Antony Loewenstein

Unlike in Australia, where the Federal government was more than happy to accept a Sri Lankan nominee for a top diplomat post despite serious allegations of war crimes against him, some other countries treat human rights with proper seriousness:

The Sri Lankan government has recalled its second most senior diplomat to Switzerland and Germany in response to accusations he was involved in war crimes.

Former general Jaghat Dias led the 57th division of the Sri Lankan army. He is accused of ordering his troops to fire upon civilian and hospital targets during the army’s final offensive against the rebel Tamil Tigers in 2009.

A report by the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights also accuses Dias of participating in acts of torture and the execution of rebel fighters.

Last month, the Swiss foreign ministry confirmed it had contacted Sri Lankan authorities about the case, which it said was of “great significance”.

The Swiss news agency reported on Tuesday that diplomatic sources had confirmed Dias had been recalled to Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan embassy in Berlin also has diplomatic responsibility for Switzerland and the Vatican. Dias was accredited in Switzerland in January 2010.

I appeared last night on ABCTV News24′s The Drum (video here).

The Federal government is introducing its carbon tax legislation into the parliament and yet I argued it’s legitimate to ask why so many polluters are receiving such concessions. It’s an attempted political fix that hasn’t convinced many Australians. Simply put, many people are skeptical about the tax and even the science. That’s because hysteria has too often been associated with the debate over global warming. Climate change is clearly happening (hello Arctic!) but real leadership involves convincing the masses that reform is both necessary and vital to saving the environment. Personally, I remain far from convinced that the very weak carbon tax on offer will really make any difference to climate change.

The asylum seeker question continues to haunt both major sides of politics and Australia remains mired in a debate that sees politicians looking to be tough on the “people smuggler’s business model”. Human rights be damned. Off-shore processing is a sneaky way to take the “problem” somewhere else, causing untold mental misery. What Australia needs, without privatising the system with Serco, is to manage the relatively small refugee flow with speed and fairness.

Finally, the announcement of a media inquiry is welcome but it appears the main issue will be absent; an investigation into ownership and power of the moguls. It’s unsurprising that the Labor government is scared to seriously tackle the Murdoch thugocracy in Australia – why should one family control 70% of our print media? – but tickling around the edges may achieve window-dressing at best. A real democracy would want to encourage more diverse voices in our media landscape. That country isn’t Australia.

Oh Australia, you are a parochial place.

First up, here’s the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesperson Julie Bishop who says that, “Australia must stand firmly with Israel at this tumultuous point in its history.” Yes, that brutal Zionist occupation of Palestine needs all the support it can get.

This week’s Federal Parliament was filled with talk about BDS, Nazis, Israel, Nazis, Palestine and Nazis (see here and here).

Even the pro-settler Jerusalem Post covered it:

Australian politicians engaged in heated political debate on Tuesday, with contrasting opinions about support or condemnation of boycotting Israeli products and businesses, according to an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

It was reported that Australia’s part in the global anti-Israeli Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was at the root of the debate.The Greens were condemned for not having denounced the movement, which Greens Party senator Lee Rhiannon has publicly supported in the past, though it is not party policy.

BDS is a campaign that has expressed itself in various regions of the world through academic, cultural, political and economic boycotts of Israel. The movement recently gained some momentum in Australia, with protests taking place outside Israeli chocolate shop chain Max Brenner in several cities during the summer.

“(The Senate) should not tolerate the boycotting of businesses because the ownership is Jewish,” leader of the opposition in the Senate Eric Abetz is reported to have said. “We know enough about world history never to go down that track.”

AAP quoted Greens Party Deputy Christine Milne rejecting accusations from other parties that compared their support of the boycott to the start of the Holocaust: “I know precisely about the cruelty of the Nazis to the Jews in the second World War and I find it despicable in the extreme that every last one of you stand over there and try and point fingers.”

He reportedly added, “The issue we should be debating is the question of … a two-state solution in the Middle East.”

