theage.com.au reports the latest in this shameful saga:
"US peace activist Scott Parkin wants to leave Australia but remains in solitary confinement because the immigration department refuses to deport him, his lawyer said today.
"Julian Burnside, QC, told theage.com.au that Mr Parkin had been told by immigration officers that his deportation would be brought forward if he dropped his appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal to find out why his visa was revoked.
"Mr Burnside described this as "factually false and legally improper".
"What they're doing, in effect, is saying 'Alright, we'll hold you here in solitary confinement until you dump your action', and that's outrageous," he said."
Anybody care to suggest how Parkin might be a "threat to national security"?
Brian Walters, SC, president of Liberty Victoria, writes an impassioned article on what this all says about Australia in 2005:
"It is our tolerance of a wide range of views that gives our nation so much of its strength. Our ability to hear and open our minds to even radical views makes us stronger - not weaker."
Peace Now documents the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements across the West Bank, the building of Jewish-only roads, government support for illegal outposts and the effect of the "security" fence on Palestinians.
Israel is clearly very serious in its search for peace.
"General (res.) Doron Almog, former head of the Israel Defence Forces' Southern Command, escaped arrest Sunday by the London police's anti-terrorist and war crimes unit, when he remained on an aircraft that had landed in Heathrow airport and returned with it to Israel several hours later.
"Almog had arrived in London on an El-Al flight. Israel Ambassador Zvi Hefetz learned of a plan to arrest him for allegedly perpetrating war crimes during the intifada, and quickly informed Yaki Dayan, head of the political department in Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's bureau."
People like Almog will soon learn that pursuing the "war on terror" comes at a very high price. Western leaders should not be immune from international prosecution. I can think of a few others to add to the current list.
Australia has one of the more tightly controlled media environments in the world. Dissenters are routinely ignored, silenced or shunned. Every now and then a figure appears - such as John Pilger on last night's ABC Lateline - that reveals the paucity of our debate.
He began:
"You [Australia] have probably one of the most restricted medias in the Western World. Journalists are very close to politicians. Presumably, that's why the whole question of state terrorism, of Howard making Australia a target for terrorists, has not been debated at all. It's just been left off the agenda."
Host Tony Jones wasn't sure what to make of that and Pilger reminded him that he'd only been invited onto the show to be the token "dissenting voice." When he was on the program in 2004, the renowned journalist and author rightly argued that any country when attacked had the right to resist. He explained last night:
"Australia had a right to resist the Japanese in the Second World War, Britain had the right to resist the Germans, and the Iraqis have a right to resist the attack on their country. Resistances are often appalling. They do appalling things. Often, as appalling as the attackers, but the truth is in Iraq is that the overwhelming number of people who have been killed, maimed and dispossessed in that country since April 2003 have been done by the so-called coalition, of which Australia is a member. That's an issue that really is at heart of this. Now, you know, whether I'm prepared to go to jail - I'm always prepared to go to jail for speaking the truth. I think that's what journalists should do. You know, democracy and freedom of press is entwined in Australia."
After dismissing Howard's "anti-terror" laws - unsurprisingly fully supported today by quasi government proxy, Gerard Henderson - Pilger reminded viewers that Britain's Law Lords maintained greater independence than our High Court and would therefore provide greater scrutiny to Blair's "draconian" measures.
Finally, he articulated the great unspoken truth when debating terrorism: state terrorism:
"If we're talking about terrorism, left off the debate, left out of the debate, is state terrorism. The fact that Australia enthusiastically joined a rapacious, illegal attack on a defenceless country in which tens of thousands of people died. That under international law, under the Nuremberg enactment that formed the basis for international law all those years ago, that is an illegal, rapacious and an act, in effect, of terrorism. Why is that not included in the debate on terrorism, because in the end state terrorism absolutely dwarfs the Al Qaeda variety, which is minuscule compared with the kind of bloodshed and suffering and attack that has gone on in Iraq."
Don't expect similar debates to occur regularly in "comfortable" Australia.
Khalid Hatair (Kuwaiti) was found unconscious in his cell when Military Police wanted to give dinner food. He was ill because of the hunger strike. He was taken to hospital. 3pm. Shammrani was taken to Investigation and asked why the hunger strike. He told her disrespect to all religious rituals and this is the fourth year in prison without any charges.
Thursday 28
About 4 am I received early morning food before dawn for fast. It was very good. They changed it. It may cost the same price as before. But was cooked for humans this time. Yesterday [****] came back from meeting his attorney. He said three bombs hit London city. I am thinking who will put such bombs in London in this time!! I do not see how such bombings in London can enhance any Islamic cause. Britain is the best country in the world in treating its Muslim minorities and provides refuge to many others. I am sure the majority of British public are against any war...Because of this I would conclude no [true] Islamic group would want to bomb London.
Yahoo, clearly keen on being taken seriously as a news provider, has hired journalist Kevin Sites to report on the world's war zones. Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone will provide audio, video and written commentary on Site's year-long journey to "every armed conflict in the world."
Sites is a gutsy journalist and will no doubt provide intriguing insights during his travels. His "declaration of principles" makes for interesting reading. This sounds encouraging:
"We will be aggressive in pursuing the stories that are not getting mainstream coverage and we will put a human face on them. We will not chase headlines nor adhere to pack journalism but vigorously pursue the stories in front of and behind the conflict, the small stories that when strung together illustrate a more complete picture."
Writing about Israel/Palestine is a challenging experience. I'm dealing with censorship-baiting parliamentarians, abusive calls from a Jewish "comedian" and now pathetic hate-speak from "Jews Must Die". Check out their website. The following are just some of the comments I've received in the last 24 hours:
- "you have been a naughty boy anthony i am watching"
- "i bet you would drop your pants and bend over for fisk wouldnt you anthony. jew fag. if everything is so bad in australia why dont you fuck off and go live in palestine you cockhead."
- "you're the nazi anthony you fucking mental midget. who's side are you on anyway? THINK about it toolhead"
I've decided to leave the comments on my blog. I believe readers should see the kind of person behind the statements (and discover their inability to use punctuation.)
I'm now hated by neo-Nazis thugs and pro-Israel advocates. It's an unenviable and taxing position, to be honest, but I have no intention of backing down from speaking truth to power (thank you Edward Said). The number of supportive calls and emails I'm receiving underscore the large amount of people in the community who are desperate for an honest debate on Israel/Palestine.
"Looking back on the years of the occupation, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that there had been a march of folly here, which not only did not achieve any national goals, but also inflicted huge damage on the state, society and economy. The occupation regime imprinted a negative seal on society's norms and values; hundreds of dead were sacrificed in order to defend it, and billions were spent in order to build settlements with no expectancy for their continued existence.
"In 1967 and in the first few years of the occupation, only a few public figures predicted the negative results and demanded that the territories be related to as a deposit, which would be returned in the framework of peace negotiations. All Israeli governments and official institutions and a large majority of the public were stricken with blindness, which is difficult to understand in retrospect. The government decisions from yesterday to leave the synagogue buildings in the Gaza Strip standing is nothing but the final death rattle of the march of folly.
"The damage and price caused by the occupation also exist in the rest of the territories Israel occupied in 1967. The tremendous importance of Israel's exit from Gaza is not only leaving a crowded area that is a center for terror, but also because it is a first step toward the country's convergence into reasonable borders. These must be determined according to demographic and security tests, but also must allow the existence of a sovereign Palestinian state and give expression to Palestinian national aspirations. This means that sooner or later, Israel will have to leave the vast majority of the Judea and Samaria territories in the West Bank, and allow the state of Palestine to establish its capital in East Jerusalem.
"Although this was not Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's declared intention when he initiated and carried out the disengagement, the exit from the Gaza Strip is a very significant step on the long road to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Now Israel is entitled to expect that the PA will respond to the Israeli move with steps of its own that will bring peace a step closer. For this, the PA will have to promise, first and foremost, that the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel will be quiet, so that there will no longer be any need for the IDF to cross it, as well as carry out what is required of it according to the road map. If it does so, the chances are good that in the foreseeable future, the exit from Gaza will not be Israel's last exit from occupied territories."
The paper's suggestions should be heeded. The Palestinian Authority does have responsibilities, and so does Israel. Haaretz can discuss the "road map" as much as it wants, but it died years ago. Until Israel's occupation ends, chances of true peace are minimal at best.
As the Howard government detains a peace activist as a "security threat" and the Muslim community expresses concern that they will be unfairly targeted by proposed anti-terrorism legislation, journalist David Langsam sent this as-yet unpublished letter to the Melbourne Age:
Prime Minister John Howard's "Nuremberg laws" of 2005 frighten me. They frighten me enough to urge a campaign of civil disobedience against them before we are locked up for writing letters to The Age urging civil disobedience.
Born in Australia of Polish Russian Jewish parents, naturalised as Australians before I was born, with three children born in Australia, I acquired British citizenship while living in London under the Paul Keating reform of the immigration laws to assist Australians working overseas. I reacquired my Australian citizenship the next day.
Under this draconian legislation, the Australian Prime Minister says that dual citizens can be stripped of their Australian citizenship by the whim of one his ministers. Will I be answerable to Vanstone, Ruddock or hell herself, Bronwyn Bishop?
Will this proposed legislation also include incarceration for the crime of "defiance"? While I do not regularly wear a kippah, I am concerned that along with Orthodox Jews laying tefillin (leather prayer straps sometimes mistaken for radio transmitters by military dictatorships) my occasional visits to synagogue will be seen as unusual and possibly defiant.
It is breathtaking that the legislation was announced at the height of the tumult over Telstra and I cannot help but think that the Prime Minister has thrown a massive smokescreen of terrorism over Telstra, to avoid unwanted questions.
This whole terrorism in Australia nonsense has gone way too far. There has only been one act of terrorism in Australia - the Hilton Hotel bombing - and most people have good reason to believe it was perpetrated by ASIO. Australian journalists have had to work very hard indeed to get foreign Islamic extremists to include our country as a target which it unequivocally was not until John Howard attempted to make it one.
Every measure this Government takes is counterproductive. I want our airports returned to the people, now that we know that terrorists have learned how to buy train and bus tickets. Strip-searching at the football and bag searches at the Big Day Out just seem so in keeping with John Howard's campaign against the Australian lifestyle.
Perhaps we should start with the Age cartoon (was it Leunig or Tandberg?) and have a mass naked demonstration at all Australian Parliament Houses. Vanstone and Bishop can keep their clothes on.
Green Left Weekly reports on the attempt by Federal Labor MP Michael Danby to silence my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine:
ALP MP advocates ban on anti-Zionist book
Kim Bullimore
In a letter to the August 25 Australian Jewish News (AJN), federal Labor MP for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby launched a “pre-emptive strike” on a yet-to-be published book, Voices of Reason, which explores the pro-Israel lobby in Australia and is critical of Israeli government policy. Danby called on the publisher, Melbourne University Press, to “dump the whole disgusting project” and for the Jewish community and the AJN to boycott the book should it be published.
The author, Jewish anti-Zionist journalist Antony Loewenstein, told Green Left Weekly that Danby’s attack was “typical of people who are blindly supportive of Israel. There is no room for dissent or questioning that official orthodoxy.”
“These sort of people don’t want discussion, because discussion is threatening. Discussion means that more people are aware, or might become aware, of what actually does go on over there: What does occupation mean, what does it mean that Palestinians often have to wait hours at checkpoints in searing sun, what does it mean that women often have to give birth at checkpoints and often die? They don’t want people to know that, for obvious reasons, because it’s shameful. And they know if more people find out that kind of stuff, their view about Israel and the relationship between Australia and Israel could change.”
In a letter to the online journal Crikey, Danby defended his attempt to censor Voices of Reason, despite it not being published for another nine months. Danby said that he didn’t “need to read Mr Loewenstein’s book to know what he thinks”.
This isn’t the first time Danby has attacked, sight unseen, work whose author or ideas he finds disagreeable. According to the September 5 Age, Danby slammed David Hare’s acclaimed play, Stuff Happens, which criticises George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, despite not having seen it. In 2004, Danby also slammed Margo Kingston’s Not Happy John, to which Loewenstein contributed.
Louise Adler, CEO of Melbourne University Press (MUP), criticised Danby and the AJN, saying, “I am dismayed that a fellow publisher such as the AJN gives space for proposals to boycott ideas”. Adler also said that comments attributed to her in Danby’s letter were “pure invention and palpable nonsense”.
With the controversy growing, Danby now denies he attempted to censor Loewenstein. His rewriting of events is similar to that of Alan Dershowitz, who outraged the American academic and publishing industry earlier this year when he launched a campaign to stop the publication of Beyond Chutzpah, the latest book by American Jewish anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein. Dershowitz has since denied he asked California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to stop the University of California Press publishing the book.
WHEN: Thursday 29 September 2005 TIME: 6.00pm - 7.30pm WHERE: Basement Theatre, Sidney Myer Asia Centre, The University of Melbourne (corner of Swanston Street and Monash Road) ENTRY: Free of Charge RSVP: To reserve a seat, please send an email to: events@asialink.unimelb.edu.au with "Fisk" in the subject line. ENQUIRIES: Please contact Asialink on (03) 8344 4800
The following review appears in today's Sydney Sun Herald:
What makes a human bomb tick
Reviewed by Antony Loewenstein September 11, 2005
Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic Of Suicide Terrorism Robert Pape (Scribe, $35)
BACK in June, Britain's foremost foreign correspondent, Robert Fisk, noted something extreme about the conflict in Iraq: "How many suicide bombers have now immolated themselves against the Americans and their mercenaries and the new Iraqi army and the new Iraqi police force and their recruits? The figure appears to stand at around 420. Back in the days of Hezbollah's war against Israeli occupation in Lebanon, a suicide bomber a month was regarded as phenomenal. In the Palestinian intifada, one a week was amazing. But in Iraq, we reach seven a day; Wal-Mart suicide bombing that raises the darkest questions about our ability to crush the uprising."
It is a phenomenon that interests University of Chicago professor Robert Pape and his latest study challenges Western understanding of suicide bombing and its motivations. Al-Qaeda is stronger today than before 9/11, he argues, because more than 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world are, in fact, not about religion but serve a specific strategic purpose, namely to pressure countries to withdraw military forces from occupied territory. Despite the rhetoric suggesting an irrational opponent hell-bent on Western destruction, Pape offers a perhaps more confronting reality. As he told ABC TV's 7.30 Report in July, "the link between anger over American, British and Western military forces stationed in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaeda's ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us couldn't be tighter".
Pape has compiled a database of every suicide bombing from 1980 to 2003 315 attacks in total. There is little connection between Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism, he writes, and finds that the leading instigators of suicide attacks are Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist group opposed to religion. They committed 76 of the 315 attacks, more than Hamas.
Pape is brave enough to state that although September 11 was a horrific event it was not unique. Non-Western nations had been suffering under the yoke of similar attacks for years but it took the lethal swipe at America's heartland to awaken some in the West to the idea that terrorist strikes come for a reason. The world may have shifted for George W. Bush and his supporters, but many others know well the tragedy of indiscriminate killing.
There were 36 suicide attackers in Lebanon between 1982 and 1986, many directed at the Israeli and American occupation. Pape finds that 71 per cent of the attackers were, in fact, Christian with only 8 per cent Islamist. "What Lebanon's suicide attackers share is not ideology," he writes, "or organisational indoctrination, but simply a common commitment to resist foreign occupation. Alliances among disparate groups and individuals are common in nationalist rebellions".
The most fascinating chapter in the book explores the background of three suicide attackers, their lives and possible reasons behind their action. Saeed Hotari killed 21 Israelis outside a nightclub in Tel Aviv in 2001. He came from a poor Palestinian family and resented the Israeli occupation. Before his death, he left a statement that reveals his thinking: "If we don't fight, we will suffer. If we do fight, we will suffer, but so will they."
This Australian edition of Dying To Win includes the Bali bombings and the ramifications. Pape urges an understanding of the motives behind all suicide attacks and a rejection of the simplicity of John Howard, who announced in the wake of the July 7 London attacks that "we are freedom-loving people" and our foreign policies would not change in the face of such atrocities.
The Independent's Patrick Cockburn outlines the mindset of the Bush administration in both Iraq and New Orleans:
"Again and again in New Orleans, as in Baghdad, the White House seems to be fatally detached from reality. In both places there is an inability to take on board bad news. A politically moderate Iraqi businessmen told me this week how he'd met a delegation of neo-conservatives from the Heritage Foundation in Washington at the time of the elections in Iraq.
"He explained to them that he would not vote because the poll would be just an ethnic or sectarian headcount of Kurds, Shia and Sunni which would increase hostility between communities. The war would get worse. My friend recalled that as he tried to explain the reality of Iraq to these Republican true believers, their faces became steadily more hostile. "They really were people who saw any disagreement with Bush as a sign of hostility to the US," he reflected sadly.
"A striking feature of Baghdad is that for all the billions of dollars spent here since the fall of Saddam there is hardly a new building under construction. Nobody knows what happened to the money, vastly greater than that supposedly purloined by Saddam under UN sanctions which has been so assiduously investigated in New York. Most of Baghdad is getting four hours of electricity blackout and two hours' erratic supply before the cuts begin again."
"Readers should not be worried if they missed the Prime Minister's statement of Australia's core beliefs. It was easy to do. We will not repeat them here because, to be frank, we can't quite recall what they were. His list of beliefs seemed a bit like some of Mr Howard's own promises: with all the business about core or non-core, they get a bit elusive. It is enough to know the Prime Minister thinks he believes something. That will reassure the emotionally needy in the community. The rest of us will just have to cope with our suspicion that Mr Howard believes unshakeably in whatever gets him what he wants. Everything else is just spin."
The Guardian relaunches in a Berliner style and articulates a vision for a truly 21st century newspaper. The British broadsheet is far from a perfect institution - Medialens has long accepted that - but at least it seems to know what it stands for, whom it represents and the values it serves.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has told Barbara Walters on American ABC News that his pre-war speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of building weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record.
""I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now...the intelligence system did not work well...There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up."
Powell was being disingenuous. He would have been aware of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity who spoke out publicly against faulty intelligence before the war. And former intelligence officer Scott Ritter was equally forceful, even claiming the WMD inspection process was rigged to create uncertainty over WMD and bolster the US and UK's case for war.
Let's not forget the telling comment by a Bush "senior adviser" to author Ron Suskind in 2002:
"...We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality, we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
John Howard's declaration of war against "terrorist incitement" is heating up and today's Australian (unintentionally) outlines the absurdity of the proposed changes:
"John Howard said yesterday the new offence would enable legal action to be taken against those who incite violence, including terrorist acts, against the Australian community, including against forces overseas and in support of Australia's enemies.
"Under this model, someone saying they supported Osama bin Laden would not be guilty of an offence, but someone who urged bin Laden and al-Qa'ida to "wage holy war" on Australian troops in Iraq or Afghanistan would be. A person wearing a T-shirt sporting the slogan "I hate Australians" would also escape prosecution but a person wearing one urging "All good jihadists to kill Australians" would not.
"But the law could also be problematic for the media if, for example, their reports about mistreatment of prisoners of war, as happened in the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, led to a backlash against Australian troops."
Perhaps Howard has been getting advice from David Horowitz, one of America's leading conservative commentators. Reading him is like hearing a belligerent, frightened, panicky and paranoid family member. Best to ignore him, in other words, but his strong desire to shut down dissent in America - his bio claims he is an "outspoken opponent of censorship" - and punish "enemies" of America resonates with the times and is the spirit in which Howard introduces his draconian legislation.
"This war is not based on lies as the left claims. It is, however, a war that has been betrayed by the leadership of the Democratic Party which authorised it, but then turned against it when Howard Dean soared to the top of the polls. The result of this unprecedented betrayal of America in time of war has been the confusion of millions of Americans who trust the leadership of the Democratic Party. This confusion is more than dangerous. It is undermining the morale of our troops and encouraging our terrorist enemies to think that they can win this war if they kill enough Americans and Iraqis in the Middle East.
"The malicious campaign of the left to attack the war to liberate Iraq as a war “based on lies”... is in effect a psychological warfare campaign conducted against this country and its men and women in arms. Its aim is to sap the will of America to fight its enemies in Iraq – and not only in Iraq. If [Cindy] Sheehan and the left are successful in their seditious effort to force an American surrender to the terrorists Iraq, we will be forced to fight them in our own country, in which case tens of thousands of Americans may die, and...Sheehan will be among those responsible."
A strong and rational argument, to be sure. His "goals" in Iraq include providing "the Iraqis with as much democracy as they can handle." The facts on the ground, and the ever-growing insurgency, are the direct result of Bush administration policy, and not, as Horowitz laughably suggests, because of the Left or Cindy Sheehan.
Howard needs to think very carefully before he implements his latest legislation. If he believes that outlawing "incitement" under his intentionally vague definitions will stop the chance of a terrorist attack in Australia, he is sadly mistaken. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and he may soon find the jails very full with any number of journalists, writers, academics, citizens and true patriots. Horowitz makes it very clear that he believes anti-war activists are "conducting an unprincipled and open-ended war – at this point mainly a propaganda war – against [their] own country". He chastises the media for the Abu Ghraib scandal because it embarrassed the government, not because of the revelations.
We should be under no illusion that Howard wants to marginalise dissent to government policy, especially foreign policy objectives. He, like Horowitz, regards this legitimate political protest as "treasonous". I know what my response will be.
The following exchange, between Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and ABC Triple J, occurred on February 20, 2003. Australia was about to launch an attack on Iraq:
COMPERE: Are we turning our backs and covering our eyes about weapons of mass destruction in another nation in the Middle East, Israel?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well Israel isn't a rogue state, is it? Israel is a liberal democracy. It's never used weapons of this kind or transferred…
COMPERE: But they…
ALEXANDER DOWNER: …of this kind to any other country or used against his own people or used it against - those weapons against its neighbours. I mean to compare Israel with the brutality of Saddam Hussein: That's part of the problem with the debate. You've got to be kidding.
COMPERE: But hang on a second.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: You've got to be kidding.
COMPERE: You said the greatest danger to the modern world is weapons of mass destruction.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: It's the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
COMPERE: Exactly, the proliferation of those continue to go on in Israel. Surely…
ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, no, they're not going on in Israel. Israel aren't passing nuclear technology to other countries. I've no evidence of that.
COMPERE: But they're building up their weapons.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: They're not passing chemical, biological and…I mean there are two things about Israel. I think actually, if I may say…
COMPERE: But they have a huge weapons program, don't they?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: …if I may say so, I think it's absolutely preposterous to compare a liberal democratic regime like Israel's which operates under the rule of law with a brutal dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's, number one. And number two, I mean will people never learn? Saddam Hussein has used these weapons against his own people. Does that not matter to some people?
COMPERE: So you believe it's okay for Israel to have weapons of mass destruction because you don't believe they're going to use them?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well first of all, I don't think it's okay. I think it would be preferable if they didn’t have them. But there aren't any United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that Israel disarms. There are Security Council resolutions demanding that Iraq does. But I suppose people could say, it doesn't really matter about the Security Council. It's just a debating society. I feel more strongly about it than that. I hope that these Chapter 7 resolutions will be adhered to by Iraq. But let's wait and see.
Israel "operates under the rule of law"? Israel is a "liberal democracy"? Earlier in the interview, Triple J asked Downer whether, like Chile and Iran in decades past, the US would install a US-friendly regime in Iraq. "The United States doesn't have the thought here of putting in place any particular type of administration", Downer replied. Clearly, he believed his own propaganda.
"When Harvard Law Professor and self-described civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz asked Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to stop the University of California Press from publishing Beyond Chutzpah, he unleashed a pre-publication firestorm. It becomes clear after only a few chapters why Dershowitz sought to suppress this book. Finkelstein so thoroughly demolishes Dershowitz’s credibility that, if this were a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight in the third round and declared Finkelstein the winner by technical knockout."
- US Vice President Dick Cheney was given a warm southern welcome during his belated visit to the Katrina hurricane zone.
- US-based Project Censored compiles the ten stories the mainstream media ignored over the past year.
- Dissenting historian Howard Zinn discusses American resistance over the decades and the bravery of those who question government's reliance on military solutions. He reminds readers that George W. Bush may soon face the same problem experienced by Vietnam War leaders: "After a while, [President Lyndon] Johnson and [Vice President Hubert] Humphrey couldn't go anywhere except military bases."
- Encouraging signs that Pakistani women may be more forthcoming in reporting sexual violence.
- What happens when a nuclear weapon detonates? The US Government has a few ideas.
- John Howard outlines so-called Australian values. The Sydney Morning Herald reports this hilarity- after all, how does a war criminal even dare preach values? - and places its tongue firmly in the cheek.
- The Liberal government introduces draconian "anti-terror" laws. Citizens will be free to criticise the Iraq invasion, for example, but not support the insurgency against a rampant hyperpower and illegal occupation. I feel some civil disobedience coming on.
New York Times Editorial, September 8, 2005: "The Volcker panel has performed a valuable service - and underlined the need for bold reforms - by documenting how these conflicting forces let Saddam Hussein game the system." (1)
New York Times Editorial, October 14, 2004: "Everyone needs to remember that on the most critical count, sanctions worked." (2)
Let's see what the "system" was and what "everyone needs to remember":
Former UN official Denis Halliday: "The very provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights are being set aside. We are waging a war, through the United Nations, on the children and people of Iraq, and with incredible results: results that you do not expect to see in a war under the Geneva Conventions. We're targeting civilians...I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide" (3)
(1) "The Oil-for-Food Failures", The New York Times Editorial, September 8, 2005
(2) The New York Times Editorial, October 14, 2004
(3) Denis Halliday resigned in 1998 after thirty-four years with the United Nations in protest against the effects of the embargo on the Iraqi civilian population. He was then Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and UN's Co-ordinator of Humanitarian Relief to Iraq. "The New Rulers of the World" by John Pilger (Verso)
"On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions: Albright, not challenging this figure, infamously replied: "We think the price is worth it.""
The ongoing saga of Jewish Federal Labor MP Michael Danby and his attempts to censor my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine continues today with an avalanche of "information" in the Australian Jewish News (AJN). Leaving aside the fact that Danby has provided priceless publicity for my work, he has caused the Jewish press to fire on all barrels. It's all as badly scripted as a Hollywood action film and proves that genuine and open debate threatens the Jewish establishment and its proxies. Now is the time for individuals who believe in true democratic values to stand up and be counted. My book is out in May 2006. I look forward to the coming nine months.
One last point. I received an unexpected call this morning from the Jewish "comedian" Austen Tayshus. He demanded to know why I was writing my book - though, hilariously, thought I had written The Question of Zion - suggested Israel was a poor, defenceless Middle Eastern state threatened with annihilation, compared me to a German Jew who collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War and asked why I had the right to air the community's "dirty laundry." I explained that he was clearly so insecure in his position that he felt the need to call and abuse me. I soon ended the call.
I smell desperation.
[UPDATE: A few minutes after posting this entry, I received another call from the Jewish "comedian" above. He said he would keep on calling me because I was an "ignoramus" and an "asshole." He suggested we have a public debate, which I declined. He suggested Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi as a moderator (after telling me this morning that she was a "terrorist.") The point of debating a man like this is negligible, for the simple fact that he doesn't want to debate me - "a sad and lonely man", in his words - nor actually discuss the issues. He wants to shout and rant. It may make him feel good about himself. He clearly needs it.]
The following news story appears in the AJN (the full version is only in the print edition):
Danby launches pre-emptive strike against Voices of Reason PETER KOHN
FEDERAL MP Michael Danby has launched a blistering attack on a book about Australian Jewry’s responses to the Middle East conflict. But there’s a catch: the book, by Sydney-based journalist Antony Loewenstein, has not yet been published, and won’t reach bookstores until next May.
Danby, who declined to contribute material for the book, first slammed the book in a letter to the AJN (26/8) and this week reiterated his call to the Jewish community to “not spend a dollar” when the book is released because of the author’s track record.
“[Loewenstein] is completely alienated from the left, the right, the religious, the non-religious,” Danby said.
Loewenstein, a Jewish journalist and commentator, former Melburnian and onetime project leader for Victorian B’nai B’rith’s Courage to Care exhibition, has described himself on his web log as “a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state”.
WERE the furore over the forthcoming publication of a book about Australian Jewry’s responses to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not so serious, it would be comical. As it is, MP Michael Danby’s withering attack on Antony Loewenstein’s as-yet-unpublished book has triggered a deluge of letters to this newspaper, and reports of the peculiar brouhaha have unsurprisingly been picked up by the mainstream media.
If Danby’s aim was to urge a boycott of the book, or at least shun it to the margins of the literary world, his efforts appear to have backfired. The spat has cast the spotlight on the author, the publisher and the Australian Jewish community, and has therefore given what should have been a fairly-inconsequential book the oxygen required to court centre stage. Of course, Danby’s warning not to buy this book may be heeded by the majority of Australia’s Jews, but equally, the public’s curiosity over the stoush, as well as the media publicity, will no doubt elevate its prominence.
This newspaper unequivocally rejects Loewenstein’s view of a Jewish state as “a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era” and his allegation that the Australian Jewish community’s reception to his views is “usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic”.
We also question the judgment of the publisher, Melbourne University Publishing, which has just released Jacqueline Rose’s The Question of Zion, a book which metes out the same harsh treatment for Israel as we expect from Loewenstein. It may only be a coincidence, but the virtually back-to-back release of two anti-Israel books by the same publisher raises concerns.
But we also take issue with a federal MP, especially a Jewish federal MP, who calls for a boycott of a book whose only “crime” appears to be that its author does not subscribe to the mainstream Jewish-Zionist narrative of Israel. Loewenstein’s book may well be flawed — many leaders of the Jewish community, Danby included, refused to be interviewed for it — but we should, at the very least, await the published version before we decide to consign it to the garbage heap of literature. That is the least that can be expected from the “People of the Book”.
The following letters appear in the Melbourne edition of the AJN:
DISTURBING DANBY
I FIND Michael Danby’s call to boycott a book that is not even published very disturbing. Particularly as his decision was based purely on the basis that he didn’t like the questions which Antony Loewenstein asked him.
Maybe what Danby feared most was exposing his answers to an Australian public unsympathetic to Danby’s uncritical support of Israel’s illegal settlements.
If Danby wants the freedom to express his ideas, objectionable to many, he must support, not oppose, the rights of others to express their ideas, disturbing as they may be. To suppress free speech is foolish and dangerous especially for a politician.
Norman Rothfield Fairfield, Vic
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
I SUPPOSE I should be flattered that Louise Adler of Melbourne University Publishing (MUP), two members of the Loewenstein family and the socialist left’s Larry Stillman have all denounced me (AJN 2/9) for my comments on MUP’s decision to publish two anti-Israel books. No-one can say now they weren’t warned!
Let me tell readers of the AJN what Antony Loewenstein thinks of them. At his blog, where he describes himself as “a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state” (“a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era”), he describes the Australian Jewish community’s response to his views as “usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic” and as “incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions”.
This is the person Adler has commissioned to write a book about the Australian Jewish community and its attitudes to Israel. He is of course entitled to his opinions. But I am equally entitled to say that his opinions stink, and to urge Australian Jews not to put money in his pocket by buying his book.
Then we have Professor Jacqueline Rose, author of The Question of Zion, which MUP is also publishing. Writing recently in the London Review of Books, Rose discussed the psychology of Palestinian suicide bombers. Discussing two Israeli teenagers killed by their bombs, she writes: “In fact these young Israeli women are living in, and acutely suffering from, a society that encourages them to be blind.”
One of the young women Rose sneers at in this way is Melbourne-born teenager Malki Roth, killed in the Sbarro restaurant bombing in 2001. Rose writes of her: “In a letter addressed to God on the occasion of the Jewish New Year, Malki Roth ended with the hope ‘that I’ll be alive and that the Messiah should come’. (Is this wholesome?)”
I showed this passage to Malki Roth’s father Arnold. He wrote to me: “Poor refined Ms Rose is unable to look innocence in the face without vomiting. All of us can see a murderer and a victim, and tell the difference. But not Rose. Right and wrong for her are simply issues to be sliced, diced and agonised over until they figure a way for it to fit in with their global outlook... She leaves me very cold.”
Contrary to the rather overwrought complaints of Adler and Loewenstein, I am not trying to have anyone’s books banned or censored. [ed: Danby conveniently omits the fact that he initially called on MUP to "drop this whole disgusting project."] I am pointing out the fundamental hostility of these authors to the beliefs and values of the great majority of the Jewish community — of most Australians, in fact. In other words, I am doing what I was elected to do: speak up for the people I represent.
MICHAEL DANBY MHR Federal member for Melbourne Ports
TENDENTIOUS PUBLICATIONS
LOUISE Adler (AJN 2/9), the CEO of Melbourne University Publishing (MUP), fails to understand the inference which many Jews will draw from the decision of MUP to publish Jacqueline Rose’s The Question of Zion and Antony Loewenstein’s Voices of Reason.
Professor Rose is one of the most visible anti-Israel activists in British academic life, who has sought and received enormous publicity for her efforts to boycott everything Israeli and then to destroy the State of Israel and replace it with a so-called bi-national state in which Palestinians would have an automatic majority. Her book, The Question of Zion, which was published in the UK and has now been published by MUP, fully reflects her efforts to demonise the Jewish State.
I have only occasionally read Antony Loewenstein’s blog. Probably 99 per cent of the readers of this newspaper would describe him as the Chomsky-Pilger type.
Of course both writers espouse a viewpoint which should be published and which should not be suppressed. My concern is whether MUP, probably the most respected and best-known academic publishers in Australia, should be publishing two tendentious works whose aim is to demonise Israel, with nothing whatever in the way of balance.
Professor Bill Rubinstein University of Wales-Aberystwyth, UK
"FEMA directs Katrina donors to give to Pat Robertson's Group "Operation Blessing" and four Jewish groups among others but not to Muslim groups helping victims nor to local groups."
The following message by Israeli peace group Gush Shalom appears in tomorrow's Haaretz:
When the Israeli settlers were removed from the Gaza Strip, the soldiers behaved with "sensitivity and determination". They wept and embraced, and did not hurt even those who poured acid on them from the roof of Kfar Darom.
This week, when Palestinian youngsters and children threw stones at a tank, it opened fire with live ammunition, killing another victim on the blood-soaked soil of Gaza, just a moment before the final evacuation.
Israel is disengaging from the occupation regime in Gaza. But we have not even begun to disengage ourselves from the mentality of the occupier, who is trampling on the occupied.
My latest column for online magazine New Matilda is published today. I discuss the Australian media and the misguided attempts by so-called "liberals" to critique establishment failures:
"I am not suggesting that Australia's media isn't in dire straits. Australia is a small media pond with a handful of giant sharks and the possible changes to cross media laws will only worsen the equation. Editor and publisher Eric Beecher chronicles in Do Not Disturb the rise of tabloid journalism, the decline in newspaper readership and increasing public cynicism towards the media. He offers few solutions (few of the contributors do) but suggests publications like the New York Times and Washington Post are the benchmarks for trail-blazing writing and investigation. Manne does similarly in his chapter about Murdoch's enthusiasm for the Iraq war. It is a grossly naive assertion from both writers, however, and belies the major faults with the 'leading' American broadsheets."
Israeli soldiers don't kill innocent Palestinians, so the establishment thinking goes. Only Arabs, Palestinians and "terrorists" engage in such behaviour. The mountain of evidence proving otherwise grows a little more today with the release of this Haaretz report:
"An investigation by Haaretz and the human rights group B'Tselem repudiates the army's version of events concerning an August 24 operation in which five Palestinians were killed by Israel Defense Forces fire in the West Bank refugee camp of Tul Karm.
"The official IDF announcement described the late-night undercover operation as follows: "Five terrorists from the terror network responsible for the attacks at the Stage club and [Hasharon mall] in Netanya were killed in Tul Karm." That announcement, which later changed several times, termed Anas Abu Zeina, 17, "an accessory to wanted militants"; Adel Abu Khalil (Al-Gawi), 26, "a senior Islamic Jihad operative"; and Majdi Atiya, 18, somebody who "engaged in preparing explosive devices and participated in attacks against IDF forces."
"However the material collected by Haaretz and B'Tselem reveals that the three teenage boys killed - Abu Zeina, Mohammed Othman, 17, and Mahmoud Ahadib, 17 - are not known members of any terrorist organization.
"The two adults killed were low-ranking operatives who did not behave like wanted militants and were unarmed at the time. They were shot by the soldiers at short range, from 10-15 meters away, while they were in a largely-enclosed courtyard."
Never believe occupation authorities. Their job is to lie, deceive and put the best spin on the most horrific of situations. Where do you think the Americans learned their dirty tricks?
"By leaning on [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak, a long-time US ally and client, Washington is seeking to recast its flagging image in a more credible light. With its much-vaunted democratic dawn for the region bogged down in Iraq, the US is looking for a new beacon. Even modest progress in Egypt would bolster Dr [Condoleezza] Rice's sweeping vision of a democratic Arab world."
Today's Sydney Morning Herald editorial is most revealing. American aims in Iraq were never about bringing democracy to the country. The Bush administration has attempted to thwart any democratic impulse since invading in 2003. The Fairfax broadsheet claims that Rice has "a sweeping vision." Where, exactly, is that clear? What about the fact that Iraq has become, in the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, "...a major problem and in fact is worse than Afghanistan." The Iraq war has created a terrorist threat far greater than existed before the invasion.
The SMH - today publishing pro-Likudite Barry Rubin - is showing its true colours. America and its allies, including Australia, do not want democracy in the Middle East. When will they learn, or read the signs?
UPDATE: For the real situation in Egypt - and actually written by somebody living there - read Mariz Tadros, assistant professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.
The Iranian government is planning to build a dam that would destroy ancient archaeological sites. Iranian bloggers are mobilising to try and stop the project and rally international support.
The text of the verdict in the case of journalist Shi Tao - sentenced in April to 10 years in prison for “divulging state secrets abroad” - shows that Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided China’s state security authorities with details that helped to identify and convict him.
“We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well,” the press freedom organisation said.
It was revealed in June that Microsoft had developed a blogging tool for China that restricted the use of words such as "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights".
Western multinationals are increasingly talking the language of human rights while busy acquiescing to repressive measures in China.
"'We are very critical of what Bob Geldof did during the G8 Summit,' Demba Moussa Dembele of the African Forum on Alternatives tells me. 'He did it for his self-promotion. This is why he marginalised African singers, putting the limelight on himself and Bono, rather than on the issues. The objectives of the whole Live 8 campaign had little to do with poverty reduction in Africa. It was a scheme intended to project Geldof and Blair as humanitarian figures coming to the rescue of 'poor and helpless' Africans.'
"Bob Geldof is beginning to look like Mother Teresa or Joy Adamson. To the corporate press, and therefore to most of the public, he is a saint. Among those who know something about the issues, he is detested. Those other tabloid saints appeared to recognise that if they rattled the cages of the powerful, the newspapers upon which their public regard depended would turn against them. When there was a conflict between their public image and their cause, the image won. It seems to me that Geldof has played the same game."
Israel claims to be the Middle East's only democracy. It's a spurious claim, of course. In reality, it is a racially discriminatory country with Jews enjoying full rights and Arabs and Palestinians often treated as second-class citizens. Surely a real democracy would allow citizens the right to protest peacefully? Think again.
Israeli peace group Gush Shalom have long discussed the ongoing battle over the "security" fence in the village of Bil'in. Both Jews and Palestinians have been protesting this illegal Israeli move for months and received brutal IDF response. The mainstream media has generally ignored the proceedings but Haaretz finally enters the fray and expresses disgust at the different ways in which authorities handled rampaging Gaza settlers and these protesters:
"The IDF and police did not fire at the protesters on the roof in Kfar Darom, even when the latter threw dangerous substances at them, and they refrained from using force even against violent protesters. Similarly, it could have been hoped that the soldiers would hold their fire when facing left-wing and Palestinian protesters.
"Instead, outrageous images are published week after week of soldiers kicking left-wing demonstrators and firing salt or rubber-coated bullets - showing their general contempt for the right to legitimate protest."
Furthermore, numerous judges have condemned the defence forces for their excessive force and yet just last week they continued their unchecked behaviour. The "security" reasons for stealing land around Bil'in are non-existent and the move is little more than a typical Israeli land grab couched in the language of peace.
Haaretz continues:
"The separation fence is a means to stop terror, but all the sides know that its line marks, to a large extent, the future border between Israel and the Palestinian state. The attempt to annex more territories, to build more settlements and to arouse more hatred among those whose land is confiscated is superfluous.
"The most obvious lesson from the dismantling of the Gaza settlements is that they should never have been set up in the first place. One day's settlement success became another day's political and security millstone. The injustice imposed on Bil'in residents could still be fixed. But, in any case, the village's legitimate right to protest must not be tampered with."
It's encouraging that the world is finally starting to see that hoping and praying America's Middle East proxy would change its behaviour is a forlorn hope. Stronger action is required.
Mongolia is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. I was there in 2000 and discovered a partly nomadic people who had suffered the wrath of both Russian and Chinese oppression and yet remained stoic and determined to forge an independent identity. I've always taken an interest in the country because it's routinely ignored in the world press and retains an enigmatic allure for travellers.
Mongolian Matters is a blog that uncovers news and views and is written by a resident of the capital, Ulaanbaatar. New Mongols is another fascinating space with a more political edge.
Mongolia faces many of the problems in developing nations including environmental degradation, corruption and rampant poverty. I never thought I'd be suggesting travel destinations here, but Mongolia is one such example. Its beauty should be discovered.
Murdoch's Sydney tabloid, The Daily Telegraph, was accused of fabricating allegations against former NSW Liberal leader John Brogden during last night's ABC Media Watch. It was a forensic masterclass in investigative journalism.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports the story but a question remains. How is a program like Media Watch - running on a tiny annual budget - more able to reveal the tabloid's deceptions than a well-resourced broadsheet like the Herald? It's all about willingness and intent.
Fairfax is notoriously shy in taking on its supposed competitors. With the upcoming changes to cross-media laws, management is increasingly shy in criticising any rivals. New editor Mark Scott is clearly running a campaign of maintaining the status quo, something at which Fairfax executives excel.
"A Chinese researcher has warned of a new threat to public health and morality - naked Internet chatting. Up to 20,000 Chinese Internet users log on to chatrooms each night in which users in various states of undress talk to each other with the help of Web cams, the Shanghai Daily newspaper said Tuesday, citing China Youth Association researcher Liu Gang."
The paper warns that net users "talk with others while exposing themselves and performing provocative poses."
The article reminds me of an upcoming release, "Thunder from the Silent Zone - Rethinking China" by Paul Monk (Scribe Publications.) I've only skimmed the work but it presents some provocative questions as China's world domination increases.
"The West has been intensely interested in China for a long time, but never more so than now as the West becomes more and more economically dependent on Chinese industry. Because of this relationship, the West avoids saying things that might cause offence to 'China' (or, in reality, the Chinese Community Party) - particularly regarding the state of human rights in China and its insistence that Taiwan accept it is a part of the sovereign territory of the People's Republic of China."
This self-censorship must end. And perhaps we can start by condemning China's concern over nude net surfers.
"Likud MK Ehud Yatom called on Switzerland to apologize publicly for its failure to prevent pro-Palestinian hooligans from storming the stadium in Basel Saturday night. According to Yatom, this incident is a criminal and anti-Semitic act that brings shame on Swiss authorities. On the 53rd minute of a World Cup qualifying match between Switzerland and Israel, four Swiss individuals had the audacity to unroll a banner that read 'Free Palestine.'"
"At night we put snipers in the roof, and one sniper killed a guy from about 300 metres, and I can tell you from experience at night from 300 metres, even with night vision, you can't see if a guy has a weapon or not. So here's someone walking down the street, and he shot him, and then he was very proud about how he saw the whole head explode.
"After a while people start stealing things. In the beginning it's just souvenirs, it goes into stealing cigarettes and then to stealing money. We never stopped to think about it. We never talked about is it wrong or not, we just did it, and people started after a while beating people up just for fun. It's unnecessary things."
UPDATE: Ali Kazak, head of the general Palestinian delegation to Australia and New Zealand and ambassador of Palestine to Vanuatu and East Timor, writes in today's Age about Israel's true agenda after the Gaza withdrawal. It's refreshing to finally see a Palestinian voice in a major Australian daily.
The saga of Federal Labor MP Michael Danby trying to censor my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine continues today in the Melbourne Age:
Meddler for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby championed the cause of asylum seekers in June when he declared: "They have the right of free speech." But a few months on, the Jewish Labor MP is selective about civil liberties, given he wants to muzzle Antony Loewenstein, the author of a book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It could be the spiritual insight Danby attained while hobnobbing with the Dalai Lama that has empowered him to urge the boycotting of a book he hasn't read and which isn't yet published — it is due out in May. The saga has drained the ink reserves of the Australian Jewish News, with Danby attacking former Mount Scopus schoolmate Louise Adler, chief of Melbourne University Press: "If, God forbid, it is published, don't give them a dollar."
Adler told Diary she was puzzled that Danby's letter contained quotes from her, given she hadn't had a "conversation of substance" with him before their 1972 graduation or since. "He has clearly spent more time thinking about me than I have about him," Adler said. "The central Jewish values are tolerance and open debate and his letter is proposing the reverse."
Loewenstein is similarly bewildered because he approached Danby last year to contribute to the book and was told the MP would answer some questions, only to find out early this year that he would no longer take part. "That is his right," the author said. Diary could not ask Danby any questions because he did not return two phone calls. It is not the first time Danby has vented sight unseen: in the Jewish publication The Review, he says of David Hare's play Stuff Happens, "I haven't seen the play, nor will I", then cans it based on a review he read.
His boycott of the unwritten book has similarities to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz's failed attempt to ban Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah by writing to Governator Arnie Schwarzenegger. The Prof denied writing to Arnie, but later conceded: "It was not a letter. It was a polite note."
Even Danby seems to be struggling with his Total Recall because he told the Jewish News that Adler "should drop this whole disgusting project", then thundered to Crikey that he had made "no attempt to censor" Loewenstein. Not even Arnie can extricate him from this one.
It's refreshing that Jewish fundamentalists are as demented as Christian zealots, though their agenda is much less well-known.
Back in Australia, the Liberals are currently dealing with their own religious fanatics. Health Minister Tony Abbott has no issue with the thuggery of his party's newfound direction. "The Young Libs these days would be — to use a tag — to the right of the party. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's a good thing", he said. Issues such as republicanism, abortion, heroin injecting rooms and homosexuality are all being led with a Christian-right mentality.
Howard's svengali, Grahame Morris, told Lateline on Friday night that this Christian Right faction in the NSW Liberals "doesn't have the clout that everyone thinks it does." He didn't criticise their extremism. After all, he still wants to work with the party at the next Federal Election. He warned that the abortion issue was one that had the power to split the community. "The abortion one is a real problem. It's a problem for all political parties if anyone wants to re-open that one. It's a shocker."
Howard doesn't publicly chastise these forces because he sees them as politically useful. Besides, Abbott shares many of these views and remains a favoured son, far and above Treasurer Peter Costello (ably assisted by a journalist such as the SMH's Peter Hartcher, fan of the sanctioned leak.)
"Likud MK Ehud Yatom called on Switzerland to apologize publicly for its failure to prevent pro-Palestinian hooligans from storming the stadium in Basel Saturday night. According to Yatom, this incident is a criminal and anti-Semitic act that brings shame on Swiss authorities. On the 53rd minute of a World Cup qualifying match between Switzerland and Israel, four Swiss individuals had the audacity to unroll a banner that read 'Free Palestine.'"
Meanwhile, Haaretz learns that the IDF still uses Palestinians as human shields, despite a High Court ruling banning the practice.
In other Israel news, America has asked Israel's allies not to pressure Ariel Sharon and demand further "concessions" to the Palestinians. A senior administration official told the New York Times: "In our view, the message to Prime Minister Sharon from people in New York should be one of congratulations, not one of new pressures."
The Bush administration is right, of course. Israel's continuing development in the West Bank and around Jerusalem is a helpful contribution to the peace process. Hurricane Katrina may, however, reduce financial aid to Israel.
Israel's best friend is in a precarious economic situation.
The following message is from Henry Breitrose, Professor of Communication at the Department of Communication Stanford University:
CHRONOLOGY: Here's a timeline that outlines the fate of both FEMA (Federal Emergengcy Management Agency) and flood control projects in New Orleans under the Bush administration. Read it and weep:
January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no previous experience in disaster management.
April 2001: Budget Director Mitch Daniels announces the Bush administration's goal of privatizing much of FEMA's work. In May, Allbaugh confirms that FEMA will be downsized: "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program...." he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."
2001: FEMA designates a major hurricane hitting New Orleans as one of the three "likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country."
December 2002: After less than two years at FEMA, Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy, Michael Brown, who, like Allbaugh, has no previous experience in disaster management.
March 2003: FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level position and folded into the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission is refocused on fighting acts of terrorism.
2003: Under its new organization chart within DHS, FEMA's preparation and planning functions are reassigned to a new Office of Preparedness and Response. FEMA will henceforth focus only on response and recovery.
Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think we would get maximum consideration...This is what the grant program called for. We were more than qualified for it."
June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction in New Orleans is slashed. Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay."
June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record $71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes.
August 2005: While New Orleans is undergoing a slow motion catastrophe, Bush mugs for the cameras, cuts a cake for John McCain, plays the guitar for Mark Wills, delivers an address about V-J day, and continues with his vacation. When he finally gets around to acknowledging the scope of the unfolding disaster, he delivers only a photo op on Air Force One and a flat, defensive, laundry list speech in the Rose Garden.
A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.
Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence. It's the Bush administration in a nutshell.
Michael Moore fires off an open letter to George W. Bush. Moore is always worth a read as he's mastered the knack of making political dissent relevant, timely and populist:
"Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing - NOTHING - to do with this!"
"The National Public Radio news anchor was so excited I thought she'd piss on herself: the President of the United had flown his plane down to 1700 feet to get a better look at the flood damage! And there was a photo of our Commander-in-Chief taken looking out the window. He looked very serious and concerned. That was yesterday. Today he played golf. No kidding."
This disaster has the potential to change the American political landscape. Britain's Daily Mail put it best:
...The President finds his reckless adventure in Iraq coming back to haunt him.
The National Guard, the part-time soldiers whose prime role is to provide emergency services in natural disasters, have in large part been deployed overseas.
Five thousand members of the Louisiana National Guard who should be spearheading the rescue effort watch the disaster unfold from their HQ - Camp Liberty, west of Baghdad. Equipment that could have been so valuable in the rescue operations is parked in depots there.
The same is happening across all the neighbouring states, leaving Washington bereft of vital manpower as it grapples with the greatest homeland crisis in memory.
Here is a superpower that can crush at will a tinpot dictatorship - but then becomes so bogged down in the grisly aftermath of war that it finds itself unable to respond anything like adequately to the plight of tens of thousands of its own citizens engulfed by a natural calamity.
President Bush, his ratings already in free-fall, could pay a high price indeed for his military folly.
In a further sign that expressing dissent in Israel is unacceptable to the establishment, the IDF threw stun grenades and tear gas at protesters in the West Bank yesterday. Activists were showing their dissatisfaction with the "security" fence and claim they were peacefully demonstrating.
"The greatest thing to come out of this [the Iraq war] for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."
"The benchmark US grade of light crude oil for October delivery dropped to $US68.94 a barrel, down US87c from its record high of $US69.81 a barrel set on Tuesday."
UPDATE: Greens Senator Kerry Nettle comments on the oil crisis and recent statements by billionaire Steve Forbes that should be listened to - but not for their accuracy.
- A fascinating collection of photos from the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.
- "In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war." Sidney Blumenthal explains to Der Spiegel that state and federal governments were warned for years about the possibility of a devastating natural disaster but fighting an illegal war somewhere else seemed so much more important. If you want to donate to a relief fund, try the US Salvation Army.
- The Nation's John Nichols, meanwhile, asks the energy corporations - who have made millions in the devastated region for years - to donate some of their obscene profits to the relief effort.
- In related news, National Guard troops from Louisiana and other Gulf states stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be brought home early to help in the clean-up. The sad reality remains that America's military is at breaking point and America suffers while Iraq burns.
- Robert Fisk catalogues the latest Iraqi horror of over 1000 dead Shia Muslims in a tragic stampede.
- Denmark grows a backbone and tells America it can no longer use its airspace to transport suspected terrorists around the world. Maybe John Howard's Australia will offer our airspace to make up for the loss.
- In case you weren't certain of Israel's racially discriminatory policies, four Arab Israelis shot dead by a soldier against the Gaza "disengagement" are not victims of "terror" because their killer was Jewish, according to Israel's defence ministry. Their families are therefore not entitled to compensation because the law currently only recognises terrorism if committed by "organisations hostile to Israel."
- Anti-Semitism is widespread in Ukraine. Little reported was the influence of such forces in last year's electoral win of Viktor Yushchenko. When I was in Ukraine for nearly three weeks in 2000, I noticed no signs of Jew-hatred, but then, I wasn't publicly announcing my religion.
- "The United States is the largest supplier of weapons to developing nations, delivering more than $9.6 billion in arms to Near East and Asian countries last year."
- "The [Australian] Government, not the people, is to blame for the woefully inadequate public discussion of terrorism in this country. The language of terror, the inflation of threat and the manipulation of news have been instrumental in furthering US and, by this Government's logic, Australian strategic objectives" - Michael Connors teaches politics at La Trobe University.
- "Osama Bin Laden intended his assault on the twin towers to strike at the heart of materialism and cause consternation throughout the western world. What he could not have expected, however, was America's failure to rebuild the towers without delay, a setback that has exposed the United States at its most politically inept, cripplingly litigious and corrupt" - Nicholas Wapshott, New Statesman
News today that the attempt by Federal Labor MP Michael Danby to censor my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine has raised interest in Britain. Jews Sans Frontieres tracks the developments and reminds readers that Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz also thought it appropriate to try and ban Norman Finkelstein's just released, Beyond Chutzpah.
Two great believers in human rights and freedom join together in behaviour that should be an anathema to democracy.
The thought of Israel and Pakistan becoming friends seems a highly unlikely possibility. The foreign ministers of both countries met yesterday, however, and signalled a willingness to work closely together. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza has brought the change, according to both parties. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri said that "Pakistan attaches great importance to Israel ending its occupation of Gaza. Pakistan has therefore decided to engage Israel." Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom called the meeting "historic" and said that after the Gaza withdrawal it is "the time for all of the Muslim and Arab countries to reconsider their relations with Israel."
Al-Jazeera recently reported Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf calling Ariel Sharon a "great soldier and courageous leader" after his decision to "disengage" from Gaza.
Israel has long wanted stronger diplomatic ties with the Muslim world in the (forlorn?) hope that these countries may legitimise their ongoing occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people.
Pakistan is run by a military dictator. Israel is a quasi-democracy with full rights for Jews, fewer rights for Israeli Arabs and occupation for Palestinians. Are the two countries therefore a perfect match?
The following letters appear in this week's Australian Jewish News, in response to Federal Labor MP Michael Danby's attempt at censoring and bullying my publisher, Melbourne University Publishing and my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine. He has failed, of course and will continue to do so. Perhaps he's forgotten we live in a democracy. Michael, your motivations are both transparent and utterly predictable.
DEROGATORY DANBY
I HAVE not had a conversation of any substance with Michael Danby either prior to 1972 or since. It was a surprise therefore to find him slandering me in the AJN (26/8) with views that are pure invention and palpable nonsense.
Whatever conventions one might expect a politician to adhere to — accuracy might be presumed to be basic. These statements are malicious and derogatory. Irrelevance is the fate of local politicians who remain locked in to a dogmatic, insular and ultimately self-serving view of the world. Smear campaigns are normally the stuff of the gutter press.
I am surprised therefore that the AJN reproduces character assassinations without following the standard journalistic practice of checking the facts.
As the CEO and publisher of Melbourne University Publishing, I am proud of our 80-year history of independent publishing. MUP’s mandate is to publish books of public interest.
That venerable tradition continues with the publication of such titles as Jacqueline Rose’s The Question of Zion and Antony Loewenstein’s forthcoming book Voices of Reason.
I am dismayed that a fellow publisher such as the AJN gives space for proposals to boycott ideas. Condemning a book prior to publication is appalling.
Perhaps the AJN should review the book now, nine months out from publication. Danby’s proposal is inimical to the central Jewish values of tolerance and open debate.
LOUISE ADLER CEO & publisher, Melbourne University Publishing
DANBY’S DICTATES
IT is obvious that Michael Danby, insecure in his stance on Israel and the ALP’s position on it, believes in some sort of pre-emptive strike against a position or view which might directly challenge what he espouses.
Leaving to one side what makes Danby believe that he has the right to dictate to my publisher what they should or should not publish (astounding for an MHR, and more so especially as the book is nine months away from publication), let readers of the AJN consider for themselves the questions which were posed of Danby (see the entries for Friday, August 26, on antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com) about which Danby appears so intimidated and which has prompted his outburst.
I have no doubt that mature readers of the AJN are more than capable of making up their own minds on what to read — without Danby’s dictates!
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN Sydney, NSW
PRESCIENT DANBY!
HOW extraordinary! (“Disgusting project” AJN 26/8). Here is an MP who is a) dictating to MUP — a highly-regarded publisher — not to publish a forthcoming book; b) slamming the author of the book because the questions asked of Danby are not to his liking; c) telling the Jewish community not to buy the book, when published; and d) “urging” the AJN to have nothing to do with the book.
How democratic! And how prescient of Danby to slam a book nine months away from publication.
JEFFREY LOEWENSTEIN Melbourne, Vic
What is Michael Danby on about? His diatribe of a letter in the AJN (26/8), about a forthcoming book on the Jewish community in Australia only guarantees sales, and his sad attempt at character assassination of publisher Louise Adler and political censorship of Melbourne University Press is outrageous.
Perhaps the problem is this: I suspect the book will be critical of the predominance of conservative views in the Jewish community about the current state of Israel, Danby included.
LARRY STILLMAN [ALP member and Melbourne Ports electorate resident] Elwood, Vic
Photo: AFP
