When it comes to discussing Israel/Palestine, politicians the world over are notoriously reticent to speak the truth about facts on the ground. In Australia, the only Jewish Federal MP, Michael Danby, seems incapable of mounting an argument that is more sophisticated than repeating press releases from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Both major sides in politics are desperate to maintain the rehearsed lines to keep the Americans happy and what better way to do that than to uncritically praise the superpower’s leading client state, Israel?
Enter Michael Forshaw, a NSW Labor MP. After an undistinguished career and only occasional uninformed comments about Israel, he rose in the Senate yesterday and launched a tirade on anti-Semitism (page 38 onwards). His speech read like comments prepared for him by the Zionist lobby, such was its wilful ignorance. For example:
…What is very disturbing is the growing trend today towards anti-Semitism and demonising Israel and Jews under the guise of academic research and/or political analysis and debate.
He cited statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Mearsheimer/Walt Israel lobby paper and yours truly. My public statements on the pernicious effects of the lobby, its tendency to bully opponents and attempts to silence criticism of Israeli crimes was all condemned:
Mr Loewenstein’s allegations are absolutely ridiculous. They are also hypocritical. Firstly, the very fact that Mr Loewenstein’s article appeared in the Australian newspaper, and that his book, published subsequently, has gained such prominence in the public debate and in the media, including the Jewish media in this country, demonstrates the fallacy of his argument. Following publication of his book by Melbourne University Publishing, Mr Loewenstein received nationwide coverage in both the printed and electronic media. The coverage of this debate went on for weeks, so it is ludicrous to argue that he has somehow been prevented from debating these issues and from having his views heard.
The debate about Israel’s policies, the US’s policies and the Middle Eastern conflicts is very much alive in this country, just as it is in the United States and throughout the Western world. It is very much alive, particularly in the state of Israel itself, which is a strong democracy, albeit one that has been under constant threat for all of its existence. The evidence of that debate stands in stark contrast to most Islamic and Arab nations. I note that my colleague Senator Stephens earlier this year raised in the Senate the plight of Mr Salah Choudhury. Mr Choudhury is a journalist in Bangladesh who had the temerity to write an article criticising Islamic extremism and supporting interfaith dialogue, particularly between Christians, Muslims and Jews. He is now on trial for sedition in Bangladesh.
The second point I want to make is that whilst I have read many articles in the Australian media by commentators such as Mr Loewenstein, Professor Amin Saikal and others criticising Israel, I am still waiting to read an article by them criticising Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic attacks and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. I very much doubt that those articles, if they have been written, have been censored or prevented from being published.
Thirdly, when it comes to pressure being applied to prevent public debate, the worst instance that I can recall was the call a couple of years ago by academics in the United Kingdom, supported by academics in this country and in other Western countries, for a boycott of Israel, Israeli academics and institutions. Indeed, in the United Kingdom, Jewish academics were sacked for the very fact that they were Jewish. When academics in a democratic country call for a boycott of academics in another democratic country simply because they are Jewish then we have a serious problem. I do not recall Mr Loewenstein ever condemning that action.
A tactic that is also used in criticising Israel is to use the language that is particularly pertinent to the Jewish experience. Israel has been accused of ethnic cleansing, of genocide, of war crimes, of apartheid and even of perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian people. That is absolute nonsense and it is anti-Semitic. When your country has been threatened with annihilation, when your people have experienced the Holocaust—the murder of six million Jews—is it any wonder that persons from that community will stand up and defend their country’s right to exist and their people’s right to peace and democracy in the face of anti-Semitism?
Senator Forshaw is clearly still high from his last all-expenses paid trip to Israel and its military machine. During last year’s Iranian Holocaust Denial conference, I regularly condemned the proceedings, as did many Iranians. I have not said I’m being silenced, but the ability of citizens to freely criticise Israel and its policies results in slander and abuse, usually from fellow Jews.
The Senator may think that it is “anti-Semitic” to say the Israeli occupation of Palestine is reminiscent of apartheid, but many distinguished figures would disagree (and I wonder how often Forshaw has actually seen inside the occupied territories further than his Israeli minders would allow him to travel.)
Israel is under constant international pressure because its behaviour is consistently illegal, immoral and counter-productive. The Senator, like so many talking-heads before him, may regard themselves as friends of Israel but they are in fact contributing to the country’s destruction.
Wasn’t it Israeli’s who accused Israel of ethnic cleansing?
Marilyn, there’s a recent book by Ilan Pappe who is an Israeli documenting the pertinent ethnic cleansing crimes.
