Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Julian Assange? 3

Just for the record, ABC Radio National's hosts of The Minefield, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens, interviewed Peter Greste on 12/6/19 under the rubric A free press, sure, but free from what? And free for what?

Free of any mention of Julian Assange, that's what. Here's the relevant portion from Greste, following Aly's contention that the divide between the digital public and the traditional media is now so great as to appear unbridgeable:

"We've got to work a lot harder to regain public confidence in the media," replied Greste, "I hate the idea of talking about a business model that news ought to be a product and commodity that we sell... I don't think we should be thinking of the news as a product to be bought, sold and traded. I think if we see it as a public good, then we can start thinking about what to expect and need from our journalism. Then we can think about how we might design a machine that delivers that outcome. At the moment, what we're doing is allowing the digital environment to unfold in an ad hoc, random kind of way... We need to say: What do we need? and how to design a system to deliver that outcome."

Invoking news as the "public good" is the closest Greste gets in his statement to the subject of Julian Assange. Nitpicking aside, if concepts such as "public good", public interest, and the good, old-fashioned truth are not inextricably interlinked, then what is Greste on about here?

In a letter from the UK's Belmarsh Prison to independent British journalist Gordon Dimmack, who decided to make it public in May this year, following the US Justice Department's decision to lodge additional charges against Assange under the Espionage Act, Assange wrote:

"I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself, no laptop, no internet, no computer, no library so far, but even if I do get access it will be just for half an hour with everyone else once a week. Just two visits a month and it takes weeks to get someone on the call list and the Catch-22 in getting their details to be security screened. Then all calls except [to] lawyer[s] are recorded and are a maximum 10 minutes and in a limited 30 minutes each day in which all prisoners compete for the phone. And credit? Just a few pounds a week and no one can call in. A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case. I am defenceless and am counting on you and others of good character to save my life. I am unbroken albeit literally surrounded by murderers. But the days when I could read and speak and organise to defend myself, my ideals and my people are over until I am free. Everyone else must take my place. The US government or rather those regrettable elements in it that hate truth liberty and justice want to cheat their way into my extradition and death rather than letting the public hear the truth for which I have won the highest awards in journalism and have been nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth is ultimately all we have." (See 'Truth ultimately is all we have': Julian Assange appeals for public support, Oscar Grenfell, wsws.org, 25/5/19)

Greste shows no indication whatever of any desire to "save" Assange's life. Indeed, Assange seems as remote from his thinking as the dark side of the moon. His position would appear beyond callous.

The Genocide That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Consider the following data:

(a) "Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via (a) Killing of members of the group..."

(b) "Israel has killed 1 in every thousand Gazans. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Americans." (Saree Makdisi tweet, 19/8/14)

(c) "Murad, the head of Gaza's bomb squad, estimated that Israel had dropped between 18-22 thousand tons of explosives on Gaza since 7 July... If Murad's estimate is right, then the explosive power Israel has fired on Gaza by land, sea and air so far is roughly equivalent to one of the atomic bombs the United States dropped on Japan in August 1945." (How many bombs has Israel dropped on Gaza? Ali Abunimah, electronicintifada.net, 19/8/14)

Given the astonishing scale of death (now over 2000) and devastation wrought by the Israeli military on the population of the Gaza Strip, you'd think the 'G' word would at least occasionally crop up in msm reporting on the subject, right?

I haven't seen it used even once.

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Waleed Aly, however, had no trouble yesterday calling a genocide a genocide when talking about ISIL's rampant violence in northern Iraq, referring to its "campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide" against the Yazidis. (The oldest terrorist tactic: provoke an overreaction, 22/8/14)

I note that he made no use of the 'G' word in an earlier column on Gaza, MH17, Gaza & the value of human life (25/7/14).

Interesting, eh?

