Jewish News, Malcolm Fraser and Carlill
Michael Brull
4 Comments
The Jewish News this week
Friday August 14’s edition. The Jewish organisations are not happy about the Sydney Peace Prize going to John PIlger. Robert Goot of ECAJ says "Awarding a peace prize to John Pilger is bizarre and disgraceful". "Pilger does not promote peace, but is a polemicist, a distorter of facts and history, and he promotes an extreme Palestinian narrative at the expense of Israel’s narrative and objective analysis."NSW JBD CEO Vic Alhadeff agreed. "Presenting the Sydney Peace Prize to Mr Pilger makes a farce of the award. Some of his work over the years has been noteworthy for its extreme lack of balance or context, which has done nothing to promote the cause of peace." Perhaps Alhadeff includes his work on South Africa (which he was banned from for decades), or East Timor, or the Chagossians from Diego Garcia.
In the letters bit, Vic Alhadeff strives to show that Michael Burd (previous week in letters) was wrong in saying there was no point in dialogue with Muslims. To show this isn’t the case, he talks about how he and someone else from JBD repeatedly have given talks to Muslims about anti-Semitism. Apparently they also welcomed a Muslim to speak about anti-Muslim racism. But this is just farcical. Surely, it should be Muslims speaking about anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, and Jews talking about anti-Muslim racism. Yet Mr Alhadeff has little interest in this. When Benny Morris - who thinks the Arab world is barbarian, who thinks the Palestinians should be caged, who regrets the failure to expel all the Arabs in 1948 - came to speak at Central Synagogue, he was introduced by Alhadeff. And what did Alhadeff talk about? His struggle against anti-Semitism.
There is an editorial whose title is "Danby’s human rights message." It says " Danby’s work in promoting the rights and interests of the large number of Jewish community workers in Melbourne Ports is well known, but it is possible to overlook his work on human rights for Jews and other minorities." Did they mention that he supports the rights of Jews in Australia? Surely they can stop here: What else would it take to show how deeply he cares about human rights?
"It is not just rocket attacks on Sderot, or bombings and shootings in Jerusalem that bring Danby to his feet in Parliament." He speaks out on Tibet, and "stands up for the Sudanese in Darfur and monitors Wahabist Islamic extremism encroaching on South-East Asia." I’m sure everyone in South East Asia (particularly Burma and Vietnam) appreciates his vigilance on this most pressing issue facing them.
On the next page (a Danby special), there’s an article on Danby, who weeps that whilst the Tibetans do not get UN support, unlike the Palestinians, "who are having butter gorged down their throats by the United Nations, by the European Union, and yet they don’t have anything by comparison to the Tibetans." Danby is deeply distressed by the occupation of Tibet by China, but not West Papua by Indonesia or Palestine by Israel. However, to be fair to him, he does support the rights of Jews in Melbourne Ports.
AIJAC AND BREN CARLILL
Malcolm Fraser "who’s not my cup of tea generally, but has become increasingly liberal over the years " advocates negotiations with Hamas. He also says: "There is significant debate within Israel itself about policy regarding the Palestinians. However, attempts by others to debate issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently Israel's attacks in Gaza, often lead to a charge of anti-Semitism." I wonder if he has the case involving me, Antony and New Matilda in mind.
Bren Carlill writes in the Australian about the ACMA letting al Manar (Hezbollah tv) broadcast into Australia. Carlill claims:
"Yet while a majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, the majority of terrorists are Muslim, an uncomfortable fact that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of political correctness. It is rare to find a Muslim terrorist who acts only for a secular, nationalist cause. The vast majority act, in part or wholly, according to their interpretation of Islam. We can decry this, but we shouldn't deny it. Doing so removes the possibility of us understanding their motivations and thus, a pathway to prevent future terrorism."
What can be said about this? It is true that the majority of terrorists are Muslims if we define terrorism to mean "terrorism committed by Muslims." Firstly, and most obviously, state terrorism has always been a more severe phenomenon than anything by non-state actors. Even in the case of suicide bombings, Pape’s study showed that more suicide bombings had been committed by the (secular) Tamil Tigers than any other group. More generally, it’s perfectly obvious more severe crimes have been committed by non-Muslims in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and so on. Furthermore, even if we stick to terrorism by Muslims, it is ridiculous to say there has been no secular nationalist cause for terrorism. Firstly, the Mujahideen declared a holy war, but their cause was secular and nationalist " expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan. Obviously, a religious person will always interpret their actions as sanctioned by their religious beliefs " but those religious beliefs interact with reality. The mujahideen attacked Soviet Russians, and not Swedish people, for a reason. Why should we believe Islam is responsible for terrorism? If that were the case, how could we account for the close relations between the house of Saud and the West? More broadly, practically every resurgence of political Islam can be attributed to secular causes. Take Iran. Obviously, the Islamic revolution was Islamic " but the people rallied around a cause which was at least partly secular: against the tyranny of a vicious autocrat who was a US puppet. Hamas sprung up because of the failures of Fatah, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s resurgence in Egypt came after secular forces were crushed (and on and on)
Carlill goes on to warn of "Islamists" " those who see "no distinction between Islam and politics." But again " this doesn’t account for the West’s cosy relations with some Islamists. It is not support for Islamic theocracy that accounts for differences between the West and "Islamists".
