Morrison Itching to Attack Iran

Read and digest this opening paragraph from Peter Hartcher, international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Iran is far from Australia. Yet if it goes to war with America the consequences could be uncomfortably near." (Acute problem with US-Iran war, 25/6/19)

If IRAN goes to war with America?

Incredibly, what Hartcher is doing here is reversing over a century of US regime change dating back to the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii in 1893 under US president Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) (See Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, 2006, pp 11-30)

Typically, Hartcher's only concern is how this will affect Australia - and who does he cite on this matter? Who else but the former Liberal senator and Australian Army commander responsible for the siege of the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004, major-general Jim Molan:

"We are 90 per cent dependent on imported fuel... and we have only around 23 days' supply in Australia." (ibid)

Moving on, however, Hartcher cannot help but deal with the stark reality of the matter:

"The new US President pulled out of [Obama's] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)]. He was persuaded by the urgings of US hardliners and by the governments of Iran's biggest foes - its neighbours Israel and Saudi Arabia. These countries want Iran crushed, and they want the Americans to do the crushing for them." (ibid)

Will wonders never cease? Hartcher's got Israel right for once!

Now the Sydney Morning Herald of the same day (25/6/19) carried the following report:

"US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is touring the Middle East and Asia looking to build a global coalition against Iran... not only throughout the Gulf states, but in Asia and in Europe... " (Pompeo seeks anti-Iran coalition, Darlene Superville, AP)

Unsurprisingly, in yesterday's (26/6/19) Sydney Morning Herald, we read that:

"The Morrison government has left the door open to joining a co-ordinated international effort to ratchet up pressure on Iran, saying Australia is 'in consultation with our allies and partners' as tensions rise between Washington and Tehran." (Australia open to anti-Iran push, David Wroe)

Could it be any clearer than this? The United States is gunning for Iran, not, as Hartcher has it, the other way around. And Morrison wants in on the action, just like his Liberal Party predecessor John Howard did in 2003. Incredibly, we have learnt nothing as a nation since then.

The Joke

From the rambammed international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher:

"The leader of Tibet's government-in-exile has been telling his story about Bob Carr around the world for years and always gets a laugh. Last week he recounted it during a visit to Parliament House in Canberra... In 2013 [Lobsang] Sangay visited Canberra and a reporter asked him whether Carr, Australia's then foreign affairs minister, would be meeting him. A government that meets the Dalai Lama or Sangay risks the wrath of the Chinese Communist Party, which has claimed to be the sole representative of the Tibetan people since its army invaded Tibet in 1950. 'I said I'd love to, but I haven't asked for a meeting, not wanting to put Carr in a difficult position', he recalled last week. 'I'm sure that, given the choice, Bob Carr would like to meet because that's the Buddhist culture - we like to believe people are good.' Later in his visit, the Tibetan leader was in the lift from Parliament's car park when it stopped. 'The doors open and Bob Carr walks in,' he tells me. The Labor backbencher Michael Danby, Sangay's escort for the visit, introduced the two men in the lift: 'I had to decide at that moment whether to extend my hand or not. The Tibetan way is not to cause inconvenience, so I nodded and smiled. He kind of nodded - a little bit - then walked past. I like to say that we didn't have a formal meeting but we had a karmic meeting. No matter how powerful the Chinese government may be, it can't prevent the foreign minister of Australia from meeting me'." (Tide is turning on Tibet, 11/12/18)

Hartcher goes on in his opinion piece to describe Carr as "now a cheerleader for the Beijing government as head of the Australia-China Relations Institute."

Actually, the joke here is on Sangay.

Here we have a man who is apparently so immersed in what he calls "Buddhist culture" - "we like to believe people are good" - that, on the face of it, he is blissfully unaware that his "escort" is Australia's most vocal Zionist cheerleader for Israeli apartheid - which can only mean that he's either a complete fool or he's being disingenuous.

Don't Mention the Israel Lobby

The Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, Peter Hartcher, has no difficulty being objective about the US. Now that it has pulled out of its international agreement with Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the EU, enshrined in UNSC resolution 2231, he declares: "Trump's America has just become a rogue nation." (New world order: US goes rogue over Iran deal, 10/5/18)

(Leave aside the word "just.")

What exactly, according to Hartcher, are the forces at work in the US that have brought about this withdrawal?

He pays lip service to the deal's "unpopularity with Republican voters" (as if they spend their every waking moment worrying about what Iran is or isn't up to) and to Trump's inability to think straight "on even the weightiest of matters." And then there's this quite casual observation:

"The Iran deal has been opposed vociferously by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he carries much of the US Republican Party with him."

