Irfan Yusuf is a lawyer, award-winning author, commentator and humorist. His comic memoir "Once Were Radicals: My Years As A Teenage Islamo-fascist" was published in May 2009. He currently lives in Sydney where he is completing his doctorate.
It's easy to tell that the Opinion Editor of a foreign-owned newspaper calling itself The Australian isn't too fond of Palestinian national sentiment. She's also rather dismissive of that overwhelming majority of Palestinians who feel Israel's creation hasn't exactly been a boon for Palestinian nationhood.
THE Palestinian diaspora in Australia is facing an unexpected catastrophe. Normally, May 15, Israel's Independence Day, is the most important day of their year for celebrating their victimhood: the catastrophe, as they see it, of the founding of Israel.
And what will Palestinians be upset with a certain Israeli Arab journalist about?
... Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab Muslim journalist, who declares: "I'd rather be a second-class citizen in Israel than a first-class citizen in any Arab country."
I agree with him. I also agree that I'd rather be an Australian citizen than have dual Australian-Israeli citizenship. I don't want my passport and identity used to commit assassinations and other acts of terror.
So who are the entirety of the Palestinian diaspora that despises Abu Toameh? Ms Weisser cites one Ali Kazak. Yep. One bloke.
Ms Weisser ends her report with these words:
Whatever transpires, Abu Toameh, unlike his critics in the diaspora, will be there to report what is happening to the Palestinian people.
Though one somehow doubts his work will appear anywhere on the Opinion Page of The Australian, especially if critical of Israel.
They've bought some Bethlehem to Chauvel Street and Cutler Parade this year. Each year, these two streets in the Sydney suburb of North Ryde come alive with a gorgeous multicoloured light display showing lots of Santa and reindeers and snowmen and even the odd scene of Bethlehem.
It takes me back to my school nativity plays at Ryde East Public School, when Mary and Joseph were played by blonde-headed white kids while not-so-white kids like me played the three wise men from the east.
Our Christmas is the stuff of fairytales. If you don't believe me, try answering the following multiple-choice questions:
Where is Bethlehem?
A. The North Pole B. In my neighbour's front yard C. Rome D. The West Bank/Palestine
What language do they speak in Bethlehem?
A. English B. French C. Latin D. Arabic
What nationality do the people of Bethlehem belong to?
A. Egyptian B. Palestinian C. Spanish D. Roman
What word do Bethlehem locals use for God when they pray?
A. God B. Jehovah C. Allah D. Yahweh
My 11-year-old nephew only got one of these questions right. He tells me he's probably representative of most kids in his class.
Of course, some bigots never tire of reminding us Australia is a Christian nation. They use this as a means to insist that people who look almost as Middle Eastern as Jesus and Mary are not welcome here. They're scared their neighbourhood might resemble Bethlehem too much.
Still, we are not the only people to impose our cultural fetishes on the real nativity scene. In 1998, I visited Brazil. In the world's largest Catholic country, I saw icons of Jesus and Mary everywhere. There was one not-so-subtle difference between these and the icons I see in Australia. For millions of Brazilian Catholics, the Blessed Virgin with child both had black skin.
But if you want to really inject some Jesus and Mary and even the odd wise man into Christmas, nothing beats paying a visit to Beyt Lahm (literally House of Meat, as Bethlehem locals refer to their city in Arabic). While you're there, you can pay a visit to Santa also. The real Santa Claus was a 5th century Byzantine bishop who lived in the neighbouring hillside village of Beyt Jala.
I've never been to Beyt Lahm or Beyt Jala, but I've read a fair few accounts by people who have visited the place. I’ve even met some people from the city.
In June 2007, a group of prominent Bethlehem civic leaders visited Australia to sign a sister-city agreement with the city of Marrickville. Among them were the Mayor Dr Victor Batarseh and the then-parish priest Father Amjad Sabbara.
