Antony Loewenstein

Views from across the Arab world:

We are now approaching the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, which offered Arabs and Muslims around the world a new “engagement” with the United States. A year later, how do Arab publics see the results of that effort–and how much do their views about it really matter?

One thing is very clear: compared to former President George W. Bush, Obama’s personal popularity among most Arabs started out much higher and so far has generally stayed that way. The latest available survey data on this are from Pechter Middle East Polls, a young firm based in Princeton, New Jersey that partners with the most credible established local pollsters in each country. The results do vary considerably across the countries polled: Obama’s approval ratings today range from a high of 45 percent in Lebanon to a low of 30 percent in Iraq and Jordan.

More specifically, some of these recent polls asked about particular US policies, with intriguing results. Remarkably, asked for “the most positive thing the US could do” in the region, economic support tied statistically with Arab-Israel issues among Egyptians (36 percent each) and Saudis (30 and 27 percent). In Jordan, US policies on Iraq, Guantanamo, democracy promotion and overall relations with Muslims received ratings of at least “somewhat credible” from around 30 percent in April 2010–little changed from those ratings in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s speech in Cairo the previous spring. But the credibility of “US policy toward Arab-Israel peace” nearly doubled among Jordanians over the past year: from 21 percent right after the Cairo speech to 39 percent today.

Among West Bank/Gaza Palestinians, somewhat fewer (30 percent) say that the US seeks the creation of “an independent and viable Palestinian state,” according to a US-government sponsored survey taken by a Palestinian pollster in mid-March. And a mere 20 percent are even “somewhat satisfied” with Washington’s “current involvement in the Arab-Israel peace process”–though that figure is up modestly from the corresponding numbers from the end of Bush’s tenure (6 percent) or the end of Obama’s first year in office (10 percent).

On Iran, another key issue for US policy in the region today, Arab attitudes are mixed. Pechter polls from November 2009 and March-April 2010 show solidly negative popular views both of Iran and of Mahmoud Ahmedinezhad in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq–including among Iraq’s Shi’ite majority. The US push for tougher sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program garners clear majority support from Saudis (57 percent), but smaller percentages in Egypt (43), Jordan (41) or Lebanon (39). As of late 2009, a third of Saudis were actually willing to say they would support an American military strike against Iran’s nuclear program and a quarter of Egyptians said the same.

But how much does any of this matter? Not so much, according to the best available data. For one thing, the entire past decade’s worth of survey research proves that Arab attitudes toward other important issues are largely unrelated to their views of the United States. This includes their attitudes toward al-Qaeda, suicide bombing, terrorism in general and even terrorism specifically directed against American civilians. Arab popular sympathy for any of those actions plummeted precipitously in almost every society polled after 2003-04, even as attitudes toward the US, its policies and its president remained heavily negative.

Just in case it wasn’t clear, many in the Australian parliament are very happy for Israel to kill “terrorists” and use faked passports in the process. Israel is our ally, you see, and cannot be challenged:

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has accused the opposition of turning a blind eye to the abuse of Australia’s passport system and sovereignty.

The Coalition today described as an over-reaction the government’s decision to order the expulsion of a Mossad agent in response to a wide-ranging investigation that found Israel was involved in the forging of Australian passports.

A clearly angry Mr Smith rebuked the Opposition for suggesting the government was currying favour with Arab nations in a bid to win votes for Australia’s bid for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council.

“They are not fit to manage our national security interest,” he told Sky News today.

“We will not … stand idly by and turn a blind eye to the shredding of our national security interest, to the abuse of our passport system and to the trampling of our sovereignty.”

The expulsion follows a three-month investigation which found Israel was involved in the forging of Australian passports to enable the January murder of Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

Mr Smith said he found as “frankly extraordinary” the Opposition’s response to the government’s decision because its foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, had been given the same briefing as he had from security agencies.

He dismissed as “arcane” Ms Bishop’s claim there was insufficient hard evidence to support the government’s decision.

“In these matters you have to make a judgement and that’s what we did.

“On the basis of the advice we had … we were left in no doubt that Israel was responsible for the abuse of Australian passports.”

