Antony Loewenstein

“There is no question that the Iraqi people suffered under one of the vilest dictators of the 20th century and longed for liberation. But a foreign power that, largely through ignorance, disrespects Arab pride, tribal custom, Iraqi nationalism, and Islamic sensibility has not been able to fulfill its promises of freedom and security. How the Iraqis themselves have experienced a war supposedly waged in their name is the missing piece of the story that Americans [and Australians], especially those who continue to support the war, need to understand.”

Spencer Ackerman, The American Prospect, September 2005, reviewing Night Draws Near: Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War by Anthony Shadid

While the Iraq quagmire continues to be routinely ignored in Australia, today’s UK Observer leads with a sadly predictable tale:

“The Foreign Office’s top official warned Downing Street that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in Britain a year before the 7 July bombings.”

Any mention of the Israel/Palestine conflict and the Iraq war were removed from “‘core scripts’ – briefing papers given to ministers to defend the government’s position on Iraq and terror.” Furthermore, many Muslims saw Britain, like America, as a “crusader state.”

The Age’s Michelle Grattan explained the local context last week:

“But until the Government acknowledges that policy heightens both resentment and the terrorism risk, it will be operating in an unreal world.”

To suggest, as does the Howard government and pro-war supporters, that hatred of the West and its foreign policy is motivated by nothing more than irrational disdain for Western “values” is delusional and dangerous.

But who actually wants to seriously examine themselves and the actions our government commits in our name?

UPDATE: In place of any kind of serious political debate on Iraq, today’s Fairfax press publishes an article about…Tony Blair’s summer holiday. Clearly an event to stop the nation.

“That’s not really a number I’m terribly interested in.”

General Colin Powell, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on being asked his assessment of Iraqi military and civilian casualties, April 1991.

Let’s not forget that Powell, far from being a moderate, as many claimed during his time in the Bush administration, is in fact a man, in the words of Normon Solomon and Robert Parry, who has “learned that a military bureaucrat succeeds best by sidestepping controversy and keeping quiet when superiors screw up.” Examples include his role in the army’s cover-up of the infamous My Lai massacre, his involvement in Reagan-era war games such as the Iran/Contra affair and the covert U.S. policy in the 1980s to supply Saddam Hussein with military equipment.

UPDATE: John Pilger, December 2003:

“During the 1991 Gulf war, BBC audiences were told incessantly about “surgical strikes” so precise that war had become almost a bloodless science. [Journalist] David Dimbleby asked the US ambassador: “Isn’t it in fact true that America, by dint of the very accuracy of the weapons we’ve seen, is the only potential world policeman?”

“Dimbleby, like his news colleagues, had been conned; most of the weapons had missed their military targets and killed civilians.

“In 1991, according to the Guardian, the BBC told its broadcasters to be “circumspect” about pictures of civilian death and injury. This may explain why the BBC offered us only glimpses of the horrific truth – that the Americans were systematically targeting civilian infrastructure and conducting a one-sided slaughter. Shortly before Christmas 1991, the Medical Education Trust in London estimated that more than 200,000 Iraqi men, women and children had died in the “surgical” assault and its immediate aftermath.”

“Can we in the so-called ‘lone superpower’ face that we are now a nation of mercenaries?”

Robert Jensen, Znet, August 23

The US military has dismissed calls by Reuters and other news organisations in Iraq about the arrest and incarceration of journalists. A Reuters cameraman has been held incommunicado for over two weeks and is currently at Abu Ghraib. Many reporters have been falsely accused by the US of knowing about insurgent attacks before their occur, charges strongly denied.

Reporters Without Borders said the arrests do “not reflect well on the United States, which nonetheless does not hesitate to give the rest of the world lessons on freedom of expression and democracy”.

A Washington Post article this week revealed that more than 40,000 people had been arrested since the March 2003 invasion.

“The population today at the three U.S.-run prisons – Bucca, Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper near the Baghdad airport, where former President Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants are being held – is 10,600, double the number of a year ago. The average incarceration at Bucca is a year. The military attributes the surge in detentions to an increase in combat operations and the inability of the nascent Iraqi justice system to handle the crushing caseload.

“Many of the freed detainees express bewilderment at why they were held; even the U.S. commander who oversees Bucca, Col. Austin Schmidt, 55, of Fairfax, estimated that one in four prisoners “perhaps were just snagged in a dragnet-type operation” or were victims of personal vendettas.

