reality and are dangerous in the sense that they allow people with a very small amount of knowledge to pollute Australian public opinion'."
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
The Great (Op)Poser
No sooner had the presenter of Radio National's Books & Arts Program, Michael Cathcart, featured Indian ignoramus Karan Mahajan on Monday (see yesterday's post), than he was spruiking Israeli propagandist Etgar Keret ("a virtuoso of the short story") on Tuesday (25/10)!
After listening to around half of the hour-long interview (recorded at a Perth Writers Festival session), I'm afraid I could bear no more of Keret's soft-soaping of Israel.
For example:
Cathcart: So your child was born during a terrorist attack?
Keret: This is the kind of thing that, when I go overseas, which to people sounds kind of crazy but in Israel I don't think it's the only kid who was born during a terrorist attack...
It's the old someone's-always-out-to-get-us message!
But typically, in these set pieces (in the event that one takes this kind of stuff seriously) no one, certainly neither Cathcart nor his interlocutor on this occasion, ever broaches the question why, or refers in any way to Israel's growing mountain of Palestinian corpses (almost 10,000 since September 29, 2000*).
Keret gestures vaguely in its direction ("It's experienced not only by the people in my country but it's experienced to a much stronger extent by Palestinians in the territories.") but this passes without meaningful elaboration or comment. It just is, this "situation where you have to explain to your child what the hell's going on. It's a big challenge because you don't understand yourself why things most of the time have to happen in this way."
*Sigh* WTF is this? Dopiness? Feigned ignorance? Part of the act? Seriously, would you buy a book by an Israeli who tells you he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why things happen the way they do in Israel - of all places?
The old Israeli 'shoot and cry' gets trotted out a lot on these occasions. Pulls in the clueless every time:
"In the army you go through so many traumas... ethical problems that you know you can't go through it without being a little shell-shocked... "
I know what he means. I recall the recent (last month, actually) case of the poor, shell-shocked Israeli soldier who went through trauma after trauma in the "territories" (never occupied, note). First, he and his fellow ethicists had to commandeer an apartment in a Palestinian refugee (!!!) camp. Then, as if that were not traumatic enough, they had to endure near-terminal boredom on its cramped balcony while waiting for a Palestinian to venture out onto his rooftop nearby so that he could inquire of him, solicitously, 'Where do you want it?' before putting a bullet through his leg.**
"... but in Israel the army is not a luxury, and the idea of not going to the army is the same as not paying your taxes... we need the army to survive and, as somebody who's a great opposer to our current government, it's not good to leave the army in the hands of those who would happily fight the war."
OFFS, the Israeli army has been happily, gleefully fighting Indian wars ever since Jabotinsky first put the Haganah together in 1921.
BTW, you've gotta love this tick from Clive James on the cover of Keret's latest book: "One of the most important writers alive - enchantingly witty."
[*ifamericansknew.org; **See 'Where do you want it?' Israeli soldier taunts unarmed Palestinian man before shooting him, Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 15/9/16]
After listening to around half of the hour-long interview (recorded at a Perth Writers Festival session), I'm afraid I could bear no more of Keret's soft-soaping of Israel.
For example:
Cathcart: So your child was born during a terrorist attack?
Keret: This is the kind of thing that, when I go overseas, which to people sounds kind of crazy but in Israel I don't think it's the only kid who was born during a terrorist attack...
It's the old someone's-always-out-to-get-us message!
But typically, in these set pieces (in the event that one takes this kind of stuff seriously) no one, certainly neither Cathcart nor his interlocutor on this occasion, ever broaches the question why, or refers in any way to Israel's growing mountain of Palestinian corpses (almost 10,000 since September 29, 2000*).
Keret gestures vaguely in its direction ("It's experienced not only by the people in my country but it's experienced to a much stronger extent by Palestinians in the territories.") but this passes without meaningful elaboration or comment. It just is, this "situation where you have to explain to your child what the hell's going on. It's a big challenge because you don't understand yourself why things most of the time have to happen in this way."
*Sigh* WTF is this? Dopiness? Feigned ignorance? Part of the act? Seriously, would you buy a book by an Israeli who tells you he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why things happen the way they do in Israel - of all places?
