Soon after I published the views of two Jewish Australians, Ian Cohen and Antony Loewenstein – Ian on the Brandis accusation that the Greens were Nazis, Antony on Hanan Ashrawi – a reader rang my editor to demand the Webdiary entry be taken down immediately. What’s going on here?
Tonight, varied reaction from Jewish and non-Jewish Australians to the Loewenstein piece, and more reaction to the Brandis smear. Dr Ashrawi’s speech last night is at Peace not a question of legitimacy, but of humanity.
Brandis told me over coffee last week that after the furore over his speech he called Colin Rubenstein, who agreed with it. Brandis suggested on Lateline last Friday night that Rubenstein called him:
I was contacted by a very large number of leaders of the Jewish community who told me that they fully supported what I had said, in particular the leader of the other peak Jewish community in this country, Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the Australia Israel Council told me not only was he not critical of the speech but he supported it and he was pleased that it had been given.
In my view, Colin Rubenstein does not represent the majority view of Jewish Australians on this matter. To Brandis, it did. And talk about vilification! To Rubenstein, it’s fine to call the Greens Nazis but intolerable for Jewish people to critique the activities of a powerful, minority Jewish lobby with lots of money and power. I informed George that my Jewish friends were appalled at his remarks. One friend requested me to stop referring to “Jews” when discussing the Ashrawi controversy and to distinguish between Zionist Jews who supported Sharon and the majority of Jews, who do not.
I have no problem with people strongly opposing the decision by the Sydney Peace Foundation to award the prize to Ashrawi. I take strong objection to attempts to force the withdrawal of the award and the putting of financial and political pressure on people to withdraw their support for the prize. This level of intimidation could lead to a surge in anti-Semitism, the very thing no-one sensible wants to happen.
Here’s an award you can have a say in. Peter and Mariann McNamara write:
The national trust is calling for nominations to be added to the 100 living Australian national treasures. (some 11 new nominations will be added to the list to replace those who are now deceased). We are keen to add Greg Mackie for his vision and leadership in the arts and society, support of the arts and ongoing civic contributions in South Australia and australia generally. There are many more deserving Australians who make a difference to our lives and our community. If you are interested to add your nomination(s) please email treasures@nsw.nationaltrust.org.au indicating the field they have excelled in.
I nominate refugee campaigner Julian Burnside QC and Senate Clerk Harry Evans.
***
ASHRAWI
Ron Grunstein
I am not sure what you meant about the Kerry O’Brien interview of Hanan Ashrawi as being “sensational”. Her avoidance of Kerry’s questions about her views on Hamas were telling. Why doesn’t she condemn Hamas and their ilk? There are other Palestinians trying to create a peaceful dialogue in the Middle East – often away from the microphones of CNN. They would have been more deserving recipients of a peace prize.
***
Sari Kassis, Palestine Human Rights Campaign
Antony actually earned his ticket to the Saturday forum with Ashrawi not because Fisk quoted him or because he wrote that great analysis piece. He earned it MONTHS ago (July 3, 2003) when he wrote Defiant Israel blind to what it has become. So he earned his stripes a while back. His VIP pass to the Ashrawi event was delivered because of his consistent high standards and integrity. A rare commodity when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
***
Alison Daams
I am not part of the “Jewish Lobby” being a Presbyterian Scot, but I am appalled by Margo Kingston’s inclusion of the Norman Finkelstein cartoon in her Webdiary. “Specious victimhood”? The holocaust as an indispensible idological weapon? (Margo: The link was in Antony’s piece – are you sugesting I censor him?)
***
Edward Baral
I am shocked and appalled and somewhat frightened by the Webdiary posted on SMH.com.au today. Ignoring factual inaccuracies and onesided viewpoints presented (which were copious) and looking only at the language of vilification I counted:
– 8 references to “The Jewish Lobby”
– 3 references the “The Zionist Lobby” (and 1 “Zionist ploy”)
– 3 references that compare Jews to Nazis (ie “jackboot” and “milaristic mindset”)
Not to mention numerous references that suggest Jewish skullduggery and a worldwide Jewish plot for “Jewish supremacy” whilst “cannily maintaining the victim tag”. And this is before we even review the links to a number of offensive and racist websites.
Frankly I am shocked at the Sydney Morning Herald for publishing this. This is not about Israeli/Palestinian balance but a direct attack on the Jewish people.
I ask that you withdraw this article, publish an apology and advise what steps you will take to ensure that vilifying material such as this is not published in the future.
I replied: Hi. The two pieces published were by Australian jews.
Edward replied:
Irrespective of who wrote this material, it is offensive and racist. If a black person were to write that all black people are ugly and stupid would this not be offensive to black people? Would the Sydney Morning Heraldpublish it?
Just because this offensive material was written by Jews does not make it right, does not make it any less offensive and does not abrogate the Sydney Morning Herald’s responsibilities. I await your considered response.
***
Duane Kelly
Excellent work publishing the Antony Lowenstein piece. It was the first time I had seen any media space given to the Palestinian point of view and it does not surprise me one bit that it had to have come from a member of the Jewish community. After all, if anyone else had said it, they would have immediately been labelled anti-semitic and dismissed.
***
Mike Lyvers in Queensland
Margo, I’m very disappointed that you endorse the “peace prize” awarded to PLO propagandist Ashrawi. (Perhaps before I continue I should add that I’M NOT JEWISH as a response to the standard knee-jerk characterization of all who rightly object to this “peace prize” as Jewish or Zionist – of which I’m most definitely neither.)
I’ve been watching interviews with Ashrawi for decades, as she has frequently appeared on the American Public Broadcasting Service Newshour (shown here weekdays on SBS). She is a classic propagandist who very smoothly avoids answering direct questions from an interviewer, as she did so very smoothly again last night with a fawning Kerry O’Brien.
Ashrawi’s record shows that she has consistently been an advocate of war, not peace. To award her a “peace prize” is as absurd as awarding the same prize to Ariel Sharon.
Margo, you’ve disappointed me greatly. (I might even switch sides and start following Tim Blair’s website because of this!)
I replied: It’s a divisive one, this one, isn’t it? Yes, I do endorse the prize, but I haven’t written about it. All I’ve done is publish the views of two Jews who support the prize. I can’t see anything wrong with that. Hope you enjoy Tim.
Mike replied:
With all due respect, Margo, I think you and many other well-meaning supporters of Ashrawi have been duped by a superficially charming, smooth-talking psychopath. She’s an absolutely classic case of that.
***
‘Zionism’ not a dirty word
by Josh Mehlman
Antony Lowenstein treads a fine line in his piece “Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent”. While I endorse his sentiment, I think he’s guilty of making excuses for unnecessarily vitriolic and racist hyperbole: his contemptuous use of the word “Zionist” as if it’s some sort of swear word, and his tacit – at best – support of a racist set of arguments against Israel.
Even if you trot out the tired accusation that “anyone who criticises Israel is called an anti-Semite by the Jewish community”, it does not automatically follow that criticism of Israel is never anti-Semitic. There are obvious anti-Jewish motives behind much of the anti-Israel invective currently in the debate. At the core is a troublesome issue: it is not a question of “Do we have the right to criticise the Israeli Government?” – of course we do – but does Israel as a country have a right to exist?
I realise in some lefty circles “Zionism” really is a dirty word, but it has been abused and over-generalised. When the left deplores “Zionism”, it refers to the ultra-right nationalist extreme of Israeli politics, which currently holds power in Israel, and with which a large proportion of Israelis and Jews worldwide do not agree. It paints all Zionists (and often all Jews) as extremist racists.
But “Zionism” – divorced from its reactionary right-wing usage – simply refers to the right of Jewish people to self-determination. I have yet to hear a rational explanation of why Jewish people should be denied the right to their own country.
Denying Israel’s right to exist is, simply and unquestionably, anti-Jewish, there’s just no way to get around it. It’s one thing to criticise nationalism as a concept, but it’s exceptionally hypocritical and racist to claim that Palestinian aspirations to nationhood are legitimate but Jewish ones are not.
While there are no reasonable grounds for denying Israel’s right to exist, there are plenty of unreasonable ones. There’s a line of thought – used by both extremes of politics – that tries to undermine Israel’s existence by claiming that Jews have exaggerated and manipulated the Holocaust for political gain – and that Israel continues to do so even today. The claim is that Israel was only created as a payback for world guilt over the Holocaust – brushing aside 3000-odd years of pre-WWII history – and has no other legitimate reasons for existence. Norman Finkelstein’s argument – which Lowenstein endorses – that Israel perpetually wears some sort of “victim: get out of moral obligations free” card clearly follows this reasoning.
No wonder the Jewish community is uncomfortable when “anti-Zionist” rhetoric of this kind enters mainstream Australian political discourse. It has has every appearance of being a racist denial of Jews’ right to a homeland. Is this simply a misunderstanding of terms? Is it overly generous to think that when people slag off Zionism this is merely a shortcut for “right-wing expansionist Zionism”, but that most people would support Israel’s right to exist? Or has the Australian left yet to come to grips with its own racist demons?
***
Jenny Green
Can you please pass on congratulations to Anthony Loewenstein – his article is fantastic, and must have cost him some pangs. I don’t know what it’s like for him, but I certainly feel under pressure to toe the community line on these issues. That ends in a really unhappy balance for me – to my father and other Jews I always argue the Palestinian side, but to non-Jews, even close friends, I feel protective, and don’t want to wash dirty laundry in public. Either way, I always feel guilty and dishonourable. My politics are usually left-of-left, and it sits really uneasily with me that my feelings are a nasty mix of hard left and hard right about Israel/Palestine.
I believe in and support the establishment of a Palestinian state, I believe that Israel must absolutely end the occupation of the territories, must disband the settlements, must pump resources into the that state, and believe in a unified Jerusalem under Jewish administration. I am very proud of my Jewish heritage. And I don’t support awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi. I was horrified also that the Nobel went to Rabin and Arafat.
I wholeheartedly support awarding this prize to a Palestinian, partly because it is forging new ties of support away from America’s baleful influence. I didn’t know much about Ashrawi before this bunfight blew up – except that she had been a PLO spokesperson during Oslo. I have since read the transcripts of as many of her speeches and interviews as I can find, and what she is NOT is a peacemaker. Seeking to lose as little as possible for your side in the process towards a peace is not the same as promoting peace for its own sake.
I note that Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson are associated with a certain neutrality of stance. There are many alternatives for leaders such as these, and keeping silent if there is no personal need to fight is one. Love for your people is not the same as trying to reconcile warring parties for the sake of humanity in general. Australians can’t seem to decide which makes them more uncomfortable – accepting that for some, ties of tribe matter more than anything else, and conversely, that prizing the absolute neutrality of peace means applying a rigid standard of values and sacrifice. Perhaps the only way a peace can come about is if people from opposing sides fight honourably for their party for as long as they can without sacrifice.
As an Australian, I know that I am under-informed about the Palestinian political process. From the little that I do know, I would have welcomed awarding the prize to Abu Mazen – he had a thankless, unglamorous task, one which saw him condemned by his own people, as well as by the other side, and he tried transparently with dignity to fulfil it. And when it was clear that he could no longer be of use, he retired to let a new person have a go. He did not have the glamour of the freedom fighter to sustain and support him, and did not increase the esteem in which he was held by taking the position, and gained nothing for it, especially in terms of being celebrated by the world and his people. He has my utmost respect.
One issue that has been coming more and more to the surface these past two months, and which has irritated and alarmed me more and more is the growing use of words and phrases such as Jew, Jewish lobby group and Zionist lobby, not to mention increasing mentions and comparisons with the Nazi party. The Jewish community is paranoid – understandably so in light of history, as well as things such as the recent comments of Dr Mahatir and the recent European poll showing ingrained anti-Semitism in the area (see Israel outraged as EU poll names it a threat to peace).
And not to mention the article in today’s SMH concerning the German general chastised for supporting an Anti-Semitic politician. No good will come of making paranoid people more paranoid. And please, the Jewish community is NOT the same thing as the Zionist lobby group.
***
Paul Walter in Adelaide
A couple of impressions on the Sydney Peace Prize and the refreshing and dignified response of more thinking elements within Jewish community to the antics of the neo-con types within and without.
Dr. Ashrawi. A STRONG woman. No buckling under pressure from this quarter. A glimpse of that cold, horrible, arrogant, later-day Obersturmbannfuhrer Turnbull and his despicable wife on the telly news. The strange thing is, the Jewish community is being scapegoated in high medieval style in the media for the detestable antics of North Shore High Tories.
It’s not the “Jewish community” issuing complaints about Ashrawi, so much as certain morally-bankrupt scum in the Liberal party, yet the Jewish community are the ones held as being the main bigots. It’s a real shame, especially when you see dignified Jewish people like the woman caught on TV attending Dr Ashrawi’s speech out of solidarity, while others who should have attended skulked in the shadows.
***
Antony Loewenstein
The debate surrounding the Sydney Peace Prize and Hanan Ashrawi strikes at the heart of the Australian Jewish community. Rational voices are drowned out and extremists are all too willing to hijack the debate. Reaction to Webdiary’s publication yesterday of my ZNet article Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent has similarly exposed the intolerance within the community.
Robert Fisk’s mentioning and quoting of my Znet piece in his November 4 column for The Independent triggered a worldwide response. I’ve been left slightly bewildered and humbled, yet passionately resolved to continue the fight for Palestinian rights and Israeli security in an Australian media environment that unquestionably favours the Zionist narrative. Indeed, Western lives are frequently given prominence against ‘non’ persons throughout most of the Western world. Pilger refers to them as ‘nonpeople’ and encourages us to demand responsibility behind power:
“It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers, without understanding the hidden agendas of the myths and messages that surround it.”
Since the publication of my ZNet article on Hanan Ashrawi in late October, I have received numerous emails from across the world, primarily positive in tone. The overall theme is relief that Palestinian voices are finally being heard, the ‘other’ perspective is respected and the Zionist lobby is being questioned. I was emailed today a letter that appeared in The Independent on November 5 after the publication of Robert Fisk’s November 4 column. It perfectly encapsulates the sentiments of many Jews and non-Jews alike whose voices are rarely heard and constantly vilified as anti-Semites:
“”They will destroy you…” “Rob Stuart in trouble …” “Danny Gilbert warned off…” “The business world will close ranks…” “They will say we are only supporting the Palestinians.” The COMMONWEALTH BANK?
It is not difficult to see how much of the international community distances itself, silently, from the Arab-Israeli question. What is inconvenient or difficult or controversial is cast aside. The 50-year-old conflict has not been resolved because “THEY” object.
We are in a sad time when someone who promotes peace is vilified because “THEY” don’t like her. The threat that “THEY will destroy you” is extortive, and we have seen this in the careers of US Congresspersons who opposed or criticized THEM. Who is the THEY and the THEM?
Aha! Doing a little research, we find that the powerful Jewish lobby of Australia that was very worried about the award has thanked Lucy Turnbull for her efforts in disassociating the City of Sydney from the prize.
There seems in the US and abroad an absolute “terror” by Zionist and Israeli supporters that any erudite Arab be recognized or applauded, or honoured. Is this, too, a security issue?
I was delighted to read Dr Ashrawi’s acceptance speech. It is a legitimate and honestly earned Peace Prize, and I respect those who held to their avowed principles – but not those who pander to political and economic forces whose objectivity must be called into question.
Bravo, Professor Stuart Rees. Shame, Sydney University, Lucy Turnbull, the Commonwealth Bank and the rest of those who have not the courage to support the Peace Prize Award to Dr Ashrawi or to speak of the Palestinian situation – and who would silence those who do.
Some resent my use of the term ‘Zionist lobby’. Some have suggested I believe a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Some have suggested that, because of my Jewishness, I must be a self-hating Jew. Some have even suggested that I must support Yasser Arafat and suicide bombing. Some have suggested the tag ‘Zionist lobby’ is discriminatory and should be avoided.
To all these people I would say the following: I believe in the state of Israel. I believe Israeli deserves security and secure borders. I believe much criticism of Israel throughout the world is indeed anti-Semitic, and is an unfortunate continuation of a thousand year old tradition. I believe that Israel must cease to be a religious, Zionist state if it is to continue for generations to come. I believe in post-Zionism. Claims of a democratic country are ludicrous when one is fully aware of the actions of the IDF in the Occupied Territories and discriminatory laws against Israeli Arabs. A Jewish right of return is seemingly acceptable, but outrage occurs when Palestinians demand likewise.
A Jewish friend of mine wrote to me yesterday after reading the Fisk quote and the ZNet article:
“I have known of, and watched, Fisk for a number of years. He’s a bit of an extremist – congratulating the Islamic thugs that beat him up in Afghanistan. I heard Ed Said speak and he advocated a single state solution which, inherently (if not directly), calls for an end to a Jewish state. We get back to the final point, do the Jews have a right to their own state in the land of Israel? I must have heard Ashrawi interviewed 30+ times in the last 10 years…maybe twice that many, and she is always blaming Israel without recognising the pain being perpetrated on the Israeli people and the need to have sympathy on both sides.”
It made me think. Do Jews have the right to be in the land of Israel? The answer is mostly irrelevant in 2004. A two-state solution is the only answer. A shared Jerusalem is inevitable. A relinquishing of the West Bank and Gaza is inevitable. A real peace deal is needed, not the sham of Oslo, giving Palestinians numerous ‘Bantustans’, but little autonomy to natural resources or security.
Zionism is a dead-end ideology, a philosophy that lays biblical claims over a piece of land. An occupation that exacts collective punishment, continually expanding settlements, building of a Berlin Wall, constant confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land. Who wouldn’t resist this kind of dehumanising activity?
The vilification of Ashrawi has virtually nothing to do with her previous comments or actions. It has virtually nothing to do with her previous standing in the PLO. It has all to do with her status of a Palestinian. It is all to do with standing up and speaking her mind. It has all to do with giving public voice to the Palestinian story, history and struggle.
The outrage that has flowed from Webdiary’s publication of my Ashrawi piece shows a contemptible desire to shut down debate. Why can’t Jews from all persuasions have their say? Why can’t Jews like myself and Ian Cohen express their desire for peace in the Middle East without being labelled extremists or radicals? Must the Zionist narrative be centre-stage all the time?
In this incredibly uneven issue, both sides have caused incredible suffering. Blame can truly be spread around. Voices of reason exist, of which I have received numerous from around the world in the last weeks. I am a Jew, proud of my peoples’ history of dissent and fight. And I won’t be silenced by a bunch of hysterical, bigoted individuals.
***
Sol Salbe
Here is a contribution from an Israeli-born Jewish Australian journalist who has been on the case for the past fortnight. I find the attitude of Jewish officialdom positively offensive. I don’t think Hanan Ashrawi would have received the Israeli peace prize, but she would get that one well before any contribution from some of the community leadership in Australia. Above all I find their attitude so different than the mainstream thinking in Israel. It’s also very unlikely that the mudslinging would have been as extensive had the controversy erupted in Israel, because too many people there have access to the facts. No-one could have got away with suggesting that Dr Ashrawi supported the invasion of Kuwait when many copies of the statement she published on the subject are on file in various places. This is for Diaspora consumption only. This is also the reason why my challenges to produce the evidence have gone answered in the Jewish community.
*
Ashrawi – what if she were Irish?
An outspoken woman who has earned the ire of western governments, who has been critical of the war against terrorism, who has been accused of giving comfort to dictators, evildoers and ethnic cleansers was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. Guess what? It wasn’t a controversial choice at all. The decision was acclaimed throughout the country with no community or ethnic group protesting about the decision.
That was in 2002 and the woman was, of course, Mary Robinson. Like Hanan Ashrawi in 2003, Robinson – the former President of Ireland, and more recently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights – was awarded her prize for her human rights record. Like Ashrawi, her work had very little to do with actual participation or framing or carrying out agreements such as the Good Friday accords.
So why was Robinson’s nomination warmly received while Ashrawi is regarded as unsuitable and not a good candidate?
Robinson was better at picking her place of birth. By being born a Palestinian, Dr Ashrawi has placed herself in a position where she had to be much better than any other candidate in order to be considered an equal. For some of Israel’s supporters, no Palestinian who stands up for her (or his) people’s rights is acceptable. The fact that less than a century ago Jews suffered as a result of similar attitudes doesn’t seem to have registered with these people.
These supporters of Israel, especially the right-wing independent think tank the Australia Israeli Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) have been the driving force behind the campaign. Most of the accusations levelled against Ashrawi by sections of the Jewish community and non-Jewish commentators can be traced back to the AIJAC website and a couple of similar ones at the same end of the spectrum of the pro-Israeli forces.
Accusations
A lot of mud has been thrown at Dr Ashrawi. Amazingly, many of the accusations are not backed up by references. When a quote from Dr Ashrawi is provided, the interpretation is often tenuous.
Piers Ackerman, for example, says she supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. No evidence was provided. Having checked several hundred key listings in Hebrew and English on the subject, I can honestly say that I have not seen any evidence. On the contrary her biography ‘This side of Peace’ is quite explicit. At the start of chapter 4 she recounts a phone conversation with the head of Arafat’s office in Tunis, Sami Musallam:
Ashrawi: You must come up with a statement; we must take a public position against the occupation.
Musallam: The situation is too complex; there are many unknowns.
Ashrawi: What is there to know? Morally and politically, we as Palestinians must be the first to condemn occupation. Find Abu Ammar [Arafat] and ask him to issue an official release.
Musallam: There are political ramifications, and I’m sure he’ll study the situation carefully before taking any steps.
Ashrawi: Forget the political fine print and deal with principles. The whole moral foundation of our case, particularly of the Intifada, will be destroyed. We have to be consistent. We must take a position of integrity against occupation anywhere and whatever the reasons…
Ashrawi goes on to describe a number of statements which were issued independently by her and other Palestinians in Jerusalem, one of which they issued unchanged despite instructions from Tunis (with the late Faisal al-Husseini agreeing to take any flak that resulted).
Again without any corroborating evidence, Ackerman and AIJAC make the allegation that she also backed the attempted military coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. It appears that the original source is the ‘Washington Report on the Middle East’. The relevant quote:
The [Washington] Post reported that Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent West Bank spokeswoman, welcomed the coup in the hope it would lead to a more balanced Middle East peace conference.
Pity AIJAC and Ackerman didn’t read the next paragraph.
But the Washington Jewish Week had this to say about Ashrawi’s reaction: She expressed regret over the regression from democracy in the Soviet Union.
Yes, we have all heard that Ashrawi only criticises suicide bombing on pragmatic grounds. It doesn’t take much work to check her own website, MIFTAH, where she says:
Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as licence to do the same to their civilians? Where are those voices and forces that should have stood up for the sanctity of innocent lives (ours and theirs), instead of allowing the horror of our own suffering to silence us?
Does this sound pragmatic?
These are but three examples of the false charges against Ashrawi. My question is simple: where is your evidence?
Jewish and Israeli support
Reversing the process, here is a typical quote used by AIJAC:
The only language Sharon understands is the language of violence.” (Voice of Palestine, September 9, 2001).
Note: Her message to Palestinians is that they have to use violence against Israel led by Sharon. Yet Israeli journalists regularly make the same assessment of Sharon’s penchant for violence (it’s not without foundation) without any such slur being attached to them.
Israeli politicians have also made harsher criticisms of Israeli government policies than many of the quotes attributed to Dr Ashrawi. The former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni regularly refers to Israeli war crimes.
The similarity between Ashrawi’s commitment to a just peace and that of many in Israel and the Australian Jewish community is behind some of the support that Dr Ashrawi has received from Jews and Israelis. By the same token, Ashrawi’s detractors have only been able to gain support from the Israeli extreme right, such as Professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University. Not a single member of the opposition Labour Party has lent his or her name to the campaign. (If they have, it certainly has not received any coverage.)
Hanan Ashrawi has been facing an unprecedented vilification campaign the like of which none of the previous prize laureates had to face. It doesn’t matter that Xanana Gusmao had blood on his hands. It does not matter that Mary Robinson has been far more strident in her criticism of the war against terrorism. Ashrawi has just been unacceptable for a section of the Jewish community.
Fortunately the campaign has been countered by comments from Israeli MK Yael Dayan, Israeli Professor Baruch Kimmerling, three separate Israeli peace organisations including the major womens group Bat Shalom, as well t as the Melbourne-based Australian Jewish Democratic Society and the Sydney-based Jews Against the Occupation.
But it’s not over yet.
Margo: Scott Burchill sent a copy of Professor Kimmerling’s note to Bob Carr:
To Premier Bob Carr, Sydney, Australia
Dear Sir,
I wish to congratulate your countrymen and women who decided to award the Palestinian leader and peace activist Dr. Hannan Michail Ashrawi the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. There are few international figures in the present who deserve a Peace prize more than the outstanding Palestinian leader, intellectual and peace activist – Dr. Hanan Ashrawi.
As an Israeli, as a Jew and as a academic I am deeply sorry and ashamed that Israelis and members of the Australian Jewish community are acting against this rightful nomination. While doing so they are using and abusing their Jewish identity and heritage. There is and there can be no association whatsoever between Dr. Ashrawi and her courageous and longstanding leadership in the best service of her people and of peace for both peoples in this troubled land – and between any racist or anti-peace activity that could deny her this or any other Peace award.
On the contrary – granting Dr. Ashrawi a peace award is an important symbolic act that can send a powerful message to strengthen people like myself in Palestine and Israel, who have been struggling and thriving for Just Peace in this region, and for whom Dr. Ashrawi and her relentless peace activism have always been an enormous source of inspiration and encouragement.
I wish to strengthen your decision to resist any undue pressure exerted on you to withdraw from granting the Peace award to Dr. Ashrawi.
With all due respect, Baruch Kimmerling, George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, The Hebrew University of Jeusalem, Israel.
***
Peter Funnell in Canberra
What on earth is going on in this country? The rabid vilification and denunciation of Dr Ashrawi’s award of the Sydney Peace Prize is the least peaceful act by citizens of this nation in a long time. Dr Ashrawi is an eminent Palestinian, a person of significance and yes, at her core a person of peace for her peoples.
She may not have been the choice of most of those that feel a deep and compelling support for Israel. That does not invalidate her selection for the peace award.
The desire for peace does not rest with Israelis alone. Nor does the killing. The one single thing Palestinians and Israelis have in common is a desire to live peacefully and prosper. The other is war. Both kill each other with a ferocity that is truly beyond our comprehension here in Australia.
Dr Ashrawi does not seem to take a backward step and frankly, why would anyone expect her to fold under the malicious carping that has preceded her visit? You would think she has seen a lot worse than this, but by her own admission, she has declared that she has only on one other occasion (in Colorado in September) met ill feeling and a willful disregard for the truth, as she has encountered here and now in Australia.
This is no badge of honour. It is petty, malicious, utterly pointless and misdirected venom that does not serve the cause for peace in the Middle East – criticism generated by people who, while they feel a deep commitment for the land occupied by both Israelis and Palestinians, do not live in that place. Our single obligation is to serve the cause of peace, not fan the horror people Dr Ashwari are attempting to bring to an end. We haven’t helped anyone one bit.
If the peace prize helps, we have done a good thing for all concerned. Better than mindless hate, rage, ignorance and bullying of each other here in Australia. This country is changing and not for the good.
***
BRANDIS – his speech and my analysis
Graeme Richardson: Not only is George Brandis a Benito Mussolini look-alike he is starting to sound like El Duce.
***
Peter Staudenmaier
I’ve enjoyed your coverage of the recent hullabaloo over the book on ecofascism that I co-authored and its misuse by Senator Brandis. If you’d like, you are welcome to use this email or portions of it on your Webdiary if you think that would interest readers. I have read through the Senate exchange and it looks to me like Brandis’s remarks are a clear misreading of my work, albeit a fairly common one. While it probably exceeds my competence as a historian to tell others what lessons they ought to draw from the events and movements I study, in this case I feel compelled to point out that my scholarship, as it stands, offers little support for the conclusions Brandis reached. Similar conclusions have been drawn before by other conservative readers of my work on ecofascism, who like to use my research as a cheap way to impugn virtually all varieties of political environmentalism. In my opinion, this is not a serious way to approach important historical questions – we still have a lot to learn from the history of political shortsightedness.
***
Llessur Yevod
On reflection, the amusingly stupid speech by Mr Brandis is not so worrying. If the Libs are so desperate to destroy the credibility of the Greens that they will resort to calling them Nazis they must be really scared. I would take this as a sign that the Greens are winning the battle for Australia’s hearts and minds, and that the Liberals are truly worried that their share of the vote will suffer as a result.
I also think this tactic will backfire strongly. How many Australians, when they hear that some Liberal has called Bob Brown a Nazi, won’t just start laughing?
Maybe they’re being cleverer than that, though. Before I learned better, I thought that the Greens were ridiculous and not worth my time – “fairies at the bottom of the garden”. Could Howard be carefully trying to steer people’s thoughts that way again? I wouldn’t be surprised.
***
John Crockett
A fascinating spray from Jane Duolman. I had not made the connection between the fascist’s love of beautiful bodies and Howard’s association with elite athletes and sporting events. I think this association is valid.
Howard is certainly playing the role of Father of the Nation – guiding, sympathising, consoling and re-assuring the nation in troubled times (and chastising the recalcitrants). It does suggest a very strange psycho-sexual compact with the Australian public though, particularly if you deny homosexual couples the same superannuation status as hetrosexual couples. Brandis should do some more reading.
As for political imagery, I think the the poster of Howard standing at the lectern, the head tilted and the fists clenched rivals Mussolini’s strutting jaw. Who needs a flag if you have Mussolini’s jaw or Howard at the lectern?
***
Peter Gellatly in Canada
I am about to get myself into hot water. Here goes. It seems to me there are three aspects to Senator Brandis’ speech.
(1) Brandis is a member of the present governing Coalition, a Coalition which – some individual competent policies aside – in its overall ethos and general approach evokes in me a visceral disgust. I am therefore not well disposed to accept its members’ stringent criticisms of others.
(2) Brandis’ lumping together of worldwide extreme Green-identified methods with the recent particular antics of Senators Brown and Nettle is entirely inappropriate. The Senators’ behaviour, though not much to my liking, was nevertheless entirely par for the course in Australian politics. By no means, with reference to our longstanding norms, could this behaviour be considered either extreme or antidemocratic. And its focus had nothing whatsoever to do with Green issues. No doubt more than a few Liberal, National, Labor and independent members secretly concurred with merits of the interjection.
(3) However, as to Brandis’ larger putdown of the worldwide Green movement, I am compelled to echo: “Fair comment!”. The point is, ALL intellectual movements harbour extremist cohorts: indeed it is commonly the extremists who actally get things done (for good or ill!). At the opposing fascist and communist ends of the political spectrum strategy and tactics meld, and oppression of dissent predominates.
To me the seeds of this authoritarianism are blatently evident within the Green movement. (I say this, even though I share many of the Greens’ environmental and globalisation concerns.) In particular, dissent is quashed, earnest objective analysts personally pilloried, proffered solutions subjected to exclusive and unyielding ideological merit tests.
Civil disobedience is stretched to include vandalism and potential personal injury (eg the deliberate spiking of trees in British Columbia, in the full knowledge that millworkers might consequently be killed). Democratic processes are subverted to achieve unstated personal-gain outcomes via high-profile touting of spurious “green” issues. These latter – personal injury and democratic subversion – tactics comprise the warning signal for incipient Green-authoritarianism. They also justify comparisons – of style, if not yet of degree – with fascism.
For, just like the fascists, Green extremists are dismissive of general community values. They believe Joe Public simply isn’t sufficiently educated or engaged, moreover the goal is pure and time is pressing, so strong measures are justified. In short, the end justifies the means. As with other virulent ideologies past, Green extremism bears all the hallmarks of a religion: wisdom comes from on high, medieval submission is demanded.
The world has myriad legitimate environmental problems crying out for resolution. Too many of these have been subverted as cover for a Green-extremism-sponsored ideological crusade. As a result, though I hold graduate qualifications in environment toxicology, I have – for nearly twenty years – generally avoided working in the environmental field. I simply couldn’t stomach what to me was oft-times religion dressed up as science, or outright fraudulent misrepresentation of an environmental concern in order to win an economic development dispute. To my mind, even legitimate cases won by such tactics contribute to a larger wrong.
Senator Brandis’ attempt to link wider Green extremism to his complaint about Senators Brown and Nettles is laughable, especially given his own party’s recent stellar record. Smacking of pot and kettle, Brandis’ disparagement list simply mirrors the many Webdiary submissions lucidly warning of fascist tendencies by our very own beloved Coalition! But dedicated Greens – and in the generic sense I consider myself one – should reflect on how and why so much anti-Green ammunition fell readily to Brandis’ hand.
*
Keir Dickson
My first reaction when I read George Brandis’ rant (and Andrew Bolt’s) was to simply shake my head. But the more I thought about it, the more I figured they might be onto something.
George and Andrew’s line is that Greens are Nazis simply because they share similar ideas on environmental matters, right? Well if we take their thinking to its logical conclusion, we make quite an amazing discovery: we are all Nazis!
There is strong evidence to prove Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic. He prayed daily and had the full support and friendship of the Vatican, right up to the Pope himself. They congratulated him on what he was doing persecuting Jews (before he really embarrassed them by killing Jews in huge numbers, but even then they didn’t condemn him outright). Clearly they shared many of the same religious and social ideals, in much the same way the Greens share Nazi environmental attitudes. Clearly, then, all Catholics are Nazis.
But then what about Joseph Stalin and his commie pals? They certainly weren’t Christian – but prior to Hitler invading the USSR, the two of them were great mates. They found they shared the same ideas on social and economic matters. That must mean that all communists (whatever their shade) are Nazis too.
And of course, we can’t forget that other insecure short bloke in a grey suit: Benito Mussolini. As a previous writer to your diary has noted, Benito once said: “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.” Well, fascism and nazism went hand in hand and there’s no denying fascists were Nazis. It’s pretty clear then that when our PM says competitive free enterprise is the foundation of our democracy, then our government is just a bunch of Nazis without the swastika. Not necessarily without the jackboots, though.
***
Simon Neldner in Kapunda, South Australia
I watched Senator George Brandis debate Bob Brown on Lateline, and if that’s the best that he can throw at The Greens then they have nothing to worry about. Did you notice how Brandis – by refusing to say who he’s been talking to – basically admitted that the Liberals have hatched a plan to attack The Greens? By saying he hadn’t talked to the PM – specifically – he then opened the door to the next question (who else have you been talking to) and the cat was out of the bag. It’s like Bush saying he hadn’t committed a felony before 1974, then finding himself cornered with the follow-up question. Good one George!
Back to the Liberal’s “get Bob” strategy. There are a number of reasons why this plan is not only ill-concieved, but has every chance of blowing-up in their faces. Bob Brown will welcome the opportunity to widen the debate, as by acknowledging them as a serious threat (perhaps some disturbing internal polling?) and therefore a contender or de-facto opposition, it can only strengthen Green support by giving the party both added credibility and free air-time on shows like Lateline. Howard’s attempts to demonise the Greens via his proxies won’t be nearly as successful as taking One Nation’s policies and squashing the Hanson insurgency. I think the Liberal strategy will fail for a number of reasons:
(1) The Greens are well organised, well established and are now a unified national party. It may be chaotic, but it’s organised chaos. Obviously, policy differences are going to emerge, and perhaps some hair brained schemes along the way, but the public can be very progressive (and shouldn’t be under-estimated) in thinking through the issues. In addition, the Greens aren’t actually trying to win Government, which means a coalition electoral strategy of blunting Green support cannot – by definition – be successful. If they get 8-10% of the primary vote, that’s enough of an electoral spanner in the works for John to choke on his weeties, even though by expending a lot of time and capital he might only shave a few percent off their overall support. Accomplishing what exactly? The flip-side, and this is the real killer, is that they might actually increase Green support.
(2) In the aftermath of the Brandis speech, attacking Bob Brown – the individual – gets them nowhere. In a past life, Brown was helping to save the Franklin River, but what the hell was Howard doing? Thinking-up a new tax? Planning-out his career as a professional politician? Please! In the integrity stakes, Howard should pick on someone his own size.
(3) Unlike Hansonism, The Greens aren’t a natural constituency for Howard’s brand of one-size fits all conservatism – far from it. Instead, any frontal assault on The Greens is going to both energise and motivate their base of support, who will be more determined to stick it to the Coalition at the ballot box. Second, they can’t be bought or placated by some sham environment policies or pork barreling (like the Democrats past indulgences in policy horse-trading, GST anyone?). The Greens are playing a different game, as what they are on about is an ideological/eco-structural shift as opposed to shuffling the fiscal deck chairs to make the current system more palatable.
As Brandis demonstrated on Lateline, the Coalition has no idea what the Greens actually stand for – this much is obvious. This is what happens when you turn you own party into an organisation that has little dissent and no real discussion on policy direction (Senator Brandis talking about having a “policy debate” was a real hoot, as I almost thought he was serious for a moment).
(4) With the Democrats imploding, the protest vote will be Green in 2004. Incumbency might have its benefits, but when you are going for election win number four, nothing is guaranteed.
(5) Howard might have gone to the well of political opportunism once too often, and wrapping yourself in the flag and pushing some patriotic buttons just doesn’t have the same electoral punch as in 2001. Given all that has happened – kids overboard, the war in iraq – Howard will need more than a credibility transplant by the time he decides to call an election (when even the economy might be heading south on a few interest rate rises and the aftershocks of a consumer debt binge come home to roost).
All of this underlines where the Coalition is at its most vulnerable – on its political flanks. On the progressive left, the Greens have the field to themselves and will undoubtedly exploit this advantage. On the regional right, we haven’t factored into the equation what might happen to the Nationals, particularly if Telstra is on the chopping block and there are no funds for stressed out rural communities or repairing a degraded infrastructure. Tony Windsor and Bob Katter are only the tip of the iceberg in rural discontent and disenchantment. Pauline Hanson proved that these votes can be secured, and it will only take a half decent, moderately organised and credible contender or independent voice to send the Nationals packing. Even if it’s death by a thousand cuts, the outcome is never in doubt. There is considerable rural unrest about changes to single-desk marketing arrangements, and a host of other policies and funding priorities where regional Australia feels they are being screwed, and a poorly negotiated US free trade deal could be enough to light the fuse. I would suggest a score of regional seats would be vulnerable to a grass-roots insurgency of this type, particularly if a double-dissolution election is called and a host of unpalatable legislation is your reward for voting the Coalition back for another term.