Briefing - March 2006
A monthly summary of news media and commentary
Hamas
Participation - Editorials
The nation’s
financial daily conceded, “The best of a bad choice would be if Fatah retained
control of the Palestinian Authority in Wednesday’s elections but was shaken
out of its smug arrogance. Fatah has to turn its face against cronyism and
towards making a workable peace deal with Israel…If Fatah pulls through this
week, the US and Israel must continue the push for an end to corruption. That
will be just as important as reining in the militant Islamists,” The
Australian Financial Review
(January 20).
Melbourne’s
broadsheet opined, “Both Israel and the US insist they won't deal with a
terrorist organisation, and faint hopes of peace before President George Bush
leaves office have evaporated. It is worth noting, though, that the US is
banking on hopes of similar democratic transformations to end conflicts in Iraq
(a misadventure that has hardened Palestinian attitudes) and Lebanon. The
day-to-day responsibilities of government could be a powerful moderating force
on Hamas, but the world must have the patience to allow this to take effect.
The reality is that proper peace talks have not been held since 2000. It may be
necessary to take a step back, and see whether Palestinians and their
government can replace chaos with a functioning civil society, in order to go
forward.” The Age
(January 28).
Adelaide’s tabloid concluded, “The
remaining hope is that with the threatened withdrawal of funds by the European
Union and the US and widespread expressions of international concern, Hamas may
moderate its hardline stand against Israel and allow the peace process to
proceed.” The Advertiser
(January 28).
Sydney’s broadsheet noted, “More
shocking than the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections is the fact
that the United States and Israel profess to be shocked by it. The win was
entirely foreseeable. Despite the hope by Washington and Israel that Fatah
could somehow keep its monopoly on power, the party of the Palestinian
president, Mahmoud Abbas, had failed in too many areas to earn more years in
office...Fatah was a terrorist movement before it was a political force.
Distasteful as its record makes it, Hamas is a fact, and so is the support it
now enjoys. Its maintenance of a truce in the months before the election gives
a glimmer of hope the group may be prepared to compromise to gain real power.
Israeli and US policymakers must use Hamas's victory to bring the radicals into
the mainstream.” The Sydney Morning Herald (January 28).
The nation’s daily concluded “The arrival of Hamas as a legitimately elected presence in
Palestinian politics poses equally demanding dilemmas for the Israelis. The
easy response is to refuse to have anything to do with a Hamas government and
wait to see what happens. Israel has the military might to do this. The new
security wall being constructed along the length of Israel's frontier also
makes it harder for suicide bombers to attack in its cities…Certainly, Hamas
can continue to denounce Israel and refuse to negotiate. But not if it wants to
go to the next election as a government that has improved life for ordinary
people. What effect this election will have on the cause of peace in the Middle
East will depend on whether Hamas wants to remain a terrorist organisation or
become a political party.” The Australian
(January 28).
The national capital’s broadsheet
claimed, “Hamas's triumph
will increase the stakes in Israel's coming election. There, as in Palestine,
the popular feeling seems to be for the resumption of negotiations with the
Palestinian Authority. This development was probably what motivated Ariel
Sharon to break with his Likud to form a new centrist party, Khadima, shortly
before his crippling second stroke. His effective demise leaves Khadima in
limbo, and if Israelis decide that Hamas is not to be trusted then they might
again choose Netanyahu to take over as prime minister… As much as Israeli and
Western political leaders might lament Hamas's emergence as a political force,
and demand that they disarm, they will have to be realists and recognise that
they cannot marginalise a group which has been endorsed by Palestinians as a
vehicle for their aspirations for a lasting political settlement. In offering
the possibility of extending an olive branch rather than a gun, Hamas has
staked a legitimate claim for engagement.” The Canberra Times (January 28).
Melbourne’s
tabloid claimed, “ Our dilemma is that we must not judge politics in Palestine
by Western rules-not if we are committed to ending the bloodshed. Fatah was a
militant wing of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation, which had a
hand in international atrocities, including the murder of Israeli athletes at
the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972. But the world learnt to deal with this in
the interests of the big picture.” Herald Sun (January 29).
Perth’s broadsheet claimed, “The support
of Hamas also may have an impact on Israeli elections in March. With Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon still in a coma after a stroke, support for his moderate
Kadima party may waver. The right-wing Likud party, under the hawkish Benjamin
Netanyahu, may appear a better alternative for voters keen to react to the
elevation to government of Hamas. If this happens, the Middle East once again
will become a powder keg, and the slow but definite progress will be derailed
again.” The Western Australian (January 30).
The nation’s
financial daily wrote, “A vote for Hamas was a vote for terrorists, but it also
was a vote against corruption and cronyism of Fatah. It’s a signal to the West,
and Israel, that the Palestinian people also aspire to a functioning civil
society. The West has to convince Hamas’s leadership that to fulfill their
anti-corruption commitment to the electorate they have to take on the
obligation of statehood: repudiating violence and living peacefully with their
neighbours.” The Australian Financial Review (February 1).
Hamas
Participation - Comment
Martin
Chulov wrote “Other analysts want to judge Hamas by deeds instead of words. For
now it remains committed to its 1987 mandate that calls for Israel's
destruction and the liberation of all of greater Palestine. But there is a view
among some that the risk of forgoing a future will be enough for Hamas to
renounce its past. There is also the unknown of how the two other main
Palestinian militant groups will take the emergence of their sometime rival.
Disputes in the occupied territories have a history of being sorted out through
bloodshed.” The Australian (January 28).
Paul
McGeough claimed “Hamas, too, will have to face reality. It expected to be an
opposition ginger group, threatening violence against Israel and upbraiding a
re-elected Fatah-controlled administration… As for the policymakers in the Bush
Administration, they will, sooner or later, have to face reality and deal with
organisations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, as they have found
themselves forced to play ball with the religious parties in an Iraq occupied
by their troops. In the face of calls for a boycott of Hamas, the International
Crisis Group is also urging a go-easy approach. It wants a gradual and
conditional engagement with Hamas rather than its marginalisation.” The
Sydney Morning Herald (January 28).
John
Bruni, an international security analyst, claimed, “The fallout of this [Hamas’
victory] might very well usher in a civil war, with Israel possibly covertly
backing Fatah. This is arguably the worst of all outcomes. As the Occupied
Territories struggle to survive the messy transition to democracy, mistakes and
misjudgments will continue to be made. But in a post-Arafat environment,
political legitimacy among Palestinians will increasingly come from parties
that can promise more than just violence.” The Advertiser (January 29).
Dr. Daniel Pipes argued, “Returning to the dilemma posed by the Hamas victory,
Western capitals need to show Palestinians that, like Germans electing Adolf
Hitler in 1933, they have made a decision gravely unacceptable to civilised
opinion. The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority must be isolated and rejected at
every turn, thereby encouraging Palestinians to see the error of their ways.” The
Australian
(January 30).
Dvir
Abramovich, director of the Melbourne University’s Centre for Jewish History
and Culture, wrote, “The Hamas victory has finally buried the 1993 Oslo Peace
Accords since that agreement bars the participation of armed groups that do not
recognise Israel. The 2003 Road Map to Peace can also be packed up for good
because the fundamental demand for dismantling of terrorist groups has been
violated...Only time will tell if Hamas is willing to deal with Israel and cast
off its genocidal aims for the sake of a true, lasting peace.” The Herald Sun
(January 30).
