Antony Loewenstein

AIJAC, Australia’s leading Zionist propagandists, are long on rhetoric and quick to label any journalist, advocate or politician with seemingly anti-Israel comments. They are masters of the “boy who cried wolf” school of politics.

In this week’s Jewish News, AIJAC’s Tzvi Fleischer has a few requests for the coming year:

A media wishlist for 5766
TZVI FLEISCHER

“As we wish each other a sweet, happy and prosperous year 5766, what should wish our colleagues in the Australian media?

“Of course, we wish these largely hardworking and dedicated people a personally happy and successful year.

“Yet this is also an appropriate time to ruminate on what would be the most important developments we would like to see to improve the Australian media, vital as it is for maintaining the multicultural, tolerant democracy we all value.

“Like any other profession, there are many general principles of journalism that it would be good to see implemented better.

“However, for current purposes, I have compiled an idiosyncratic wishlist of the top four developments I think the Jewish community would want to see in the Australian media in the next 12 months.”

The rest of the article rambles through a desire for more “balance” at the public broadcasters – essentially whitewashing Israel’s crimes in the West Bank and Gaza – and “a principled rejection of anti-Semitic themes.” We agree on this point, but his definition is curious:

“Old fashioned anti-Semitism has fortunately been fairly rare in mainstream Australian media commentary, at least since the ‘Ashrawi affair‘ in 2003.

“At that time, however, we saw that large segments of the media contributed to or had objection to claims that ‘a powerful Jewish lobby uses it money’ to shut down debate on the Middle East in Australia, and ensure that the Palestinian case remains unheard.

“Sorry, this is both untrue and a classic anti-Semitic line. Unfortunately, I am expecting a reignition of such themes this year, because Jewish anti-Zionist Antony Loewenstein is publishing a book, and according to his weblog, this exact claim is going to be a major argument in it.

“Wouldn’t be nice if the media was strongly sceptical and unwelcoming of such claims, as they would be if similar attempts were made to demonise and delegitimise the public participation of any other minority ethnic group?”

I wonder if Fleischer kept a straight face while writing such nonsense. Powerful Jewish groups, such as AIJAC, use their political and financial muscle to influence media and political decisions. This is not a conspiracy. Other ethnic groups do likewise and have every right to do so. However, the often underhanded and intimidatory behaviour – some of which I’ll be examining in my book – is unacceptable in a democracy. Besides, AIJAC’s definition of “balance” is little more than paying lip-service to whatever government currently resides in Israel. That is their right, but it is likewise my right and responsibility to provide an alternative perspective.

AIJAC dislike dissent and regularly attempt to pressure journalists and editors to portray only one side in the argument. I know because I’ve interviewed many of them for my book and experienced it myself. They should expect to be challenged on this.

Sometimes I wonder if the AIJAC’s of this world would be better suited to a country in which every media outlet simply reports what the government tells them.

Amnesty provides all the useful information:

“Amnesty International considers her imprisonment to be politically motivated, and believes Jennifer Latheef is a prisoner of conscience, jailed solely for exercising her right to peaceful protest.”

“The human toll for the U.S. military in the Iraq war is not limited to the nearly 2,000 troops deaths since the March 2003 invasion. More than 15,220 also have been wounded in combat, including more than 7,100 injured too badly to return to duty, the Pentagon said. Thousands more have been hurt in incidents unrelated to combat.”

We rarely read about these figures, though they should disturb us as much as the nearly 2000 dead American troops and tens of thousands of murdered Iraqis.

A very high price for a lie.

“He may be a lurid shade of yellow, addicted to Duff beer and one of the least responsible staff at Springfield nuclear power station, but Homer Simpson deserves his new accolade of top philosopher in a magazine poll of leading men of the current decade. His antics are often deplorable and few real-life women would envy the role of his saintly wife, Marge, but Homer is established as a character of the first rank in the long history of fiction.”

Any thoughts on the “leading [philosopher] men of the current decade?”

My local picks are Greens leader Bob Brown and human rights lawyer and activist Julian Burnside.

My international picks are (deceased) Palestinian thinker Edward Said and journalist Seymour Hersh, a fine investigator and believer in pulling back the mask of power and cronyism in American government.