Opposition frontbencher George Brandis dismissed Mr Smith’s criticism, saying the expulsion decision was a “terrible over-reaction”.

“It pays no heed to the fact that Israel is a very strong ally and friend of Australia,” he told Sky News.

“It ought to give (Israel) the benefit of the doubt.”

Senator Brandis said the parliament had not seen any evidence to support the government’s decision.

“One would have thought that he (Mr Smith) would have produced evidence … at least referred to the existence of it.”

Is data journalism?

Britain asks the question, as the government is about to release masses of information:

Freeing up government data formed a key part of the three main parties’ manifestos and now the coalition government has pledged some major launches, the first of which we could see in the next few days. “We will unleash a tsunami of data,” says one source close to the Big Society proposals. This is set to include local crime statistics, full details of all government contracts and quangos spending more than £25,000, local government spending of more than £500 and full salary details of senior civil servants.

The Big Society declaration published by Downing Street included a key line: “We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis.”

Two weeks after the New Zealand magazine The Listener published a feature on my work and then last week two letters discussing the Middle East, more letters in this week’s edition. This is the kind of open debate we need far more of:

Antony Loewenstein was paraphrased as saying, “Israel is racist and brutal if you are unfortunate enough to be living there and not Jewish.” Joanne Black’s article (“Cry the promised land”, May 15) containing this statement was strong on anti-Israeli rhetoric but weak on facts to support such a serious charge.
Non-Jewish citizens in Israel have the same human, civil and religious rights as Jews. Their religious freedoms and sites are respected and protected by the state. Non-Jews have equal status under the law and are represented in the highest levels of Israel’s judiciary and political system.
In other Middle Eastern countries, racism and brutal discrimination have become a routine experience of religious and political minorities. In Gaza and Palestinian Authority-controlled areas, Christians are harassed and intimidated by Hamas and PA officials, anti-Semitism is actively promoted and religious Jews are vilified. The persecution and “ethnic cleansing” of Iraq’s ancient Christian community has been widely reported, as has the brutal suppression of political dissent in Iran. In Saudi Arabia, public expression of Christianity is illegal and Israelis are banned.
Black and Loewenstein appear unconcerned by the systematic racism and brutality perpetrated by Israel’s neighbours against Jews and other minorities.
Although Israel has consistently sought peace with its neighbours, it has had to defend itself against hostile nations and political and terrorist organisations that have actively sought Israel’s annihilation since before 1948. Israelis have experienced brutality and racism from their neighbours, yet Black and Loewenstein seem oblivious to this.
Loewenstein should consider the appalling consequences of unleashing the extreme racism and brutality that are actively promoted among and by the Arab Palestinian leadership before calling for Israel to “give up the concept of a Jewish state”.
Kirsty Walker
(Hamilton)

Anti-Zionist Antony Loewenstein gets an indulgent platform to air his opinions. His view is held by a vocal minority, both in Israel and outside, and it is one we hear quite often in New Zealand.
Perhaps we could now have the testimony of one of the Palestinians who wants to live in peace and mutual respect with Israel, and is prepared to say so? Don’t look for them in the Palestinian Territories, because they will have been hunted down and killed by the authorities there. But there are Palestinian voices in exile who are well worth hearing and who never make the mainstream media. We could also learn a lot from the views of one of the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who live in Israel with full civil and political rights, 77% of whom told a Harvard University survey that Israel was the country they most want to live in.
Publishing either or both these views would bring more credit to Kiwi journalism, and a better understanding to the New Zealand public, rather than just adding one more to the catalogue of Israel-bashing articles in the New Zealand media.
Chris Morey
(Omapere)

Unfortunately, Michael Kuttner’s assertion, “Israel is a bastion of human rights for all citizens regardless of race, creed or ethnic origin” (Letters, May 22), is too long to fit on a Tui billboard.
Gail Wilson
(Northland, Wellington)