Father Amjad told me a little about the Church of the Nativity, built on the site where it is believed Christ was born. I asked Father Amjad the word or name his congregation used when addressing their prayers. The good priest told me that when praying to God in their native Arabic,
... we address God as Allah. For us, of course, Allah is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Father Amjad also told me he would be leaving Bethlehem soon to take up a position at a church in Nazareth. No prizes for guessing what name they use to address God there.
Believe it or not, Christianity (like its sister faiths Judaism and Islam) is a religion born in the Middle East. The descendants of the neighbourhood where Christ was born are Palestinians. Anti-Palestinian racists have tried to paint Palestinians as nasty blood-thirsty terrorists.
In 1989, still in 2nd year uni, I saw a Palestinian student at Orientation Week harassed for displaying a symbol of terrorism (the chequered kefiyyeh head dress). At the time, I presumed his opponents from the Union of Jewish Students had a point.
The 1993 Oslo Accords changed all that. It suddenly became respectable to wear a kefiyyeh and support Palestine. The two-state solution which had been maligned for all those years became political orthodoxy.
Bethlehem was one of the many West Bank towns conquered by Israel following the Six Day War in 1967. The Church of the Nativity was the subject of a 39-day siege in the spring of 2002. During that same year, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) had occupied the city four times, the longest stay being three months.
Imagine bringing up your kids in Bethlehem. Australian writer Randa Abdel Fattah’s most recent novel Where The Streets Had A Name tells the story of a Palestinian teenage girl from Bethlehem whose journeys to her grandmother's ancestral home in Jerusalem on one of the rare days when the IDF hadn't enforced a curfew. The trip was hardly ten kilometres, but the girl and her friend must navigate numerous checkpoints, a permit system and the wall that divides the West Bank from itself and from Israel.
The wall also divides Bethlehem from itself and from the rest of the West Bank. This has had disastrous results for the Bethlehem economy. In his book Us And Them veteran journalist Peter Manning describes his own visit to Bethlehem a few years back. Locals told Manning that the reduced tourism is caused by Israeli tourist operators scaring away Christian tourists by telling them that Bethlehem is too dangerous. One site that especially troubled Manning was to see children begging in the streets, something he had not seen anywhere else in the Middle East.
Although we normally associate Beyt Lahm with peace on earth and goodwill to all men, not much goodwill gets shown at the Israeli checkpoints, border crossings etc. In the nearby Christian village of Beyt Jala, Jewish settlements are being built on stolen land. Then again, suicide bombers don't show much goodwill either.
This Christmas, while you're munching on turkey and opening presents, spare a thought and perhaps even a prayer for the people of Bethlehem.
STOP PRESS!!: THIS MOVIE IS SCREENING FRIDAY 30 OCTOBER 2009 AT THE PALESTINIAN FILM FESTIVAL IN SYDNEY. FOR OTHER SESSIONS IN MELBOURNE AND ADELAIDE, VISIT THE PFF WEBSITE HERE.
This film looks like a real gem. Hopefully it will be coming to cinemas down under also.
And here are some interviews with Cherien Dabis, the director of the film. Also included are profiles of some of the cast.
Mr Michael Danby, former editor of what used to be called the Australia-Israel Review and now Federal Labor Member for Melbourne Ports, has a go at two popular Australian websites - Crikey and NewMatilda. He engages in a grievance mass debate in the House of Representatives on 7 September 2009, the contents of which can be read here.
Mr Danby was scathing of these websites' moderating comments that he regarded as anti-Semitic and racist comments appearing after articles. Here are some terms he uses to describe comments published here on the subject of the Israel/Palestine conflict:
... unmoderated, unleashed and unhinged comments on their websites ... the broad slabs of hate speak published in the comments section following each article ... Newmatilda publishes blatantly bigoted commentary, even though the magazine explicitly reserves the right to moderate that commentary if it is abusive or promotes hate. Only since being exposed has Newmatilda stopped publishing race hate in its comment columns.
... Crikey and its editor, Jonathan Green, have made no explanation or issued no apology. Eric Beecher, the owner of Crikey, who hails from a similar ethnic cultural background to me, owes an explanation for Crikey’s publication of these hate filled comments. Such comments would be suited for publication in Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer.