The old Israeli 'shoot and cry' gets trotted out a lot on these occasions. Pulls in the clueless every time:
"In the army you go through so many traumas... ethical problems that you know you can't go through it without being a little shell-shocked... "
I know what he means. I recall the recent (last month, actually) case of the poor, shell-shocked Israeli soldier who went through trauma after trauma in the "territories" (never occupied, note). First, he and his fellow ethicists had to commandeer an apartment in a Palestinian refugee (!!!) camp. Then, as if that were not traumatic enough, they had to endure near-terminal boredom on its cramped balcony while waiting for a Palestinian to venture out onto his rooftop nearby so that he could inquire of him, solicitously, 'Where do you want it?' before putting a bullet through his leg.**
"... but in Israel the army is not a luxury, and the idea of not going to the army is the same as not paying your taxes... we need the army to survive and, as somebody who's a great opposer to our current government, it's not good to leave the army in the hands of those who would happily fight the war."
OFFS, the Israeli army has been happily, gleefully fighting Indian wars ever since Jabotinsky first put the Haganah together in 1921.
BTW, you've gotta love this tick from Clive James on the cover of Keret's latest book: "One of the most important writers alive - enchantingly witty."
[*ifamericansknew.org; **See 'Where do you want it?' Israeli soldier taunts unarmed Palestinian man before shooting him, Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 15/9/16]
Saturday, October 15, 2016
From One No-Go Zone to Another
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, its editor Judith Whelan is jumping ship moving to the ABC, where she has been "appointed the Head of Spoken Content at ABC Radio and will oversee the capital city radio network, Radio National..." (Herald editor Judith Whelan moves on, 14/10/16)
Whelan was rambammed in 2012*, an experience which resulted in such penetrating 'insights' (delivered at her post rambam Jewish Board of Deputies debriefing) as a) "Israel is unique"; b) because "it is the holiest place for three religions... can we be surprised that it is constantly fought over?"; and c) Israelis have been living "under the threat of rockets, suicide bombers and terrorist attacks for too many years."
Any wonder then that the Herald has been a virtual no-go zone for real news on this subject for, like, forever? (Not to mention the proverbial day.)
Whelan should get on just fine with old Geraldine Doogue and Phillip Adams at Radio National, yet another no-go zone for real news on the same subject.
[*For details see my posts Innocents Abroad (8/12/12) and Israel Lobbyist Asks: Why do we bother? (19/11/12)]
Whelan was rambammed in 2012*, an experience which resulted in such penetrating 'insights' (delivered at her post rambam Jewish Board of Deputies debriefing) as a) "Israel is unique"; b) because "it is the holiest place for three religions... can we be surprised that it is constantly fought over?"; and c) Israelis have been living "under the threat of rockets, suicide bombers and terrorist attacks for too many years."
Any wonder then that the Herald has been a virtual no-go zone for real news on this subject for, like, forever? (Not to mention the proverbial day.)
Whelan should get on just fine with old Geraldine Doogue and Phillip Adams at Radio National, yet another no-go zone for real news on the same subject.
[*For details see my posts Innocents Abroad (8/12/12) and Israel Lobbyist Asks: Why do we bother? (19/11/12)]
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Not Happy, Sophie McNeill!
Good God, what is wrong with the ABC's Middle East correspondent, Sophie McNeill?
Can't she see that Gaza isn't blockaded by Israel, but cradled in its loving embrace?
Can't she see that the West Bank isn't occupied by Israel, but liberated, as only it knows how?
Can't she see that it's not Israel, but the Palestinians themselves who are their own worst enemies?
Not according to the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Committee (AIJAC):
"In the last 16 months or so since McNeill started as Middle East correspondent, she has filed many stories that look at Palestinian suffering in Gaza, where her coverage focuses on the 'blockade' or, indeed, on the West Bank, where the focus switches to 'occupation'. Individually and over time, her body of stories do not deviate from reflecting the attitude and bias that Israel is predominantly responsible for Palestinian suffering." (ABC admits Gaza report errors, The Australian Jewish News, 19/8/16)
Can't she see that Gaza isn't blockaded by Israel, but cradled in its loving embrace?