Could this then be the real reason for the withdrawal? A foreign power, referred to by Hartcher merely as a "US ally" (but never, God forbid, a "rogue nation") has the Republicans by the balls? And this while Trump, as Hartcher acknowledges, "doesn't care about the interests of America's allies," Britain, France and Germany?

Is this not a most extraordinary state of affairs?

Then why has Hartcher avoided writing about it all these years?

Justin Raimondo could have had the likes of Hartcher in mind when he wrote the following:

"Let's drop the pretenses and tell it like it really is: this is being done for the benefit of Bibi Netanyahu and his amen corner in the United States. For all the brouhaha about foreign influence in American politics, the pundits are eerily silent as the Israel lobby succeeds in an all out effort to drag us into their conflict with Iran. The 'special relationship' has gotten much more special in recent months, according to reports. Trump recently sent Ivanka and Jared to Israel to inaugurate the opening of the Jerusalem embassy, with casino billionaire and pro-Israel fanatic Sheldon Adelson in tow. Adelson gave millions to the Trump campaign and the GOP. While Trump rose to power as a critic of the Iraq war, and, by implication, George W. Bush's Israel-centric foreign policy, he has now positioned himself to replicate Dubya's mistakes - times ten." (From Iran deal exit: America first, or Israel first? antiwar.com, 10/5/18)

Rubbery Figures

"More than 120,000 civilians have been killed... in Syria since 2011, says the Violations Documentation Centre." (Gas often used on civilians: aid group, Sarah Almukhtar, The Sun-Herald, 15/4/18)

"Assad has killed at least 400,000 of his fellow Syrians in seven years of civil war." (Trump strike futile, but will make him feel better, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/4/18)

"... the US has been silent on the approximately 100,000 civilian deaths." (Missile strikes easy part. What happens next is harder, Denis Dragovic, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/4/18)

"Analysts view the latest retaliatory strike as futile in a war that Assad instigated and won, after seven years of brutal fighting and the deaths of more than 500,000 civilians." (Strikes met with scorn and shrugs, Farid Farid, Sydney Morning Herald, 17/4/18)

"Of the more than 400,000 Syrians killed... " (Despot gets back to work bombing his people, Sune Engel Rasmussen, The Wall Street Journal/The Australian, 17/4/18)

Pull the Other

"... Labor's Michael Danby, a noted campaigner for human rights everywhere..." (Woman China wants you to ignore, Peter Hartcher*, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/4/18)

Everywhere? EVERYWHERE?

Pull the other.

[*See my 7/9/16 post Time to Wake Up to the Herald's Peter Hartcher.]

'Acceptable Opinion': The China Lobby

I love word association games, don't you? Imagine you're engaged in one with an Australian journalist and you said, 'lobby'. What's he/she going to say?

Why, 'China' of course:

"In a 2015 interview with the China Economic Net website... Senator Dastyari is quoted as extending his 'warm congratulations' to the Chinese people on the anniversary of the 'Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War'. Swinburne University China expert John Fitzgerald said the phrase... was a 'loaded term'. Dr Fitzgerald claimed Senator Dastyari... must be speaking from dot points drafted by someone with close links to the Chinese communist party or government - a minder or go-between'... " (Dastyari under pressure as Chinese interview surfaces, James Massola & Nick McKenzie, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/12/17)

Apparently, the hordes of Labor and Liberal politicians who flock to Israel lobby-organised 'Independence Day' gigs and there declare their undying love for all things Israel simply aren't on our journalists' radar. Presumably, that's because, when it comes to Israel, no Israel lobby-generated PR dot points are required as our politicians always speak straight from the heart!

Now, surprise, surprise here's another piece on China - same paper, same edition:

"As New Zealand sinologist Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University has written: 'The Chinese government's foreign influence activities have accelerated under Xi. The focus of media attention has been on Australia, but the People's Republic of China's attempts to guide, buy, or coerce political influence abroad are widespread.' But why?... 'At its core,' says an American expert on China's influence operations, Peter Mattis, 'to survive, the party has to manipulate the ideas around it. What questions are asked, what's on the spectrum of acceptable opinion, there's a consistent effort to shape that." (Hexing Beijing's 'magic weapon', Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/12/17)

Of course, the Israel lobby doesn't have to put quite the same effort into manipulating the ideas around it - what questions are asked, what's on the acceptable spectrum of opinion etc, etc. And that's because it's got journalists like Hartcher (rambammed 2010) parroting their lines and/or avoiding altogether the kind of in-depth discussion he devotes here to Chinese influence. (And this despite the fact that he once quoted an "Australian official" who told him that it wouldn't matter who Australia's prime minister was because the Israelis had us "by the balls... partly because of the strength of the Israel lobby.")*

Silly me - I would have thought that if a foreign power could be described by a government insider as having us by the balls the matter would be deserving of some journalistic scrutiny, but then that's why I'm not the Herald's international editor, right?