Andrew Bolt
pointed out, “Now the West can no longer be fobbed off. Hamas can disarm
terrorists and end attacks on Israel. It can end corruption and make peace. If
it does not, it is because it chooses not to try. And the West can punish it --
by ending its $1 billion a year in aid, as the US and Germany have already
warned. Hamas is in trouble. Most analysts agree it won last week because of
its promise of a cleaner, better government, not a war with Israel. It must
moderate or face death at the next election.” The Herald-Sun (February 1).
Prof. Barry
Rubin concluded, “The landslide victory of the Islamist group Hamas in the January 25
Palestinian elections marks the collapse of the Palestinian national
movement…The goal of a nationalist movement is to create a state for its
people, to provide a framework for security, economic development and cultural
identity. But Fatah, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation of which it was
a part, never made gaining a Palestinian state its priority. On the contrary,
the goal was one of total victory in which Israel would be wiped off the map…To
Israelis, the election results are dismaying, but not surprising. The great
majority, across the political spectrum, concluded after years of ‘peace
process’ with Fatah that there is no Palestinian partner for peace. Hamas's
triumph reinforces this expectation. Israel is ready to accept a Palestinian state
but Palestinians are not ready to accept an Israeli state…The challenge posed
by the Islamist defeat of the nationalists in Palestinian politics is not just
to Israel or the West but to all Arab nationalist regimes, whose combination of
radical incitement, denial of freedom, and administrative incompetence parallel
Fatah's ultimately suicidal policies.” The Sydney Morning Herald (February 2).
Former Federal Labor MP Barry Cohen wrote, “Before there is even a suggestion of
the resumption of peace talks, there will need to be a cease-fire. First,
between Fatah supporters and their leadership and then between Fatah and Hamas…
Since Oslo, Israel has had to put up with the nonsense from Fatah, firstly
under Yasser Arafat and then Mahmoud Abbas, that, while it wanted to make peace
with Israel (on unacceptable terms), it could not control the other factions -
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad et al. How convenient…If, on the other hand,
Hamas decides that it would prefer to continue with its ultimate goal of destroying
Israel then the violence will continue, resulting in more and more death and
injury and the continued suffering of the Palestinian people. There is only one
way Israel can be destroyed and that is by a nuclear bomb. Which brings us to
the real problem. Iran.” The Australian (February 2).
Former
Australian Ambassador to Israel, Paul Rodgers, wrote, “The primary target of
the Hamas electoral campaign was the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.
Formally, however, it remains committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Unless this changes its electoral win signals a decisive shift in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from a contest over land to a one between two
religions-Muslim versus Jew. Despite its Islamic colouration, Fatah was broadly
secular in outlook…The times and the personalities have changed- the language
and the rationalizations have not.” Canberra Times (February 2).
Hamas -
Blame the US and Israel
Amin Saikal,
professor of political science at the Australian National University, claimed,
“The electoral victory of the Islamic radical group Hamas underlines the
bankruptcy of the Israeli and United States approaches to handling the
Palestinian problem. Hamas' triumph comes as no great
surprise. It has been in the making for a long time. It has occurred partly
because of the growing incompetence and unpopularity of the secularist
Fatah-run Palestinian Authority over the past decade, but largely as a result
of the Israeli and American pressure to change the agenda of Palestinian
politics to their liking. This, together with Israel's intensifying efforts to
suppress the Palestinian resistance to its brutal occupation under the pretence
of fighting terrorism since September 11, 2001, has been instrumental in more
and more Palestinians turning to Hamas…Palestinians have met the challenge of
the Bush Administration to democratise...Hamas' rise to power has indeed
unfolded a political nightmare that Israel and the US cannot afford to
mishandle. It is time for sober heads to prevail in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Otherwise, they could face more humiliation and insecurity in the Middle East
than they have up till now.” The Age
(January 28).
Shahram Akbarzadeh, a senior lecturer at Monash
University, claimed, “More
than a decade has passed since the formation of the Palestinian Authority, and
Palestinians are no closer to a viable national state. This is, of course, not
the fault of Fatah leadership, at least not entirely. Fatah was caught in an
impossible position…The question now is whether a Hamas-dominated Palestinian
Authority will repeat the Fatah experience, or break the deadlock. Not
surprisingly, the answer will be found in Washington and Tel Aviv.” The
Australian (January 30).
On the eve of
the Palestinian election, George Negus interviewed then Palestinian Foreign
Minister Nabil Sha’ath, who blamed Fatah’s misgoverning on Israel. He said,
“There are some problems that Fatah faced as a result, as a direct result of
occupation, such as lawlessness. You beat it by better security force, by
better economic condition, by creating job opportunities and a political hope,
usually helped by the United Nations or by NATO or some other force. In our
case, Israel will not allow the equipping of a police force. Israel will not
allow a third party to come in with forces such as NATO or the United Nations.
The siege around Gaza is still on. Economic difficulties still abound and there
is no clear political hope.” The police force was sufficiently equipped, but
unfortunately often preferred to use that equipment to kill Israelis rather
than maintain law and order. Negus also interviewed Shimon Peres. Negus
expressed his skewed opinion of Ariel Sharon, asking, “This man who is regarded
by so many people as anything but a man of peace. A man who has been accused of
murdering women and children. A man who has been seen as the butcher of Sabra
and Shatilla. What was his motivation for suddenly feeling, at this point in
his life, that maybe he was an instrument of peace, not war?” Asked why he
thought Iran was so dangerous, Peres explained, “It's the greatest danger
because it is a combination of a very extreme group of religious fanatics that
think that they have the permission of law to kill other people. And then they
have - not only they're trying to build a nuclear bomb but also long-range
missiles. It's a world responsibility. They're a danger to the world. I don't
suggest that Israel will monopolise this danger. The picture is not as simple
as it looks because Iran is an extremely weak country. They are a broken nation,
they are a poor economy, the stock exchange, just a few weeks ago, fell down
30%, inflation is close to 20%, unemployment is close to 20%,” SBS TV “Dateline” (Jan 25).
Hamas
= Israel
Age and Sydney Morning Herald Middle East correspondent Ed O’Loughlin
had a long 1400+ word feature in both papers (Feb. 4) whose primary purpose
(despite some throwaway lines about how both sides need to “ask some tough
questions”) appears to have been to try to convince readers that Israeli
governments are just as bad as Hamas. O’Loughlin initially claimed to be merely
repeating what Palestinians say, but by the end of the piece, he had dropped
any pretence and was presenting the Palestinian claims as fact. Referring to
Israeli commentators denouncing “the Palestinians for electing a party that
rejects the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution…They forget that Israelis
did the same thing themselves in 1996…when arch-hawk and Oslo rejectionist
Benjamin Netanyahu displaced peacenik Shimon Peres,” he wrote. He came close to
comparing all Israeli governments to Hamas when he stated, “ Why should Hamas
formally recognise the legitimacy of a Jewish state in Israel when successive
Israeli governments have taken practical steps to block the creation of a
genuine Palestinian state?” In the context of his argument, he was clearly
supportive of Palestinian claims comparing Israeli self-defence to Palestinian
terrorism when he demanded, “Why, ask Palestinians, does nobody in the West
ever ask Israel to renounce the use of violence in pursuit of its political
goals?” O’Loughlin also argued dismissively that “Hamas’ violent, mystical and
antisemitic founding charter has been widely cited in Israel as proof that it
will never be prepared to moderate or negotiate, whatever its leaders may now
be saying,” implying that Hamas leaders now say they have a different policy,
which is not the case at all.
