israel/palestine
15 Sep 2009
Do You Ever Feel Like The Walls Are Closing In?
In a further restriction on political debate, journalists at SBS have been directed not to use the term "Palestinian land" when describing the occupied territories, writes Jake Lynch
So narrow has political debate become here in Australia over the Israel/Palestine conflict that attempts to remind Australians of basic facts, well accepted in the global community, are falling foul of censorship — silenced by the swish of a bureaucrat’s pen.
Journalists at public broadcaster SBS have been told, in a missive from their head of news, that the station’s Ombudsman has ruled out the use of the phrase "Palestinian land" to describe the occupied territories of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The status of these territories "remains the subject of negotiation", the memo says, and should be described solely with reference to their geographical location, for instance: "Israeli settlements on the West Bank".
This shows the chilling effect of the selective deafness practised by frontbench politicians in Canberra, which has, as I have pointed out before, put Australia further into Israel’s camp than any other country, including the United States. Labor’s Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard found some rare common ground with former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello when both were part of a senior bipartisan delegation to Israel. When a delegation of that kind fails to mention, even once, the attack on Gaza at the turn of the year or questions over its legality, it has the effect of placing huge pieces of reality outside the bounds of the legitimately controversial. They fall into the "don’t-mention-the-war" category, or what media scholar Daniel Hallin called the "zone of deviancy".
In fact, it is the Australian Parliament that is somewhat deviant on this issue, compared to parliaments elsewhere. And things are not improving. Julia Irwin, who earlier this year was almost alone among Australian MPs to join with the rest of the world in criticising Israel’s attack on Gaza, last night announced her intention not to run in the next federal election. The disappearance from the Parliament of a voice prepared to say what many people know on this issue is bad news for the state of this debate in Australia.
At the University of Sydney, where I work, the Students for Palestine group have been told by their Student Union that they are not entitled to form a club, and benefit from the facilities, for reasons no one is allowed to disclose. All those present at the meeting that imposed this ban have been sworn to secrecy. So the Students for Palestine called a protest rally later this month, which is also being advertised by students from other universities: universities like Macquarie, also in Sydney, whose head of security reportedly frog-marched several of them off the campus for leafleting outside the library, occasioning complaints of "offensive behaviour".
Talking of which, the steady trickle of emails I receive from supporters of Israel has grown lately, their writers now apparently feeling emboldened to make more abusive and, in some cases, openly racist comments. Then there’s the latest stoush between the pro-Israel lobby and the Sydney Peace Foundation, over the decision to award this year’s Sydney Peace Prize to the journalist and filmmaker, John Pilger.
Pilger is famous for many things, including his reports raising the alarm over Pol Pot’s killing fields in Cambodia during the 1970s, and his courage in smuggling himself into East Timor under Suharto, and Burma, where he brought out unforgettable pictures of slave labour being used to build roads by the Burmese military junta.
His film, Palestine Is Still The Issue, is valuable precisely because it opens by situating the conflict in the context of international law and the well established view of the international community. The reason why the Occupied Palestinian Territories are so called is because there is an important difference between their claims over them and those of Israel: the Palestinians are their lawful owners. As Pilger points out, the reason why there have been countless UN resolutions condemning Israel’s occupation is because the inadmissibility of territory acquired by force is a cornerstone of international law.
As the SBS absurdity shows, these basic facts are now regarded as "controversial" in the context of Australian public discourse. It represents a triumph for Israel and its apologists here, who are thinking aloud about how best to take on the peace prize and its new laureate. "Strategist" Ernie Schwartz told the Australian Jewish News that, if professionally consulted — as some suspect he has been — he would advise critics of the award to face down allegations that they, in attacking a journalist for his journalism, are enemies of open debate. "Be realistic about the fact that we’ll always come across as myopic," he said. "That’s just the way we’re going to be cast."
Pilger-bashing over his reporting from the Middle East has already spread to academia. First into the breach, after the announcement of the honour, was a blog, The Sensible Jew, which declared him "odious" and "a joke among the serious-minded". It featured a post from Philip Mendes, a social work lecturer at Melbourne’s Monash University, drawing attention to his scholarly article on Pilger in the Australian Journal of Jewish Studies. It’s unusual for an academic journal — especially one enjoying the highest "A*" rating, as this one does — to publish a contribution by a researcher outside his or her own field.