[*See my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy.]

Q&A With Clueless Christensen & Peter Hartcher

Q - George Christensen: "Where are the balls in Australian politics? Where have they gone?" (The leader of the opposition, Matthew Knott, Good Weekend, 3/12/16)

A - Peter Hartcher: George, mate, they're in Israel's hands. As that "Australian official" I quoted back in 2010 told me: "It wouldn't matter whether it was John Howard or Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott in the prime minister's chair, they know we wouldn't sever relations. They know they've got us by the balls, partly because of the strength of the Israel lobby'." (Betrayed PM should not be taken for granted, Sydney Morning Herald, 26/1/10)

Time to Wake Up to the Herald's Peter Hartcher

Peter Hartcher, the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, reckons that "Australia's been pretty naive in the way it sees China," and that it's Time to wake up to rats in the ranks:

"We need to be alert to politicians compromised by China's embrace... Perhaps unwitting paid-mouthpieces for the interests of the Chinese regime... Business people so captivated by their financial interests that they demand Australia assume the kowtow position... Front organisations, apparently innocuous friendship societies... " (6/9/16)

But not, it seems, to journalists or politicians compromised by Israel's embrace and acting as perhaps unwitting paid-mouthpieces for the interests of the Israeli regime. Nor to Israeli front organisations. 

In 2009, Hartcher went to Israel on a NSW Jewish Board of Deputies-sponsored/paid trip. This resulted in a SMH puff piece on Israel's infamous Operation Cast Lead, in which he dismissed the UN as a "resolution factory," claimed that Israel had invaded Gaza "to stop the firing" after "enduring 800 rocket attacks," minimised the massacre of over 1400 Gazans (to 13 Israeli deaths) by referring to it as a "clash," regurgitated Israeli propaganda about Hamas using civilians as human shields, described Hamas as a "terrorist group," and quoted only Israeli "experts."

Hartcher disclosed the identity of his sponsors at the foot of the article. Following a comment thred backlash by Herald readers, he brazenly went on to claim that it was "routine" for journalists "to accept paid travel," so long as they disclosed it. (For the details, see my posts No Hidden Agenda (18/11/09) and Pawns in a Propaganda Game (15/3/10).)

In 2011, he spoke at a forum on Palestine/Israel at the Sydney Opera House. When the subject of the Palestinian right of return arose, he arrogantly dismissed it as "a reversion to old narratives," and variously referred to it as "unrealistc," a case of "Marrickville Council syndrome," and an "old grudge." (For the details, see my 20/6/11 post Hartcher Brings the House Down.)

Gutless Journalism at the SMH

Sydney Morning Herald journalist, Nick Miller, wrote the following, clearly under duress:

"He was in Gaza for a year, and for 11 months it was 'fairly routine', but the final month was Operation Cast Lead, a three-week conflict between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel, which the Palestinians called a massacre. The opening assault was followed by a ground invasion. it ended with more than 1000 Palestinian deaths and a subsequent United Nations mission accused both sides of war crimes." (Buried under the rubble, Nick Miller, 23/7/16)

Fear of the Israel lobby is palpable in every word.

Just to correct the record:

An even stevens conflict?

Really? Why then did the UN's Goldstone Report describe it as "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population..."? (1893)

Only the Palestinians call it a massacre?

Bullshit, only the brass-necked Israelis would call it anything other than a massacre.

More than 1000 Palestinian deaths?

Too bloody right! Add another 400 to that.

UN accused both sides of war crimes?

And also said that it did not "equate the position of Israel as the occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it." (Goldstone Report, 1876)

In the same issue, the Herald's rambammed political editor Peter Hartcher outs himself as a PEP (Progressive Except Palestine).

While he's quite capable of getting Australia right - "British Australia was built on the ruins of Aboriginal Australia, and the modern nation federated on a consensus of racial exclusion." (She's no threat - there's an opportunity, 23/7/16) - don't in a million expect him to write anything like this:

'Israel was built on the ruins of Arab Palestine, and constituted as an exclusively Jewish state.'

Israeli 'Democracy'

The Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, Peter Hartcher, is reliably shallow on the subject of the Middle East:

"One measure of [autocratic Arab rulers'] success was that while the number of democracies in the world trebled in the 30 years to 2005, none of the new democracies was in the Middle East, according to Freedom House." (Oppressed Arabs waiting for spring, 16/9/14)

Of course, you wouldn't expect Hartcher, a twice-rambammed journalist (2009/2011), to question Israel's much-trumpeted 'democracy'.