I write for both websites on a fairly regular basis. Much of my writing for Crikey has been to expose racist commentary moderated in blogs published by far better resourced international news outlets. I have also exposed racist commentary made by bloggers and columnists, some of whom Mr Danby has accompanied on trips to Israel.
If Mr Danby is serious about racism on websites, he should consider making an issue of what is published in the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph. He should consider some of the anti-Lebanese, anti-African, anti-Muslim and anti-Aboriginal commentary published on the blogs of Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman.
Perhaps Mr Danby could provide some examples of comments left on NewMatilda and/or Crikey comparable to the ones found here or here or here. Or how about these?
All this begs one question: Is Mr Danby's refusal to attack these columnists' toleration of clearly racist, violent, xenophobic and fascistic remarks somehow related to their being solid supporters of the most far-Right views inside Israel? Would Mr Danby be more vocal in his criticism of these bloggers if they were somewhat less supportive of Israel?
The text accompanying this Al Jazeera video is as follows:
The Israeli prime minister has said he will not accept limits on the expansion of Jewish housing in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
One of the reasons for Binyamin Netanyahu's support of the construction is Israel's drive to keep Jewish population levels up in areas they claim as their own.
Now Al Jazeera has discovered that hundreds of Palestinian-Israelis have bought houses and are living in disputed settlements in East Jerusalem.
Members of a Palestinian family who have been served an eviction notice to leave their home in the Sheik Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem are taking it in turns to stay awake in case Israeli authorities come to force them out.
Rami Hannoun, one of the family members, said: "The Israelis say they own this land, that they own it since a long time ago. But we also have papers that say we own this land".
For some reason, this quietly-spoken Israeli anthropologist stirs up bucketloads of nasty sentiment from some quarters. Professor Halper is a member of the Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions (ICAHD).
I saw Professor Halper speak last night at Macquarie University. It was so wonderful to see young men and women committed to defending what they saw as Israel's interests, and only being able to do so by attacking an Israeli academic! One audience member even declared that Professor Halper was speaking "half-truths" and would soon be "exposed" as a "fraud".
Anyway, Professor Halper has a nunber of other gigs, one of which is ...
Monday 23 March 6-7.15pm Professor Jeff Halper, Israeli Committee against Housing Demolitions will speak on:
Defending Palestinian Homes: Challenging the Gaza Blockade
6pm Monday 23 March Uniting Church 2 Newcombe Street Paddington (by the Paddington Market site on Oxford Street)
Professor Halper provides an account of the Middle East that you will rarely find in mainstream Australian media but which is openly published in mainstream Israeli media.
If you're quick, you can hear Professor Halper being interviewed on ABC Brisbane radio by clicking here. And here's Jeff Halper talking on the subject of From Apartheid to Warehousing.
This video is yet further evidence that Israel never attacks civilians. Its campaign was only against terrorists.
Here is the text accompanying the video:
Israel's cabinet is considering how to protect its soldiers from international prosecution for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
More than 1,300 Palestinians were killed during Israel's three week offensive, many of them women and children.
Al Jazeera's Amr El-Kahky has been to a hospital in Egypt, where doctors claim the wounds they are treating may have been caused by the use of white phosphorus.
This package contains images that may disturb or offend some viewers.
This is truly disturbing. You'd have to be completely heartless not to be moved by this tragedy. This man treated Israelis and Palestinians. He worked as a specialist in both Israeli and Gaza hospitals. He worked to save the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians. In appreciation for his services, the IDF murdered this doctor's three daughters.
Is Israel using illegal weapons in its bombardment of Gaza? Amira Hass, an award-winning Israeli journalist examines this question in a recent report for Haaretz.
Hass begins by painting a picture eerily familiar to those accustomed (as Hass is) to seeing Israel's bombardment of Palestinian territories.