In it, Mendes criticises Pilger for declaring that it is his "duty to rectify" an imbalance in Western news coverage. But unfortunately for Mendes that is actually what Pilger is supposed to be doing: Pilger makes documentaries for Independent Television in the UK, which is obliged to follow the requirement that TV licensees "ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives", as stipulated by the UK’s industry regulator, the Office of Communication. In short, they need Pilger to make up for shortcomings elsewhere.
Mendes treats the question of bias in reporting of the Palestine/Israel conflict as if scholarly opinion on the subject is equally divided, when in fact the vast majority of research finds that frames, definitions and versions of events favoured by Israel predominate in the news. Among the evidence he adduces to back up this claim, representative of the overall weakness of his argument, is the unpublished study by BBC News management of their own output, which he uses without setting it in the appropriate context, which was a dispute with the BBC’s governors at the time of the study.
Attempts like these to restrict debate or to delegitimise certain voices are of deep concern not just in relation to the Palestine/Israel issue, but to all of the issues that we rely on the media to cover. When Pilger receives the award in November, from New South Wales Governor, Professor Marie Bashir, and gives the City of Sydney Peace Prize lecture in the Opera House the following evening, it will be an overdue signal that we are entitled to know what we know, and to say what we need to say about it.
Note: All comments on this article will be held in a moderation
queue until they can be reviewed by a moderator. If you are posting
after business hours your comment may not appear before 9am the
following day.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
While the influence upon government as detailed in this article, is troubling, we are fortunate to have online mediums, like NM, which are prepared to say what others are not and to strive for open and honest reporting.
The reality is that the internet is informing people across the world as to the historic and current reality of Israel. Public opinion has changed dramatically in recent years, even in America, and particularly since Israel’s appalling attack on Gaza.
The boycotts and sanctions movement is growing by the day and more and more Jews are also becoming informed as to the reality that is Israel and are speaking out and joining forces to bring justice and to express the outrage they feel at what is being done in their name.
I can see a dramatic change in public opinion in the past few years and this will only continue. Modern communication mediums make it easier to reveal the truth, even when governments ban the press or censor reports, and truth will out and justice will be done.
This article, while valuable, talks I believe about a past, not a future. It is impossible to win a war of occupation in the modern age and it is equally impossible to hide the truth of war crimes and human rights abuses. We need to remember that wherever we strive to fight for justice.
While you appear to be criticising restraints on journalistic freedom, your article comes across as biased support for the palestinian cause rather than a well argued thesis for journalistic objectivity. The reasons for debate over the use of the term “Palestinian Land” is that there is no such place based on historical precedent or contemporary convention. I do not have the source of the following information to hand and so present it for discussion only but according to Jewish historical records Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, whereas Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years. I realise that your article sought to present a view that there is a conspiracy between politicians and editors but maybe the reasons for restricting the terminology you desire is because its not supported by the facts?
This post raises many issues, but I thought it useful to have the information below from the BBC website, because the SBS policy is really a disgrace (see below) that prevents naming the occupation as the occupation and theft, in many cases of people’s land.
But I tend to agree with Mendes (and SensibleJew) on Pilger’s factual errors and generalizations about Israel (and his style has always annoyed me) , but that should not be used to condemn Pilger for his important work over all the years.
Problems with Pilger’s accuracy should not act as a diversion from the key issue of conflict resolution and the need for Israel to change direction. This is a view taken by progressive Jewish organizations-around the world, despite attempts to delegitimize such criticism.
For example “Settlements – including settlement expansion and the proliferation of proto-settlements known as “illegal outposts” – are a political, security, and economic liability for Israel, and an existential threat to Israel as a Jewish, democratic state. ” http://peacenow.org/apn-positions/settlements.html.
And to preempt criticism, of course, I have no sympathy for the non-democratic nature of neighbouring security states, but that is not the point for those concerned about the internal threats to Israel.
–––––––––––
BBC — From Israel and the Palestinians: Key terms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/604…
PALESTINIAN LAND
This phrase has become more widely used by politicians and broadcasters to refer to the Occupied Territories, for example to explain why the construction of settlements is considered illegal by the UN.
Critics of the phrase say it is not strictly accurate because, for example, the West Bank was captured from Jordan in 1967.