That's why the following perspective, by Israeli-Australian political scientist Marcelo Svirsky, is so useful. It comes from his fascinating new book, After Israel: Towards Cultural Transformation: 

"Ask any political scientist... to choose just one principle or practice as the litmus test of democracy. The overwhelming majority will say fair elections... This wide consensus is reflected, for instance, in the way in which popular empirical indices measure the presence and depth of democracy. Freedom House places the electoral process as one of its major categories for rating democracies... The Economist Intelligence Unit's 'Democracy Index'... also favours in its calculation of the index the qualities of the electoral system... This is not the place to discuss the extreme bias of these organisations because of the way in which they construct their methods. These are fundamentally questionable mainly because they compare regimes with a particular image of democracy consistent with empire's neoliberal values and interests. In their ideological constitutive assumptions and methods, these empirical systems of measurement fail to rank countries such as Cuba or Venezuela appropriately, while at the same time they are blind to the different variables that should be taken into account when assessing regimes such as Israel's... How Western 'democracy indices' manage to avoid measuring the fact that for nearly half a century Israel has held under military occupation about 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, has kept Gazans under siege since 2007, and discriminates against its 1.6 million Palestinians by ethnocratic means - this is a wonder that defies reason." (pp 181-82)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy...

Quality false symmetry:

"The Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other, dreadful enough as more than 1700 people have been killed to date." (How to rein in the dogs of war, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/8/14)

Recycled Zionist talking points with a dash of Islamophobia:

"Hamas wanted strategic blows. It wants jihad." (The Hamas trap: hidden labyrinth was wired for war, Paul Sheehan, Sydney Morning Herald, 4/8/14)

What I really mean is that Sheehan confirms my prejudices, while Carlton challenges them:

"Paul Sheehan appears to have a better grip on the reality of the matter than Mike Carlton..." (Letter of Philip Cohen, Brighton-le-Sands, SMH, 5/8/14)

Views that madden to crime:

"Well said, Herald, it takes courage and understanding to admit a mistake that caused distress to some readers ('We apologise: publishing cartoon in original form was wrong', August 4)." (Letter of Denis Suttling, Newport Beach, SMH, 5/8/14)

Working wonders with the passive voice:

"Palestinians kill three innocent Israeli youths in the West Bank. In response, an innocent Palestinian teenager is killed." (Letter of George Fishman, The Australian, 4/8/14)

Using Force, Rewriting History & Getting Away With It

In an opinion piece in Tuesday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, international editor Peter Hartcher concluded his commentary on the the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre as follows:

"As it did 25 years ago in a very different situation, China is using force, rewriting history, and getting away with it." (China muscles its way to power, 3/6/14)

(The present tense is using refers, of course, to the recent sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat by a Chinese vessel in the South China Sea.)

Whatever this formulation's applicability to China, however, I was struck by how well it summed up Israel's modus operandi: using force, rewriting history, and getting away with it.

Thank you, Mr Hartcher.

But typically, not in a million would Hartcher, rambammed in 2009 and 2011, ever say any such thing about the apartheid state, its long history of murder and mayhem, its false historical narrative, and its Scarlet Pimpernel-like ability to evade censure and sanction.

To take just two recent examples from The Australian Jewish News of history rewritten:

1) A supplement to the AJN last month, Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel Independence Day) 2014-5774, leads with a two-page spread A journey through history, by Nathan Jeffay.

Essentially a tourism ad, the only history we get here is:

a) that "the modern Jewish state" was established on May 14, 1948.
b) that an attack by Arab armies followed the above.
c) that three "Zionist militias" (the Palmach, the Etzel "paramilitary organisation, also known as the Irgun and commanded by the man who became Israel's 6th Prime Minister, Menachem Begin," and the "hard-line Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang") made this glorious event possible.

What we don't get is any mention of Palestinians or the fact of their ethnic cleansing at the time.  They are completely absent from Jeffay's journey through history.

2) An article by Uri Butnaru, The forgotten refugees, in the AJN of 23/5/14. This begins:

"The decision by the Canadian parliament earlier this year to recognise the refugee status of 850,000 Sephardi Jews forced to leave Arab lands such as Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Libya between 1948 and the early 1950s is another small step towards justice. Being the son of an Iraqi Jewish refugee, it gladdens my heart that in a small way the world is starting to understand that there was suffering on both sides of the conflict, sparked by the establishment of Israel in May 1948 - it wasn't just the Palestinians who were dispossessed and displaced. Sephardi Jews from Arab lands had to leave everything behind, their homes and all their possessions. But while not one of the 22 Arab countries that could have taken in the displaced Palestinians did so, for the Sephardi Jews there was one tiny country in the world that welcomed them with open arms."