Carlill goes on to claim that Hezbollah "refused to disarm" after Israel’s alleged withdrawal from all of Lebanon. He does not mention the Sheba’a Farms. To him, it seems natural to insist that Hezbollah disarm. I imagine people in Hezbollah might consider it equally natural to demand that Israel disarm. People in AIJAC would naturally respond with incredulity to such a claim - after all, Israel has the right to defend itself. Yet after constant bombardment since the 1970s and repeated invasions since 1978, is it so puzzling that Hezbollah should claim a right to defend their country from Israeli invasion? During Israel’s last war on Lebanon, Hezbollah provided the only military response (regardless of what one thinks of the forms it took), which was actually somewhat effective. Whilst Israel’s posture remains belligerent - and it seems likely that Israel may well attack again soon to regain its "deterrent" capacity - it’s straightforward enough that Hezbollah will be unwilling to leave their small, poor country more vulnerable than it is to being devastated by another brutal Israeli attack.
Carlill goes on to define terrorism: "Hezbollah has also fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians; turned its guns on Lebanese civilians; bombed foreign embassies in Lebanon and elsewhere; kidnapped and held for ransom foreign civilians in Lebanon; and carried out multiple terrorist attacks in South America, the European Union and the Middle East. It is, unequivocally, a terrorist organisation."
Well, consider just some of these. Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. Well, Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment of Lebanon has killed thousands of civilians. Hezbollah has held hostages for ransom. What Carlill doesn’t mention is that this is something Israel does too. For example, after Gilad Shalit was captured, Israel captured and locked up for 3 years dozens of members of the elected Hamas government. This is obviously a more extreme crime than capturing civilians, though AIJAC didn’t notice. It was openly condemned in Haaretz as an exercise in using bargaining chips to gain leverage over Hamas. Well, if Carlill were consistent, he might conclude that Israel is a terrorist organisation too. I don’t expect him too. The answer is plain, and can be found in his previous writings. He has claimed that the expulsion of some 10 000 Jews into Israel from Palestinian areas was consistent with the Arabs actively trying to enact a genocide. On the other hand, the "deliberate expulsion" of a "significant minority" of the Palestinian refugees from the Nakba was "perfectly understandable."
Reader Comments (4)
• Here we go again to grapple with the "unrepresentative swill" malicious slur emission against the role model citizen! Ultimately forced into exile, dedicated Aussie journalist John Pilger. Prominent nonconformist, who didn't bend to toe the line of prostituted media in the usurped homeland. Instead he warned years ego apropos Australia: The Sickening of Democracy!
Yet even worse to come, according to the freelance journalist Mark Davis, SBS TV screened Journos program on Sunday Aug 16, 2009 at 9:30pm. Manifestly, Davis is not at all optimistic about the future journalism in the subjugated nation. Despite his wealth of experience, awards and respect within the industry. "I don't think I'll be doing it in ten years, because I don't think the format will be there in ten years. Current Affairs will probably be dead. Investigative jounalism will be preaty thin on the ground, that's my suspision. Certainly in television I'll be out, once this era comes to an end"... asserted Mark Davis.
SensibleJew: "Pilger is an affront to good journalism in many respects. His writing about Iran is particularly egregious in its complete ignorance of the people and politics, and in Pilger's reliance on regurgitating the obvious and already-written"!
Disinterested Observer: "Dear SJ, when I read The Age piece, it didn't sound like you were very Sensible. For example, you (sensibly) denounced the (alleged) leadership of the Oz Jewish community, but your manner didn't sound very Sensible. You called them 'unrepresentative swill'. Sensible? Aren't you against hate speech"?
"Isn't that hateful talk"?