Based
on a True Story?
AIJAC’s Colin
Rubenstein argued, “The film’s [Munich] message is both historical nonsense and
morally dangerous. There is a world of difference, both ethically and legally,
between deliberately murdering the innocent to promote a political cause, and
carefully targeted attacks on armed terrorists. To ignore this distinction,
even in the service of a naïve ‘all violence is wrong’ premise that may feel
‘moral’, is to destroy the basis of the international laws of war which are a
vital foundation our civilisation.” The Daily Telegraph (January 30).
AIJAC’s Ted Lapkin wrote that while he usually enjoys thrillers,
“my testosterone-driven fun was ruined by the factual implausibility and thinly
veiled sanctimony that pervaded the film from start to finish,” Courier Mail (Jan. 27).
Emma Tom claimed, “Spielberg has been condemned for failing to make a moral
distinction between Palestinian and Israeli violence. But we don't need a
big-budget Hollywood movie to know that there's a point where it's no longer
helpful to argue about who started the fight or which side has the best
justification for slaughter. There's a point when it's just plain slaughter… In
the chilling, real-life war of the worlds centred on terrorism, the moral high
ground is one of the few fronts where the West could be assured of victory. But
as long as we cling to an ill-examined doctrine of kill-or-be-killed no matter
the cost, our claims to righteousness have as much substance as Bruce's rubber
jowls.” The Australian (February 1).
The
Solicitor-General of NSW, Michael Sexton, wrote, “It is possible to enjoy
Steven Spielberg's new film, Munich, as a thriller. But there are two important
points that it does not make. The first is that it does not highlight the moral
distinction between the killing of a group of athletes by members of a
paramilitary organisation and the later killing of some Black September
operatives by members of an Israeli security organisation. It is normal in a
wartime situation to expect soldiers to kill each other but not - by most moral
standards - to intentionally kill civilians… The Munich police would not allow
Israel to send a team to mount an assault on the building occupied by Black
September. We know, because all the captured athletes were ultimately killed,
that no result of such an attack could have been any worse than the final
outcome…The whole episode was a reminder to the Israelis of something they
already knew: that they could expect no sympathy in Germany and little in the
international community generally. Spielberg's film is careful to make no moral
judgments. That is his choice, but its audiences need to be aware of the
historical realities.” The Australian (February 1).
Dvir Abramovich, senior lecturer at the
University of Melbourne, argued, “Nowhere in the film is there historical
background or context. Decades of conflicts are reduced to clichés. Munich fails to mention that Israel
suffered a series of attacks before the Munich massacre…The image of the World
Trade Centre at the end of Munich seems to suggest that Israel’s
counter-terrorism policy of the 1970s led to the September 11 atrocities in
2001.” The Herald-Sun (February 1).
Andrew Bolt argued, “The most sinister
thing about this hyped film, with its noisy soundtrack of the wringing of
well-manicured hands, is not that it attacks Israel – although it does. Nor is
it that in telling how Israel hunted down the Palestinian terrorists
responsible for the Munich slaughter and other attacks on Jewish civilians
Spielberg presents fiction as facts – although he does that, too. No, the true
shame of Munich is that he spent nearly $100 million to make a seductively
deceitful film that warns we are evil if we fight back against the terrorists
trying to kill us… In fact,
killing even in self-defence makes us worse than the Palestinian terrorists who
tie up Jewish sportsmen and then machinegun them… Germany,
for instance, let go three of the Black September terrorists behind the Munich
massacre after Palestinian hijackers threatened to blow up a plane. France,
Greece, Italy and Cyprus all allowed Palestinian terrorism suspects to freely
roam their countries. Spielberg doesn't investigate that, of course. Giving in
to violence doesn't seem to shock him.” Herald Sun (February 3).
Ask the
Expert.
Kerry O’Brien interviewed Aaron Klein, an expert on Israeli military
intelligence who has just written a book about the aftermath of the Munich massacre, about the Spielberg
movie, “Munich”. Asked what the main difference between the film and the truth,
Klein explained, “The main goal of the Israeli [in the] movie is revenge.
Revenging - Israeli revenging the killing of the Israeli athletes in the Olympic
massacre. In my book, and the true story is that what Israel were conducting at
the time right after the Munich massacre was a campaign of counter-terrorism to
prevent the next terrorist attacks. It was prevention and not revenge.” He also
noted that, given the structure of the PLO at the time, “we can assume that
Yasser Arafat knew, in general at least, the details about or the plan for the
Munich attack,” ABC TV “7.30 Report” (Feb. 7).
Asked about
the portrayal of Mossad agents in the film as plagued by doubts, Klein replied,
“Well I've spoken with more than 50, as I said, more than 50 veterans of Mossad
and military intelligence and I must say that all those that I met and spoke
with are very proud of what they did. They are very proud, they have no
remorse, no second thoughts of what they did. They saw their work as the holy
work – they were protecting the people of Israel. This is the way they see the
whole incidence, the whole counter terrorism campaign that they were involved
with,” ABC Radio “The
World Today” (Feb. 13).
Cartoon Violence - Editorials
Sydney’s
tabloid noted, “These mad radicals should be denounced unreservedly, not issued
with alibis. Publishing the cartoon is about as clever as a university prank.
But the reaction it has invited is something else altogether,” Daily
Telegraph (February 7).
The national
daily concluded, “To have published in themselves may not have offended all
that many Australian Muslims ...The lesson from the controversy over the
publication of these cartoons is that each case should be treated on its
individual message. In defending free speech it is always appropriate to make a
stand on the issues that matter most.” The Australian (February 7).
Melbourne’s tabloid noted, “After seeing
embassies burned down overseas it was clear publication in Australia could have
provoked hotheads. Nonetheless, the violent reaction of Muslim extremists, out
of all proportion to the offence, does them no credit. The
Herald Sun is not afraid to fight for
press freedom. Most recently, two of our journalists have been prepared to go
to jail to defend it. But we remain convinced that our decision was the right
one and that publication of the controversial cartoons is not necessary to
demonstrate freedom of the press.” The Herald Sun (February 7).
Sydney’s broadsheet noted, “Freedom of
speech should be reinforced and promoted, but there are far finer causes to
uphold than the right to lampoon Islam. Nor is freedom of speech without proper
limits: it is not a licence to incite hatred or violence. Outdated national
media codes and anti-vilification laws have little clout in the borderless
domain of cyberspace. In cyberspace there lurks material to offend us all. The
most effective response may be to see the cartoons for what they are: crude,
poorly drawn, not funny and undeserving of such attention.” The Sydney
Morning Herald (February 7).
Melbourne’s
broadsheet noted, “The Age also reported that an Australian Catholic University
survey of year 10 students found more than half saw Muslims as terrorists (they
also admitted knowing very little about Islam). Little wonder many Muslims see
the ‘war on terror’ as a war on them. Their community is besieged by hostility
and suspicion, which helps explain why they want to make their hurt felt, as a
New Zealand protest organiser said. In response to the survey, Islamic Council
of Victoria board member Waleed Aly rightly said: ‘The only way you can combat
this kind of prejudice is on a personal level.’ The chairman of the Ethnic
Communities Council of Victoria, Phong Nguyen, stressed the need to foster ‘a
growing, mature understanding of the world and other people’. This cuts both
ways; Muslims are not the only people to have been offended, nor is theirs the
only community to harbour extremists, but few others have sought such fierce
retribution. The antidote to extremism is dialogue and understanding between
communities - whether their values are liberal secular or devoutly religious. The
Age's
handling of this issue reflects a long commitment to good intercommunal
relationships, which is the bedrock of Victoria's multicultural success story.