The earth shaking under your feet, clouds of choking smoke, explosions like a fireworks display, bombs bursting into all-consuming flames that cannot be extinguished with water, mushroom clouds of pinkish-red smoke, suffocating gas, harsh burns on the skin, extraordinary maimed live and dead bodies.
All of this is being caused by the bombs Israel is dropping on the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, according to reports and testimonies from there.
This kind of bombardment has been going on for years. Hass has witnessed it and has been writing about it for years. She has spoken to both Palestinian and Israeli authorities, NGO's and human rights groups, not to mention ordinary citizens. But there is something new about the most recent bombardment:
Since the first day of the Israeli aerial attack, people have been giving exact descriptions of the side effects of the bombing, and claiming that Israel is using weapons and ammunition that they have not seen during the past eight years.
Furthermore, the kinds of grave injuries doctors at hospitals in the Strip have reported are providing yet another explanation for the overwhelming dread inhabitants are experiencing in any case.
Enter Mark Galasco, a senior military analyst from Human Rights Watch. Galasco wants to get to the bottom of allegations against Israel. he wants to see for himself. He wants to determine what weapons have been used by Israel, and whether they are illegal. Israel, of course, is cooperating completely, confident that it will be exonerated.
The American-born Garlasco has not been permitted to enter Gaza - as is also the case with people from other human rights organizations and foreign journalists. Therefore, he says, since he is unable to examine actual remnants of the explosives and see the wreckage with his own eyes, he can only guess or make assumptions in some cases. But even from afar, he has no doubt: Israel is using white phosphorus bombs. That was immediately clear to him while he stood last week on a hill facing the Gaza Strip and observed the Israel Defense Forces' bombings for several hours.
So is there anything wrong with using white phosphorus in battle? What are the effects of white phosphorus on civilians? And where did Israel get this stuff from?
The use of white phosphorus is permitted on the battlefield, explains Garlasco, but the side effects on humans and the environment are severe and highly dangerous. The statement notes that the "potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world."
The fireworks-like explosions, the thick smoke, suffocating gas, and flames that are not extinguished by water, but rather are heightened by it - all of these are characteristic of the white phosphorus bombs the IDF is using. Garlasco believes the decision to make such extensive use of these bombs, manufactured by America's General Dynamics Corporation, stems from conclusions drawn from the Second Lebanon War, in which the IDF lost many tanks.
"The phosphorus bombs create a thick smokescreen and if Hamas has an anti-tank rocket, the smoke prevents the rocket from tracking the tank," he explains. There are two ways to use the bombs: The first is to impact them on the ground, in which case the resulting thick smokescreen covers a limited area; the second way is an airburst of a bomb, which contains 116 wafers doused in phosphorus. The moment the bomb blows up and the phosphorus comes in contact with oxygen - it ignites. This is what creates the "fireworks" and billows of jellyfish-shaped smoke. The fallout covers a wide area and the danger of fires and harm to civilians is enormous. The phosphorus burns glass, and immediately ignites paper, trees, wood - anything that is dry. The burning wafers causes terrible injury to anyone who comes in contact with them. The irony is that tear gas is included in the Chemical Weapons Convention and is subject to all kinds of restrictions, whereas phosphorus is not.
And in the meantime, in the hospitals in Gaza there are people lying in beds - among them many children - whose severe injuries and burns have appalled the medical teams.
But in case you thought HAMAS was innocent and spotless in all this, think again. HAMAS doesn't seem to care much for civilians either. It also has some very strange views on international law.
Garlasco and Human Rights Watch also examine the other side, and he says, "We believe that the Grad and Qassam are illegal weapons because they are not accurate enough to be used in this situation." He adds that Hamas makes frequent use of land mines and explosive charges that are liable to injure civilians.
However, because he and his fellow experts can't go into Gaza, "We don't know what the extent of any [Palestinian] civilian casualties is because of Hamas - whether they are shooting soldiers and their bullets end up killing civilians, or whether their anti-tank missiles miss an Israeli tank and hit a house. We don't know."