Butnuru's is, of course, a propaganda piece premised on a false equivalence, namely that both Palestinians and Arab Jews were "refugees," sharing a similar experience and fate (summed by Butnuru as "dispossession and displacement") and that Israel's sole involvement in the matter extended to nothing more than merely "welcom[ing] them with open arms."

A Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) report from March 28, 1950 gives the lie to this:

"Premier David Ben Gurion returned today from his 3-weeks leave and tonight will attend a joint session of the Israel Cabinet and the Jewish Agency executive, called to explore the possibilities of the immigration of Iraqi Jews to Israel after they are permitted to leave Iraq." (Ben Gurion returns from vacation; discusses immigration of Iraqi Jews to Israel, jta.org)

The key word here, of course, is immigration. Broadly, while the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homeland by Zionist forces, Arab Jews emigrated from Iraq with more than a little help from Ben Gurion and friends.

Now I could stop here, but let's go on and explore some of the differences between the experiences of Palestinian refugees on the one hand, and Iraqi Jewish emigrants on the other.

Here, for example, is a description of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian port city of Jaffa in late April, 1948, courtesy of our aforementioned Israeli 'paramilitary' chieftain, Menachem Begin:

"Then a strange phenomenon was revealed before our eyes: the mass flight from Jaffa. Arab civilians and a variety of Arab 'fighters' suddenly began to leave in panic. There appear to have been two causes for this epidemic flight. One was the name of their attackers and the repute which propaganda had bestowed on them.* The Beirut correspondent of the United Press cabled that when the first boat-load of refugees arrived there from Jaffa they reported that the information that this attack was being made by the Irgun had thrown the population into a state of abject fear. The second factor was the weight of our bombardment. I do not know exactly how many [mortar] shells we sent into Jaffa. Yigal Yadin, Operations Officer of the Haganah, told me afterwards that we had not been sufficiently economical with our precious shells. The total load was certainly very heavy." (The Revolt: Story of the Irgun,1952, p 363)

[*A veiled reference to the Irgun's Deir Yassin massacre of April 9, 1948.]

Nothing even remotely comparable happened to Iraqi or any other Arab Jewish community.

To stick with the example of Iraq's Jews, news of Zionist atrocities against Palestinian civilians in 1948, the Iraqi army's involvement in the war against a Zionist takeover of Palestine, and the existence in Iraq of an armed Zionist underground, all combined to foster the view that Iraqi Jews constituted a potential 5th column for Israel.

The Iraqi government initially reacted by seizing the property of Iraqi Jews known to be in Israel, and some Jews began leaving Iraq illegally by December 1948. When restrictions on the emigration of Iraqi Jews were lifted in March 1950, a spate of mysterious bombings of Jewish targets in Baghdad followed, leading to a mass emigration, mostly to Israel, from May to August 1950. Evidence points to the work of Zionist terrorists seeking to speed up the process. (See my posts Greg Sheridan: Charmed by Israel's 'Most Dangerous Politician', 21/12/07; Shameless Israeli Propaganda at the WaPo, 3/12/14)

Israel's foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, crowed in a telegram that "[The emigration] is striking vindication persistent and daring efforts of Mossad Ha'Aliyah [underground Zionist movement for encouraging emigration] which in long years of underground work... succeeded creating movement which breathed new spirit into traditionally submissive Iraqi Jewry." (quoted in Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries, Michael R. Fischbach, 2008, p 56)

To return to our opening theme: aggression in spades, rewritten history on a grand scale, and getting away with it every time. Israel makes the Chinese look like mere amateurs.

The Carr Diary 6: Carr Gets a Caning

The Sydney Morning Herald's handling of Bob Carr's outing of the hold of the Israel lobby over former prime minister Julia Gillard has been either to ignore it or make light of it. (Needless to say, Carr's other revelation, that around one fifth of the money stashed away in party coffers came from Jewish sources, is completely overlooked.)

Nowhere is the subject even mentioned in the Herald's editorial of 11 April. Instead, donning the mantle of an irate schoolmaster, the editorialist gives Carr a thorough dressing down, as though he were an errant schoolboy:

"Bob Carr has let down his party, his former cabinet colleagues and his country..."(Carr memoir: a triumph of self over selflessness)

And notice who, by contrast, gets Master's approval:

"Carr's successor, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, has said that 'his gratuitous personal observations and revelations of confidential discussions are unworthy of any Australian politician let alone a foreign minister'."