"And yet clearly they are unrepresentative, that much I know. So you win the first round. How about swill? Seems a bit nasty, but then those unrepresentative 'reps' have been a bit nasty for years. Constantly screaming 'antisemitism' at straightforward people who are simply trying to tell the truth. They know, of course, that these accusations are (usually) rubbish. And your point is that mainstream Oz also knows that truth, so it just makes the Jews look bad in front of the goyim. So OK, they are bad, dishonest, whatever. But swill"?
"I don't know, but then I don't feel ripped off by them, because I'm not Jewish"!
"So I don't feel I know them well enough to call them 'swill'. Point of order: if a non-Jew *did* call them swill, would he/she be an antisemite? Am I channeling John Safran with that question? OK, then you dish out more hate speech at Antony Loewenstein, calling him a 'lunatic leftist'. Accusations of lunacy directed at people who's ideas you dislike (but can't criticize effectively?) are standard Stalinism"!
"So who's the 'leftist' in the piece? I read Loewenstein's site. It could use the attention of an editor, but 'leftist'? The 'left' in Israel competes with the Likud on how to most effectively 'deal with' the Palestinian 'problem'. They each compete to say how much they favoured the bombing of Gaza! So what is it to do with left/right? Nothing. Loewenstein's recurring theme is 'justice'. Since when did that become 'lunatic leftism'"?
"Oh yeah, it didn't, after all"!
"In Australia, justice is taken rather seriously and I wouldn't nominate leftists as its most potent defenders. Now, to bring the score up to date: you say nasty things about the 'official' reps and about Loewenstein. I can accept that you disagree with both and you think the 'official' reps are dishonest. Fine. But Loewenstein is at least an honest man & that deserves some respect or (if that asks too much) an absence of abuse. Of course your critique of Colin Rubenstein et al, is correct. They do generate annoyance in the broader community by spewing ludicrous accusations and appointing themselves thought police"!
Disinterested Observer: "SJ, I forgot to mention: The Age included your criticism's of both ends of the spectrum (to put it perhaps simplistically). And they managed, no doubt wearing out the soles of their shoes, to catch up with assorted official spokespeople. But somehow they couldn't locate Antony for a comment, when he is mentioned by name in your blog subhead"?
Elmo: "You have complained bitterly and publicly about perceived failings in the quality of leadership of the Victorian Jewish Community. Let me say that I think you are totally misguided on this. I attended the Cocktail Party at the Windsor Hotel sponsored by ZCV and JCCV to celebrate Israel's 61st anniversary"!
"Many [crypto-Jew] politicians from all parties were there, well over 300 people in total. The speakers were, in order, Danny Lamm, Victorian Premier John Brumby, John Searle and Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu".
"I don't think you could have had a clearer example of excellent public relations activity by the Victorian Jewish community. Both Danny Lamm and John Searle gave confident, measured addresses totally appropriate for the occasion"!
"The comments by the Premier and Mr Baillieu were wonderfully supportive of our community. I think any guest who might have seen any of your earlier comments about the quality of Victorian communal leadership would wonder what on earth you are talking about"?
SensibleJew: "Disninterested Observer, and all others who have concerns about the tenor of SJ language: it's very simple. Every person has a different standard for what constitutes offensive speech. Ours is quite clearly defined. No one is compelled to read or comment on this blog, so no one need worry unduly if his/her standards differ too much from ours"!
"Just stop reading"!
"Enough comments have now been made regarding our choice of words that we now consider the topic to be repetitive and therefore boring. We want to avoid boring our readers, and we prefer not to be bored ourselves. We will therefore be deleting any further variations on the theme of our choice of words and whether they are offensive. Legitimate criticism of our opinions is a different story: obviously we welcome debate and view a variety of opinions as critical to productive discourse"!
Disinterested Observer: Oops "deleted for repetition"!
SensibleJew: "Disinterested Observer, clearly the omission of Mr Loewenstein was the product of a Zionist conspiracy to muzzle him"?
Disinterested Observer: "Yes, I figured the conspiracy angle but of course was too intimidated to mention it. Nice of you to turn it into a joke! A bit like when John Safran makes his regular jokes about 'The Jewish Octopus' that controls the world".
"So hilarious! An octopus"!
"So funny that we needn't actually examine any, shall we say 'slightly more realistic' questions of influence and power. And then you read in the Washington Post that 60% of donations to the Democrats are from Jewish donors"!
"Sixty percent"?
"But we wouldn't want to leap to any conclusions about what that might buy in a country where politicians are for sale (& right now, they're on special, so don't miss out!)".
"SJ says: 'this is vile and very close to meriting deletion. We will not bother explaining to you why your statements are offensive. If we see anything like it again, we will delete without notice'"!