In 2005, Garlasco met with a political representative of Hamas and told him that use of Grads is a contravention of the Geneva Convention. The reply he got from the Hamas man was: "'All Israelis are military.' And I explained to them that their reading of international law is wrong." It is amazing, he adds, that the Palestinians can manufacture the Qassams under the conditions in Gaza. The Grad, however, "is a real military weapon, three meters long. It has a significant warhead. The problem is that it is designed to be fired in mass, to be fired 21 rockets at a time, so that you are covering an area and you are having a shock effect. You don't only have an explosion, but also a shock and it covers a big area. Shooting one at a time is almost useless from a military perspective."
There are always two signs to every coin. Or as they say in Arabic and Hebrew (and Urdu and Hindi as well), you can't clap with one hand.
A certain scholarly person calling him/her/itself wronwright of VRWC left this breathtakingly brilliant remark at Tim Blair's blog on Friday 16 Jan 09 at 06:19am ...
If the Palestinians had an ounce of common sense and vision, they’d work hard on gaining the trust of all non-Muslims (e.g., Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists) ... But no, the Palestinians suffer from the same affliction that affects most other Muslims. They have their collective heads up their asses.
He's right. Islamic fanatics like Hanan Ashrawi and Victor Batarseh are responsible for the Palestinians' plight. How can you expect a people who are 100% Muslim to get anywhere?
It really is great to see such brilliant minds congregating at Mr Blair's blog.
UPDATE I: The Daily Tele's resident cyber-Nazis seem to be enjoying the limelight if this post on Dim Tim's blog is anything to go by. And as always, Dim Tim can't seem to get his mind off my figure.
UPDATE II: Tim Blair has a friend on YouTube! Check out the sophisticated nuanced analysis from this prominent commentator:
This chap provides ...
Some missives from commentary of Tim Blair
Commentary. From Dim Tim. Pfft ...
UPDATE III: Amazing. Did you know that North Korea has now become an Islamist state ruled by peculiarly North Asian form of sharia? According to AnnJ of Sydney at 10:32am:
I’m guessing that Irfan also supports the stifling of dissent and would prefer to live in an Australia that is more like, say, North Korea under sharia law. But then again, he might only be very young.
Well, I haven't reached 40 yet. I may be young. But AnnJ, like most of the quacks that hang out at Dim Tim's blog, are just plain stupid. What will these poor innocents come up with next? You gotta wonder about Griffin of Melbourne who follows up AnnJ's Korean sharia theory up with these comments at 1:39 on Sunday 18 Jan 09:
The people who hang out here are very smart and funny, the information they provide is relevant and easily verifiable. I learn more and more each time I visit this blog, and watching the discussions here ...
I wonder where Griffin will find verification of North Korea's sudden transformation!
I've been impressed with the work of British sociologist Frank Furedi ever since I saw him speak at a symposium on Enlightenment values organised by the (right-of-) Centre for Independent Studies last year.
Furedi is hard to pidgeon-hole. He skirts around the edges of liberal, conservative and libertarian. Perhaps the best way to describe him is independent. He doesn't treat issues like so many cultural warriors do - as if every issue has to be treated as a choice between binary opposites, as spectators in some kind of ideological footbal match where one must barrack for one side or the other. At least that's my assessment in the brief time I've been following his work.
I don't agree with Furedi on many issues, but I can't also help noticing him often displaying the kind of consistency that can pierce through layers of rhetoric and popular hysteria. This is on display in his most recent column published in The Australian today.
Anyone who follows this blog will know that in the current crisis between Israel and HAMAS, my sympathies are firmly with civilians of both sides. I believe the greater aggression is being committed by the Israeli Defence Forces, and Israeli spin-doctors are lying through their teeth.
But how should we respond? Do we automatically assume criticism of Zionism or Israel's actions necessarily represents anti-Jewish sentiment? I agree with Furedi when he writes:
I HAVE always criticised the tendency of some Zionist commentators to dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
Such a defensive knee-jerk reaction simply avoids confronting the issues and undermines the possibility of dialogue.
