 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Award
overboard By Tzvi Fleischer The Australian media had two problems in its coverage of the flap over the award of the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi. Most worrying was that a number of commentators, following the lead of Sydney Peace Foundation head Stuart Rees, aided and abetted by former Peace Foundation chair Katherine Greiner, insisted that all opposition to the prize was illustrative of the illegitimate lobbying power of the Jews through their financial power, a classic antisemitic claim. Far too many people claimed that Jewish individuals and communal bodies making their opposition to the prize known and supplying information about Ashrawi to justify why they are opposed was illegitimate and dangerous, and a sign that Jews have too much power in this country. No evidence that "bullying" or "intimidation" had taken place was actually produced, yet it was repeatedly claimed as a fact. Secondly, with respect to coverage of the visit itself, the media seemed in the main, fumbling, unsophisticated, and a bit awed by Ashrawi’s supposed star status. Journalists thus failed to raise any serious questions about her contibutions to peace beyond token questions about "Do you condemn terror attacks on Israeli civilians?" (She does, but if you listen closely, she also excuses them as a near inevitable result of Israeli "occupation" and refuses to characterise them as terrorism. Furthermore, she is against both Israeli and Palestinian efforts to do anything substantive to stop them.) The first problem is of course far more alarming from the point of view of the political health of this country. Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey, who has made similar claims before, really kicked this theme off (Oct. 25). He wrote that criticism of the award "is because [Ashrawi] is a Palestinian. That is enough to ensure a virulent campaign of distortion and ridicule by Jewish critics to brutalise her image and try to have Carr renege on Ashrawi’s presentation." He also said, "The campaign now is about maximum political pressure for other corporate and civic sponsors to abandon Ashrawi and intimidate Carr." Ramsey’s major source was clearly Sydney Peace Foundation head Stuart Rees, who, in the column, presented himself as standing up to "invisible but powerful people" who "intimidate and bully." In his own defence of the prize in the same paper, Rees (Oct. 22) also warmed to the theme of taking on a powerful and sinister lobby, saying, "The marshalling of vehement criticism [of Ashrawi] raises issues central to the health of Australian democracy. Should people give way because of the formidable financial power pitted against them…?" However, probably the worst accusation came from Margo Kingston, web diarist for the Sydney Morning Herald. She claimed on Nov. 14 that Jewish backers of Sharon "seem to have the power, money and clout to dominate public debate and wield enormous political and financial power behind the scenes. The Ashrawi debacle has exposed this secret power." A more clearly stated racist conspiracy theory I have never seen in the mainstream media in Australia. Even the ABC got in on the act to some extent. First Stephen Crittenden of the "Religion Report" (Oct. 29) asked NSW Jewish Board of Deputies head Stephen Rothman "I know that you, on behalf of the Jewish community of New South Wales, you’ve expressed the view that Hanan Ashrawi wasn’t an appropriate person to get this award…But hasn’t this campaign turned into something else, really, not about lobbying at all – and certainly not about dialogue – but about bullying and intimidation?" Despite Rothman’s denials, Crittenden then repeatedly insisted the campaign had damaged the Jewish community and added "Are groups like AIJAC, the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, groups like the Zionist Federation, actually running campaigns that are so shrill and aggressive, that they’re actually causing damage? You know, I wonder whether there’s some chance that you release anti-Semitic views in the wider community that maybe never needed to be released in the first place." Crittenden had earlier approached AIJAC’s Dr Colin Rubenstein, who told him in response to similar claims that it is antisemites, not Jewish behaviour, that causes antisemitism. He apparently subsequently changed his mind about an interview with Dr Rubenstein. Then "Lateline" (Nov. 18) claimed that as a result of the Ashrawi affair "the power of Australia’s Jewish lobby was at the centre of media attention." This was part of a story on a Palestinian exhibition at Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum. It asserted that Jewish expressions of opinion about elements of the exhibition were attempts to "censor" and that Jewish groups had "tried to remove material from the exhibition" and that museum officials were being "pressured" into removing material. There was no evidence whatsoever presented to sustain the allegation that anything amounting to "pressure" much less "censorship" was involved. On the other hand, Michael Visontay (Nov. 14 SMH) and P.P. McGuinness (Nov. 11 SMH), among others, pointed out the intolerance inherent to the "powerful and sinister Jewish lobby" theme which was sweeping the debate. In the coverage of the actual visit, the press did a poor job of covering the controversy, and frankly, were often less than fair to critics of the prize to Ashrawi. Parts of the media appeared unsophisticated and not up to the job of dealing with the real questions relating to this prize and whether it actually contributes to peace in the Middle East. Instead, some of the treatment was more appropriate for a visiting celebrity, like a pop-star, than for a controversial political figure from a vexed conflict. This led to some obvious sins of omission. For instance, almost no media outlet covered the fact that Ashrawi attacked Australia at her National Press Club appearance for the recent bipartisan decision to ban Hamas, blaming "Israeli pressure" for the decision. Similarly, the media completely ignored a revelation in the Jewish News that despite repeated claims by Rees and others that the prize was unanimous, it was actually awarded by a split vote of 3.5 to 2.5.