The BBC Governors considered this issue in a complaint which was referred to in the programme complaints bulletin of July 2004. Their decision was that, although the complainant objected to references to “Palestinian land” and “Arab land”, these terms “appropriately reflected the language of UN resolutions.”
aaron,
Your argument that there is no Palestinian land is part of Israeli myth and propaganda. Given that this land, despite being occupied, has been called Palestine for millenia, then clearly a Palestian land exists. No-one would argue that there is no such thing as an existing land (called no doubt by various Aboriginal names) before it was colonised and Australia was established. Why should there be a double standard for Palestine?
In reality, you are confusing nation state with ‘land.’ The nation state is a historically recent concept. The nation states of Germany and Italy for example, came into existence in the 19th century but no-one would argue that prior to this there was no Italian or German ‘land.’
There was also no ancient ‘State’ of Israel because States did not exist… kingdoms did and tribal regions. Even Israeli historians now admit there is virtually no archeological evidence for any substantial ‘Israel’ in ancient times, merely the presence of nomadic Hebrew tribes, living in Canaan alongside many other non-Hebrew tribes. Any ‘evidence’ for an ancient Israeli State is found only in the Torah or the Bible, neither of which is regarded as neither historically reliable nor a legal document. Even if it were, it would still not make a case for any ‘rights’ in the modern age.
Jews have not had dominion over the land for a thousand years but followers of this religion have lived there for thousands of years along with followers of many other religions. Why should one religion have rights above all others? More to the point, the original Hebrews came out of Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) and the substance of their religion was laid down during the time they lived in Egypt so one could argue that if any ancient rights existed they would be not in Palestine (formerly the Egyptian colony of Canaan) but in Iraq or Egypt. Taking the premise of your argument to any logical conclusion simply reveals how impractical and foolish it is.
By your criteria the Italians could claim Istanbul and London, which they founded and the British Calcutta, Bombay and Madras which they founded… not to mention many Australian, American, Canadian, African and New Zealand cities.
Whether Israelis and their supporters like it or not, it is historical record that a people called Palestinians (comprising Muslims, Christians and Jews … the latter a very small minority) lived in a country called Palestine which was partitioned by the UN and many non-Jews, at that time were either killed or dispossessed. Since that time the non-Jews, the indigenous people of both Palestine and Israel have been held under occupation and continued dispossession and colonisation.
The United Nations referred to the partition of Palestine, recognising the existence of a Palestinian country or land. It was known at the time that the majority of the inhabitants were opposed to this partition, which is also recognition of a Palestinian people, the inhabitants of a land called Palestine.
Israel exists as a colonising nation just like Australia, Canada, America and New Zealand and must, like those offers, apologise for the wrongs inherent in its foundation and make redress to its indigenous people and give them either full and equal rights as citizens in one state or return the remainder of Palestine, beyond UN mandated borders, to them so they may live in freedom and independence.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Israel lobby is doing their utmost to silence dissent and discussion on Palestine. I was quite appalled to read a letter from a New Matilda columnist in The Sunday Age 10 days ago according to which even NW has been approached by this lobby to act more or less in the lobby’s interest.
And NM may want to comment on this.
I am glad there are people like Jake Lynch and internet sites like NM that do not let themselves be intimidated.
I agree with rosross that public opinion is swaying towards Palestine, virtually globally, as evidenced by material published on the internet. The Israel lobby may be winning the odd battle but not the war.
Aaron,
The historical crudities and inaccuracies you present do nothing to advance the cause of peace or reconciliation. Equally absurd propositions will be presented by someone supporting the Palestinians, do deny Jewish presence, existence, or any form of continuity with the community who identify as Jews. It becomes as silly as trying to prove that Alexander the Great was not Greek, but a Slavic Macedonian, to support current political claims (or the opposite).
I expect this discussion to now be hijacked by all sorts of nutters with ethnic /religious truth claims based on the worst form of reductionism and ignorance about each others’ rich history and culture.
There are two communities in conflict. For a variety of extraordinarily complex reasons, each has claims on the same land.
There has to be compromise. I argue that Israel has gone too far in one direction. I also expect btw, compromise on the other side (which, of course, there has been), but both sides have to be brought together because they have proved they can’t do it on their own.
rosross, you are undoubtedly an optimist. Wonderful!
However, I beg to differ.
The Zionist Lobbies in Australia, as in the USA, have been further and further emboldened over their quite blatant contempt and humiliation of the US President, Barack Obama, both by the main US Israel Lobbies, and their ‘owned’ supporters in Congress.
This political censorship of SBS is another indication of the lobby’s power and increasing influence.