Fringe
Be careful with Pappe; he is not regarded as a competent historian. In fact, his area is more Cultural Studies. He even admits that he is not concerned with historical truth and objectivity. He also totally misrepresents aspects of the Hagganah’s military plans. And he tellingly ignores all the documentation on the ghastly plans of the Muslims.
You would be better off with Benny Morris.
Viva,
Perhaps you should be more specific. What you mean to say is that you and those of you agree with do not regard Pappe as a competent historian. You after all, consider David Kramer to be a credible academic - the same person who said that Saddam invaded Kuwait as an act of aggression against the US, even thought he US essentially gave hm the green light to do so,
John Pilger describes Pappe him as the most important of our time.
Benny Morris now supports much of what he says.
And next time you make statements like:
Do yourself a favour and provide a link. Any historian making that claim would be committing professional suicide.
viva peace Mar 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Viva,
Can you provide a list of all the competent historians and their articles establishing that Pappe is not a competent historian? Thanks.
Andre
One of the major problems of you and your ilk is that you do not read the books that these people write. You only get quotes from propaganda websites. You, like Ant, do not have the necessary education to be familiar with the history of this conflict. For you to state “Any historian making that claim would be committing professional suicide” clearly without irony really says it all.
Let us hear from the good Doctor ourselves, shall we
Introduction to “A History of Modern Palestine: One Land Two People”
Or perhaps this one
As to this howler “Benny Morris now supports much of what he says.” Might I suggest you read the Benny Morris’ review of Pappe’s “A History of Modern Palestine:One Land Two Peoples” in the New Republic (22/3/04) where he says quite emphatically
And John Pilger??? WTF? Since when has John Pilger been any sort of scholar, let alone an historian.
Viva,
We are all to familiar with the grandiose “scholarly” sophistry that you and your ilk like to hide behind when confronted with inconvenient realities. What you are really trying to say is the Ant and I don’t read the books you consider necessary and visa versa.
Ultimately, your attempts at conflation is always going to be basic common sense.
What you clearly miss from Pappe’s first quote is his honesty and his acknowledgment of his humanity. Some vain historians convince themselves that they are slaves to fact and realities, but in all cases, this can be shown to be otherwise. For example, Benny Morris has also been accused of fabricating historical evidence.
As for he second quote, that too addresses the same issue. Benny Morris has in the past, also admitted to being an avid Zionist and that this position has skewed his objectivity. After all, did he not say this:
–Israeli writer Benny Morris
In this article for example, Pappe accuses Morris of lying about his book:
And
And here
So you see Viva, it comes down to the word of one historian against another. It is obvious why you woudl recommend Benny Morris as a more credible historian; you are merely advocating the work that confirms your own position.
As for Pilger, as one of the very few genuine investigative reporters, he is in an ideal position to observe the accuracies of what historians like Pappe have recorded.
Seems pretty logical, though I would be surprise dif you don’t reject it.
i don’t know how jews convince themselves they own palestine. there is only one reason universally admitted- they took it at gunpoint from the moslem population, and hold it only by constant military action.
this is the basis of israel’s “right to exist”. a compelling argument and one which will be universally accepted when the victims, their children and grandchildren, are all dead.
until that distant day, zionists are despised by many. you would think that a people that has suffered much from antisemitism would be more careful of the rights of others.
but it turns out the jewish people are just as capable of thuggery as anyone else, given the opportunity. this should surprise no one.
therefore? discount all talk of ‘rights’, of ‘justice’: irgun and the stern gang set the rules of engagement in palestine, and those rules were nature’s own. hamas and hezbullah continue the resistance with the same rules. my real source of contempt for the israelis is their demand for peace and submission from the people whose homes and land they stole, whose families they murdered in the process.
Viva
I’m not surprised you find Pappe’s analysis challenging to the extent that you attack him and not his argument in relation to the topic at hand.
For some more historical fact in regard to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and subsequent Zionist denial, you might find this article, again by an Israeli academic, Eitan Bronstein, enlightening.
Further in depth information can be found in Bronstein’s 2005 paper,
Studying the Nakba and Reconstructing Space in the Palestinian Village of Lifta.
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself”… Nietzsche. A new voice for Australian Jews versus Zionist politics …
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=2135&HomepageID=187
Andre
Your lack of integrity shines through again. You ask me to justify my comment on Pappe.
I do. And what do you do? Apologize? Realize that Pappe is a crank? No. Tragic.