It is somewhat reassuring to know I wasn’t the only person misled over Israel (Letters, May 22). In the 1960s, I, too, gave – four years’ free labour to the “building of the state”. Had I known then the truth about the basis of the new state of Israel, I would not have been a part of it. The lies told could be called propaganda. Sadly, it has taken me many years to understand what really happened.
Only if there are more people prepared to speak out, who are not afraid to be labelled “Jew haters”, “anti-Semites”, etc, will we begin to be truly informed. Thank you, Antony Loewenstein, for helping lift the lid.
The changes in Israel since 1967 have been dramatic and unfortunately have worsened the attitude towards the Palestinians. Those who have been displaced, “strangled” in Gaza and elsewhere, have every reason to hold little hope for their future. Most distressing is that this treatment is being meted out by the generation following those who suffered so much in the Holocaust. Surely the time has come to stop hiding behind the past and face the fact that Zionism is nothing more than imperialism, theft and racism.
Gwen Whitmore
(Havelock North)

Just after yesterday’s pretty surprising decision by Australia to send an Israeli Mossad agent packing from this country – how many journalists are asking what the hell these Mossad agents are doing here? Spying? Co-ordinating intelligence? Shopping for red roses? – I was interviewed by a number of media outlets.

A collection below.

Melbourne Herald’s Sun and AAP wire service:

Australia’s decision to expel a senior diplomat after finding Israel used fake Australian passports in the killing of a Hamas leader will upset the Jewish community, a Jewish-Australian political activist says.

But it could also lead to a “healthy debate” in public about the sort of relationship Australia has with Israel, political activist and author Antony Loewenstein said.

Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a senior figure in the militant Palestinian organisation Hamas, was found murdered in a hotel room in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on January 20.

“The way Israel behaves in Dubai, and indeed in many other parts of the world, is often to ignore local and international law, and expect the western world to support it and back it,” Mr Loewenstein said.

Mr Loewenstein, whose book My Israel Question finds fault with the Jewish state for its part in the conflict with Palestine and ongoing tensions in the Middle East, described the relationship between Australia and Israel as “complicit”.

“Australia has long been treated like fools by Israel, and has often been more than happy to be seen as a fool, in many ways,” he said.

“The bigger question really is, that hopefully this will lead to a debate about how Israel behaves, and how Australia has often accepted that and supports that.

“It shows and hopefully reveals to the wider community that most of the Jewish spokespeople in this country see themselves solely as spokespeople for Israel.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith told parliament today that there was “no doubt” Israel was responsible for faking four Australian passports used in the killing of Al-Mabhouh.

Mr Loewenstein criticised Australia’s Jewish community for its reaction to the news that four passports belonging to dual Australian-Israeli citizens had been forged.

“The Jewish spokespeople in Australia initially said nothing,” he said.

“Then when they did say something, they suggested there was no evidence that Israel was involved.

“Even if Israel was involved, they then said Australia should have turned a blind eye because an awful terrorist (had been) killed.

“They were essentially asking people to accept the fact that their passports are not safe because of what Israel claims to be divine rights to assassinate supposed terrorists.”

Mr Smith said today the high quality forgeries were by a “state intelligence service”, although he did not specifically name the Israeli spy agency Mossad.

But he said Israel had undermined the respect and trust with Australia.

“These are not the actions of a friend,” Mr Smith said.

Mr Smith has asked that a member of the Israeli Embassy in Canberra be withdrawn from Australia within the week, as a result of the scandal.

“This is not what we expect from a nation with whom we have had such a close, friendly and supportive relationship,” he said.

Mr Smith said an investigation by the federal police and ASIO found the Australian passports were deliberately counterfeited and cloned for use.

“The high quality of these counterfeited passports points to the involvement of a state intelligence service,” he said.

“These investigations and advice have left the Government in no doubt that Israeli was responsible for the abuse and counterfeiting of these passports.”

International investigators believe Mossad was behind the assassination of Hamas official Mahmud al-Mabhuh in Dubai in January.

Four Australian passports have been linked to the murderers.

Mr Smith today said no government could tolerate the abuse of its passports and revealed Israel had previously abused Australian passports.

“I regret to advise the House this is not the first occasion that Australian passports have been misused by Israeli authorities,” he said.

Mr Smith said it was a clear and direct breach of confidential undertakings by Israel “dating back some years”.