If all you can do is place labels on those who disagree with you, it's obvious you aren't terribly interested in dialogue. However, we also need to recognise prejudice wherever it is found. We need to call a spade a spade. If Israeli racism toward Palestinians (where it exists) is evil, so is racism toward Israelis and/or bigotry toward Jews.
In fact, the very notion that the actions of Israel necessarily reflect the sentiments of those who tick the "Judaism" box on their census forms is grossly offensive, even if it is something which some unconditional defenders of Israel regard as an article of faith.
Supporters of the Palestinian cause need to recognise and root out anti-Semitism wherever it exists on their "side". Similarly, Zionists must root out anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and/or anti-Palestinian prejudice where it exists on there "side". When it comes to fighting racism and bigotry, there must be no sides.
So it should be of great concern when someone as independently-minded as Furedi writes paragraphs such as these:
... in recent years, especially since the eruption of the latest conflict in Gaza last month, anti-Israeli sentiments often mutate into anti-Jewish ones. Recent events indicate that in Europe the traditional distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish feelings has become confusing and blurred.
During a demonstration earlier this month, the Dutch Socialist Party MP Harry van Bommel called for a new intifada against Israel. Of course he has every right to express this political standpoint. However, he became an accomplice of the anti-Semites by choosing to do nothing when he heard chants of "Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas" and similar anti-Jewish slogans. Many people who should know better prefer to keep quiet when they hear slogans such as "Kill the Jews" or "Jews to the oven" at protest demonstrations.
At a demonstration in London, such chants provoked little reaction from protesters who otherwise regard themselves as progressive anti-racists. Nor did they appear to be embarrassed by the sight of a man dressed up as a racist Jewish caricature - wearing a mask with a long, crooked nose - pretending to eat babies.
Increasingly, protesters are targeting Jews for being Jews. The demand to boycott Israeli goods in practice often means a call to boycott Jewish shops ...
And in case you thought this was limited to some crazy Muslim types, consider this:
European anti-Semitism is not simply a rhetorical act confined to a minority of Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters. In Britain, Jewish schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with "blood on their hands". Their elders sometimes encounter intimidation and regularly report having to face verbal abuse ...
There is no doubt that the conflict has intensified the frustration and anger of supporters of the Palestinian cause. But it is important to note that the rise of European anti-Semitism is not a direct outcome of the fighting between Israel and Palestinians.
Muslims themselves are not immune from this, often hiding it as anti-Israel feeling.
During the past two decades, and particularly since 2001, anti-Western feelings among European Muslims are often expressed through the language of anti-Semitism. Denunciations of the US are frequently accompanied by the targeting of the Jewish lobby's alleged influence. Such attitudes have gained momentum throughout this century.
For example, one survey carried out in 2002 indicated that 25 per cent of German respondents took the view that "Jewish influence" on American politics was one important reason why the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The association of Jews with business, finance and the media has encouraged current anti-consumerist and anti-modernist sentiments to regard the influence of "these people" with concern. Is it any surprise that last year there was an explosion of conspiracy theories on the internet which blamed Jewish bankers for the financial crisis?
Muslims don't like it when people make up generalisations about them. It is true that some of those generating prejudice against Muslims are themselves of nominally Jewish heritage, including those behind the Obsession DVD that was distributed during the last US elections. But how reflective are these people of mainstream Jewish opinion? And if it is reflective (something which I strongly doubt), does that mean Muslims should replicate? How effective is it to fight prejudice with prejudice?
Around 50% of Gaza's population are children under 18 years. Some 80% live below the official UN poverty line. But before you get angry at Israelis, remember the name of Amira Hass. And before you become angry at Jews, consider all the millions of Jews who refuse to openly support this bombardment.
A seventh century Arab Sage named Ali bin Abi Talib once remarked:
A believer is your brother in faith. A non-believer is your brother in humanity.
A Jewish Sage named Hilel who lived just before the time of Christ once remarked:
If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I care only for myself, what am I?
The wise ones of either "side" are in fact on the same side.