Using Section 18C to Silence Critics of Israel

The very public campaign waged against the Abbott government's proposal to drop Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was largely orchestrated and spearheaded by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), one of the prongs of Australia's Israel lobby, allegedly because 18C was needed as a defence against an imminent outbreak of Fredrick Toben-style Holocaust denialists. (See my posts George Brandis Launches Zionist Festival of Hypocrisy (30/3/14) and Why I Can't Get Too Excited Over Section 18C (1/5/14))

The pressure and the hype duly worked its magic and the government backed down. Of course, Abbott couldn't possibly admit to be heavied by the lobby, so some other excuse had to be found. And found it was:

"The Prime Minister said he had made a 'leadership call' to abandon the changes, because they had become a 'complication' in the Government's relationship with the Muslim community. 'When it comes to counter-terrorism, everyone needs to be part of Team Australia,' Mr Abbott said." (Government backtracks on Racial Discrimination Act 18C changes; pushes ahead with tough security laws, Emma Griffiths, abc.net.au, 6/8/14)

Muslims again! The cynicism is breathtaking. As Herald columnist Waleed Aly put it:

"The announcement wasn't altogether surprising, but the context for it was. Suddenly section 18C would be left as a figleaf for Muslims; a kind of transfer fee for their recruitment to 'Team Australia'. Consider how that looks if you believe - as presumably the government still does - this section is an egregious attack on free speech. Apparently we must live under its yoke to appease Muslims in the hope they'll help us fight terrorism. We're being held to ransom again. Muslims are the Grinch who stole freedom. The truth, of course, is that Muslims are largely peripheral to both issues... [W]hilst I have met Muslims who were unimpressed by the government's plans for the Racial Discrimination Act, it seems an unusual red line for them to draw given that Muslims aren't even protected by it. The law doesn't regard Muslims as a racial group. So, whatever it is section 18C prevents you from saying about Aborigines or Asians or Jews, you can go right ahead and say it against Muslims." (Abbott's 18C puzzle linking terror and free speech raises interesting political questions, 8/8/14)

What Ali doesn't allude to, of course, is ECAJ's crucial role in the campaign to retain 18C, or the bizarre fact that, as far as the RDA is concerned, Jews are deemed a racial group. Nor does he allude to the real reason our Israel lobbyists fought so hard to retain Section 18C: its utility as a weapon against those who buck the party line on Israel.

For example:

"The controversial 18C provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act will be used in a complaint against The Sydney Morning Herald over its anti-Semitic cartoon and the accompanying article by former columnist, Mike Carlton. A Sydney-based engineer, Wayne Karlen, 60, has lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission arguing the publication of the cartoon and the column caused offence to Australian Jews. Mr Karlen also referenced the subsequent abuse of readers by Carlton, stating in the complaint that The SMH has committed an unlawful act within the meaning of the RDA. 'This cartoon racially vilifies Jews and the similarity to Nazi propaganda compounds the distress to those of us that had relatives fight and die in WWII,' he said. 'The absence of a strong formal censure for publishing this racist and offensive material conveys an appearance of official acceptance of same.' Mr Karlen, who is not Jewish, said he decided to lodge the complaint on Tuesday after the ABC's Media Watch defended the cartoon and Carlton the night before. 'The suggestion by the public broadcaster and others that this cartoon is acceptable must be refuted in the strongest terms and those responsible for its dissemination must be held responsible,' he said. 'The publication of this cartoon has caused offence to and racially vilifies Jews and was done to portray Jews as murderers of men, women and children for entertainment. The publication of this cartoon has caused intimidation and contributed to the Jewish community becoming afraid for their safety living in Australia and has offended their friends and supporters.' In addition to Mr Karlen, The Australian understands at least one member of the Jewish community has also lodged a complaint with the commission under section 18C, although Jewish organisations have stated they will not be taking similar action in light of the Herald's apology. Mr Karlen suggests the Herald should be publicly censured and receice [sic] a 'significant fine' that could be donated to an accredited Jewish charity... The Herald's editorial position supported the retention of 18C..." (18C used to sue Carlton for racial vilification, Sharri Markson, The Australian, 14/8/14)

Iraq & Syria Sorted by Waleed Aly

Thank God we've got Sydney Morning Herald columnist Waleed Aly around to explain where we went wrong in Iraq and Syria. We'd be all so confused otherwise:

If only Bush hadn't intervened in Iraq:

"Over 11 years ago we entered a war of choice on a pretext that was always dubious and proved ultimately false... the invasion has unleashed forces we simply cannot pretend to have under control."  (Middle East meltdown: Blowback from invasion of Iraq unfolds to haunt the West, Waleed Aly, 13/6/14)

If only Obama had intervened in Syria:

"... in Syria, where a ruler every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein is in the process of enacting mass violence against his own people. This is a ruler who has merrily danced across what Barack Obama declared to be his 'red line' by using chemical weapons* against them. Obama ran an anaemic campaign for military intervention in Syria that went nowhere. These days he regards Syria merely as 'somebody else's civil war'.** We will never know what would have happened had America intervened. But we do know that Bashar al-Assad had free rein to unleash brutal force, thereby radicalising the environment and laying down a magnet for Sunni terrorist groups.**"

Wait a minute!

"Mosul is in terrorist hands because we blew the lid off Iraq..."

So we shouldn't have squished Saddam, right?

"... then refused to help put it back on Syria."

But we should have squished Bashar, yeah?

Hang on!

[*Wrong! See my 8/4/14 post About That Gas Attack in Syria...;** So the Americans, the Turks, the Saudis and the Gulf monarchs had absolutely no hand in "unleash[ing] brutal force, thereby radicalising the environment and laying down a magnet for Sunni terrorist groups," just Bashar?]

Reap & Sow

Shallow and misleading opinion pieces such as Waleed Aly's on Lebanon in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, which merely skate around issues and tell us more about the ignorance of the writer and the red lines he's afraid to cross, do nothing to enlighten readers on the issue at hand.

How do I know? Well, just take a look at the following selection of the 9 comments (now closed) in the thread which follow his piece online:

There's Rex:

"'Only recently has this sectarianism become so radioactive.' Sorry, Waleed, this is pure wishful thinking! Look at the power that religious leaders have in places like Iran, and it is obvious that 'political' has religious fanaticism at its core: there are no deeper reasons for intolerance and for more than half the Middle East's problems."

For Rex, the Middle East is just one big blur - Lebanon=Iran; the overriding problem is political Islam; and USrael is nowhere in view.

There's Don:

"This is what the money for nothing that is crude oil will buy you. A pity it poured into arming militias and stirring up trouble but there you are."

For Don, the problem is that your Ayrabs won the oil lotto, and Ayrabs being Ayrabs, they just can't handle their winnings, know what I mean? Nothing to do with things like imperialism or colonialism or that spoilt Israeli brat and his permissive US dad.

There's Andy:

"It reminds me of the thirty years war in Europe in the 1600s. Protestants v Catholics. Sunnis v Shiites. History repeats itself with bigger guns. Now we have a milder form of Christianity. Hopefully something similar will happen [to] Islam."

For Andy, religion's the root of all evil. And the beast can rear its ugly head anywhere, anytime, though thanks to Western Genius it's under control here. (Although, after listening to Christopher Pyne recently, I'm wondering what rough Judeo-Christian beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.) Don't, whatever you do, confuse Andy by mentioning those besties, the US-backed, sectarian, Jews-only state of Israel and the US-backed, sectarian, Sunni Muslim-only state of Saudi Arabia.

Here's Mark:

"Yes Andy we got it out of our system a few hundred years ago. Hopefully the Muslim world will get their act together one day."

Yeah, like we've really got our act together, right Marky?

Here's Lazy Jesus:

"'The National Museum of Beirut houses one of the greatest prehistoric collections in the world.' Presumably this is where the Muslim guidelines for the treatment of women are kept."

Oh Jesus! But wait, what's this?

Julian:

"If you go a bit deeper you'll find Israel's involvement in this mess."

Right on, Julian, at last the elephant-who-occupies-the-room! Bet he's going to list Israel's serial aggressions against Lebanon, something like this, to name but a few:

1968: 13 passenger planes destroyed at Beirut airport;
1973: raid on Beirut, killing 3 PLO officials;
1978, Operation Litani River, installing Lebanese puppet force (South Lebanon Army) before withdrawing;
1979 car bomb attack on PLO official;
1982 Operation Peace for Galilee > occupation of West Beirut > Sabra & Shatila massacre > Israeli/SLA occupation of South Lebanon until 2000;
1992 assassinates Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas Musawi;
1993 Operation Accountability launched against Lebanon;
1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath launched against Lebanon;
2006 Operation Just Reward launched against Lebanon.