I say that the WHOLE of the land presently occupied by the religious grouping of Jews, said by them to be the Religious State of Jewish israel (NOT a legal entity), is, in FACT, Palestine, and nothing that Danby and La Gillardine and their mates says will change my mind.
Maybe in some places there is faint movement towards some sort of Justice and understanding, but Australia is a long way from joining them. Even the boycotts so lauded in some places have not got off the ground in Australia. When Universities in Australia become self-censoring of rational discussion, and attempt to close down Palestine Support Groups, we are really at a low point.
All I can really hope for is that Obama comes to understand that if he continues to kow-tow to the Israel Lobby (who are actually traitors to America, as they give most of their subservience to a foreign, and rogue, bogus State) and develops some intestinal fortitude, and just gives the israelis an ultimatum, whilst also giving it to their supporters in Congress. He may actually have to bypass his Majority Leader in the Senate, who is a Zionist, to get anywhere.
If anyone thinks this is actually likely to happen, then you must also believe in religion or fairies (much the same thing).
In Australia, with an Opposition as bad or worse than Labor, we have no real avenues. The chances of getting rid of Krudd and La Gillardine any time soon is about zero, so we are stuck with the media manipulation inherent in these bodies. Krudd and Wong etc. can not even see that we are in dire straits Ecologically and Climate wise, bowing to eternal moneyed forces, so they are not likely soon to wake up that their foreign policies are utterly rank and obnoxious, and also subject to outside interference.
(This comment has been edited.)
I might be being a bit obtuse here, but why is “Israeli settlements on the west bank” any more euphemistic than “Palestinian lands” in describing the occupied territories ?
Personally I prefer “Deserts made to bloom by the know how, sweat and determination of Israeli pioneers”
Tzvi aka oli
So often we overlook the importance of words and the emotions they generate in us.
Here’s another great example where, on the spurious grounds of “territory under dispute” “Palestinian territories” become “Jewish Settlements on the West Bank”, effectively eliminating the Palestinian claims and emphasizing the Jewish “rights” in SBS Media reports.
Remember the South African apartheid “Security Forces”? They were white, racist and terrorists in their own right but the use of the word “Security” in such situations generates acceptance in the wider world and international outrage is, at least to some degree, defused.
The same techniques are being used here. There’s no doubt that a brutal Israeli invasion accompanied by all the usual injustice is going on and SBS is clearly determined to be a part of it.
Yet another shameful failure of the once proud SBS, I’d say.
aaaron
Of course it’s Palestinian land, it has been since Neolithic times.I see,Palestine doesn’t exist so the land is not owned by anyone,where have we heard similar sophistry before? Generations of farmers have occupied the same land,whether they’re called “Palestinians”,”Arabs”or “Smurfs” doesn’t alter their rights to the land. They are being dispossessed by Israeli carpetbagging settlers who have no ethical justification for state supported theft.
Perhaps Aaron should consider the words of Jewish historian Shlomo Sand, when asked by Haaretz about the origins of the Palestinians:
“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don’t leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, ‘the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.’”
Imagine if Ted Nugent were a Palestinian who was being forced off his land by the ‘occupiers’… He would be “100% terrorist”!
Well done Jake.
Australians fought in Palestine in Two World Wars.
They fought for the oppressed and to prevent further subjugation.
Thank you and your fellow students for maintaining this essential Aussie tradition.
It appears we need an “Office of Communication” as well as a “Bill of Rights” to ensure journalists’ independence and the public’s right to be informed.
Just who are the “lawful owners” of the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip is a debatable point.
Nowadays the Arab states want all the UN resolutions enforced. It was not so in 1948, when the issue was partition of the former Mandated Territory of Palestine. Half a loaf being better than none, the Jewish Agency accepted partition. The Arabs did not and chose force. The subsequent war went against them and the Arab state that should have been created in Palestine never came in being.
Abdullah I, the Hashemite King of Jordan, wanted the West Bank and once he got it he stopped fighting. It became part of his kingdom from 1949 until 1967. Apparently this territorial acquisition by force was o.k., the force being Arab, not Jewish.
“What is Palestine to us?” declared a young Egyptian Army captain to his Israeli counterparts during the disengagement of forces on the taking effect of the armistice in 1949. The Egyptian officer, who had held out bravely after his unit was surrounded in Sinai, was named Gamal Abdul Nasser.