“This is like Chicago in the ’30s: You don’t like somebody, you drop a dime on them,” Schmidt said. “And by the time the Iraqi court system figures it out, they go home. But it takes a while.”

Such behaviour is perfect to instil a sense of trust in the occupation.

The delusion continued this week when Major General Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, announced that a drastic reduction in troop numbers was likely in the coming 12 months.

“You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq”, he said. “It’s very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.”

Iraqis will no doubt be pleased to read the occupation is merely a “perception”. Furthermore, when the US does eventually withdraw some of its troops, though still maintains forces on the ground within heavily-fortified bunkers, Iraqis will feel much more comfortable in the knowledge that it’s only a “mini” occupation, rather than a full-scale one.

Global Voices rounds-up the latest threats to freedom of speech around the world and includes Libya, Tunisia, China, Maldives and Belarus.

Allow me to include Australia’s media in discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict. The Age today treats us to an editorial about the Gaza withdrawal. Note the “logic” of this:

“Israel also announced plans to build a new police station in the West Bank and expropriate another 60 hectares to extend its anti-terrorist barrier around a large settlement, cutting the territory in half. Even a staunch friend such as the US sees this as provocative. But the suspected involvement of the dead Palestinians in a suicide bombing that killed five Israelis also highlights Palestinian responsibility for regular, murderous provocations.”

Let me get this straight. Israel brazenly flouts international law, continues settlement expansion and makes a Palestinian state all but impossible, but it’s somehow justified because of Palestinian “provocations.”

“Arab satellite news channels Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya have been forced to fend off accusations that they served up Israeli propaganda with their coverage of the historic evacuation of the Gaza Strip settlements.”

“We understand when the international media fall into the trap of the Jewish settlers and run live coverage of the evacuation,” said Mr Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Al-Qods Al-Arabi newspaper.

If the media coverage was anything like Australia – showing settlers in a great state of distress and conveniently forgetting that they had been living there illegally – Israeli propaganda did indeed win the day.

When the Sydney Morning Herald placed a crying man and his settler daughter on its front page, I wondered when a Palestinian’s grief had been equally displayed. And I knew the answer.

Following the publication of a letter by Federal Labor MP Michael Danby in this week’s Australian Jewish News (for background and more information, see here), Crikey has placed this story of free speech as one of its top yarns of the day:

4. Loewenstein v Danby — Australia’s debate over Israel

By Crikey reporter Sophie Vorrath

There’s an ugly fight brewing in Australia’s Jewish community over a controversial new book by Sydney-based journalist Antony Loewenstein. Due for publication by Melbourne University Press next May, Loewenstein’s as yet unfinished, untitled book is already attracting feverish criticism for its take on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Leading the attack on the book is the federal member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby. In a scathing letter published in Australian Jewish News this week, Danby says he wants no part in Loewenstein and MUP’s Louise Adler’s “propaganda tract,” which he said was an attack on the mainstream Australian Jewish community.

Danby said he had taken this stance after questions he got from Loewenstein made his views on the issue “blatantly obvious.”

“MUP should drop this whole disgusting project. If they proceed, I urge the Australian Jewish community, and particularly the Australian Jewish News, to treat it with dignified silence. That is our best response. If, God forbid, it is published, don’t give them a dollar. Don’t buy the book.”

So why has a book by a relatively little-known journalist that’s not even finished got Danby so fired up? And is calling for it to be boycotted appropriate behaviour for a parliamentarian?

Loewenstein told Crikey this morning it was “incredibly disappointing” that Danby would try to “dictate policy” to a publisher. It’s a matter of free speech, he said: “It should be acceptable for a Jew or anyone else to criticise Israel or any other country.”

“The attitude is ‘there’s one line and one perspective (on the Israel/Palestine conflict) and if you dare to question it then look out’,” said Loewenstein, “it’s like ‘this is a war and there’s no room for dissent’.”

MUP’s Louise Adler, who graduated from Melbourne school Mount Scopus the same year as Danby and was given “faint praise” in his letter, told Crikey the political views Michael Danby ascribed to her in the letter were “palpable nonsense and pure invention.”

Adler said she was proud of MUP’s 80-year history of independent publishing and its mandate to publish books of public interest, and “dismayed” that a publisher like AJN “gives space to proposals to boycott ideas.” Danby’s proposal, she said, was “inimical to the central Jewish values of tolerance and open debate.”