Today’s Murdoch Australian, as usual helpfully looking for anti-Semitism and Nazi behaviour in every corner of the country, hilariously chastise the Greens for wanting to inform consumers if they’re buying products from illegal colonies in the West Bank. To his credit, Greens leader Bob Brown is asking the right questions. Clearly the corporate hack tasked to write this drivel and the politicians pushing it don’t realise; your stated aim of a two-state solution can’t happen if the settlements continue to thrive and produce goods. Just a helpful memo to the clueless. Here’s the article:

The Coalition has accused Greens leader Bob Brown of kowtowing to his NSW Senate colleague Lee Rhiannon after the minor party requested labelling information from the government on Israeli products made in the occupied territories.

The opposition’s leader in the Senate, Eric Abetz, yesterday lashed Senator Brown for failing to voice his opposition to the BDS movement after veteran Nationals senator Ron Boswell moved a motion condemning recent protests against Max Brenner chocolate stores.

“After the NSW election campaign, Senator Brown allegedly took a ‘robust’ line against Lee Rhiannon’s support for the boycott, divestment, sanctions campaign in the March NSW election,” he said.

“But every time the Coalition has put up a motion in the Senate condemning an aspect of the BDS campaign, Senator Brown has some excuse for not supporting it and has registered the Greens’ opposition.”

Coalition concerns were further fuelled yesterday after it emerged the Greens had requested, on notice, detailed information from the government about the labelling of Israeli products.

In a series of questions, the Greens asked whether the government was satisfied that all goods originating from Israel or the occupied territories were truthfully labelled. It asked whether this information was required on labels or import documentation.

The Greens have sought further information on whether the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission or any government agency had taken action against products labelled “Made in Israel” when they were made “partly or in full in the occupied territories”.

Information on contracts between Australian and Israeli businesses was also requested, with Senator Abetz saying it amounted to a “shopping list for the BDS campaign”.

Senator Boswell’s motion condemning the pickets on Max Brenner chocolate stores was yesterday endorsed by the Senate, despite unanimous Greens opposition.

Senator Brown’s office did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

This ain’t pretty. As the BDS movement grows in Australia – the hysteria in the corporate media and political elites suggest panic stations – it’s important to understand what those opposed to full Palestinian rights are arguing. Sydney journalist Kate Auburn attended a rally last weekend in Sydney and documented the following. Note the paranoia, mis-information, Nazi comparisons and inability to even accept that Palestine exists:

The first person I approached was the man I’d spoken with before the rally. He had been pulling down BDS rally posters near the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and a passerby asked him what he was doing, he was soon yelling at the passerby and BDS rally goers who had gathered. He wasn’t so keen to explain why he was counter-protesting however, simply telling me, “There are a lot of people who could say it more clearly than I would.”

I did have luck elsewhere however.

Person in plain clothes: I’m a Holocaust survivor, I was raised in Poland, I was born in Poland before the war. In Poland my parents were exposed to a lot of anti-Semitism and they were forced out of their village in Poland. Fortunately, we emigrated to Australia. Australia is my home. I love it. And these demonstrators, what they are chanting, for me, is offensive, they are chanting things like there is blood in my chocolate. Blood in my chocolate refers to, it’s um, it’s a blood libel that the Nazis used to justify the massacre of 6 million Jews. Blood in my chocolate refers to Christian children’s blood that the Nazis said the Jews used to make their food, which is really abhorrent to me, and it’s vile. What they want is for Israel not to exist. They are chanting the Hamas mantra. The Hamas mantra is that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, which means that the Jews that live in Israel would be subject to another genocide. My people have already been subject to a genocide. And Max Brenner has nothing to do with it, they have a very tenuous relationship with the Strauss Group in Israel. It’s so tenuous you can compare it to McDonalds and America. I think they are a bunch of anarchists and trouble-rousers.

Now into the thick of the Australian Protection Party front-line:

Woman in Australian flag bandana: I’m here to support Max Brenner. I’m here with my friend today, I’m not a member of the APP (Australian Protectionist Party). Max Brenner supplies the Israel Defense Army [sic] with chocolate and stuff …
Me: So that would be a good thing?
Woman in Australian flag bandana: Yeah. It is. There’s no such thing as Palestine.
Woman’s APP friend [pointing at BDS rally]: It’s very ignorant. Uneducated. This business is paying Australian taxes. He’s employing Australian people, paying his taxes, doing the right thing.