Thus Egypt came to administer the slice of Palestine henceforth called the Gaza Strip—along with its 350,000 restive inhabitants. These were kept in camps, not permitted to enter Egypt much less offered citizenship there. Again, this territory came under Israeli occupation in 1967. In 1975 when Sinai was handed back, the Egyptians pointedly refused to take back Gaza—that perennial hornet’s nest— in any capacity.
Aaaron…
If your contention is that the lands in Question belong to Israel and not to the Palestinians because of ancient historical ownership, then why did The West stop Serbia from reclaiming Kosovo from the Muslims who took it by force after 635CE???
I would take this chance to replay some comments from June. Lest it be ignored this was in response to my declaration that the zionist lobby had taken control of SBS news editorial.
quote
amazingdave 02/06/09 4:19PM
I think the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS might be surprised to find they’ve wrested control of SBS from the INFLUENTIAL GAY LOBBY. I can just imagine them at their midnight graveyard rendezvous in Prague.
Moshe: So I was reading New Matilda, and apparently some commenter reckons we’ve wrested dominant control from the pink mafia.
Aaron: Oh sweet.
unquote
Like the opera house trust this TV station and its management should be terminated
Lynch criticizes an academic here for allegedly writing outside his core teaching area. However, to the best of my knowledge, few if any of the major contributors to the boycott debate on either side have specialist qualifications in Middle Eastern politics or history. Lynch, for example, is a journalist not a Middle Eastern specialist. It does seem to me that the key issue here is the merits of the argument not where someone works. Peer reviewed academic journals use blind reviewing processes to judge contributions on their quality. The reviewers do not know and are not allowed to know the identity of the writers or their academic qualifications.
Hi dylan6,
I think Lynch’s point there was that what seemed odd was the journal’s decision to publish the article – I don’t think he was primarily criticising Mendes for trying to get it published. However, judging by Lynch’s assessment, neither the journal nor Mendes did themselves any favours by producing his “study” of Pilger, if it does make those pretty basic errors Lynch mentions.
Maybe Mendes would have done better to confine himself to his area of expertise when publishing scholarly work, and maybe the journal would have done better to follow standard practice and help him see the wisdom in that.
That’s not to say that people like Mendes, or Lynch or anyone else who isn’t working as an academic in Middle Eastern studies should not feel free to write articles in the media on the Palestine/Israel issue. The point, I think, is that we expect a standard of quality in our peer-reviewed journals that we (sadly) don’t in the media.
dazza,
I would be the first to admit that we have a long way to go and that the actions of our current government are as sycophantic as the actions of the last government in regard to both the US and Israel. Sigh. It was ever thus.
However, I merely make the point that however bad it seems we have made progress. The boycotts and sanctions movement against Israel is growing. More people around the world, and remarkably, even in America, now have a greater understanding of the inherent wrongs involved in the foundation of Israel and the ongoing wrongs of the subsequent occupation and continued colonisation.
I see the UN has just brought down a report saying that Israel should face war crimes trials over Gaza. Progress may be slow but it is progress.
The reality is that Israel’s only hope of surviving, at least for a time given the ‘racist’ nature of religiously defined states as anachronisms in the modern world, as a Jewish state is for pressure to be put sooner, not later for resolution. The longer this goes on the greater the certainty that Israel will be forced to do what all other historically recent colonisers have had, quite rightly, to do, and that is create one state with equal rights for all.
Unfortunately, for any Israeli state, because her indigenous peoples are greater in number, one presumes that the name of the country will be returned to Palestine and that many Israelis would find themselves in the same situation as white South Africans, without a future in a new and free state.
What I find hard to understand is why this is not seen by all those who claim to support Israel. There can be no other outcome. Holding the Palestinians imprisoned, as they consistently outbreed you (nature’s way of ensuring survival in times of trauma) gaurantees at some point in time not only justice but the ‘facts on the ground’ will wash away the Israeli State. The Palestinians will not leave. They cannot be killed or forced to leave and even if this were attempted world outrage would be so great that the many millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps would be brought back in to live in a reconstituted Palestine.
So on those counts alone, combined with greater public awareness, it is impossible for the Palestinians to fail in their bid for freedom and Statehood.
Censorship can have many aspects.
In my entry above, I made mention that Danby has been encouraged by the support of Julia Gillard and Krudd (and probably Colonel Kelly), all Zionist supporters with him in the Labor Government, and that the censoring of comment on SBS was an indication of the increasing power of the Zionist lobbies in Australia.
This part was excised from my entry. Censored OUT! Why!