You've been a bad, bad boy:

"He was premier of NSW for 10 years and did not leave behind a decade's worth of major infrastructure development or public sector reform. Creating national parks was his main legacy..."

It's a wonder Master didn't call him a tree-hugging greenie.

"A triumph of self over selflessness," concludes Master in a statement of the bleeding obvious applicable, I would've thought, to just about all Australian politicians.

Fortunately, Master's pomposity didn't fool all of its readers:

"Passing strange that your editorial makes no mention of Bob Carr's revelations concerning the modus operandi of the Israel lobby and their disproportionate influence over Australia's foreign policy in the Middle East." Sue Daniels, Balmain, 12/4/14)

The verbal caning of Carr continued in Saturday's edition, in a two-page feature by the Herald's political editor, Peter Hartcher. Needless to say, the issue of the lobby was raised only in passing:

"Carr made one strong stand on a matter of policy. He challenged Gillard over her decisions to take Israel's side in its arguments with the Palestinians. He led a cabinet revolt that forced her to reverse her decision. He does us a favour by drawing attention to this. It's not because he's right that Israel is omnipotent. Carr's successful rebellion, self-evidently, proves that it isn't. It's that Carr's position is a marker of change. He was co-founder of Labor Friends of Israel; today he is a leader of pro-Palestinian opinion in Labor. His shift reflects the surging Muslim population in western Sydney. Labor's NSW Right faction, Carr's factional home, is now pro-Palestinian because electoral arithmetic demands it."  (Bob Quixote was no world-beater)

Hartcher, of course, ignores the fact that Carr's testimony relates to Israel lobby group AIJAC's influence over Gillard and her office, not the party as a whole.

As for his bizarre description of Carr as "a leader of pro-Palestinian opinion in Labor," a simple perusal of his Thoughtlines blog reveals Carr as nothing more than a common and garden defender of Israel ("a benchmark of pluralism and democracy"*) who merely has a problem with Israel's colonization of the land necessary for the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. IOW, as someone in the party who takes its rhetoric about a two-state solution seriously, unlike Gillard who only ever paid lip service to the notion.

Furthermore, I challenge Hartcher to produce any statement of support for the Palestinians from the NSW Labor Right, apart from NSW MLC Shaoquett Moselmane.

Finally, Hartcher's linking of Carr's 2012 'rectification' with "the surging Muslim population of western Sydney," whatever that means, is tenuous in the extreme.

Now if the Herald editorialist thinks Bishop is the very model of a modern Australian foreign minister, just look who Hartcher's got the hots for:

"[T]he pointlessness of Carr's tenure, by contrast, shows the purposefulness of Abbott's trip to the three great capitals of north-east Australia. Abbott... has shown that a serious leader can achieve serious outcomes for his country."

And isn't this bloke an interesting choice for an opinion on Carr?

"For Labor, it's the betrayal of a man who was given everything by the party. A Labor MP, Anthony Byrne, says: 'If you ever wanted an example of the narcissism, self-indulgence and immaturity that ran through the labor Party during its 6 years in government, Bob Carr is it."

We're not told, of course, that Byrne is a mate of Michael Danby's, nor that he was rambammed in 2010.

It's hard to believe that Hartcher is the journalist who penned one of the most telling reports on the hold of the Israel lobby over the Labor Party - for which see my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy. But then the guy's been rambammed, of course - for which see my 18/11/09 post No Hidden Agenda.

Finally, check out Annabel Crabb's dismal contribution in yesterday's Sun-Herald:

"In geopolitical terms, Carr's remarks about the Israel lobby are by far the most actively inflammatory. The Jewry's out on that one, understandably, and will likely remain so for some time." (Carr best taken with a grain of sugar)

Jeeesus!

[*West Bank settlements always illegal, bobcarrblog.wordpress.com, 14/2/14)]

The Redundancy of Homework 1

Will the likes of Peter Hartcher, the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, still be recycling the lie that Asad gassed his own people a year from now? My guess is yes:

"Obama said besieged Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad must not cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons against his own people. But he did, of course." (Hedging bets in Asia for Australia, 8/4/14)

From now on, I'll be keeping tabs on msm pundits such as Hartcher who are simply too lazy to do their homework or have an axe to grind or both in a series called The Redundancy of Homework. Watch this space.

If you haven't already done so, please read my previous post and you'll see what I mean.