And over to the “I love Max Brenner” crew stood beside the APP:

Me: Do you want to tell me why you’re here today?
Man in “I love Max Brenner” tshirt: Yeah. Because hate towards Israel is growing right across the Western world, not only the Middle East, ok? And if you let it grow like that, without standing up against that trend you’re going to have a repeat of history. I believe if you talk to these people over the other side of the road here individually you’ll find they are grossly ignorant of the facts. They don’t know Middle Eastern history, they don’t even know the history of the West. They’re over there because somebody has told them things that they haven’t examined themselves and uh, they think maybe they are doing the right thing in what they are doing but it’s going to… all it’s going to produce is what we’ve had in the past.
Me: What should happen to Palestine?
Him: Well. They’re yelling out over there ‘Free Palestine’, well, ok, free it from Hamas. You know, read the Hamas charter, the Hamas charter is a foundational document for the Palestinian people at the moment. They voted Hamas in. Have you read the Hamas charter? I’ve read it. And when I read… within there I see a hatred and something that will feed hatred against a people called the Jews and a state called Israel. And it’s obvious to see if you look in the Middle East, what is the free country in the Middle East? What country has freedom of speech, freedom of association?

[few seconds of indecipherable comments due to loud chanting]

I think this. If someone is firing rockets at me, almost daily, and if someone has a charter that says the Israelis must be obliterated, literally, that’s what it says, it quotes Hasan al-Banna in the Hamas Charter, and it says that Israel must be obliterated, not we want our own separate state -

Me: So is the current situation the best way to resolve that?

Him: I don’t understand your question.

Me: Settlement expansion in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza.

Second man, interjecting: How old are you?

Me: 25.

Second man: I’m a bit older. I’m coming close to 60. That land wasn’t Palestine before. It was Jordan, Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for them, but when its the Israelis they say ‘yes it’s my land’ [a couple of seconds indecipherable] it’s all bullshit, it’s never been occupied, it’s been occupied by Jordan [indecipherable] it’s all propaganda, I was born there, I’ve been in two wars.

Me: Where were you born?

Second man: I was born in Israel, my dear, I’ve been in two wars. It was occupied by Jordan, they have Jordanians, not Palestinians. It’s been disputed over the last century.

Me: Ok so are you guys going to keep coming back to these protests?

Second man: This is a free country, they can’t come and do this, this is ridiculous. I don’t know why they do this, they’re idiots.

And back to the plain clothed folk. This young woman approached me asking if she could explain why she was there:

Young woman in plain clothes: This situation is a mess, it’s a real mess.

Me: What situation, the rallies, Israel-Palestine?

Young woman: The rallies, the Middle East. We’re not going to solve problems by fighting and screaming at each other across the street. We need to build bridges and stop fighting. I think both sides have a just claim to the land and both sides need to make concessions. I think the Israelis should share Jerusalem, because the Palestinians have a claim to that land. The Palestinians need to let go of the right of return. And I think that can happen. But basically, both sides are being stubborn and they are both digging their heels in and preventing peace. So yeah, we just need to not hate each other so much, and here in Australia there is no reason to hate.

Me: Did you come on purpose today or were you just walking by?

Young woman: No, I came on purpose.

Me: To, which one?

Young woman: Uh. I believe, I, well. Well I’m a Jew. I believe Israel has the right to exist where it is, I believe that there should be a two-state solution. I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements that in the two-state solution won’t fall into Israel, because I mean, the place is going to get divided. Some of the settlements will become Palestinian territory and some will become Israeli. I think they should stop building for the moment while they are trying to make peace.

Let me get this straight. Washington spends the last decades backing any dictator who could be bought or bribed. Its image in the Muslim world couldn’t be lower. And now it wants to “help” the move towards democracy (via The Cable)?

The State Department has opened a brand-new office to manage U.S. policy toward countries attempting democratic transitions in the Middle East.