Crikey called Michael Danby for a response, but we’re still waiting for him to get back to us.

From last night’s ABC Lateline:

TONY JONES: This is Henry Kissinger’s point. He says, “Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.” Could you possibly pull Australian troops out if the insurgency is still strong?

JOHN HOWARD: Tony, I’m not going to tie the foreign policy of this country to an interpretation of an article written by a very esteemed person whom I respect a lot. I’ll just deal with the current realities and you asked me “What is a benchmark?” A benchmark to me is the Iraqis being able to stand up. That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re seeing their security forces get better all the time. Our troops in Al-Muthana, whose dispatch the Labor Party opposed, are amongst other things training the Iraqis so they can stand on their own two feet and provide for the security of their own country. Now that’s tremendously important.

If Howard and his merry Liberal cabal are getting their values from the likes of Kissinger – need some reminding of his blood-stained record? – the current debate over Australian values gains much needed perspective.

As many of you know, I’m currently writing a book on Israel/Palestine for Melbourne University Publishing, due in May 2006.

The following letter appears in this week’s Australian Jewish News. It’s written by Federal Labor MP, Michael Danby. Its agenda is clear. Why is a member of parliament trying to stop the publication of my book? What is he afraid of? History doesn’t look kindly on such attitudes. And we all know what other historical individuals favoured this behaviour. By the way Michael, try and spell my name properly next time. It’s Antony, not Anthony:

“The graduating class of Mount Scopus of 1972 had some interesting people, many of whom made a mark on wider Australian society. One of my fellow graduates of that year is Louise Adler, the current publisher of Melbourne University Press (MUP).

“Louise was and is an intellectually engaging person, if a little predictable with her inevitable criticism that Labor is a “sell-out” and that supporting Israel, moderate democratic Israel, as I do, makes me a “Zionist right-winger”. It’s a badge of honour, Louise.

“However, faint praise for Adler is a sidebar to the substance of the issue. I want the entire Jewish community to know that I absolutely dissociate myself from her decision to publish a book edited by Anthony Loewenstein about the Australian Jewish community.

“In preparation for writing his book, Loewenstein sent me a number of questions, based on assumptions, which made his views so blatantly obvious that I refused to answer them or participate in his book.

“I will have no part in his and Adler’s propaganda tract scheduled for publication in 2006, which will be an attack on the mainstream Australian Jewish community.

“MUP should drop this whole disgusting project. If they proceed, I urge the Australian Jewish community, and particularly the Australian Jewish News, to treat it with dignified silence. That is our best response. If, God forbid, it is published, don’t give them a dollar. Don’t buy the book.”

MICHAEL DANBY MHR
Federal member for Melbourne Ports

UPDATE: I’ve been asked to provide the questions I emailed Danby in late 2004 (what, exactly, has taken him so long to respond?) The questions are reasonable and balanced. I was keen to have his opinions in my book. His then media flak, Dror Poleg, told me that Danby was considering the questions and would answer them asap. He gave me the same response for around one month.

It wasn’t until early this year that Danby’s office informed me that he wouldn’t answer my questions, nor release a statement of any kind. His right. But to now suggest that my original questions were “based on assumptions” is incorrect, as you will see below. Michael, afraid of some old-fashioned debate?

1) What is your view of Labor backbenchers who express dissenting views on the Israel/Palestine question? Is the ALP a broad enough church to accommodate many views, rather than just the standard, pro-Sharon line?

2) Do you see and hear in your electorate dissenting Jewish voices critical of the Sharon government? If so, how do you incorporate them into your own viewpoints?

3) How do you explain the general acceptance in the Australian Jewish community of most, if not all, of Israeli government policies?

4) How do you explain the increasing closeness between the Australian and Israeli governments, particularly under John Howard’s government? Do you think a Federal ALP government would have as close a relationship?

5) What is your view of the influence of the so-called pro-Israeli lobby in Australia? Is Melbourne the true source of this influence?

6) What is your view of the mainstream media’s coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict, especially the media in Melbourne and Sydney?

Cindy Sheehan has filmed an advertisement that accuses George W. Bush of lying about WMD and the Iraq war. She “claims the President lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” says Jeff Anderson the Vice President of sales at Fisher Broadcasting Inc., which owns KBCI (CBS). “There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this. Until that is provided, our station will not carry this ad.”

Press freedom is alive and well in the US of A.