Let's see:

"Lebanon should already be a serious cultural, economic and financial (albeit peaceful) competitor to Israel with a geographic advantage. While the world's best and brightest Jews moved into Israel, the best and brightest Lebanese went into exile."

Jeeeesus!

Finally, there's Thepres:

"Julian, If a country like Lebanon thinks nothing of killing it's [sic] own people with car bombs, it cannot be taken seriously by the rest of the world. Perhaps if the best and brightest Lebanese would return from exile they could change things. The answer of course is that they will not be returning to be killed by their own people urged on by the clergy."

Fair dinkum... where do you even begin? Certainly not with Waleed Aly's rubbish that's for sure.

The Phenomenon of Waleed Aly

Reading Waleed Aly's opinion piece on Lebanon in today's Sydney Morning Herald (Nation with no real unity stuck as proxy for region's conflict) helps one understand the phenomenon of how an Australian of 'Middle Eastern appearance' and Arab name can find a prominent place in the mainstream Australian media - in Aly's case, the ABC (Radio National) and Fairfax press: offer plausible-sounding, but lame and simplistic, comment with little or no real historical context, and... shhhhh... no mention whatever of USrael.

His contention is that Lebanon has no 'real' national identity. He quotes Ataturk thus: "Nations which don't find their national identities are doomed to be the prey of other nations," concluding: "It's hard to imagine a more penetrating description of Lebanon."

Tellingly, however, he advances no historical reason for this state of affairs. The reader is left to presume that the Lebanese, unlike the Turks, simply don't have what it takes to create a genuine nation. The fact of the matter is that the modern state of Lebanon cannot be understood without clear reference to Anglo-French imperialist machinations prior to and during World War 1.

In 1916, after decades of interference in the Ottoman Turkish provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean region, Britain and France secretly decided, via the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement, that once the Turks had been ousted from the 'Greater Syria' area, they'd divide the spoils, with the French taking the northern, and the British the southern, part. The French then set about dividing the 'Mt Lebanon' area from its 'Syrian' hinterland, and enlarging it in the process, to create the highly artificial colonial construct known today as Lebanon. 

Why then, with French imperialism calling the shots in the area and laying the foundations for Lebanon's current 'confessional' democracy, is it any wonder that Lebanon lacks the kind of national identity referred to by Ataturk?

It is only at the very end of his piece that Aly refers vaguely to the Middle East being "crammed with countries whose national identities have never truly been resolved; whose borders have been horrifically drawn to capture almost nothing coherent." You'd almost think the Arabs had scored an own goal here.

Now look at this:

"[T]he Shiites - most actively represented by Hezbollah - take orders from Iran and the Assad regime in Syria, while Sunnis seek support from Saudi Arabia and embrace Syria's increasingly radical rebels."

So Lebanese Shiites are the mindless puppets of Iran and Syria, while Lebanese Sunnis, who are presumably capable of thinking for themselves, merely "seek support from Saudi Arabia"?

And this:

"The assassination [of "a former [Sunni] finance minister"] is most likely an order from Syria, reasserting Assad's will in Lebanon."

So "an order" from Israel is less likely? And Assad is secure enough in Syria to focus on "reasserting [his] will in Lebanon"? I guess the uncivil war in Syria must be all but over then.

Finally, there is also the assertion that Hezbollah's involvement in Syria "has merely encouraged the same international terrorist groups fighting Assad to start terrorising Lebanon, thereby exposing Hezbollah's claim to be 'resisting' foreign aggression on behalf of Lebanon as a sham..."

Why is there no acknowledgment here that LEBANESE Sunni jihadists were involving themselves in the war in Syria long before Hezbollah's intervention? And why is Hezbollah's highly successful role in RESISTING ISRAELI AGGRESSION in Lebanon from the 80s on written off merely as "Hezbollah's claim to be 'resisting' foreign aggression..."