Disinterested Observer: Malki, far from forgetting about the cycle you describe, I would say it is the central fact that informs my views on these issues". "But perhaps a historian might have said: that persecution was inevitable at that point in the cycle, without having guessed the scale of it. The tragedy of Israel, in my view, is that it has guaranteed the continuation of the cycle, which could otherwise have been broken".
"If Israel hadn't been formed, Jews would be prosperous and secure in the US/UK/Canada/Oz etc and the Middle East would hardly ever appear in the paper. As it is, they *are* secure in those countries but not secure at all in Israel, which results in the global community feeling under siege, when in most of the world, it just isn't. So the tragedy/paradox of Israel is that it was intended to guarantee the safety of Jews and instead it is the instrument of their insecurity all over the world".
"I don't accept the idea that you can compare assimilated Jews in Germany with those in the US/UK/Canada/Oz today and suggest that there is a latent tide of antisemitism just waiting to rear its head and engulf them. In Australia, nobody knows or cares what your religion is unless you hit them over the head with it. Perhaps this is another reason why Jews should make an effort to mix more deeply (assimilate?) in the wider community. Forget about teaching *them* about you and instead try to understand them"!
Elmo: "SJ, dealing with my blog #25 and your responses #42 and #51 together with #44 from Yiddishe Kopf re Jewish communal leadership. This is a really serious issue but I cannot see where you are coming from. None of your arguments make any sense to me at all. Firstly, thank you for responding. I had felt that my comment was lost among all the other blogs and I was wondering how you would address it. I can't accept your suggestion that the Independence Day cocktail function with politicians was not a PR success"!
"You say in #42 that: (1) 'The cocktail function has nothing to do with the Jew on the street'. That's a red herring if ever I saw one - the cocktail function is a PR opportunity for communal representatives and [crypto-Jew] politicians to meet. On that basis, from what I saw and heard and what Yiddishe Kopf described in #44, it can only be described as a huge success"!
"It was particularly gratifying to hear the regard in which both the Premier and the Leader of the Liberal held the Victorian Jewish community. How can that not be a positive outcome from such a function? (2) 'There is no opportunity for prior consultation between the Jew on the street and their leaders'. I don't understand this - there is a cocktail function every year; every communal organisation knows about it"!
"There is no shortage of opportunity for any communal representative to make suggestions to either John Searle or Danny Lamm. Even if you are the average unaffiliated Jew on the street and not a member of any organisation you can always send either of these two people an email. (3) 'Reporting of this cocktail function would confirm the opinion of people concerned about the 'Jewish Lobby'. Now you are bordering on conspiracy theory"!
Disinterested Observer: "Elmo, let me help SJ out here. About the only thing I think SJ gets right is that the leadership is disastrous. As I mentioned earlier, these are the people who mounted a campaign against Channel 7 Sport, accusing them of antisemitism, because they showed a clip of a 'scud' rocket launch every time Mark Philipoussis served an ace. Now really, do you think mainstream Oz reacts well to such nonsense (& there is plenty more where that came from)? It's a shortcut to ridicule, which could easily lead to being completely ignored".
Yoram Symons: "I want to jump in here and try and draw a distinction between two very different kinds of PR. There is the lobbying kind of PR, which is about representing the Jewish Community to the government and authorites, and then there is a more populist PR, which involves representing the Jewish Community to the wider 'mainstream' audience. When it comes to the lobbying, high-level variety of PR, the Jewish Community is without equal and our leaders acquit themselves with dignity and grace and every other positive synonym one might think of. When it comes to talking to government [under siege] the leadership I have seen, both in person and through the media is really a class act".
"The leadership of the Jewish Community has the ability to straddle the aisle and bring together the highest level of [crypto-Jew] leaders from both the Labor and Liberal parties, as well as numerous high level officials within the various Government Authorities and Departments. On this count the community should be brimming with pride. It is the second kind of PR, the one that is geared towards the 'mainstream' that I believe many contributors to this blog take such offence. It is the way that the Jewish Community's PR machine works to affect (or disaffect) the opinion of the mainstream that is perhaps quite not up to the standard that some people think it should be. And this criticism is I think, fair enough"!
"The kind of PR excercise to lobby at the high level is so completely different from the kind of PR needed to affect the mainstream [goyim and shiksas] that it is unreasonable to expect any one individual or organisation to excel at both. It may even be the case that excelling at one almost precludes one from being able to excel at the other. So when a criticism is levelled at a function involving a Premier and Opposition leader saying great things about Israel and the Jewish community what I think is going on is that the criticism is really saying - this high level function does nothing to help the image of Jewish people with mainstream, mom-and-dad, 6 o clock news Australia. It's the Jewish Community's PR to that [gullible] group of people that I believe needs to be re-examined".