This is one of the great challenges created by globalisation, which must
necessarily be met at community level. Media and individuals of goodwill can
have no illusions about its importance,” The Age (February 7).
Cartoon Commentary
Amin
Saikal, professor of political science at the Australian National University,
claimed, “The publication of cartoons by a number of European newspapers
depicting the Prophet of Islam as a terrorist has been insensitive and
over-the-top. It can only deepen Muslims' distrust of the West and widen the
wounds that have opened in the relations between the two sides since the tragic
events of September 11, 2001…Radical Islamist clusters, most importantly al-Qaeda and its extremist
associates, must now expect more fertile ground ahead. They cannot but be
pleased to draw on the issue to supplement their exploitation of the Iraq
fiasco, Palestinian problem and the war on terror in order to galvanise more
support and recruitment in the Muslim world. One way now to soothe Muslim anger
is for the European Parliament to issue a strong condemnation of the
publication of the cartoons, and a collective apology. Otherwise the whole
development can tarnish the image of Europeans to the same level as that of
Americans. This does not augur well for restoring trust and understanding
between the West and the world of Islam any sooner.” The Canberra Times (February 6).
James Button
wrote, “At a protest in London on Friday, one young
person was dressed as a suicide bomber; some people carried placards calling
for beheading of the cartoonists. As a response it was fanatical and out of all
proportion. It also underlined Khader's point: publication has emboldened those
for whom the prospect of a clash of civilisations is enticing. On its own, that
is not an argument against publication. Causing offence, even rage, is an
inherent and necessary risk that goes with free speech. But the right to free
speech does not exist in isolation from other values, such as empathy and
respect. As a Guardian editorial says,
no Western newspaper would publish anti-Semitic cartoons of the kind that were
published in Nazi Germany and are still published in many Arab countries. Yes,
the editors were free to run the cartoons… It is impossible to see how the
cartoon wars have nudged the larger struggle in the right direction.” The
Sydney Morning Herald (February 7).
Sharham
Akbarzadeh, senior lecturer at Monash University, claimed, “The publishing
editor in Denmark argued that he had not violated any laws. He was right. Yet
the decision to publish these caricatures was grossly misjudged and went
against the spirit of the law. .. Street vandalism is a manifestation of
frustration and an ingrained sense of injustice. It reflects the extremely
debilitating culture of victimhood. This culture discourages involvement in the
social and legal processes that define the parameters of acceptable public
behaviour and dooms Muslims to helplessness and outbursts of frustration.
Mature and patient responses to editorial misjudgments are the best way to
dispel misconceptions about Muslims and help redefine the parameters of freedom
to suit the realities of multicultural/multifaith societies.” The Australian (February 7).
Former
AIJAC guest Irshad Manji wrote, “Fine, many Muslims will retort, but we're
talking about the prophet Muhammad - Allah's final and therefore perfect
messenger. However, Islamic tradition holds that the prophet was a human being
who made mistakes. It's precisely because he wasn't perfect that we know about
the so-called Satanic Verses; a collection of passages that the prophet reportedly
included in the Koran. Only later did he realise that those verses glorified
heathen idols rather than God. According to Islamic legend, he retracted the
idolatrous passages, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. When Muslims put
the prophet on a pedestal, we're engaging in idolatry of our own. The point of
monotheism is to worship one God, not one of God's emissaries. Which is why
humility requires people of faith to mock themselves - and each other - every
once in a while.” The Age (February 8).
Andrew
Bolt wrote, “Ameer Ali, the head of the Australian Federation of Islamic
Councils, added: ‘I also appeal to the Muslim community, on this pretext they
should not take law into their own hands and create any violence.’ This refusal
to publish does not represent the success of multiculturalism but its failure.
Habits of free speech good enough for generations of Christians, Sikhs,
Buddhists and Jews are too much for Muslims whose anger scares even their
leaders… Danish Islamic groups then sent delegates to the Middle East to
organise outrage against the country now their ‘home’, handing out copies not
just of these 12 mild cartoons, but three far worse ones of its own, including
one of a dog sodomising a praying Muslim. To that, add reports that the weekend
riots in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine seemed orchestrated and whipped up
by phone-text rumors that Denmark was about to burn the Koran. Now join the
dots -- Denmark is now a member of the UN Security Council, about to decide
what to do about Iran's nuclear program.” The Herald Sun (February 9).
Janet
Albrechtsen wrote, “If inciting feelings has become the new benchmark for free
speech, we only have ourselves to blame for that misunderstanding. So many of
the incursions on free speech in the West are driven by a well-meaning desire
to create a world free of offence. A universal nanny state where all is peace
and love, and never a cross word is spoken… Laws need to protect us from
violence, but not from hurt feelings. By all means, apologise for the offence
caused to Muslims by the 12 cartoons, but not for their publication. The former
is good manners. The latter is free speech.” The Australian (February 8).
Jill Singer
wrote, “Who wants a totally uncensored media run by those devoid of judgment,
taste or social responsibility? No, apart from fuelling Islamic extremism, the
fact is the cartoon fiasco has also given ammunition to non-Muslim bigots. Can
they really claim the moral high ground though, when they also seem eager for
war? They might do well to remember, particularly in
the current geo-political climate, that just because you possess a weapon it is
not always wise to use it.” Herald-Sun
(February 9). Miranda Devine wrote, “In Australia all but one
newspaper has refrained from publishing the cartoons because of the
uncharacteristically sensible desire not to inflame the madness, which has so
far resulted in nine deaths. But while we accommodate the intolerant, we seem
ever more determined to ferret out any whiff of intolerance in ourselves.
Witness the calls this week by a Victorian teachers union for cultural
re-education of children after a survey of 551 high school students found a
majority had negative attitudes towards Muslims… But antagonism to Western
culture appears in more subtle forms. In Melbourne recently the first training
course for home-grown Islamic religious leaders was launched at the Minaret
College in Springvale, funded by a reported $1.8 million of taxpayer money…
Teaching young Muslims that Australian society is evil is not a recipe for
cultural harmony.” The Sydney Morning Herald (February 9).
Andrew
Bolt noted, “The cartoons apparently weren't considered quite anger-making
enough, and the bussed-in Islamist protesters in Beirut were put in the proper
burning mood with phone-texted claims that Denmark was burning copies of the
Koran. Iran's extremist leaders, who are fighting off European attempts to wind
back its nuclear program, are also suspected of organising riots, while the
pro-Iranian protesters in the Gaza Strip seem astonishingly well equipped with
Danish flags for burning in front of the world's TV cameras…I saw no riots here
when Brisbane's Courier Mail, at least, ran one of the Danish cartoons last week, just
as I saw no riots in Egypt last year when the cartoons were run there. I take
heart that many of the rioters overseas had to wait to be given orders and fed
lies to start waving guns and burning things…To have published the cartoons
would have been a sign of faith in the Muslims of Australia and a stand for the
freedom to speak that so many Muslims overseas so desperately need.” Herald
Sun
(February 10).