Can't she see that the West Bank isn't occupied by Israel, but liberated, as only it knows how?
Can't she see that it's not Israel, but the Palestinians themselves who are their own worst enemies?
Not according to the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Committee (AIJAC):
"In the last 16 months or so since McNeill started as Middle East correspondent, she has filed many stories that look at Palestinian suffering in Gaza, where her coverage focuses on the 'blockade' or, indeed, on the West Bank, where the focus switches to 'occupation'. Individually and over time, her body of stories do not deviate from reflecting the attitude and bias that Israel is predominantly responsible for Palestinian suffering." (ABC admits Gaza report errors, The Australian Jewish News, 19/8/16)
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
What Geraldine & Robin Taught Me
Sometimes the introductory banter to a radio news item is more interesting than the item itself. Take, for example, ABC Radio National's Saturday Extra of May 21, which featured the segment, Views of Israel.
In it, presenter Geraldine Doogue introduced Robin Margo SC, one of two contributors, noting his connection with a new Jewish community organisation called +61j*:
Doogue: I'd like you to explain what +61j is because it's aimed at the Australian Jewish community and you regularly send online reminders to say me, to Radio National. How did it come about?
Margo: Geraldine, it started with focus groups in Melbourne and Sydney. The biggest survey of any diaspora Jewish community was undertaken by Monash University in 2008 and what it found on Middle Eastern issues was there was a wide range of views within the community from left to right with no great majority at any particular point, but that range was not being reflected in public conversation.
Doogue: Well in fact the other group, AIJAC which is perceived as a more conservative end, which has an exceptional information service that goes out to all the media. Honestly, were you trying to counter them?
Margo: Not at all. We want to broaden the conversation. AIJAC has some very liberal positions, for example on refugees** and other matters, and on other matters we've disagreed with them.
The first thing we learn here is that "all the media" receives/ is bombarded by Israel lobby propaganda. The question then arises: to what extent is it lapped up (by Doogue certainly) or ignored? In any case, here we have the fact of the matter confirmed - from the horse's mouth.
The second matter of interest is the pretense, on Margo's part, that, "on Middle Eastern issues" there is "a wide range of views within the community from left to right." This is, in fact, contradicted by the Monash University survey cited by Margo, which reveals a most extraordinary level of identification with Israel/ Zionism:
"It is common for visitors to Australia to comment on the strength of identification with Israel and Zionism within the Jewish communities. Thus Professor Oz-Salzberger, holder of joint professorial appointments at Monash (the Leon Liberman Chair in Modern Israel Studies) and Haifa Universities, recently observed: 'I am yet to find a single Australian Jew who is indifferent towards Israel. There is a level of proximity here that one cannot find amid British or American Jewry, where many individuals are unstirred by their Jewish ancestry, uninvolved with Israel or both. I like telling my Jewish-Australian friends that they are first cousins to us Israelis, while many other communities are second cousins at best.' (AJN, 5/6/09) Eighty per cent of respondents indicated that they regarded themselves as Zionist, while only 13% did not..." (Report Series on the GEN08 Survey Preliminary Findings Melbourne & Sydney, Markus/Jacobs/Aronov, artsonline.monash.edu.au)
Margo is perhaps relying on the statistic that indicates that 29% favour dismantling "all or most" West Bank settlements "as part of a permanent settlement." However, with 80% of respondents favouring the existence of a Jewish state, with all that that entails by way of continued second class status for non-Jewish Palestinian Israelis, and an ongoing refusal to allow Palestinian refugees expelled in 1948 to return home, Zionist hegemony over Australia's Jews indicates anything but a diversity of views. The very fact, for example, that Margo will venture no public criticism of AIJAC speaks volumes.
[*Includes *sigh* Philip Mendes; **Providing they're not Palestinian refugees.]
In it, presenter Geraldine Doogue introduced Robin Margo SC, one of two contributors, noting his connection with a new Jewish community organisation called +61j*:
Doogue: I'd like you to explain what +61j is because it's aimed at the Australian Jewish community and you regularly send online reminders to say me, to Radio National. How did it come about?
Margo: Geraldine, it started with focus groups in Melbourne and Sydney. The biggest survey of any diaspora Jewish community was undertaken by Monash University in 2008 and what it found on Middle Eastern issues was there was a wide range of views within the community from left to right with no great majority at any particular point, but that range was not being reflected in public conversation.
Doogue: Well in fact the other group, AIJAC which is perceived as a more conservative end, which has an exceptional information service that goes out to all the media. Honestly, were you trying to counter them?
Margo: Not at all. We want to broaden the conversation. AIJAC has some very liberal positions, for example on refugees** and other matters, and on other matters we've disagreed with them.
The first thing we learn here is that "all the media" receives/ is bombarded by Israel lobby propaganda. The question then arises: to what extent is it lapped up (by Doogue certainly) or ignored? In any case, here we have the fact of the matter confirmed - from the horse's mouth.
The second matter of interest is the pretense, on Margo's part, that, "on Middle Eastern issues" there is "a wide range of views within the community from left to right." This is, in fact, contradicted by the Monash University survey cited by Margo, which reveals a most extraordinary level of identification with Israel/ Zionism:
"It is common for visitors to Australia to comment on the strength of identification with Israel and Zionism within the Jewish communities. Thus Professor Oz-Salzberger, holder of joint professorial appointments at Monash (the Leon Liberman Chair in Modern Israel Studies) and Haifa Universities, recently observed: 'I am yet to find a single Australian Jew who is indifferent towards Israel. There is a level of proximity here that one cannot find amid British or American Jewry, where many individuals are unstirred by their Jewish ancestry, uninvolved with Israel or both. I like telling my Jewish-Australian friends that they are first cousins to us Israelis, while many other communities are second cousins at best.' (AJN, 5/6/09) Eighty per cent of respondents indicated that they regarded themselves as Zionist, while only 13% did not..." (Report Series on the GEN08 Survey Preliminary Findings Melbourne & Sydney, Markus/Jacobs/Aronov, artsonline.monash.edu.au)
Margo is perhaps relying on the statistic that indicates that 29% favour dismantling "all or most" West Bank settlements "as part of a permanent settlement." However, with 80% of respondents favouring the existence of a Jewish state, with all that that entails by way of continued second class status for non-Jewish Palestinian Israelis, and an ongoing refusal to allow Palestinian refugees expelled in 1948 to return home, Zionist hegemony over Australia's Jews indicates anything but a diversity of views. The very fact, for example, that Margo will venture no public criticism of AIJAC speaks volumes.
[*Includes *sigh* Philip Mendes; **Providing they're not Palestinian refugees.]
Monday, October 19, 2015
Tony Blair Just Couldn't Wait for Iraq War
Sensational revelations on Tony Blair and Iraq appeared in yesterday's MailOnline.
Typically, there was NOTHING about them on this morning's (6.30) ABC news*, so here are the MailOnline headlines and opening paragraph:
Smoking gun emails reveals Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started - despite claiming he wanted peace
*Leaked White House memo shows former PM's support for war at summit with US President in 2002
*Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told 'the UK will follow our lead'
*Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution - in direct contrast to email revelations
*New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hilary Clinton at the order of US courts
"A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the 'deal in blood' forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister's public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: 'We're not proposing military action - in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals." (Glen Owen & William Lowther, 18/10/15)
You can read it all at dailymail.co.uk. For now, here's the data from their useful graphic:
Secret: Memorandum to the President
From: Colin L. Powell, 28/3/02
Subject: Your meeting with UK PM Tony Blair, April 5-7, 2002 at Crawford
1. Powell starts his memo by outlining the intimate nature of the upcoming meeting between Blair and Bush at the President's Crawford ranch in Texas.
*"Tony Blair is looking forward to the time he and his family will spend with you at Crawford to deepen their personal relationship with you and Laura [Bush's wife]. Buckingham Palace's approval of the trip despite The Queen Mother's death attests to the importance the British government ascribes to Blair's meeting with you. Blair will want to discuss: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Middle East; Russia and Nato enlargement; and trade and development.'