Watch the ad here.

UPDATE: Pat Robertson continues his

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

to tolerant debate.

Every now and then, I discover a story that makes me realise how sheltered and fearful our media has become. Never heard of Sibel Edmonds? Read on. I’ve seen no mention of this in the Australian media.

She was hired by the FBI in the days after 9/11 for translation work and stayed with the organisation for around six months. Gorilla in the Room continues:

“While at the FBI she uncovered criminal activity by certain Turkish business groups and, more interestingly, another translator within the FBI who was covering up the incriminating translations. When she attempted to expose the activity she was fired. The translator she exposed left the country shortly thereafter never to return.

“What makes the story particularly interesting is that a) she claims some of the translations are related to 9/11 and b) some high level government officials are involved in the criminal activities.”

Her story appears in next month’s Vanity Fair.

She is currently under a gag order and can only reveal snippets of the case (though more details are at her website). During an interview with Scott Horton, she revealed the type of corruption she thinks she may have uncovered:

“These people who call themselves Americans and these people are using their position, their official position within these agencies – some of them in the Department of Defense, some of them in the Department of State – and yet, what they are doing with their position, with their influence is against the United States’ national security, it’s against the best interests of its people, and that is treason.

“Be it giving information to those that are either quasi-allies – and I would underline quasi, who one day will be another al-Qaeda – and who are already are engaged in activities that are damaging to our country, its security and its interests – and that is treason. So that’s what I was referring to. And what would you call someone who, let’s say if they were to go after Douglas Feith, and if they were to establish that Douglas Feith with his access to information, willingly, intentionally used the information he had and gave it to those that would one day use it or maybe right now are using that information against the United States. Would you call that treason?”

During a recent interview on Democracy Now, Edmonds went even further:

“And what I have said all along is the fact that as far as the 9/11 is concerned, September 11 is concerned, these departments – and when I say “these departments,” the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense – have intentionally blocked the investigations of real – the real criminals in this country. And we are talking about countries involved. The Vanity Fair article points out to Turkey – countries. And it’s very interesting.

“To this date, we are not hearing anything about targeting, you know, certain Central Asian countries. They are not speaking about the link between the narcotics and al Qaeda. Yes, we are hearing about them coming down on some charities as the real funds behind al Qaeda, but most of al Qaeda’s funding is not through these charity organizations. It’s through narcotics. And have you heard anything to this date, anything about these issues which we have had information since 1997? And as I would again emphasize, we are talking about countries. And they are blocking this information, and also the fact that certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security, be it the Department of State or certain elected officials.”

Some of her allegations relate to Republican Senator Dennis Hastert and claims that he received Turkish bribes for political favours in Washington.

Even more disturbing is how these current allegations relate to the AIPAC spy scandal and Israel’s involvement in the Iraq war, potential Iran conflict and intelligence failures before and after 9/11. Did certain senior members of the Bush administration, such as departing Pentagon Zionist fundamentalist Doug Feith, actively disseminate false intelligence for goals against the interests of the United States and by extension, her allies?

This story still remains confusing, at best. The amount of credible information slowly emerging reveals a potential conspiracy on a vast scale.

This isn’t scare-mongering. It’s politics in the modern age.

UPDATE: Further reading would suggest the following. Edmonds argues that America is keen to make friends in its “war on terror” – and, by the way, how much, if any, does the Australian government know about this? – and cares little about who these friends are, so long as they’re obedient. Edmonds continues:

“OK, you’re looking at this region of the world that nobody is referring to in the War Against Terror. OK, you’re looking at Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhistan and Uzbekistan, and these are the countries that now we are busy establishing bases in. And a large portion of their GDP depends on narcotics. And there’s a presence, Al Qaida presence, in these countries. We don’t hear anything about Balkan countries and, again, their direct ties and their direct relevance to Al Qaida. They are not even naming these countries. The role that Pakistan played before and the role that Pakistan is playing today. So, as I said, as I have said before, there are several countries, there are several organizations, and not just say, isolate just one country or one organization.”

Her claims are similar to British writer Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (my post about him is here.) He claims that with one hand the Americans talk tough about so-called rogue states and terrorists, while at the same time they work with countries, groups and individuals who actively campaign against their interests. Why? Perceived pragmatism, desperation for reliable intelligence and woefully short-term thinking. Central Asia and the Balkans, mentioned by both Edmonds and Ahmed, are key areas to watch.