Guy Rundle writes: If Michael Danby (yesterday, comments) thinks that all he was commenting on in his parliamentary speech was Crikey and New Matilda’s comments policy he should, well, read his speech. Here are two excerpts:
“Of course people can be fairly critical of any state in the world and critical of particular actions of any state, but ”¦ Scant attention is given in the same publications to Burma, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, North Korea, Chechnya, Eastern Turkistan or any other place witnessing gross abuse of human rights. That is a double standard.
“In examining the evidence of lopsided coverage of these two internet publications, our toughest critique must be of their unadulterated racism: the perverse nature of their criticisms and the vitriol that is not present in the appraisal of other conflicts; the use of terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “Nazi”; and the dropping of all pretence of anti-Zionism by openly discussing Jews and so-called Jewish proclivities.””
It was these accusations I was replying to. Quite aside from the fact that Crikey has provided excellent and unmatched coverage of oppression in Burma and East Turkestan/Xinjiang among other places, I simply reiterate the point that Israel’s governments repeatedly draw on the notion of a unified West, to legitimise their actions… ”‰—”‰and since that legitimation has become, post Gaza, increasingly shaky (about to become a lot more so, as the recent UN report circulates) the whining that we are not playing fair will become louder.
In that context discussion of ethnic cleansing now and before, and of the fascist strains within right-wing Zionism, remain legitimate. If Michael Reich thinks that Zionism, anti-Semitism and fascism had simply a few incidental links pre-WW2 he should read some history.
Les Heimann writes: What a lot of silly little boys and girls are you. Zionist, Nazi, anti-Semitic, not anti Semitic”‰—”‰claim and counter claim”‰—”‰truth or rumour”‰—”‰baiters and the baited. With the single exception of Michael Danby, the absolute twaddle written by so many concerning the actions of the Israeli government must now come to a halt.
Frankly I am much disturbed by so many pieces of hysterical garbage spewed out that those authors. It makes me very angry that Crikey allows a stage to peddle their hatred. Now it is enough, lest Crikey becomes equally branded and trashed.
It’s like printing the racist Muslim trash expression “not every Muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim”. Clearly the so called “anti Zionists” do protest too much. Pick on someone else for a change, and when you do get it right just for a change. Better still Crikey would be well served by adopting a policy of accuracy coupled with constructive criticism. In the real world”‰—”‰where things get done”‰—”‰the committees and boards do not allow criticism per se.
In the real world you have to prove your point and in the real world you ultimately get trashed yourself if you mislead or demonstrate bad character traits such as racism. Grow up you silly little people.