A Common Misconception

We have here a common misconception:

"When Joe Hockey, Bob Carr and a half-dozen other politicians schmoozed a crowd of worshippers... outside the Lakemba mosque during the election campaign, SBS news summarised the spectacle: 'Labor and Coalition court Muslim vote'. While wooing the crowd, the politicians had to weigh their parties' policies on Israel and Palestine against a harsh political calculus. 'This is the kind of thing that moves votes,' a Labor MP says of the Ramadan campaigning. He points out that Islamic voters outnumber Jewish voters in Australia by 5 to 1..." (In contested territory, Jonathan Swan, The Sydney Morning Herald, 28/12/13)

While the size of an alleged 'Muslim vote' may help determine the fate of this or that seat, it's hardly the deciding factor when it comes to the makeup of LibLab "policies on Israel and Palestine" (which are basically the same anyhow) or how we vote in the UN. But I'll return to this in a minute.

Swan goes on to describe how, under Howard and Downer, Australia "backed Israel to the hilt" in the UN. He then writes:

"But soon after Kevin Rudd took power in 2007, Labor began testing Israel's patience. [Swan seems to have forgotten that it was Israel which tested Australia's patience by allowing Mossad to abuse Australian passports.] Jewish leaders in Australia found Rudd cold and unavailable. And from 2008 Labor shifted support to Palestine in several UN votes."

Quite how anyone can write about the Rudd years in this context and fail to factor in the impact of Mossad's blatant use of Australian passports to do its dirty work is beyond me. At any rate, when it comes to Rudd's "coldness and unavailability," which had nothing whatever to do with any 'Muslim vote', Swan is here echoing the 2010 words of the Herald's international editor, Peter Hartcher: "[T]he Israeli ambassador... and some members of the Jewish community felt a chill in their dealings with the government." However, for reasons best known to himself, Swan chooses to leaves out the reaction to the "chill" of "some members of the Jewish community" (aka Israel lobbyists), which was to freeze fund-raising events for Labor. (See my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy for the details.)

Which brings me back to the above-mentioned misconception: it's not the relative size of the so-called Muslim or Jewish vote that determines how Australia votes on Palestine/Israel in the UN, it's more to do with who's shelling out for vital election campaign funding.

Jugular Journalism

What a strange man is Peter Hartcher (rambammed 2009, 2011), international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.

I mean, is this guy channeling Israel or what:

"For years, the world has been increasingly worried that Iran's progress towards a nuclear bomb would lead to war." (US its own worst enemy on Iran, 26/11/13)

The world, of course, turns out to be... Israel, and the object of said progress is never questioned.

But that's not really what concerns me here. It's what comes later in the piece.

It's one thing to adopt an Israeli perspective. (After all, this is the corporate media where Israeli thuggery is cool and Israeli thugs are sexy; where it's Ahmadinejad, not Netanyahu, as here, who gets labelled "firebrand.")

It's quite another, however, for a journalist to revel in Israeli violence - over and over again:

- "Global sanctions on Iran's economy have put a foot on the throat of the rising Middle East power."

- "But Israel and Saudi Arabia argue that the deal eases the pressure on Iran's throat; this gives it oxygen and time to continue covertly towards bomb building , they say."

- "Why not keep the foot on the throat until Iran capitulates comprehensively?"

Grotesque.

PS 15/12/13: I think maybe Hartcher's channeling Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz here: "'The pressure on the regime is enormous. You can get a very serious agreement for this. Don't give it up so easily,' he told The Cable. 'And don't give them extra oxygen while you're negotiating with them. On the contrary, increase the pressure'." (Israeli Intelligence Minister: Keep the boot on Iran's neck, Yochi Dreazen, thecable.foreignpolicy.org, 23/10/13) 

Peter Hartcher: Where's the Disclosure?

In an opinion piece on Iranian President Rouhani's overtures to the United States, the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, Peter Hartcher, concluded that "an agreement [with the West] would need to guarantee that Iran's bomb-making capacity is dismantled, and verifiably so." (Closer eye needs to be kept on Iran, 22/10/13)

Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence whatever that Iran is in fact in the business of making nukes, I note that Hartcher's sole reference to the Middle East's only possessor of nuclear weapons, Israel, is a reference to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not "specif[ying] what he would do if Iran crossed his red line, [although] we know it would not be pretty."

Hartcher's failure to mention the rogue elephant in the room - Israeli nukes - is really the only thing of interest in an otherwise pedestrian analysis.

That failure is easy to explain:

To begin with, Hartcher has been rambammed, not once, but twice (2009 & 2011).

In addition, he chaired a meeting at Sydney's Central Synagogue in 2010 where celebrity American lawyer and Zionist advocate Alan Dershowitz "set out the case for a military attack on Iran." (See my 10/10/10 post Goose & Gander.)