“This is not what we expect of a nation with whom we have had such a close, friendly and supportive relationship,” Mr Smith aid.

“The government has asked that a member of the Israeli Embassy in Canberra be withdrawn from Australia. I have asked that the withdrawal be effected within the week.”

Mr Smith said the four Australians were innocent victims of identity fraud.

He said he hoped Australia and Israel could rebuild relations.

The Israeli Embassy said it would issue a statement later today.

Mr Smith said the United Kingdom reached similar conclusions after its investigation into the Dubai incident.

The British Government expelled Mossad’s London station chief in March over the use of 12 forged British passports linked to the assassination.

Mr Smith refused to say which Israeli Embassy member had been asked to leave.

He said he would not give a name or their job description but said it was “comparable to the British response”.

He said there was no set time how long the person was expelled for.

Mr Smith said he would be disappointed if Israel responded by expelling an Australian diplomat.

He said there would be a “cooling of” in the sharing of intelligence material with Israel.

“It does require a rebuilding of trust and confidence,” he said in a press conference.

Mr Smith said ASIO’s director-general David Irvine visited Israel as part of the investigation.

The nation’s overseas-focused spy agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), was also involved.

The Australian Federal Police handed a report to the government in April.

Mr Smith said the report and advice would not be released on national security grounds.

“I received my final advice from agencies last week,” Mr Smith said, adding that he had briefed the national security committee of the cabinet this morning.

About $100 million is being spent by the Government over the next six years to further strengthen the security of Australian passports.

Sydney Morning Herald and AAP:

Australia’s decision to expel an Israeli diplomat is an over-reaction to the fraudulent use of four Australian passports in the killing of a Hamas leader, Jewish leaders say.

Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a senior figure in the militant Palestinian organisation Hamas, was found murdered in a hotel room in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on January 20.

Authorities in Dubai identified four falsified Australian passports with the murder, along with others from the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, and Germany.

On Monday Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told parliament there was no doubt the Australian passport holders were “anything other than innocent victims of identity theft.”

“The government (is) in no doubt that Israel was responsible for the abuse and counterfeiting of these passports,” he added.

Mr Smith has asked that a member of the Israeli Embassy in Canberra be withdrawn from Australia within the week, as a result of the scandal.

Jewish leaders say they are greatly disappointed over the decision.

“We consider that decision to be an over-reaction,” Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said in a statement on Monday.

He expressed concern that Mr Smith did not reveal any evidence to support his conclusions that Israel or its agents were involved in using the fake passports.

“Little good can come from taking punitive action in relation to this matter against Israel, which is the Middle East’s only stable democracy and the only Middle Eastern country that can be relied on to act resolutely against international terrorism,” he said.

Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, described the decision to remove a diplomat over the affair as “unhelpful.”

“We would note in this regard, while Australia followed a British precedent in its over-reaction, no similar step has been taken by Ireland, France, or Germany, all of whom also allegedly had forged passports implicated in the killing,” he said.

Despite the uproar, both groups say they are confident the relationship between the governments can be repaired and continue to flourish.

Jewish-Australian political activist Antony Loewenstein, whose book My Israel Question finds fault with the Jewish state for its part in the conflict with Palestine and ongoing tensions in the Middle East, described the relationship between Australia and Israel as “complicit.”

“Australia has long been treated like fools by Israel, and has often been more than happy to be seen as a fool, in many ways,” he told AAP.

“The bigger question really is, that hopefully this will lead to a debate about how Israel behaves, and how Australia has often accepted that and supports that.

“It shows and hopefully reveals to the wider community that most of the Jewish spokespeople in this country see themselves solely as spokespeople for Israel.”

Australians for Palestine spokesman Michael Shaik said the government’s reaction “was vital to breaking the culture of impunity under which Israel has operated for so long.”

“It would carry even more weight if our government followed the British example and refused to allow a replacement diplomat until Israel commits to no further misuse of Australian passports,” he said.

Following yesterday’s announcement that Australia will be expelling a Mossad agent after Israel’s abuse of passports in the murder of a Hamas official, one of the country’s leading Zionist bodies, AIJAC, released this almost comical statement. Remember, dear readers, murder isn’t murder when Israel is pulling the trigger:

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council said that the Australia/Israel friendship is deep and broad and will continue to grow despite the Australian government’s regrettable decision announced today that an Israeli diplomat be withdrawn.