Barney
Zwartz wrote, “Wassim Doureihi, the articulate Australian spokesman for the ultra-radical
Hizb ut-Tahrir group, agrees with Lewis. ‘There is no possibility of harmonious
co-existence between Islam and the West because there is a fundamental
conflict. Ultimately, one has to prevail,’ says Doureihi, whose group is banned
in several countries. It has few members in Australia but is influential
internationally. ‘There is Islam and the rest of the world, which we seek to
liberate and provide a moral example’…Melbourne Muslim spokesman Waleed Aly,
who last month returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca, says the feeling is
entrenched in the Muslim world that the ‘war on terror’ is nothing more than a
war on Islam. ‘That, rightly or wrongly, in much of the Muslim world is totally
incontestable. If you tried to argue against that you just wouldn't be listened
to,’ says Aly, from the Islamic Council of Victoria…So why has there been no
reaction in Australia? Simply, Australian Muslims have nothing to react
against, says Waleed Aly. Nor, according to Abdullah Saeed, does Australia have
the anti-immigrant feelings of many European countries. ‘Many Muslims in
Australia did not welcome the violence in Syria. In London we had demonstrators
calling for beheadings, but people are more sensible here,’ [Abdullah] Saeed
says.” The Age (February 11).
Brian Toohey concluded, “Muslim leaders overseas clearly face a difficult
task in trying to convince many of their followers to take a more relaxed
attitude towards affronts in Islam.” The Australian Financial Review (February 11).
Mark
Day noted, “The cartoons have so far stimulated a discussion about how we live
together and how we should share our gods in a world of religion-based cultures
and secular politics. If this leads to a greater understanding and tolerance,
then it's been for the good. But so far there's been one thing lacking: the
drawings, the key to the whole debate.” The Australian (February 9).
The
Other Cartoons
AIJAC’S
Ted Lapkin wrote, “It isn’t exactly as if religious bigotry is foreign in the
Arab world…From hooked-nosed Hebrew conspirators plotting world domination to
the medieval blood libel, the Arab language media resurrect vile evil myths and
stereotypes of ancient and recent Jewish history. But the Jews do not respond
to such systematic incitement to hatred by rioting in the streets. The real
offence to Arab sensibilities should come not from Copenhagen but from the
heartland of Middle East where autocrats use and abuse their own people. It is
time for Arab political culture to grow up.” The Courier Mail (February 15).
Josh
Massoud and Nick Craven wrote, “For Paul Gardiner, president of the
Jewish-affiliated Australian Anti-Defamation Commission, these anti-Semitic
comic strips are nothing new…This week, an Iranian newspaper opened tender for
12 anti-Semitic works… ‘This is the crux of anti-Semitism-when something goes
wrong blame the Jews,’ he said…Interestingly, the Australian Federation of
Islamic Councils has successfully managed to convince mainstream media here not
to publish the Danish cartoons. AFIC president Dr Ameer Ali said the censored
response showed the message of tolerance towards Muslims was getting through.” Daily
Telegraph
(February 9).
Waleed
Aly, an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria, stated, “But any
Danish (or more broadly Western) hypocrisy has comfortably been matched by
responses within the Muslim world. Many critics have justifiably pointed to the
Arab press publishing cartoons that move beyond criticism of Israel, and enter
the realm of rampant anti-Semitism. In Iran, in response to the Danish
cartoons, the Hamshahri newspaper is running a competition soliciting cartoons
denying the Holocaust. And while grave offence is taken at the disparaging of
what is sacred, by happily burning and defiling the Danish flag, a highly
symbolic act calculated to insult that which is emblematic of the nation,
protestors have indulged in what, in a secular context, is the very equivalent
of violating another's deity. The hypocrisy pervades even non-violent forms of
protest. The Muslim world was rightly outraged by the collective punishment of
UN sanctions on Iraq because the people suffered for the sins of their
government.” The Australian (February 11).
Cameron
Stewart wrote, “ The most glaring inconsistency about the protests is that many
Islamic newspapers through the world have for years published highly offensive
cartoons about Jews and the Jewish religion. One such cartoon in Egypt’s
largest daily newspaper, the government-controlled Al-Ahram, depicts laughing Jews
feeding Arab children through a grinder and then drinking their blood…In
Islamic eyes, the war on terror is little more than an excuse to subjugate
Muslims and the tough new anti-terror laws in Western nations such as Australia
are seen as being aimed squarely at Muslim minorities…[Amir Butler of AMCRAN]
believes the over-reaction to the cartoons have been counter-productive and
will damage the reputations of Muslims in the West. ‘The cartoons were a
transparent attempt to provoke Muslims into moving against free speech and we
should not have responded,’ he says…Perhaps the Western media is already
affording special protection to Islam.” The Australian (February 11).
Drawn
out Drama
After one of his cartoons comparing Israeli policies to the Nazi
Holocaust was entered into an Iranian contest for cartoons about the Holocaust
by someone from the ABC satirical program “The Chaser”, Age cartoonist
Michael Leunig, responded with self pity, “I’ve had more than a gutful of hostility
and hate mail in the past three years, all because I have resisted the rise of
fascism”. He added that after the whole affair made him think about dying, “God
came in from the paddock and placed a reassuring hand on my shoulder. An email
popped open; it was the Iranians. They were courteously apologising, they had
been co-operative. They cared,” The Age (Feb. 15).
Former Age Editor Michael Gawenda responded to Leunig,
criticising his failure to say anything about the actual Iranian competition: “It is of course, just a happy
coincidence that this view coincides, indeed reinforces, the brave stand of the
Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has fearlessly asserted that the
Holocaust is a myth cooked up by the Jews to justify the establishment of the
state of Israel which, God willing, will soon be destroyed. It is a coincidence
because no doubt Hamshahri is free to publish whatever it chooses because in Iran
under the Ahmadinejad regime, freedom of speech is a basic right. Right…The
competition has been described as one designed to ‘find a cartoon on the
Holocaust insulting to Jews’. This is a downright depressing way to
characterise this competition, for a ‘Jewish’ issue is a matter that concerns
not only Jews, as any form of racism offends more people than those against
whom it is directed…If Leunig needs an example of someone who has paid a real
price for journalistic bravery, who is a real victim, he should consider the
case of the Jordanian editor who ran one of the least offensive of the prophet
Muhammad cartoons to give his readers a sense of what is causing the outrage
and now sits in a Jordanian jail unsure of the charges against him or the
prison term that he faces.” The Sydney Morning Herald (February 16).
Piers Ackerman wrote, “[Leunig’s] selective sensitivities now leave me cold. That his
cartoons could slot so easily into an anti-holocaust competition run by a
newspaper under the control of a regime headed by a lunatic who has pledged to
wipe Israel off the map and who dismisses the deaths of some six million people
as a "myth" is something he should be really concerned about, not
whether his drawing was sent off without his permission…Free speech exists in
those nations you and your admirers like to mock as fascist, in the countries
where fascism is a feature of daily life, they place fatwas on cartoonists who
mock their religion.” Daily
Telegraph
(February 16).