Finally, in 2011, Hartcher arrogantly dismissed supporters of basic Palestinian rights as sufferers of "Marrickville Council syndrome." (See my 20/6/11 post Hartcher Brings the House Down.)

Writing in response to significant reader criticism of his 2009 rambamming, this "guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies" wrote: "It is routine for journalists to accept paid travel. The question is not whether journalists take trips; it is whether they disclose them. Disclosure means that readers can take this into account in forming their views." (See my 18/11/09 post No Hidden Agenda.)

So why was there no disclosure of Hartcher's history as a card-carrying supporter of the apartheid state at the foot of his latest opinion piece?

Election 2013 1

No 3 elections are quite the same.

Here's the Sydney Morning Herald's political editor Peter Hartcher writing in today's paper:

"Approaching the level of the pitiful for a prime minister calling an election, [Kevin Rudd] actually asked sympathisers to send in $10 bucks." (Spot the difference between a reborn contrite Kev and Team Tony)

And here's Hartcher writing in the Herald on June 22, 2010:

"The concern [of Israel lobbyists] intensified last month when the government expelled an Israeli diplomat as a punishment for the passport abuse... All through this, the Israeli ambassador to Australia and some members of the Jewish community felt a chill in their dealings with the government. Phone calls went unreturned, normal dealings seemed to be suspended. The Jewish community reciprocated. When Labor approached key groups to hold fund-raising events for the coming election, they feigned busyness... The Jewish community was an important source of funds for the 2007 election. A single lunch in Sydney raised $100,000. A Toorak tennis court party for 200, attended by Rudd and Gillard, raised more." (What am I, chopped liver? How Rudd dived into the schmooze*)

Ah, those were the days! You can bet Abbott won't be holding out his hat for such petty cash.

[*See my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy.]

Look Who's Talking!

"The moment [Julian Assange] decided to seek shelter in Ecuador... he betrayed the principles he claimed to represent... Why? Because Ecuador... has become one of the world's leading oppressors of free speech." (Hypocrisy ends hero's freedom to preach, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/8/12)

The moment Peter Hartcher, the SMH's international editor, travelled to Israel as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in 2009* and returned, parroting Israeli propaganda tropes about Hamas' rockets and human shields* and arrogantly dismissing discussion of the historical roots of the Palestine problem as "old grudges and illusions on a Marrickville Council scale,"*** he not only violated the Fairfax Code of Conduct ("We will not accept gifts or inducements which could impair our judgment or be perceived to be a conflict of interest, bribe or inappropriate gift."**), but lost whatever credibility he may have had as an independent journalist along with any moral authority he may have had to pontificate about hypocrisy.

Oh, and unlike Assange, Hartcher had the luxury of choice.

[*See my 18/11/09 post No Hidden Agenda; **See my 20/6/11 post Hartcher Brings the House Down; ***See my 15/3/10 post Pawns in a Propaganda Game.]

Selective Outrage

Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr on the Hula massacre:

"Australians have seen the bodies in Houla and they're appalled. Appalled that a regime could connive in or organise the execution, the killing, of men, women and children." (Australia joins action against Syrian envoys, Daniel Flitton & Judith Ireland, Sydney Morning Herald, 30/5/12)

Then Australian Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the Gaza massacre:

"Israel's air strikes were a response to an 'act of aggression' by Hamas which had broken the ceasefire. We are saying to Hamas that they should cease any further action." (A time for fighting, Jason Koutsoukis, Sydney Morning Herald, 29/12/08)

The Sydney Morning Herald's editorialist has no doubt who's responsible for the Hula massacre:

"It is reasonably clear that Houla was subjected to a two-hour bombardment by the Syrian army on Friday. Then armed gangs of the Shabiha, or 'ghost militia', were turned loose, carrying out their slaughter with knives and small arms." (Assad's calculated, brutal bet on the world's indifference, 30/5/12)

But can't quite make up his mind - Palestine/Israel is sooo confusing! - when it comes to the Gaza massacre:

"The deaths of almost 300 people and wounding of some 600 so far have drawn understandable criticism that the military response is disproportionate. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon - a staunch critic of Hamas's rocket attacks - has reminded Israel it remains bound to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law. Israel's response - that civilians are being used as human shields for Hamas's terrorist infrastructure - has merit." (Israel, Gaza & Huntington, 30/12/08)

And, just for laughs, Peter Hartcher, SMH international editor on Saudi Arabia & Qatar's undying love for the people of Syria (especially those with beards and guns):

"The furious governments of some of [Asad's] Sunni neighbours, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are taking more direct action, funnelling money and arms to the rebels." (Angry move will have little effect, 30/5/12)