William Taylor, senior vice president for conflict management at the U.S. Institute of Peace, has moved over to Foggy Bottom to lead the new office, called the Middle East Transitions office, which began operations this week. His deputy is Tamara Cofman Wittes, who is now dual hatted, also continuing on deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. Taylor’s chief of staff is Karen Volker, who is leaving her job as director of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) to join the new office. MEPI also falls under Wittes’ portfolio. Taylor reports up to Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.

In a Monday interview with The Cable, Taylor said his office will begin by leading State Department coordination on policy toward Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, the three Middle East countries that are trying to make the shift from dictatorship to democracy.

“The idea is we want to focus energy and policy attention on how we support these three transition countries,” he said. “The idea is to be sure this gets top-level attention in the department.”

Taylor’s office will have about 10 to 12 people, and he said he hopes to soon add a resident senior advisor from both USAID and the Pentagon. The office is meant to be permanent, and would expand its operations to cover countries like Syria and Yemen — if and when those countries attempt a democratic transition.

Taylor’s first job will be to lead an effort to develop support strategies for Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Then, his office will go about trying to implement those strategies by working within State, around the interagency process, and then with international financial institutions, non-governmental organizations, and stakeholders on the ground. Taylor said he will attend National Security Council meetings on issues related to his brief.

In President Barack Obama’s May 19 speech on the Middle East, he promised to work on establishing enterprise funds for Egypt and Tunisia, which are accounts meant to support start up programs and activities abroad, and said that U.S. support for democracy will “be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy — starting with Tunisia and Egypt.”

Taylor said that the administration was still eager to pursue enterprise funds for these countries, but that legislation would be needed to get it done.

Now and then, on commercial TV, the brutal reality of our world erupts on the screen and reminds us of our real place and responsibility:

The Middle East is in flux like rarely before. Only a fool would try to make accurate predictions but here’s one view by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in the New York Review of Books:

For all this uncertainty, there seems little doubt—as protesters tire and as the general public tires of them—in what direction the balance will tilt. After the dictator falls, incessant political upheaval carries inordinate economic and security costs and most people long for order and safety. The young street demonstrators challenge the status quo, ignite a revolutionary spirit, and point the way for a redistribution of power. But what they possess in enthusiasm they lack in organization and political experience. What gives them strength during the uprising—their amorphous character and impulsiveness—leads to their subsequent undoing. Their domain is the more visible and publicized. The real action, much to their chagrin, takes place elsewhere.

The outcome of the Arab awakening will not be determined by those who launched it. The popular uprisings were broadly welcomed, but they do not neatly fit the social and political makeup of traditional communities often organized along tribal and kinship ties, where religion has a central part and foreign meddling is the norm. The result will be decided by other, more calculating and hard-nosed forces.

Nationalists and leftists will make a bid, but their reputation has been sullied for having stood for a promise already once betrayed. Liberal, secular parties carry scant potential; the appeal they enjoy in the West is inversely proportional to the support they possess at home. Fragments of the old regime retain significant assets: the experience of power; ties to the security services; economic leverage; and local networks of clients. They will be hard to dislodge, but much of the protesters’ ire is directed at them and they form easy targets. They can survive and thrive, but will need new patrons and protectors.

That leaves two relatively untarnished and powerful forces. One is the military, whose positions, as much as anything, have molded the course of events. In Libya and Yemen, they split between regime and opposition supporters, which contributed to a stalemate of sorts. In Syria, they so far have sided with the regime; should that change, much will change with it. In Egypt, although closely identified with the former regime, they dissociated themselves in time, sided with the protesters, and emerged as central power brokers. They are in control, a position at once advantageous and uncomfortable. Their preference is to rule without the appearance of ruling, in order to maintain their privileges while avoiding the limelight and accountability. To that end, they have tried to reach understandings with various political groups. If they do not succeed, a de facto military takeover cannot be ruled out.

And then there are the Islamists. They see the Arab awakening as their golden opportunity. This was not their revolution nor was it their idea. But, they hope, this is their time.

My following essay is published today on ABC online:

The 9/11 attacks had barely happened and the smouldering wreckage in New York and Washington was still shocking America and the world.

Israel already saw an opportunity. Then former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked to express his feelings about the terrorist action in the immediate aftermath.

“It’s very good,” he said. He quickly added: ”Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”

He argued that the attack would “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive haemorrhaging of terror.”