Perhaps I should have a younger person, too. How about Radiohead’s irreplaceable Thom Yorke? A worthy contender.

James Wolfensohn:

“The Government of Israel, with its important security concerns, is loath to relinquish control [in the West Bank and Gaza], almost acting as though there has been no withdrawal, delaying making difficult decisions and preferring to take difficult matters back into slow-moving subcommittees.”

The occupation continues unabated.

“Nobel Prize-winning author JM Coetzee yesterday launched a thinly veiled attack on Australia’s proposed anti-terrorism laws, likening the Howard Government’s controversial reforms to human rights abuses under apartheid in his native South Africa.”

The suspension of law and order and imposed barbarity “was done in the name of the fight against terror”, he said.

Governments should be mistrusted by definition. To simply allow the establishment unprecedented “anti-terror” laws, and be told “trust us”, is a recipe for institutional abuse.

I remember reading JM Coetzee’s “Disgrace” many years ago. It is a powerful and eerie tale about post-apartheid South Africa and the lingering scars of those dark days. Australia could well be following a path of obscene government intrusion and oppression.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s David Marr sums it up well today: The anti-terror laws are “essentially about punishment – not on evidence tested before a court, but on intelligence in the hands of police and ASIO officers.”

After the intelligence failures of Iraq and the dysfunctional immigration department, allowing police and ASIO officers such powers smacks of political opportunism, crass populism and wedge politics.

“Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

“The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

“It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.”

Citizens of any country don’t want to be occupied. This is not hard to understand. Momentum for a withdrawal of “Coalition” troops is building.

The ideal position would be a withdrawal in disgrace, tail between the legs and severely scarred, unlikely to contemplate anything of the sort again.

Sometimes lessons need to be taught the hard way.

The Australian media is reluctant to call for a withdrawal, not unlike the Labor party, fearful of being seen as weak on terror. Real bravery requires understanding when a monumental blunder has been made.

Ideology has opened the floodgates:

“US intelligence officials say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has expanded his terrorism campaign in Iraq to extremists in two dozen terrorist groups in about 40 countries, creating a network that rivals Osama bin Laden’s.

“US government officials said the threat to US interests from Zarqawi compared with that from bin Laden, to whom Zarqawi pledged his loyalty a year ago.”

“More than a month after the elections, nearly all provisional results have finally been released for Afghanistan’s Parliament and provincial assemblies, cementing a victory for Islamic conservatives and the jihad fighters involved in the wars of the past two decades.”

An unsurprising result. And a government likely to become aggressive against Western influence. American/Australian/British “democracy” is a very sweet thing…especially if you’re a warlord, drug trafficker or criminal.

“Omid was first arrested last year, confined for two months, including one in solitary confinement, and tortured, due to his blog which featured satire on the Iranian situation.

“When he was brought to court on October 8 he faced different charges, due to the fact that even in the Iran judicial system it would have been difficult to convict him on charges relating to his blog. Instead, he faced, and was convicted on, charges stemming from “morals” violations, including “having unlawful relations, drinking wine, corruption of morals (for having a birthday party) and possessing satirical pictures of Iranian politicians.”

“Now this blogger in his early twenties will be beaten half to death and join Mojtaba Saminejad as a felon in the general prison population. The Iranian government should be as ashamed as the Iranian people no doubt already are. Please sign the petition for Omid.

“Omid now faces a second trial, presumably an appeal, not unlike Arash Sigarchi‘s.”

“A top U.S. official for aid to Iraq has accused the Bush administration of rushing unprepared into the 2003 invasion because of pressures from President Bush’s approaching reelection campaign.

“Robin Raphel, the State Department’s coordinator for Iraq assistance, said that the invasion’s timing was driven by ‘clear political pressure,’ as well as by the need to quickly deploy the U.S. troops that had been amassed by the Iraq border.

Soon after the invasion, Raphel said, it became clear that U.S. officials ‘could not run a country we did not understand. It was very much amateur hour.’”

From an Australian perspective, many questions remain, namely the real reason Prime Minister John Howard committed to the Iraq invasion and what he hoped our country would get out of it.