Malki: Elmo, you write 'there is a cocktail function every year; every communal organisation knows about it. There is no shortage of opportunity for any communal representative to make suggestions to either John Searle or Danny Lamm. Even if you are the average unaffiliated Jew on the street and not a member of any organisation you can always send either of these two people an email'. Please note there have been multiple posts in multiple topics on this site regarding the almost impossible nature of trying to be heard by 'leaders'"!
"SJ posted a list of email addresses which are listed on the relevant organisations websites and no responses have been received. Often when people complain that they have emailed their leaders without response, one or two will reply with the remark, 'I didnt receive any email'. Which is nothing more than convenient. Many, many people I know have attempted to leave phone and email messages with secretaries, assistants, research directors and directly with the 'leaders' in question. Very rarely does anyone get a response"!
What in fact is symptomatic of the notorious stonewalling in the subjugated nation, run by the federal, state and local instrumentalities, whose numerous jellyback spiteful pollies outperformed each other to pound on the zionist chest within the vocal gestures of assurance that "people's interest" was in their heart. Yet in reality our basic human rights were trampled and obliterated by the fascist evildoers, due to the absence essential Charter of Rights & Obligations in the usurped nation.
Hence on us to start from the scratch by calling on the local electorate offices to enact the vital umbilical cord interface between the electorate and periodically chosen MP. Who must adhere to the representative democracy system. Where just as vital on MP was to serve the people, and not merely the executive rulers. While applying vested democracy principles in relation to the real economy generation, establishment moral law and order within the social responsibility to the well informed society. Solidly set on the equal citizens' rights to the basic subsistence, health care, housing, education, unimpeded access to the internet and direct employment engagement venues with the real employers.
Thus inevitably on the local electorate offices to form communication exchange bureau for the active citizens participation within the vital contribution via local parliamentarians domain. With an ultimate goal on mind for direct, participatory democracy by the people and for the people. Towards the civil society evolution, onset in our responsibility to banish the parasites who over the years painstakingly feathered cuckoo nests in the ivory towers (subject to the surreptitiously churning party machines). Conditioned to serve echelon's master while forging this marvellous continent (if not for archaic vast wastage industries) into oblivion.
One may be excused for having dejected perception at times of being just an alien visitor here from some distant planet, who having to face a user pay consequences. What must be contemptible for the conscientious citizens in the nation where ensuing generations of the youngsters grew and proceeded into adulthood without having a single elevated role model. Someone to look up to, towards the impending achievements to come. Yet when zionist parasites wouldn't care beyond the aliyah to eretz Israel, many forsaken, disenfranchised citizens still got to face the utmost uncertain future to come. So while being blacklisted on unemployable's heap all along, dissident Jews take a stance to survive and proceed with life in this paradoxically awesome land of plenty, we call it home.
Michael,
"Alleged" withdrawal from all of Lebanon?
The Secretary-General of the UN confirmed as of June 16, 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon in full compliance with UNSCR 425.
As to the Sheba'a farms - your being disingenuous. The Sheba'a farms is a disputed region between Lebanon and Syria - the UN recognises that. Are you in a better position than the UN to suggest otherwise?
The fact is that Hezbollah uses it as a pretext to retain their arms because they don't want to relinquish them because they have derived significant political power and influence by retaining them in Lebanon. So much in fact that they dragged their entire country into a ruinous war in 2006 after illegally crossing the border and attacking Israeli soldiers in their own territory.
Btw - was your dissenting opinion concerning Rai Gaita crushed by the IAJV lobby? Beyond parody.
We live in an interesting historical moment, for what has taken place in the last few years, and with even more intensity since the recent Israeli massacre in Gaza, is a worldwide revival of Jewish voices committed to open discussion of the policies of Israel and the future of the world's Jewish communities. Such open discussion and proliferation of perspectives and media were philosophical ideals of the Enlightenment, in which prominent Jews such as Moses Mendelssohn were vigorous participants. Enlightenment ideals formed subsequent Jewish ethical traditions from the late 18th to the 20th century (crushed by Zionism in the last sixty years), that value debate, intellectual conscience and self-reflexivity, dissent, sympathy with those who are marginalised and persecuted, and a concern for all humanity!
Which brings us to browse Opinion and Letters section (above excerpt derived from), edited by acclaimed Australian writer Sara Dowse. A space for contributors to discuss issues related to Israel/Palestine and Zionism.
PS: Lest we forget that success is often one step from defeat. In reflection on Michael Brull's fleeting setback!