In 2008 the Likud leader hadn’t changed his views. He told an audience at Bar Ilan University that 9/11 remained a positive for Israel.

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Netanyahu said. The events had “swung American public opinion in our favour”.

Israel’s ambassador to America, Michael Oren, continued this deluded thinking last week.

The logic was clear; as long as Washington could be convinced (or hoodwinked) that Israel was fighting the same battle, Zionist expansion in the occupied, Palestinian territories and constant intransigence in the region would be rewarded by American largesse.

This symbiotic relationship has led both nations to share similar foreign policy goals but the results have been disastrous; America and Israel have contributed to a decade of unprecedented decline and imperial overreach, despite some wishful thinking within academia.

Not that such views are ever heard in the American Congress or Australian Parliament; our politicians are obsessed with displaying loyalty to Zionism at every conceivable opportunity. By their actions, they are killing any chance of Israel surviving as a Jewish state into the future without expanding apartheid against the Palestinians.

Witness the increased isolation of Israel in the Middle East, with traditional allies Turkey and Egypt turning away from the Zionist state’s arrogance. It is a welcome realignment. America’s ability to shield Israel from the consequences of its actions has diminished. Israel faces, in the words of Israeli editor of Haaretz Aluf Benn, a “political tsunami“.

Not that this has stopped Israeli leaders praising the deep and expanding backing offered by the Obama administration towards Israel. Defence minister Ehud Barak recently told Fox News that, “I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now”.

Although many American Jewish voters are reportedly concerned with the occasional criticisms uttered by Obama against the Zionist colonies in the West Bank (comments almost immediately retracted once Israel rejects the pressure), the US president has essentially followed the script written by previous American leaders; Israel is a nation that must be endlessly indulged.

There are a host of examples of this backing but a WikiLeaks cable confirms that the US actively assisted Egypt and Israel in its brutal siege of the Gaza Strip in the last years. One and a half million people in the Gaza Strip are being punished for daring to elect Hamas in the 2006 elections. This collective punishment is illegal under international law.

The catastrophe of the Israeli and American relationship over the last decade has been its wilful inability to engender any respect for its actions. Military might has actually caused wholesome rejection of decades of established order. There is a collective crisis of confidence despite overwhelming military might. Israel has never been better armed and protected by its super-power boss and yet almost daily in the Israeli press one reads paranoia about the country’s current direction. Even the massive recent Israeli tent protests largely chose to ignore the Palestinians. Clearly a desire for social justice only goes so far.

Despite this, however – and the sentiment is blindly repeated in the Zionist Diaspora, including Australia – there’s little awareness of why Zionism is on the ropes. Nobody dares mention the West Bank occupation – with houses rapidly expanding at twice the rate inside Israel proper – or how to be welcomed into the civilised group of nations without bullying friends into support.

The Middle East after the Arab Spring has changed but perhaps nobody sent the memo to the Israeli political elite.

September 11 offered a seductive narrative that allowed Israel and its backers to hitch a ride on the escalating war machine unleashed by America in the vein hope that the world would finally understand its own “war against terror”. The opposite has occurred, with the strongest and most publicly proud backers of Israeli wars today the global, fascist Right.

Revealingly, such adulation is welcomed in many circles within Israel itself. Orthodox Jewish Knesset member Nissim Zeev told Newsweek in February: “At the end of the day, what’s important is their [the fascists] attitude – the fact they really love Israel.”

We are now seeing this fused nexus between the far Right and Zionist supporters in Australia, backing the Israeli-owned chocolate shop Max Brenner, accusing the backers of Palestinian rights of Nazism. This is coming from individuals and groups that loathe Muslims and love Israel for its racially discriminatory policies towards Arabs.

Shamefully some Greens MPs, such as Jeremy Buckingham in New South Wales and leader Bob Brown, are unwilling to wholeheartedly support Palestinians. Instead, they befriend those who abuse them.

Boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is a worldwide campaign that deserves support – the effectiveness of such moves are apparent when the Murdoch press, Labor and Liberal parties, Zionist heads and union leaders continually and offensively accuse backers of anti-Semitism – and yet only NSW Greens MP Lee Rhiannon bravely endorses the non-violent movement without shame.