Andrew
Bolt wrote, “It was back in
2002 that Leunig first drew this cartoon. The then editor of The Age refused to publish it, and a miffed
Leunig complained his editor ‘just didn't get it’. But I think Iran's popular Hamshahri newspaper certainly did. It was running
a mock-the-Holocaust cartoon competition to pay back Denmark for publishing
cartoons of the Prophet, when a hoaxer from the ABC's Chaser program, improperly claiming to be
Leunig, sent in the very kind of thing it seemed to want. It gratefully
published it. Interesting contrast, by the way. A Danish newspaper mocks Islam
for being violent, and an Islamist newspaper hits back by mocking Jews for
being dead. That's a warning… He calls the terrorist chief of Hamas ‘an old
Palestinian man in a wheelchair’, but says the elected leader of Israel who had
him killed is a ‘war criminal’. Perfectly illustrating his moral inversion, he
draws George W. Bush as bin Laden. I should not be too hard on Leunig
personally. It's his fans who are the worry, adoring a man who seems in hatred
with humanity and its works, finding peace only in a cult of nature.” Herald Sun (February 17).
Commenting on
his cartoon which parallelled Israeli actions on the West Bank with the Nazi
atrocities at Auschwitz, Michael Leunig said, “It’s not such an offensive
cartoon in essence. I stand by there’s an intelligent message in that cartoon.
It’s an anti-war cartoon,” SBS TV “News” (Feb 14).
“Middle Eastern appearance”
Joseph
Wakim, founder of the Australian Arabic Council, claimed, “Some argue the ‘Middle
East appearance’ label will force ethnic elders to be accountable. But this
cultural cop-out presumes ethnic elders have private police forces and secret
intelligence outside the Australian system. It is also argued that the label
must be used because it is often witnesses who initiate the description of
‘Middle Eastern appearance’. When they make such claims, police are trained to
elicit more objective details, such as complexion, eye colour, hair colour and
length, height, build and clothing. The advent of computer-generated images of
the suspect's face renders the racial labels obsolete. The Sydney Morning
Herald (February 1).
Palestinian Terrortory
Mary Kostakidis
announced, “The Palestinian militant group Hamas has held out the prospect of a
two state solution and a long truce with Israel, but only if the Jewish state
returns to its 1967 borders.” In her report, Vesna Nazor said, “There’s talk of
a truce, provided Israel withdraws from occupied land”. Neither of them
mentioned Hamas’ other demand – that Israel allows the return of the refugees,
which would mean the end of Israel, SBS TV “News” (Feb. 9).
Academic Ahmed
Shboul launched into some false equivalence, saying, “It was Likud under Ariel
Sharon that withdrew the Israeli forces from Gaza, so I can’t see why Hamas
doesn’t change in the same way,” SBS TV “News” (Jan. 27).
Academic
Fawaz Gerges did the same. He stated, “You know… as you know, when Ariel Sharon
was elected one of the arguments that was made by some Palestinians is that we
should not… they should not engage Ariel Sharon because Ariel Sharon was an
ultraconservative militant. I think the same argument can be basically applied
to Israel.” In relation to Israel’s elections, he was even more blatant,
saying, “The fear is that the Israeli electorate will respond to the sweeping
massive… I mean, victory of Hamas by electing an ultraconservative government
like Benjamin Netanyahu. This would be really a worst-case scenario, because
you're going to have two militant governments on both sides,” ABC Radio “The World Today” (Jan. 27).
Newsreader
Michelle Fonseca stated, “Hamas is blamed for scores of suicide bombings”.
(This equivocation was inappropriate – Hamas is guilty of those suicide
bombings, by its own admission, not just “blamed” for them), ABC TV “News” (Jan 27).
Adopting Hamas
phraseology, Prue Lewarne said that Hamas “refuses to back down from armed
resistance”. In the same report, she referred to Hamas leaders as having been
“assassinated”, SBS TV “News”
(Jan. 29).
Matt Brown
filed a good report about the anarchy in the Palestinian security forces,
tensions there in the wake of the Hamas victory and their failure to act
against terrorists. A Palestinian Security Forces Lieutenant tells him, “I will
never work with those responsible for killing my colleagues”, by which he means
Hamas. Brown notes, But while the world has been focused on Hamas, it’s been
ignoring the other main Palestinian militia. These men are all members of the
Palestinian Security Forces and their weapons are standard issue. They also
belong to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an armed off-shoot of Fatah, and like
Hamas, they too refuse to disarm. Al-Aqsa Brigades leader Abu Rayid says, ‘We
will obey Mahmoud Abbas, but we also have the right to continue to resist
Israeli occupation until Israel leaves our land.’ On the streets, the police
are fine at directing traffic, but they are fundamentally compromised when it
comes to taking on the Palestinian militia,” ABC TV “Midday News” (Feb. 1).
Fran Kelly
asked Hanan Ashrawi what would happen to the peace process in light of the
Hamas victory. She replied, “Well first of all there is no peace process. It
stopped the day Sharon took office almost six years ago, you remember. There
was no negotiation. There has been no talks. And there was nothing but
unilateralism. And even the Roadmap has not been implemented or honoured in any
way.” The peace process actually ended when Arafat unleashed his terror war,
months before Sharon’s election, and the reason the Roadmap has not been
implemented is that the first step is for the Palestinian Authority to
dismantle the terror infrastructure, and they have consistently refused to do
so. Ms Bailey then spoke to respected Israeli commentator Ehud Ya’ari, who
stated, “The end result [of the election] is that Hamas, a movement that says
they do not recognise the Oslo Agreement, that they oppose the very concept of
two states, of two nations, this movement is supposedly in power,” Radio
National “Breakfast”
(Jan 30).
Ali Kazak
wouldn’t accept that the Fatah run Palestinian Authority had a problem with
corruption, claiming, “Well, look, the whole thing about this so-called
corruption is over exaggerated. No doubt we do have corruption, but as much as
there is corruption in the United States or Australia or Israel or anywhere
else,” ABC TV “7.30
Report” (Jan. 27). However, Mark Willacy spoke to Ahmed al-Maghani, the
Palestinian Attorney-General, who is conducting an investigation into
corruption by Palestinian Authority officials. Willacy reported, “‘Just how
much money has been pilfered is a good question’, he says. ‘I believe the
amount to be close to US $700 million but it could be more. These millions have
been transferred into personal accounts here and abroad’, the Attorney-General
tells me,” ABC Radio “Correspondents
Report” (Feb. 12).
George Negus
asked Hamas’ leader in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar, whether it was still the case
that Hamas doesn’t believe in Israel’s right to exist. He replied, “The answer
should be from the Israeli side. Is Israel ready to give the Palestinian people
the right to live in the occupied territories of '67 including Jerusalem and
implement the right of return? The answer is well known now. Any recognition
will stand in contradiction with the attitude of the Palestinian people. I
think the attitude of the general population, including Hamas, is not accepting
the two states because we are not sure about the attitude of Israel, that they
are looking for genuine peace depending on implementation of justice in the
area.” In other words, Hamas will only consider accepting Israel’s right to
exist if Israel allows the return of the Palestinian refugees, which would mean
it ceases to exist, SBS TV “Dateline” (Feb. 1).
Mark Willacy
revealed that the Palestinians gunmen regard attempted murder a lot less
seriously than we do. He reported, “In recent days al-Aqsa gunmen have clashed
with Hamas militants, leaving several people wounded. But Hamas military
commander Abu Mohammad is playing the down the seriousness of the gun battles.
‘The clashes were small and not important, it was just some Fatah brothers
expressing their anger,’ he says. ‘There are no problems between our two
groups,’ says Abu Mohammad,” ABC Radio “AM” (Jan. 31).
Willacy
About That
It appears
that the ABC only became interested in the funding of terrorists by Saddam
Hussein once it emerged that some of the money may have come from the
Australian Wheat Board. Mark Willacy explained, “Rakad Salem was also Saddam
Hussein's bagman in the Palestinian territories, handing out a $US 10,000
cheque to each family of a suicide bomber. In 2004, a US Senate committee
report claimed the Iraqi dictator used bribes from foreign companies to fund
his so-called martyrs cheques. Earlier this month the Federal Opposition's
Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, called on the Howard Government to
investigate whether any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks
given to Saddam by the Australian Wheat Board, were channelled to the families
of suicide bombers. So, in a flight of fancy, I decided to ask the Israeli
Prison Service if I could interview Rakad Salem, the man who handed out Saddam's
cheques before being rounded up and jailed by Israel,” ABC Radio “Correspondents Report” (Feb. 19).
Willacy may
also have revealed more than he intended when he reported, “A'hed Hamoudeh's
family has sacrificed a lot for the ruling Fatah party. His brother Raed was
shot in the head by a sniper while confronting Israeli troops. His other
brother Ziad is in jail, convicted of the murder of two Israeli soldiers in a
gruesome lynching in the Ramallah police station six years ago.” It is
interesting that these activities were regarded as being “for the ruling Fatah
party”, ABC Radio “AM”
(Jan. 26).
Willacy also
inadvertently hinted at one reason why so much of the reporting from the West
Bank and Gaza tends to favour the Palestinians. He explained, “On the way [to a
job] I have to pick up my trusty fixer Richard Zananiri. He's my eyes and ears
in the Palestinian territories – he lines up the interviews and he also does
the translations, so without Richard, I'd be lost,” ABC Radio “Correspondents Report” (Jan. 29).
Drawn out Drama
Stephen
Crittenden spoke to Ibn Warraq, a pseudonym, the author of Why I am not a
Muslim, about the
Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons. Warraq noted, “It’s always Muslims who
are demanding special treatment, as though their sensibilities are more
important than everybody else’s. They’re being pretty hypocritical, they don’t
think about the sensibilities of the Jews when they produce the most horrendous
cartoons of rabbis killing children and sucking the blood of Arab children, and
so on…There are even series which have filmed the 19th century forgery, The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and it has been financed by the Syrian government, and it’s been
running and running on Arab television, all financed and approved of by the state.
This is the difference between the Islamic world and the West.” He also
mentioned the irony of a photo he had seen of a Muslim woman holding up a
placard saying “Behead those who say that Islam is a violent religion,” Radio
National “Religion
Report” (Feb. 8).
Fast Talking
George Negus of
“Dateline” interviewed Swiss Islamist Professor Tariq Ramadan about the
cartoons crisis. Asked if what was needed was for
both sides to “break through mutual ignorance”, Ramadan agreed, but added, “let
us not be naive - there is a political aspect of the whole question so here we
are also dealing with geo-strategic interest, political instrumentalisation and
it is not a question of ignorance here, it is a question that some political
parties, the far right parties and even what we have now with neo-cons in the
States using the whole idea that the other is a threat, that there is a war on
terrorism, the global ideology of fear, using this.” When Negus mentioned that
Ramadan had been accused of supporting suicide bombing (accurately) he
responded, “I never supported suicide bombings and there is not in my work. As
I am critical towards the policy of the state of Israel, the government of
Israel, of course some people don't like that so they are confusing the whole
picture because they don't want my words to be heard,” SBS TV “Dateline” (Feb. 8).
James Button wrote, “Iran has also been one of the peddlers of a huge amount of
anti-Semitic imagery and literature in the Middle East. It is an issue [Tariq]
Ramadan says Muslims must confront. ‘We are confusing the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict - a political conflict - with all Jews,’ he said. ‘The Holocaust is a
deep and hurtful part of the European conscience. Exploiting that and
exploiting a people who were hurt and treated in a horrific way - which is what
the Holocaust caricature campaign does - is not acceptable.’ [Tariq] Ramadan
wants Muslims to discard their view’ that the West is a lost civilisation with
no moral standards and no ethics". In turn, he wants Westerners to see beyond
the violence of a few. "Because the radical voices are loudest and are
covered more by the media, they have the upper hand. We have to turn up the
volume of reason." The Sydney Morning Herald (February 11).
Underground Terror
The ABC showed
a documentary recounting in a very factual manner the events of the terrorist
attack on London of July 7 2005. It concentrated mainly on the explosions and
their aftermath rather than any in depth examination of the terrorists’
motivation, training or how they came to associate with each other, providing
only brief backgrounds of each. It used first hand accounts from victims, those
on the scene immediately after the attacks and bereaved to effectively
communicate the horror of the attacks, ABC TV “7/7 Attack on London” (Jan. 30).
Return of the Hunter
The World’s
leading Nazi hunter, Dr Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, who was
in Australia as a guest of AIJAC, was asked about the lack of successful legal
action against alleged Nazi war criminals in Australia. He explained, “Part of
the problem was the very unfortunate decision to close down the Special
Investigation Unit on June 30th 1992. And it was particularly
unfortunate because about that time the archives in Eastern Europe, the Soviet
Union and the former communist countries were opening up for the first time and
there was free access to the documents and to the potential witnesses who could
have assisted…those archives could have provided a lot of very important
material which would have made prosecution far easier and far more successful,”
Radio National “Breakfast”
(Feb. 16).
On Lajos
Polgar, Dr Zuroff noted, “Polgar was in charge of the Arrow Cross headquarters
in Budapest, and he claimed that no crimes were committed in that building. But
it's very clear now that very serious crimes were committed in that building,
that Jews were tortured and murdered,” ABC Radio “AM” (Feb. 14).
In relation to
the other suspected Hungarian war criminal currently in Australia, Charles
Zentai, he said, “I can assure you that the Hungarian Government would never
have sought the extradition of Charles Zentai if there wasn't a rock-solid case
against him,” ABC Radio “PM”
(Feb. 14).
Zuroff’s revelations while in Australia led to significant stories
about the Zentai and Polgar cases in The Australian (Feb. 14,
Feb. 17, Feb. 18) and The Age (Feb. 16, Feb. 17, Feb. 18) as well as
other dailies.
No-one’s Pals
The ABC
screened a documentary about the plight of Palestinians in refugee camps in
Lebanon. As the film maker Stefan Markworth, an Australian who lived in Bourj
el Barajneh refugee camp for three months explains,
“Palestinians living in refugee camps like Bourj el Barajneh, have neither hope
for the future or an acceptable standard of living in the present. Lebanese regulations
continue to make it almost impossible to work or to gain an education. And
resettlement to another country is not an option for most, as Palestinians are
restricted from travelling.” One Palestinian explains that the UN keeps telling
them they will go back to Israel. Markworth claims, “There are now over 300,000
registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, 10% of Lebanon’s population.
Altogether, in the Middle East, there are more than 4 million registered
Palestinian refugees. These people have always expected to go back to
Palestine. Under international law they have the right to return.” In fact,
under international law, refugees are supposed to be settled in the nearest
convenient country if it is not possible for them to return to their original
homes, as is often the case in a nationalist struggle, not kept in limbo for
generations. In any event, under international law, only those who have fled
are refugees, not their descendants, their descendants’ descendants and their
descendants’ descendants’ descendants, so the actual number of refugees should
be around 200,000, ABC TV “Lebanon –
Out of Place, Out of Time” (Feb.6).
Syriantics
Matt
Brown reported on US concerns about Syria allowing terrorists into Iraq. Having
promised that Syria is monitoring the borders, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, a Syrian cabinet minister,
added, “I think it is the right of Iraqi people to fight occupation, although
we differentiate between fighting occupation and killing innocent people
through terrorist acts.” James Phillips, of the Heritage Foundation, revealed,
“Early in the post-war period there were Jihadists who were killed in battle
and they were found with passports that the Syrians had marked and under the
purpose of why they were going to Iraq, was written ‘to perform Jihad’,” ABC
TV “7.30 Report” (Feb.
14).
Dateline’s Ghraibs of Wrath
In the report in which she perhaps irresponsibly revealed further
photos of Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib, Olivia Rousset claimed,
“There have been ten government investigations into the abuse and torture of
detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, but no high ranking
officials have been held accountable.” She appears to have forgotten Brigadier
General Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the jail, but was demoted in the
wake of the scandal. The only interviewee for Rousset’s report was Amrit Singh
of the American Civil Liberties Union, a body highly critical of the US
administration, SBS TV “Dateline” (Feb. 15).
George
Negus interviewed Abdallah bin Serkal, a friend in Dubai who runs an open
mosque and who Negus described as a moderate Muslim but who stated that he does
not regard Hamas as terrorists. Negus expressed concern about what would
happen, “if the extremists in Israel got power, with Hamas in power in
Palestine.” Likud and Hamas are hardly equivalent, as Negus makes out, SBS TV “Dateline” (Feb. 15).
Generally Speaking
SBS screened a
three part series about Israel’s most prominent generals. The series, made by
an Israeli company in co-production with various European television stations,
as well as SBS, began with a look at Moshe Dayan. While interesting about the
life of the subject, much of the crucial background detail was oversimplified
or, at times, incorrect, generally to Israel’s disadvantage. The narrator
states that in a speech, “Dayan declared that because the Israelis had taken
the Arabs’ land, they would have to fight the Arabs.” They then played the
speech, in which Dayan said, “Our generation is settling the country, and
without the helmet and the gun, we cannot plant a tree or build a home”. There
is no reference to taking Arab land, and this is far from a necessary
implication of Dayan’s words. The Jews taking Arab land is a common theme
throughout the series. The Narrator states, “[In Dayan’s childhood, his home
town of] Nahalal was in Palestine, where Jews were starting to settle, but in
which Palestinian Arabs had lived for many generations.” There was no mention
of the continuous and substantial Jewish presence in what was then Palestine
for thousands of years. The program featured interviews with various family
members and contemporaries of Dayan, but the one heard most was far-left
activist Uri Avnery, who in this episode was described merely as a ‘political
journalist” and “former MP” and who blamed Dayan for Israel not making peace in
the 1950s, even though no Arab country would recognise it. On the 1956 Suez War
with Egypt, the narrator states, “Dayan and [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben
Gurion’s military strategy had been to goad Egypt into an early war.” In fact,
Egypt had been goading Israel by making threatening statements and assuming
control of Jordan’s and Syria’s armed forces, as well as allowing attacks from
its territory and blockading the Straits of Tiran – both generally considered
acts of war. The program was accurate on the causes of the Six Day War in 1967,
but then claimed that “Israel’s leaders hurried to annexe Jerusalem, defying
international law in the process.” Given that the war was a defensive war, and
that Jordan’s annexation of Jerusalem was not internationally recognised,
Israel had at least as much right to Jerusalem as any other country, quite
apart from the historical connection. The annexation was not, therefore, in
defiance of international law. Further, the series failed to mention that
Israel offered to return the rest of the land but the Arab League responded
with the ‘three nos” – No recognition, no negotiation, no peace. The program
looked at Dayan’s charisma and massive popularity in the wake of the war. It
examined the harsh measures he took against Palestinian guerrillas and the
efforts he made to ease Palestinian conditions, including opening borders with
Israel and with Jordan. It also charts his fall in popularity in the wake of
the Yom Kippur War, in which Israel was taken by surprise, suffered heavy
losses and almost defeated, his return to government as Begin’s Foreign
Minister, the role he played in achieving peace with Egypt and his final
resignation, in 1980 through frustration at the lack of progress on limited
Palestinian autonomy, SBS TV “Israel’s Generals: Moshe Dayan” (Feb. 7).
The second
instalment, about Yitzhak Rabin, was more of the same, except this time Avnery
was referred to more accurately as “journalist, activist”. It speaks about
Israel clearing villages and driving out Arabs in the 1948 war, but never
mentions why the war took place – because the Arabs refused to accept the UN
partition plan or Israel’s right to exist and, instead, attacked it. It covered
Rabin’s career as Chief of Staff in which his preparation of the Israeli Forces
allowed them to triumph so convincingly in 1967, and his subsequent posting as
Ambassador to the USA before becoming Prime Minister in 1974 upon Golda Meir’s
resignation. It also covered his battle to prevent illegal settlements in the
West Bank and his eventual backdown which, according to the program, “opened
the floodgates for the settlers’ movement. They proceeded to settle every hill
in the West Bank. (Every hill?!) From being a potential negotiating card, the
settlers turned the occupied West Bank into an intractable obstacle to peace.”
Of course, at the time the Arabs were without exception still refusing to even
recognise Israel, so perhaps the use of a negotiating card was not so obvious,
but the program ignores this point. It then jumps to 1987, missing his loss of
the Prime Ministership, and the narrator states, “Rabin, now Minister of
Defence, refuted the national aspirations of the Palestinians. This was
immediately followed by a statement which he made in 1974, as shown by the
caption. He had said, “They have in mind to build a Palestinian state on the
expense of the existence of Israel. We will never accept it because we never
considered national suicide as an international obligation.” Here, Rabin is
merely explaining that the Palestinians must accept Israel’s right to exist,
which they had not. It showed Israeli soldiers beating Palestinians during the
first Intifada and explained that the violence made him realise he would have
to negotiate with them. It said that, as Labor leader campaigning in the 1992
election, he “promised to shake up the country after years of stagnation under
right wing governments.” In fact, the previous government had been a government
of national unity in which Labor had shared power and for half of which Shimon
Peres had been PM. Azmi Bishara was captioned as “Palestinian MP” whereas he is
in fact an Israeli MP, representing an Arab party. It then covers the process
of recognising the PLO and concluding the Oslo agreement, the increasing
turmoil in Israel and the demonising of Rabin by the far right, leading to his
assassination, SBS TV “Israel’s
Generals: Yitzhak Rabin” (Feb 14).
Moderately
Extreme
AIJAC
guest Steven Emerson was interviewed by Ellen Fanning about the role he and his
organisation, the Investigative Project, play in monitoring and uncovering
Islamist extremists. He described his mission as being to “wake up Western
societies to the deception carried out by radical Islamic clerics and leaders in
the hearts of Western societies…where they pretend to be moderate, but in fact
harbour an ulterior agenda, and that’s very dangerous to public discourse,” Channel
9 “Nightline” (Feb. 19). Mr Emerson also appeared on 3AW’s Hinch program on Feb.
10 and Sky News on Feb. 15.