At least Rod entered into some discussion on the whys and where-fors.
I also made mention of the fact that the Majority Leader in the US Senate was a traitor to America. This is the man, a Democrat, a man that Obama has to try and depend upon to get some of his projects passed, one who went to Tel Aviv and told the israelis to totally ignore the peace initiatives of his own President, and to do their own thing in regard to settlements. This man is totally owned by the US israeli lobbies. He proudly acknowledges that his primary allegiances are to israel, NOT America.
Quite a few writers in the USA are referring to the quite obvious fact that these people who give acknowledged allegiance to a foreign power, and act accordingly against the interest of America, are in fact, TRAITORS!
How can this be argued with?????
This reference was totally excised from my entry. Why?
Quite obviously NM is indeed censored by the Zionist lobbies in Australia, and it would seem that the US lobbies also hold some sway here.
I do not really expect this entry to appear in NM!
(This comment has been edited.)
Dylan6,
since you seem to know so much about academic peer review, and the politics of publishing commentary on the middle east, perhaps you would care to identify yourself so that there is no conflict of interest in the discussion?
dazza,
Your comment was edited because you did not offer any links to better explain what you mean when you called US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a “traitor”. In making serious allegations like this without any reference of this kind you leave yourself, and us, open to legal action. Newmatilda.com does not exist for you to randomly mouth off at anyone you feel antipathy for, without doing other readers the courtesy of adequately explaining yourself. Your remarks about Reid have been allowed through in your most recent comment, because you have now placed them in some context, but you still have not offered any proof of Reid’s “allegiance” to Israel. If you cannot, your comment will be removed. NM
rososs: “So on those counts alone, combined with greater public awareness, it is impossible for the Palestinians to fail in their bid for freedom and Statehood.”
History is filled with impossible deeds - one need not look further than the establishment of the State of Israel after 2000 years of exile!
NM,
what happened to my comment?
(Sorry Rocky - we have no idea. NM)
I think the sad thing about a site which refers to itself as ‘sensible’ is that it should be so lacking in common sense as to refer to anyone as odious! However, I defend the right of The Sensible Jew to say whatever it wishes because I defend freedom of speech. The reference to Hanan Ashrawi as ‘odious’ is even more troubling. Ashrawi has come across for years as a voice of calm reason. She is one of the most considered and polite people to comment on the Israeli occupation and colonisation of Palestine. To call her ‘odious’ reflects not on her but on those who feel a need to defame her. Such comments reveal an innate bias which can only make one question the substance of comments made.
No-one who reads John Pilger cannot be aware of his substantial ego, but if we were to reject commentary because of the egos involved we would read very little. Pilger has worked hard and written long on many counts for justice. One must respect that. One may take from his writings whatever suits without resorting to name-calling.
Any attempts to demonise, by either side, is counter-productive.
In answer to your timely comment to Dazza; conversely can you publish my contentions that disaffectd Jews and Israelis are that way in many instances because they have bones to pick and grievences of their own “antipathies”.
I can substantiate my claims.
I would like to point out that disgruntled public servants are not generally considered as whistleblowers, more as pathetic individuals outcast by their own group and most free thinking people.
This is how most of your Jewish critics of Israel are regarded by mainstream Jews and Aussies in this country.
Can these slanging matches be brought to heel, for the time being at least?
Thanks, Oli
There is some evidence that a newly energised ‘propaganda war’ is underway. One could argue that increased awareness and knowledge actually creates a situation where such things backfire.
Supposedly, the ‘The Israel Project’, a US media advocacy group, has produced a revised training manual to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23511.htm
Just as Sharpeville was a turning point for the apartheid regime in South Africa so Gaza has been a turning point for the Israeli State. The recent charge from the UN that Israel must answer war crimes will not go away even though Israel may attempt to ignore it.
The attempts at censorship which Jake Lynch has pointed out may well be a part of this renewed propaganda war but public opinion, once changed, is not going to change back.
The writing, as they say, is not only on the apartheid wall which cuts through Palestine, but on the public wall of the internet.
To Rosross (and all others):
I have been following the comments with great interest.
I cannot but agree with the statements of Rosross and particularly the proposition of a One-State Solution.
As regards a name: Quite some time ago I read on another website (a Jewish Anti-Zionist website) about someone’s dream (along the lines of Martin Luther King’s Dream):
The dream went roughly as follows: there will be another devastating war between Israel and Palastine killing thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of Palastinians. But then the two forces will make lasting peace, bury their hostilities forever, and live harmoniously side by side in the State of Canaan (or Kanaan).