For a change, the most egregiously biased electronic coverage did not come from our public broadcasters, but from Channel Nine. The classic case of "Ashrawi as celebrity" was "A Current Affair" on Nov. 6. Preceding Ray Martin’s interview with Hanan Ashrawi, Martin said in introduction, "Now to a story of back-stabbing, bullying and intimidation. It’s about a woman who’s divided a city certainly, turned a mayor to water…" The story quoted one line from a long interview with AIJAC Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein, who noted, "She’s very extreme, it’s all PR and there’s no substance and there’s no contribution to the hard yakka of compromise and negotiations." Ellen Fanning obviously felt the need to respond on Ashrawi’s behalf, saying, "The difficulty of course for Dr Ashrawi is, in a place where there is no peace, who can say they are a peace maker?" In the interview, Martin was sympathetic to Ashrawi about the reception she had received, asking questions such as, "Is it strange for you to come half way around the world and find worse language than you’d find in the middle of all that hate and violence?" Martin asked, "Do you condemn the suicide bombers as you condemn the Israeli tanks?" She replied, "Of course. May I ask you also in deference not to enter into any kind of sort of interrogation technique." Rather than insist on his right, as an interviewer, to ask questions, Martin responded apologetically, "But I thought the best way to answer those who didn’t hear, those who are deaf…" Channel 9 "A Current Affair" (Nov 6). "Sunday" also seemed to have switched off their critical mode. For instance, in the introduction to a story including an interview with Bob Carr on Nov. 2, Helen Dalley said "Premier Carr himself has come under great pressure to ignore Dr Ashrawi. The latest attack coming in a letter from a senior Australian army officer serving in Baghdad. Like many others, the officer objects to a Palestinian getting a peace prize," Channel 9 "Sunday" (Nov 2).Of course, no responsible opponent, including the officer in question, Colonel Mike Kelly, objected to the prize going to "a Palestinian". They objected to it going to Ashrawi, because she makes excuses for Palestinian terrorism and has done little to encourage peace, in fact she discourages Palestinians from making any compromises for the sake of peace. It was only the shrillest supporters of Ashrawi, like Ramsey, who claimed that those who opposed the prize for Ashrawi were just anti-Palestinian racists against any Palestinian getting a prize. Dalley also seemed obsessed with the supposed lobbying issue, and when Bob Carr denied that it was important who had spoken to him, she told him, "Well it does matter Mr Carr, doesn’t it, because that’s what’s become the controversy, about how ferocious the lobbying has been and who’s done it?" The next week’s installment from "Sunday" was slightly better, including two critical comments from AIJAC’s Colin Rubenstein, though reporter John Lyons maintained opposition to Ashrawi winning the prize was confined to "sections of the Jewish community" and gave an uncritically benevolent appraisal of Ashrawi’s statements at her lecture award. However, the Nov. 2 weekly internet poll question on "Sunday" had been, "Do you think Hanan Ashrawi should receive this year’s Sydney Peace Prize?" But on Nov. 9, when they announced that week’s question, they did not reveal the result, as they always do at that time. Their website reveals that 5% answered yes and 95% no. By contrast, Kerry O’Brien in his "7:30 Report" interview (Nov. 5) of Ashrawi was genuinely probing of her refusal to condemn Hamas by name or call what they are doing terrorism. However, the story was marred by a decision to interview a representative of the tiny Jewish fringe group, "Jews Against the Occupation" in the introduction to the report. After all, every single mainstream organisation and representative body in the Jewish community opposed the prize and the fact that not every single Jewish individual in Australia does should not be newsworthy. The balance of the story was thus a brief encounter with one critic of Ashrawi, AIJAC’s Colin Rubenstein, plus two similar-sized grabs for Ashrawi supporters, Stuart Rees, and Angela Budai, from "Jews against the Occupation", as well as short recorded grabs from Rees’s associate Katherine Greiner and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. This was all in addition to the extended interview with Ashrawi herself. This hardly seems terribly balanced, since Ashrawi’s supporters were given much more airtime than her critics. Other coverage on the ABC was even less professional, with interviews with Ashrawi on "AM" and the "World Today" on Nov. 6 much less probing. Alison Caldwell positively gushed on "AM" about Ashrawi’s speech, "What followed was classic Hanan Ashrawi, professor of literature, poet and politician. With a masterful use of the English language, she presented herself as the picture of a moderate Palestinian advocate, deploring acts of violence and calling for a negotiated and just peace." Phillipa McDonald described the opposition to Ashrawi’s peace prize as "brutal", ABC TV "Lateline" (Nov 5). In short, the media fell down badly on the Ashrawi issue. Large elements lent themselves heavily to an effort to turn the debate about Ashrawi getting a prize into a debate about whether the Jewish community was entitled to "lobby" against the prize, questions they would not have asked about any other ethnic community in Australia. And they largely failed to adequately quiz Ashrawi when she was here despite the controversy, either through ignorance, starstruck awe or lack of inclination, even ignoring obvious stories like her attack on Australia’s ban on Hamas. Ashrawi has now been and gone, but the problems she exposed clearly linger.