2. He says Blair will back him on Iraq and present 'public affairs lines' as Bush's global spin doctor.
* "Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause."
3. Powell then says that Blair eagerly proved his loyalty to Bush by sending British troops to Afghanistan even though UK military chiefs warned it was a risk.
* "Blair and the UK are in Afghanistan with us for the long haul. He readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos, even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched."
4. Again, he stresses Blair was already committed to Iraq War - even though he had not told MPs, the Cabinet or British voters.
* "On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."
5. Powell says only TWO of Blair's cabinet ministers backed the war, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - at the time Blair claimed they all did. And he denied most Labour MPs and voters opposed him.
* "Aside from his foreign and defence secretaries, however, Blair's Cabinet shows signs of division, and the Labour Party and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now."
6. Smooth-talking Blair would persuade sceptics that flimsy claims that Saddam had WMDs were 'credible' and brush off claims that UN backing was needed. The UN is dismissed with contempt.
* "Blair may suggest ideas on how to make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace... [and] handle calls for a UNSC [Security Council] blessing."
7. Blair would say the Allies would prevent bloody chaos in Iraq 'the day after' Saddam fell. They did no such thing, there was bloody chaos.
* "[Blair will] demonstrate that we have thought through 'the day after'."
8. Loyal Blair would spare Bush's blushes by not making a public fuss about a US decision on import tariffs which had devastated Britain's steel industry.
* "We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision."
9. 'Arrogant' Blair desperately needed Bush's endorsement because his domestic policies were failing in Britain.
* "Blair hit some domestic turbulence. Blamed at home for failing to fix inadequate public services, his (unpublished) poll numbers have fallen to below 50%. He is sharply criticised by the media for being too pro-US, too arrogant and 'presidential' (not a compliment in the British context) and too insensitive on issues of concern to voters."
10. Bush had to pretend Blair was his equal to enable him to convince sceptical British voters he was not America's poodle.
* "Blair knows he may have to pay a political price for supporting us on Iraq, and wants to minimise it. Nonetheless, he will stick with us on the big issues. His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship."
[* However, an item on the recreation of the 1915 'Coo-ee March' from Gilgandra to Sydney to suck Australians into joining the army to fight for Britain in World War I was broadcast.]
Typically, there was NOTHING about them on this morning's (6.30) ABC news*, so here are the MailOnline headlines and opening paragraph:
Smoking gun emails reveals Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started - despite claiming he wanted peace
*Leaked White House memo shows former PM's support for war at summit with US President in 2002
*Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told 'the UK will follow our lead'
*Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution - in direct contrast to email revelations
*New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hilary Clinton at the order of US courts
"A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the 'deal in blood' forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister's public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: 'We're not proposing military action - in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals." (Glen Owen & William Lowther, 18/10/15)
You can read it all at dailymail.co.uk. For now, here's the data from their useful graphic:
Secret: Memorandum to the President
From: Colin L. Powell, 28/3/02
Subject: Your meeting with UK PM Tony Blair, April 5-7, 2002 at Crawford
1. Powell starts his memo by outlining the intimate nature of the upcoming meeting between Blair and Bush at the President's Crawford ranch in Texas.
*"Tony Blair is looking forward to the time he and his family will spend with you at Crawford to deepen their personal relationship with you and Laura [Bush's wife]. Buckingham Palace's approval of the trip despite The Queen Mother's death attests to the importance the British government ascribes to Blair's meeting with you. Blair will want to discuss: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Middle East; Russia and Nato enlargement; and trade and development.'
2. He says Blair will back him on Iraq and present 'public affairs lines' as Bush's global spin doctor.
* "Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause."
3. Powell then says that Blair eagerly proved his loyalty to Bush by sending British troops to Afghanistan even though UK military chiefs warned it was a risk.
* "Blair and the UK are in Afghanistan with us for the long haul. He readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos, even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched."
4. Again, he stresses Blair was already committed to Iraq War - even though he had not told MPs, the Cabinet or British voters.
* "On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."