Unlike many other Greens in the public arena, she recognises that it isn’t enough to simply mouth platitudes about human rights; action is required that may well upset the Zionist lobby and conservative media. Bob Brown should understand this, as one of the legacies of 9/11 is the importance of giving voice to those victims suffering under our repression. Palestinians are the perfect candidates.

While most of the corporate media prefers to ignore the ramifications of blindly backing every military misadventure by America and Israel – Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian last weekend comically referred to Western “values” being secure 10 years after 9/11, preferring to forget the millions of dead Muslims caused by unquestioning neo-conservatism – the Arab world doesn’t forget. Perpetual war remains the default setting of Washington, rightly damned by Tariq Ali as reaching its climax with the cheering execution of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Non-accountable executive power is unquestioned by many in the years since 9/11 and even challenging its validity invites verbal and physical threats.

I should know, having been at the receiving end of this bile for daring to ask why “they” really hate us (it’s not about our supposed Western freedoms) as well as refusing to believe that Israel is at the forefront of this “war on terror” and must be supported.

In reality, Zionist actions have made us Jews less safe than one decade ago.

In Palestine itself, the effect of the 9/11 attacks have been undeniably grim. Amira Hass, a journalist from the Israeli paper Haaretz, reflected on this week’s anniversary:

“My routine reporting laboured to remind the Israeli readers about our repressive military domination, and make visible the spiralling number of Palestinian civilian casualties, killed by the Israeli army. A doomed attempt. The Israeli vocabulary had space for Israeli pain and bereavement only. It made no causal link between supremacy and revolt, repression and revenge.”

Her despairing words ring true today. Too many Jews remain incapable of acknowledging the disastrous legacy of our religion being hijacked by fundamentalist Zionists who craved the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, endless occupation of Palestine, drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and never-ceasing threats against Iran.

The Jewish community has neither rejected destructive neo-conservatism from its ranks nor acknowledged that supposed protection of Israel was a stated reason for causing chaos in the Middle East and the 9/11 attacks.

Furthermore, Israeli public opinion has moved far rightward in the last decade, adopted and defended anti-Arab and anti-democratic legislation and justified brutal tactics against Palestinians in the West Bank.

The US and Australia support this apartheid in Palestine because their actions contribute to an atmosphere of unquestioning Zionist love.

A viable two-state solution is long dead and buried with the upcoming UN vote on Palestine mere window-dressing and desperation from a Western-funded and corrupt Palestinian Authority wanting to appear relevant.

This is our legacy and this is our responsibility.

When the American government, followed by dutiful Western allies such as Australia, crush any chance of Palestinian self-determination, we shouldn’t be surprised that faith in Obama and Israel is rock bottom.

Working against Western exceptionalism and not excusing criminal behaviour of our supposed friends and allies is a great challenge of our age. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that state terror always dwarves the actions of a committed bunch of extremists.

The victims know this well.

Antony Loewenstein is an independent journalist currently working on a book about disaster capitalism

This Wikileaks cable from October 2005 displays a concerning enthusiasm from Al Jazeera Managing Director Wadah Khanfar to censor content following US concerns over “disturbing” material:

Summary: PAO met 10/19 with Al Jazeera Managing Director Wadah Khanfar to discuss the latest DIA report on Al Jazeera and disturbing Al Jazeera website content. Khanfar is preparing a written response to the DIA points from July, August and September which should be available during the coming week. Khanfar said the most recent website piece of concern to the USG has been toned down and that he would have it removed over the subsequent two or three days. End summary.

¶2. (C) Per Ref A, PAO gave Khanfar a hard copy of DIA’s unclassified snippets from July, August and September.

Khanfar said he had recently received hard copies of the July and August snippets via the MFA and was in the process of preparing a written response to them. He said he would include September’s points in the report and pass it to PAO during the course of the coming week. “We need to fix the method of how we receive these reports,” said Khanfar, noting that he had found one of them (presumably sent from the MFA) “on the fax machine.”

DIA’s unclassified snippets for September
—————————————–

¶3. (C) PAO told Khanfar that despite an overall decrease in negative coverage since February, the month of September showed a worrying increase in such programming over the previous month. She summarized the latest USG reporting on Al Jazeera by noting that problems still remain with double-sourcing in Iraq; identifying sources; use of inflammatory language; a failure to balance of extremist views; and the use of terrorist tapes.

¶4. (C) Having had an opportunity to review the July and August reports, Khanfar said he had several observations to make. On a semantic level, he objected to the use of the word “agreement” as used in the August report on the first page, under the heading “Violence in Iraq”, where a sentence reads: “In violation of the station’s agreement several months ago with US officials etc”. “The agreement was that it was a non-paper,” said Khanfar. “As a news organization, we cannot sign agreements of this nature, and to have it here like this in writing is of concern to us.”

¶5. (C) He then said that broadly, the reports’ points fell into three categories. “Some are simple mistakes which we accept and address,” he said. In the second category, he said, are points that are taken in isolation and out of context by the USG report. “This report takes bits and pieces from a whole thing and does not give the context,” he said, noting that in some instances during the AJ broadcasting day, a comment made or position taken by one person may be balanced with a different comment or position later in the same show or later on during the same day. Since Al Jazeera is live 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is not always possible to provide needed balance at the moment itself, he said. The report, he said, fails to note where balance was achieved in the following news hour, for example, or later on the same day. Thirdly, said Khanfar, there are points on which resolution does not seem possible, such as the use of terrorist tapes. “We have always said that we are going to use these tapes and we will continue to use them. The question is how. None of the tapes are used just like that,” he said, meaning that they are reviewed for newsworthiness and are edited. Concerning the use of inflammatory language, Khanfar said the station’s concern is with the language used by its own reporters and anchors. No station staff member is permitted to use loaded vocabulary. The reports’ focus on inflammatory language is on that used by non-Al Jazeera interviewees, he pointed out. “How can I control what these people say? I can only control Al Jazeera staff. All we can do is try to balance what these people say in other parts of the program,” he said.

¶6. (C) Commenting on the reports overall, he said they lacked balance in that they only focus on the negative. “A report like this should have both sides,” he said. “It does not report the voice we have given to American spokespeople over the recent past,” he said. “We do not always find a military spokesman, for example, but we are trying our best, and we have some success. This is not mentioned.” Speaking of Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Iraqi referendum, he said the station provided 12 hours of continuous coverage, which featured voices from all those vested in the process — Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Americans, Britons and others. “I would really like to see that in next month’s report,” he said. Khanfar repeated that he would respond in more detail to all three reports over the coming days and pass the response to PAO.

PAO raised the question of an Al Jazeera website piece published in the last week, listed under the heading “Special Coverage”, and containing “Live Testimony Concerning Tal Afar”. The site opens to an image of bloody sheets of paper riddled with bullet holes. Viewers click on the bullet holes to access testimony from ten alleged “eye witnesses” who described recent military operations in Tal Afar.

We are constantly told in Australia that our brave boys in Afghanistan are training the local army.

A new Human Rights Watch report reveals the reality of so much Western training (some of which is privatised); corruption, torture and death squads is what we appear to be leaving behind, presuming we ever depart:

Militias and some units of the new US-backed Afghan Local Police are committing serious human rights abuses, but the government is not providing proper oversight or holding them accountable, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Afghan government and the US should sever ties with irregular armed groups and take immediate steps to create properly trained and vetted security forces that are held accountable for their actions.

The 102-page report, “‘Just Don’t Call It a Militia:’ Impunity, Militias and the ‘Afghan Local Police,’” documents serious abuses, such as killings, rape, arbitrary detention, abductions, forcible land grabs, and illegal raids by irregular armed groups in northern Kunduz province and the Afghan Local Police (ALP) force in Baghlan, Herat, and Uruzgan provinces. The Afghan government has failed to hold these forces to account, fostering future abuses and generating support for the Taliban and other opposition forces, Human Rights Watch found.

“The Afghan government has responded to the insurgency by reactivating militias that threaten the lives of ordinary Afghans” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Kabul and Washington need to make a clean break from supporting abusive and destabilizing militias to have any hope of a viable, long-term security strategy.”