I have another dream, which I am quite hopeful will come true, though not necessarily in my lifetime:
20 years ago the Berlin Wall came down and with it a non-violent end to Communism, at least Communism Russian Style (Bolshevism). Zionism and Bolshevism arose very roughly at the same time in Russia (both ‘isms’ triggered by the writings of a German and an Austrian respectively).
So, Zionism will run its course as did Communism.
Great article! Thanks Jake.
I phoned SBS after reading this article but could not get a clear answer
on the subject. I will just observe what follows.
Mendes has the full support of the Jewish Board of Deputies on his side.
So regardless if he is speaking on an issue that is not Social Work, if
it contributes to the larger Zionist agenda, it will be published as
widely as possible.
Lastly, we ALL know that it always was, still is and always will be
Palestinian Land that the State of Israel currently unjustly and
tentatively occupies…
(This comment has been edited)
Are we the lawful owners of Australia? The hegemony of colonisation exists here just as it does in Israel, a modern ‘apartheid’ state that has a duel indigenous population with direct ties to the land.
Historically speaking the Jews formed the first agrarian state in the region only to be conquered by the Hellenes, Macedonians, Babylonians and finally expelled or what was left of the population dominated by the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires.
Palestine (named by the Romans) was never a self-determining state (run by native Palestinians) in all of those millenium, other than when it has been occupied by the Hebrews/Jews.
This fact alone tells me that the true ‘owners’ of the land must be the Jews, otherwise some other ‘occupying internal force’ would have claimed it and treated it as belonging to them long before the formation of Israel in 1948.
And as they say with the law, ‘possession is 90% of the law’.
So to end apartheid and the disputes over old Palestinian territory, the Israelis have to open up all borders into the West bank and Gaza and give all Palestinians equal political rights in a joint parliamentary centralised Israeli/Palestinian government.
And anyone who cares more about what this new state is called, than giving every Israeli and Palestinian ‘equal political rights’ has not thought through their priorities properly.
Marga,
Good post and you are right, Zionism will run its course just like all the other ‘isms.’ Your suggestion of a name for the new state is a good one … it belongs to neither side and is appropriate for a new, unified State with equal rights for all regardless of race or creed. Canaan is fitting. Well done.
dylan6 has previously identified himself as Philip Mendes, the very academic mentioned in this article. For this please see comment 11234 on Michael Brull’s ‘When is an anti-semite not an anti-semite”.
It strikes me funny that an ‘academic’ posts on here and refers to himself in the third person. So obvious you are defending yourself though. Please, just write an article on the matter, since you are a Middle East expert, I mean, Social Worker.
New Matilda,
concenring censorship,
you love to stir the pot,
do you not?
Power to the one,
who holds the gun,
but respect is due,
to the honest few.
How long will NM allow this kind of rubbish to continue.
From Marga” Zionism will run its course just like all the other isms” Then Rosross agrees and goes on to say “Canaan is still fighting”.
This is farcical to the nth degree.
Canaan ended with the defeat of Goliath by David
Have these people got problems with idealism, populism, catholicism, journalism, too?
Please give us all a break and put an end to these slanging matches for petes sake.
Thanks, Oli
This is a totally bizarre decision by SBS. Haven’t these people heard that the International Court of Justice in 2004 brought down a report titled “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf). [For those who haven’t read the report, the wall is illegal because it is built on Palestinian land. If Israel wants a wall/separation barrier, she is entitled to build it within the 1967 borders]
revilo,
read carefully. I said Canaan is fitting, not Canaan is fighting.
But perhaps symbolically you are correct and Canaan is fighting. Perhaps the spirits of the ancient Canaanites and the souls of those who are descended from these people (that would be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and probably Buddhists, Confucianists and Hindus and Jains) are seeking justice at last.
I mean, think about it, you and others argue that because a few followers of the Jewish religion spent time in a land that was once called Canaan (and according to the religious teachings although it is not supported by archeological history dispossessed or killed the inhabitants) they have rights then surely, if the whole thing were to be properly put to rights then Palestine, which was once Canaan, really belongs to anyone who can prove descent from the Canaanites.
And that of course is where it really gets silly but of course anything based on a foolish premise is.
Thanks for your input everyone, comments on this article are now closed. NM