Dr Colin Rubenstein, AIJAC’s Executive Director, said, “While we understand and sympathise with the responsibility of the government to protect the integrity of the Australia passport system, in our view, this response was unhelpful. Australia has already made clear its displeasure over the abuse of Australian passports in the strongest of possible terms [in fact, already too strong - SL], which we believe was adequate to fulfil the government’s responsibilities.”

Dr. Rubenstein continued, “We would note in this regard that, while Australia followed a British precedent in its over-reaction, no similar step has been taken by Ireland, France or Germany, all of whom also allegedly had forged passports implicated in the killing of senior Hamas terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.”

AIJAC National Chairman Mark Leibler added, “The claims of the Dubai authorities with respect to this case should not be accepted as necessarily unbiased and neutral, given Dubai’s apparent past tolerance of Mabhouh’s open and dubious activity on behalf of Hamas on Dubai soil. Therefore, irrespective of who was responsible, describing the killing of Mabhouh as ‘murder’ is questionable and ignores the likelihood that the killing of an active terrorist leader from a violent rejectionist organisation positively saved lives.“

“As Foreign Minister Stephen Smith noted, Australia and Israel have a longstanding friendship and common interests, with the threats of a nuclear-armed Iran and anti-Western terrorism just two of the pressing world concerns which both countries will continue to confront together, despite today’s decision,” Mr Leibler concluded.

And not to be outdone, one of the Australian parliament’s great apologists for Israeli crimes chimed in:

The Federal Member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, today responded to Foreign Minister Steven Smith’s announcement that Australia will expel an Israeli diplomat as a result of the Dubai affair:

“I have previously & publicly (on Jon Faine’s 774 program) said that I condemn the misuse of Australian passports by any other country. However, I do not agree with the government’s decision to remove an Israeli diplomat from Canberra. Neither France, Germany or Ireland have asked for an Israeli diplomat to be withdrawn as a result of the Dubai affair.

This announcement comes at a time when Australia is supporting just resumed Middle East peace negotiations.

Australia has always been a good friend of Israel and I have no doubt that this relationship will remain, Mr Danby said.

The nightmare of Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu continues. This saga has turned to farce. Vanunu wants to leave the Jewish state permanently and start a new life but he is being refused. These are not the actions of a democracy:

Sri Lanka is desperate to lure tourists back to the country after decades of fighting (and most of the Western, corporate press seem oblivious to the gross human rights abuses still taking place in the north and east).

But anybody with an ounce of decency would seriously re-consider visiting a nation plagued with violence and corruption:

The closeness of Israel and apartheid South Africa revealed far more than simple realpolitik. It was about “values”, the belief of maintaining racial superiority over the indigenous population. And now this revelation:

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.

The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa‘s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of “ambiguity” in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

The journalist who wrote this story, Chris McGreal, penned a penetrating series of articles about the increasing similarity between apartheid South Africa and Israel. Back in 2006.

This is a step by step campaign but watch how growing numbers of global citizens (and corporations) are taking a stand:

Following lobbying efforts by the Italian Coalition against Carmel-Agrexco, two major Italian supermarket chains, COOP and Nordiconad, announced the suspension of sales of products from Agrexco, the principal exporter of produce from Israel and the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Nordiconad Director Mr. Covili announced that as of the end of April, Agrexco products will no longer be found in their supermarkets. Nordiconad is a cooperative responsible for central purchasing and distribution operations for CONAD in northern Italy. COOP Italia, via quality assurance Director Mr. Zucchi, instead confirmed that there is a problem with traceability, namely that the consumer is unable to verify whether or not the product in question comes from the occupied territories. Therefore COOP Italia has decided to “suspend the supply of products from the occupied territories.”

Russia Today hosts a discussion on Israel/Palestine between American writer Norman Finkelstein and Israeli historian Benny Morris. One believes in seemingly endless war against the Arabs and the other understands the profound destruction of the Zionist state: