 |
| Australian dream, by Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com |
“The Israel Palestine debate can engender rationality, fairness and balance, despite appearances. Hanan Ashrawi’s recent visit caused an outpouring of responses from Jews, Zionists, non-Jews and Muslims, with many determined to have their say on this most important matter. No longer simply about the Sydney Peace Prize, thoughts have shifted to more fundamental questions.” Antony Loewenstein, guest editor of your latest reactions.
Margo note: Webdiary will be largely on hold for a while as I get stuck into my book. Please keep in touch – I’m reading all my emails and will continue writing a Sun Herald column each Sunday which will include some of them. The column can also be read in the opinion section of smh.com.au. I’m working on the Abbott slush fund at the moment, so any tips or info would be much appreciated.
The Israel Palestine debate can engender rationality, fairness and balance, despite appearances. Hanan Ashrawi�s recent visit caused an outpouring of responses from Jews, Zionists, non-Jews and Muslims, with many determined to have their say on this most important matter. No longer simply about the Sydney Peace Prize, thoughts have shifted to more fundamental questions:
* What is the likely future of the Israel/Palestine question?
* What will come of the much-discussed Road Map to Peace?
* What is the influence, power and coercive powers of the Jewish lobby in Australia?
* What kind of debate is continuing within the Jewish community about the fallout of the Ashrawi affair? Moreover, how are Jews viewed in the general community?
* Is the Palestinian narrative rarely heard in the mainstream press?
* What constitutes racist material against Jews or Muslims?
* Why is there so much coverage of the Israel/Palestine in our newspapers, and from which perspectives?
* How do we achieve greater understanding between Jews and Palestinians?
An indication of the bigotry in this debate struck home last week when I received a call from a man who identified himself as �David�. After initial pleasantries, he said, �You would have been gassed with the rest of us.� He went on to suggest that there could never be a Palestinian state �because that would be the end of Israel� and that my views as a Jew were a �disgrace�.
That�s the mentality I hope all sides will try to avoid. It may well be a minority opinion, but it suggests that absolutist policies will never solve the problem. Mutual respect, understanding, compassion, dialogue and compromise are the only way forward.
Over to your comments on Battle for minds, Ashrawi and Brandis: the great debate, Real Sydney people meet Hanan Ashrawi and Ashrawi leaves behind a fresh air debate on the Israel Palestine question.
***
Kerri Sinclair
Antony Loewenstein has misconstrued the intentions of those opposed to the peace prize being awarded to Hanan Ashrawi when he claims:
“The Jewish lobby doesn’t want people like her in the public sphere talking about Palestinian aspirations, hopes, fears, angers or dreams.”
If he is correct, then why is it that there was no campaign against her appearing at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas in 1999 where she was the keynote speaker? On that visit she also met with representatives of the Jewish community.
The criticism on this occasion was not intended to “intimidate and silence her” as claimed by Rawan Abdul-Nabi but to show why she is not a suitable recipient for the peace prize.
***
Jeff T
This comment by Margo needs analysis:
“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.”
She implicitly acknowledges that in a democracy interest groups have a right to lobby on issues important to them. However she draws a line in the sand as to what is acceptable and this needs looking at, particularly as she asserts Jewish groups have crossed this line to an extent that could result in a “surge in anti-Semitism”. All this on the basis of her insinuations that certain things have a place, which she makes without providing any supporting evidence.
Surely people who strongly oppose a decision, and lobby against it, wish to convince others of the correctness of their view. The outcome they would be hoping for is a reversal of the decision, so why else lobby? How do you distinguish between people “strongly opposing the decision” (and obviously seeking the outcome of its reversal) and people “attempting to force the withdrawal of the award”? On what basis does she characterise the actions of sections of the Jewish community as “attempting to force the withdrawal of the award” which she finds unacceptable rather than the acceptable “strongly opposing” the decision?
Anyone strongly opposing a decision is attempting to have it reversed, but of course this distinction she makes turns on the word “force”. Force means that a metaphorical gun of some kind has been put to someone’s head, so rather than attempting to convince with the power of their arguments they have gone “Do it – or else!”
Please tell us who within the Jewish community has done this to whom, what was the nature of the threat made etc? I have read no reports to support her insinuations of “force”, all I have seen is evidence of strong lobbying by Jewish interest groups, “strongly opposing” the decision, eminently defensible by her own account.
Margo: For evidence see Alan Ramsey’s columns on the matter, the comments of Kathryn Greiner and the sudden, dictatorial reversal of policy by Sydney mayor Lucy Turnbull. To me, pressuring people to withdraw their support for the award is challenging the good faith of the body which chose the winner. There is a big difference between opposing the merits of an award and trying to destroy the body which awarded it. That smacks of closing down free speech to me, not exercising the right to it. It suggests that to certain lobbyists it is simply unacceptable to have views contrary to theirs. It’s the Voltaire point – I may disagree with everything you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
***
Andrew Byrne
Sorry to jump in late on the Ashrawi discussions. May I say that the response to Dr. Ashrawi receiving the piece prize has been astounding.
What I’m about to say may come across as harsh and the fact that I must explain myself before hand is an example of the difficulties of the issue I’m writing about. I find it a disgrace the way the Jewish faith and western guilt over the horrors of the Holocaust are used by some elements as a shield from behind which they can safely throw stones at their “enemies”. They use this shield just as a person would hold up an antique vase against an attack, essentially preventing their enemies from throwing stones back lest the vase be broken to the horror and disgust of all assembled.
I’m tired of hearing any criticism levelled at Israel or Jewish military/economic/territorial interest being venomously classified as anti-Semitic. Simply rebutting that an accusation of anything Jewish or Israeli is anti-Semitic is a cop-out of the least gracious and most disgraceful order. If anything, anyone using the anti-Semitic card as a regular defence is actually behaving in dishonour of the very historical/cultural elements they’re using as that defence.
So to those who so viciously attack Dr. Ashrawi or Margo Kingston or anyone who has ever said the Palestinians are also victims in this war of mutual legitimisation with Israel, I say stop behaving like a victim. Stop being childish. Stop behaving like this. It’s a disgrace to any concept of fairness, an insult to a horrible past, encouragement to a disgraceful present and in the long run it damages everyone.
***
Bren Carlill, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Antony Loewenstein is very good at confusing the issue. When the ‘Jewish Lobby’ in Australia condemns Hanan Ashrawi’s record of implicit support for Hamas and explicit support for attacking Israeli civilians in the territories, he seemingly purposefully misinterprets that as being a blanket condemnation of all Palestinians.
Surely Loewenstein realises that the ‘Jewish Lobby’ is not one voice, and not of one opinion, just as he lambasts it for – according to him – not recognising that the Palestinians are not all bloody-thirsty savages crying out for Jewish blood (regardless of what is still propagated on official Palestinian TV).
Some of Israel’s policies do not promote peace between themselves and the Palestinians. Some are even wrong. But just because he believes that, does Loewenstein have to overlook the crimes of the other side?
If an Israeli politician or public figure appealed for purposeful attacks against Palestinian civilians, I am sure Loewenstein would be publicly upset. Is it therefore hypocritical that he isn’t when a well-known member of the other side does the same?
***
Steve J. Spears
Edward Baral said:
“I am shocked and appalled and somewhat frightened by the Webdiary posted on smh.com.au today (Battle for minds).
Ignoring factual inaccuracies and one sided 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 “militaristic mindset”)��
Yada, yada yada.
Then Mr Baral said:
“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 are not published in the future.”
I say: Mr Baral, Jews do actually lobby. Zionists do actually lobby. There is a good case to be made that the Israelis are using jackboot techniques. For Margo to withdraw the article would make as much sense as her refusing to publish your letter of indignation. And who the hell are you to be Margo’s media manager? I ask that you get over this love affair with censorship, pull your head in and advise me what steps you will take to keep said head pulled in in future.
Shalom.
***
Robert Green
I refer to Webdiary, edited by ultra left wing journalist Margo Kingston. Why is there no range of views on the award of the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi? Why is it only fellow left-wingers Ian Cohen andAntony Loewenstein?
I thought the Herald was about presenting both sides on significant issues.
***
Steve Brook and Randa Abdel-Fattah
Australians have heard a lot recently from people presuming to speak for the whole Australian Jewish community about Hanan Ashrawi’s suitability for the Sydney Peace Prize. Much harder to hear have been the voices of those Australians – Arab and Jewish, Palestinian and Israeli – who do actually speak to one another in tones other than those of abuse and recrimination.
Dr Ashrawi has been accused of being “the matriarch of PLO terror”, of only ever condemning terrorism on pragmatic grounds and of being unworthy of the honour that NSW Premier Bob Carr bestowed upon her in the state parliament.
Many of these charges are distortions. Dr Ashrawi is quoted as saying that violence is the only language Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon understands, and this remark is used to show she advocates violence. Yet Israeli journalists regularly make the same assessment without any such slur being attached to them. The claim that she has only ever rejected terror on pragmatic grounds is disproved by an article she wrote on December 11, 2001 for the Palestinian website MIFTAH, in which she asks:
“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?”
More recently, in an interview with Jane Hutcheon on September 16, 2003, the “matriarch of terror” had this to say about Hamas and Islamic Jihad:
“They have to understand that there are requirements for democracy and if you want to be a player in the political arena then you have to become political and not violent and you have to abide by the law.”
Those of us who, as Jews and Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis, believe the only way forward out of the madness of conflict is to recognise and honour the humanity and diversity of others, also believe that one of the worst aspects of war is its creation of false dualities: either you are a true believer or an infidel, with us or against us.
Dr Ashrawi is a critic of Oslo, of the Road map, of Israelis and Palestinians. In this, she mirrors the reality that produced her. But are these above criticism? Those who would deny her the Sydney Peace Prize would find it easy to deny any Palestinian such an honour.
When Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer tell us that former Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas would be a better choice, they show how little they understand these moves to demonise any Palestinian voice. Were Mr Abbas – a far less articulate advocate of peace than Dr Ashrawi – to be chosen, the same groups which have attacked her would reach into their archives to condemn the man Ariel Sharon and George Bush shook hands with at Aqaba as a Holocaust denier – indeed, they have already done so.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to a number of Israeli politicians and to one Palestinian. Yet nowhere can one find in Dr Ashrawi’s past an affirmation of violence to compare with then Israeli defence minister Yitzhak Rabin’s instruction, to troops facing stone-throwing children, to employ “force, might and beatings”. Neither has Dr Ashrawi ever expressed an utter rejection of the two-state solution in the manner of Nobel laureate Menachem Begin:
“The partition of Palestine is illegal�Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.”
We need not remind anyone that Yasser Arafat was no pacifist in the years before Oslo.
Would those who have questioned the choice of Dr Ashrawi have questioned the choice of Mr Begin or Mr Rabin? Dr Ashrawi is a politician and an academic – not once in all the wild accusations levelled at her in recent weeks has she been accused of any violent crime. Yet Mr Begin led a terrorist group that bombed a Jerusalem hotel, killing Jews, Arabs and others. A group that kidnapped British soldiers as hostages and then executed them.
Those of us in the Jewish and Arab communities who believe in dialogue understand that it begins with an effort to walk in another man’s or woman’s shoes. Those who cannot distinguish between the shoes of Dr Ashrawi and the shoes of a terrorist – those for whom every Palestinian is irretrievably on the ‘other’ side – are, we believe, not interested in any kind of talking at all.
***
Rateb Chalak
I feel I have to say sorry first when I am asked where do you come from. I fear where this country is going. Anything against Israel is considered to be against all Jews.
Small man with big pockets push and bully in the name of being true Jews and they are called true Australians.
I say, please sir, I don’t share your ideas, and I get called a fanatic Jew hater.
They say we have the right to kill anyone that might be thinking of defending their land and our Australian leaders say they have to live in peace so they have to kill to have security.
I say, please sir, can I have a little freedom and I get called fanatic.
The true fanatics call me a non-believer and I should be killed as a matter of priority. At this moment we are getting a fair deal in this country but I fear the small man in Melbourne with big pockets would like to see all Arabs locked up and anyone that doesn’t share what he believes in should be locked up with us. Where are we going with all this madness?
God save us all from all hate loving people that think money can buy respect.