5. Powell says only TWO of Blair's cabinet ministers backed the war, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - at the time Blair claimed they all did. And he denied most Labour MPs and voters opposed him.
* "Aside from his foreign and defence secretaries, however, Blair's Cabinet shows signs of division, and the Labour Party and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now."
6. Smooth-talking Blair would persuade sceptics that flimsy claims that Saddam had WMDs were 'credible' and brush off claims that UN backing was needed. The UN is dismissed with contempt.
* "Blair may suggest ideas on how to make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace... [and] handle calls for a UNSC [Security Council] blessing."
7. Blair would say the Allies would prevent bloody chaos in Iraq 'the day after' Saddam fell. They did no such thing, there was bloody chaos.
* "[Blair will] demonstrate that we have thought through 'the day after'."
8. Loyal Blair would spare Bush's blushes by not making a public fuss about a US decision on import tariffs which had devastated Britain's steel industry.
* "We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision."
9. 'Arrogant' Blair desperately needed Bush's endorsement because his domestic policies were failing in Britain.
* "Blair hit some domestic turbulence. Blamed at home for failing to fix inadequate public services, his (unpublished) poll numbers have fallen to below 50%. He is sharply criticised by the media for being too pro-US, too arrogant and 'presidential' (not a compliment in the British context) and too insensitive on issues of concern to voters."
10. Bush had to pretend Blair was his equal to enable him to convince sceptical British voters he was not America's poodle.
* "Blair knows he may have to pay a political price for supporting us on Iraq, and wants to minimise it. Nonetheless, he will stick with us on the big issues. His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship."
[* However, an item on the recreation of the 1915 'Coo-ee March' from Gilgandra to Sydney to suck Australians into joining the army to fight for Britain in World War I was broadcast.]
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
No Photo, No Mention, No Comment
No photo:
"Today we are saddened by the loss of Reham Dawabsheh, who succumbed to her wounds after more than a month struggling to survive. Most of her body was burnt as Israeli terrorists attacked and burnt her home, killing her toddler son Ali and her husband Sa'ad. Now Ahmad Dawabsheh, 4 years old, is the only one left from the family, with burns over 60% of his body.
"If Israel is not stopped and held accountable then Reham will not be the last victim of Israeli terror. There is a culture of hate that has been developing in Israel by supporting settlements and apartheid. The assassination of the Dawabsheh family reflects the clear connection between hate speech, settlement expansion and the impunity granted to Israel by the international community.
"Over a month has passed and the Israeli government hasn't yet brought the terrorists to justice. In fact, more hate-speech and incitement have been issuing from members of the Israeli government, more settler attacks have been carried out, and more Palestinians have been killed, injured and/or detained.
"We hold the Israeli government fully responsible. Once again we call on the international community to protect the Palestinian people under occupation and to put an end to Israel's culture of impunity." (Statement by PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat on the martyrdom of Reham Dawabsheh, 7/9/15)
No mention:
ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian
No comment:
Tony Abbott, Bill Shorten
"Today we are saddened by the loss of Reham Dawabsheh, who succumbed to her wounds after more than a month struggling to survive. Most of her body was burnt as Israeli terrorists attacked and burnt her home, killing her toddler son Ali and her husband Sa'ad. Now Ahmad Dawabsheh, 4 years old, is the only one left from the family, with burns over 60% of his body.
"If Israel is not stopped and held accountable then Reham will not be the last victim of Israeli terror. There is a culture of hate that has been developing in Israel by supporting settlements and apartheid. The assassination of the Dawabsheh family reflects the clear connection between hate speech, settlement expansion and the impunity granted to Israel by the international community.
"Over a month has passed and the Israeli government hasn't yet brought the terrorists to justice. In fact, more hate-speech and incitement have been issuing from members of the Israeli government, more settler attacks have been carried out, and more Palestinians have been killed, injured and/or detained.
"We hold the Israeli government fully responsible. Once again we call on the international community to protect the Palestinian people under occupation and to put an end to Israel's culture of impunity." (Statement by PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat on the martyrdom of Reham Dawabsheh, 7/9/15)
No mention:
ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian
No comment:
Tony Abbott, Bill Shorten
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)