Hanan Ashrawi: Her own words in Australia Now that Hanan Ashrawi has been and gone, it is possible to analyse her visit with the benefit of hindsight. Unfortunately, Ashrawi’s performance while in Australia only served to confirm the objections raised by critics when her name was announced as the 2003 recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize: Ashrawi is a smooth-talking Palestinian spokeswoman, but she is neither moderate nor a force for peace. She did nothing during her visit to dispel the notion that she stands in opposition not only to Israel’s presence in the West Bank, but to Israel itself. After giving lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, she proceeded to threaten that if Israel failed to fulfil all Palestinians’ demands, including a suicidal and legally baseless "Palestinian Right of Return" they would soon dispose of the idea in favour of a single, bi-national state. As usual she blamed Israel for all the ills that plague the Palestinians and refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinians who murder Israeli civilians. Here are just a few examples:
• As noted in our profile of Ashrawi last month, even the Palestinians don’t charge Israel with the level of brutality China has displayed in the 52 years it has occupied Tibet. The denial of systematic Palestinian terrorism and insistence Palestinians generally use "peaceful means" and the claim that in the absence of Palestinian terror, Palestinians would simply "die quietly" suggests she does not accept any Palestinian responsibility for the current situation.
• Ashrawi thinks Hamas, which calls for uncompromising and endless terrorist violence until Israel is destroyed, and acts on this philosophy, is a legitimate group which should not be banned. It need hardly be said that Ashrawi was grossly out of line to criticise the Australian government for conducting its internal affairs, and blame supposed Israeli pressure.
• The notion that Islamic fundamentalists are somehow equivalent to conservative politicians and journalists, or even to religious Jews or Christians, is one of Dr Ashrawi’s more outrageous charges. Whilst there are indeed some Jews and Christians that can accurately be described as "fundamentalists", they are by-and-large non-violent. They certainly do not adhere to a philosophy of undying violent holy war against their enemies in the way of radical Islamists like Hamas and al-Qaeda. And even those Christians and Jews who have resorted to violence, such as Hebron mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein, have come under near universal condemnation. In contrast, Palestinians who murder Israelis are lionised in Palestinian society.
• Ashrawi is here re-interating her utterly uncompromising stance on the legally baseless "Palestinian right of return" and essentially demanding Israel’s demographic suicide as a condition for peace. The issue of Palestinian "refugees" is the single most intractable issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, because the immigration of more than 5 million Palestinians to Israel means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Secondly, the Palestinians became refugees in 1948 as a result of the Arab rejection of the UN partition plan of November 1947, not as a result of Israel’s creation. Lastly, there is no precedent in international law to consider the children and grandchildren of refugees from 1948 as refugees.
• The idea that Palestinian murders are "so-called" terrorism goes a long way toward undermining Ashrawi’s claim of being a "moderate." In doing so, she complements the traditional Arab line touted by the Arab League, which she works for, which insists such violence against Israeli civilians is "resistance," not terrorism. Similarly, Ashrawi’s repeated refusal to condemn Hamas by name or to call its acts terrorism reconfirmed that her pro forma denunciation of attacks on civilians continues to be accompanied by apologetics for such attacks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Copyright
© AIJAC 2003 |