***
Tim Gillan
The directive from “President Merkin Muffley”, alias Peter Sellers, to two battling underlings in Kubrick’s “Dr Strangelove” seem oddly appropriate for the Sydney “Peace” Prize brouhaha. “You can’t fight in here, this is the War Room!”
One Nation’s Queensland parliamentary leader Bill Flynn discussing the wheels and deals behind “Australians for Honest Politics” has pointed out:
“One eager contributor to Australians for Honest Politics was former Kerry Packer executive and Rene Rivkin business associate Trevor Kennedy who, it has been revealed, put profits from a Sydney business deal into a Swiss bank account…”
This suggests a suitable method for compensating Hanson for her hard time. Along with Rio Tinto, it was Kerry Packer’s PBL who helped put the money up for the recent Sydney Peace Prize. So maybe the easy way out is simply to get Hanson awarded the prize next year. This shouldn’t be a problem. After all, the previously unknown Sydney Peace Prize is now no stranger to controversy. And all the really glitzy peace prizes go to gaol birds anyhow.
***
Mike Lyvers � �very proudly non-Jewish, non-Christian and non-Muslim�
Margo, I have no problem whatsoever with your posting the views of people (Jews or otherwise, that’s irrelevant) who support the prize. I was just expressing my personal disappointment with your endorsement of the prize. For the record I support a two-state “solution” but I don’t think the violence will end even with a prosperous Palestinian state established. More than half of Palestine is currently “occupied” by Jordan but you don’t see suicide bombers attacking civilians there. The problem is really one of religion – the fact that certain Islamist elements don’t want an “infidel state” in the Middle East.
Antony Loewenstein cites PLO propaganda-meister Hanan Ashrawi as referring to the part of historic Palestine occupied by Israel (but curiously not the part occupied by Jordan) as “being on the receiving end of the last remaining colonial situation in the world [Dr Ashrawi pointed out that the US Occupation of Iraq can now be added to this grim reality].”
The racism on display above is breathtaking. What about Tibet? Or does “colonial situation” to Ashrawi only apply to situations where Arabs are the ones claiming to be colonized? And does Ashrawi really regard the temporary US occupation of Iraq as “grim” compared to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Too bad the meeting with Ashrawi was (apparently) just a love-fest where no one called her reams of bullshit on her.
By the way, Margo, thanks for posting a diversity of views on Webdiary about the “peace prize” controversy. Webdiary is at its best when all sides of an issue are expressed there.
***
David Moses
I think just enough has been said about giving this woman the “Peace” prize, but I cannot let her words pass without comment.
No matter how eloquently she may speak, we should not be fooled and allow her to equate suicide bombers with Apache helicopters – her direct words. One targets the MAXIMUM murder of innocent people in order to create terror, the other are precise attacks on military targets, designed in every way to MINIMISE, if not eliminate, civilian casualties. Not only are they unequal, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
***
Simon Grant
It’s embarrassing that there even needs to be a response to such a ludicrous fool as George Brandis (Nazi Greens an enemy of democracy, government decrees). If debate stoops so low as to entertain his position then the battle is already lost.
This and the general Middle East question are forever hijacked by reactionary, simplistic nonsense that does nothing to further humanity or realistic solutions.
Many have seized the way Ashrawi avoided responding to direct questions because her ‘true’ beliefs would be exposed. Nonsense! She judiciously avoids the sort of simplistic and sensational questions seeking to lay blame or demonise. She should be applauded for seeking to use her own words to express her beliefs rather than be subjected to the prejudicial contexts of others pushing their own agenda.
First we have journalists and politicians taking Hanson’s views seriously and now we have the dills debating Brandis!
PS: Congratulations to Prof Rees for having the strength of his convictions while all around turned to Turnbulls.
***
David Roffey
Reading the ongoing debate on peace and Israel on your Webdiary continues to be a mix of relief that there are some sane voices in the world and despair at those who think that name-calling is debate and violence is the only route to peace.
I don’t know if you saw this Guardian article in September translated from an original Hebrew article in ‘Yediot Aharonot’ by Avraham Burg, until recently speaker of the Knesset – and therefore difficult to decry as anti-Jew. He presents a series of stark choices for Israel:
Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.
Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.
Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.
The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers, or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.
***
Lloyd McDonald
Hanan Ashrawi’s visit has surely made us realise one thing – we need an Arab perspective more than anything else. To listen to Howard and Downer parrot stock Israeli responses as if the Palestinians were irrelevant has added to the numbness one feels being an “Australian” in this current political climate. To watch this sad travesty that is ‘Tampa rerun’ over 14 boat people really makes you question your values as a human being. Are we really going to swallow this again? How sad would it be if we did!
***
Daniel Greengarten
It is quite obvious having observed Mr Loewenstein’s recent works that he has in the past faced ridicule from inside the Jewish community for his endeavours to report on the Palestinian aspect of the conflict.
Whatever sympathy he may have elicited has evaporated through his obvious attempt at retribution against the entire Jewish community by his constant referral to ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jewish’ lobbies as if they represent a conspiratorial entity. His reference to these aforementioned ‘Lobby Groups’ is clearly Mr Loewenstein’s attempt to strike back at those in his community who have criticised his reporting in the past.
They (the Jewish Community), like you Antony, have the right to articulate their concerns, however unlike you Antony, you have access to the medium to express your views on a far-reaching scale. If you believe it is your responsibility as a journalist to convey your perceptions, then be prepared for criticism.
You have lowered yourself below your critics by collectively punishing the Jewish community with your references to the ‘Zionist/Jewish’ lobby, knowing that you gain favour amongst those readers who believe such an organization actually exists. To be for Palestinian self-determination is not anti-Semitic – however to portray the entire Jewish community as members of the ‘Zionist/Jewish’ conspiratorial lobby is to promote a widely held anti-Semitic belief. You have failed in your responsibility, Mr Loewenstein!
***
Nick Smith
The Israel /Palestine issue always seemed to me too far away, too foreign, so unAustralian in its seeming senseless unremitting violence. It was too easy around the BBQ to dismiss it all as “the whole lot are just animals or mad”.
Then came 9/11, a western experience of apparent Arab terrorism. Then Bali, more terrorism closer to home. The BBQ was a little more subdued when it was mentioned. Then an immediate threat of WMD from more Arabs meant our soldiers actually were sent to this violent region and were directly involved in war by invading to protect us from this imminent threat.
What is next? Will some local Arab Australians appear responsible for some huge violence that cancel all BBQs for weeks? When will everyone who can think take a break in their busy lives and have a long think about it all? The terrible escalating violence encapsulated in spin that bears no scrutiny, and the increasing suffering of the many – soon to be us too – and only benefiting a ruthless few has to stop. The one thing these events all lack is scrutiny at a public level. The destiny of sheep is slaughter, for BBQs.
***
Rawan Abdul-Nabi
I wanted to respond briefly to some remarks made by Dan Meijer in She’s got it! who responded to a comment made by Dr Hanan Ashrawi at a public forum on Saturday November 8.
The UN Partition plan (Resolution 181) on Palestine was not equal as he says. For Palestinian Arabs who represented just about 70% of the population and had been living and cultivating on their land for centuries and centuries, the partition plan gave them 47% of the land.
The Jews, who developed a new collective identity (even though before the immigration, Palestinian Arabs compromised of Jews, Christians and Muslims), had rapidly being streaming in from Europe since the 1890s, and were given 53% of historic Palestine although they contributed to about 30% of the population.
Anyone faced with such a drastic measurement would have protested such inequality. Further, Israel declared itself a state very quickly – knowing that the Arab states were trying to work out another feasible solution with the UN. They were proposing one state for all people, not a division which would bring further conflict and war.
The only people expelled were about 750,000 Palestinians (over half the total of the Palestinian population at the time), a process that began in 1947, increased in May 1948 and continued until 1949. This created the longest standing refugee question in the world today, and is yet to be solved.
Every year the UN General Assembly sit and passes its resolutions on the Question of Palestine and any prospect of peace. That resolution lies in compensating those refugees or their descendants or granting them their right to return.
Further, Ashrawi was not referring to the partition plan as Dan asserts. She was referring to the creation of Israel itself – which divided and usurped Palestinian society. This is the history that has been ignored, washed away and kept silenced.