I thought I'd reproduce a collection of opinions on the current Gaza conflict and the broader Israel/Palestine issue.
The far-Right blogosphere never ceases to amaze me. Here's a classic comment from chronic letter-writer Daniel Lewis on JF Beck's blog ...
With the endless coverage this is getting in the media, we are seeing the same tired lies trotted out by the terrorist supporters and Jew Haters, echoed by a gullible and culpable media ...
Witness all the 'starvation' in the fruit markets. Poor people can't even eat, yet apparently they can get ciggies and drive around town in their German cars.
Witness all the satellite dishes on top of the apartment buildings...err...sorry, refugee camps. Oh the humanity!
I reckon there's plenty of genuinely starving people in Africa, who've never tried to blow anyone up, and would love to see these pathetic terrorist loving whingers shut the hell up.
Charming. Meanwhile author Sara Dowse writes these compelling words in the Sydney Morning Herald ...
It has taken me days to begin writing this, so horrified have I been by Israel's latest actions. My sense of justice, however - as a mother, a Jew, and above all as a human being - impels me to try ...
... a tough, technocratically savvy, nuclear power with the backing of the largest military power the world has known, bombing, then invading, a territory the size of a small city, with a population of 1.5 million, most of whom are civilians, to "defend our citizens" ...
Israeli planes raided southern Gaza in November. The Hamas rockets continued. Which side broke the ceasefire? Hamas may not be blameless, but the situation is far more complex than Israel claims. The fact that more than 600 people have died because in a couple of weeks the US will have a new government and next month Israel will have an election, is the most shocking form of cynicism the Palestinian people have yet faced.
In response, one Peter Sussman has this to say:
While Sara Dowse sits in the comfort of her Melbourne home spewing out the vile propaganda against the very existence of the state of Israel ("Shocking cynicism or a legitimate right to defend one's homeland?", January 8), I have relatives and friends who have continually sought the safety of shelters over the past six months against incoming rockets/mortars in Sederot, Gedera and Beersheba fired by Hamas terrorists. Ms Dowse, for your education, it is these people who are on the frontline to protect your right to live as a Jew in peace and quiet in lovely Melbourne.
It's understandable that Mr Sussman would have strong feelings about this. I don't know what it would be like to have relatives living in a warzone. The closest I've had to that is family friends being in Mumbai last November. But I find it hard to fathom the notion that Israelis are somehow protecting the rights of Australian Jews to live as Jews. I'd have thought that Australian law was what protected our religious freedom, including freedom not to be religious.
Furthermore, I wonder whether Mr Sussman believes Jews lived in peace and freedom before the modern state of Israel was established. I wonder who built the synagogue in Sarajevo. I wonder how Musa bin Maymoun al-Qurtubi was able to write all his magnificent works on theology, philosophy and medicine before the state of Israel came into being.
The Gaza conflict has about as much to do with Judaism as it does with Islam or Christianity. Yes, there are Palestinians of Christian and Muslim heritage and/or faith affected by the Israeli bombardment. Yes, there are Israelis (including no doubt Israelis of Palestinian Christian and Muslim heritage) facing bombardment from Qassam rockets. But in what sense is either side acting in accordance with the religious ethics from which they claim legitimacy?
(Then again, Mr Sussman is referring to Jewish history and Jewish identity in responding to the arguments of Ms Dowse precisely because she herself raised these issues in her op-ed.)
I guess what all this shows is that as time goes on, we will see a more open debate about these issues within Jewish circles. Such debate won't be limited to writers like Antony Loewenstein or academics like Norman Finklestein, who seem to be regarded by many Jews as being on the fringe of Jewish opinion.
The broad Arab/Muslim opinion is also divided and fractured. Many Arab/Muslim writers and commentators are openly saying that HAMAS rocket attacks were an unnecessary provocation. Some still cling to some crazed historical and ethical equation that Israel somehow has no moral right to exist. Heck, whether it has a right or doesn't, Israel exists. Deal with it.
There are people living in an area that was once populated by Palestinians. These people are of largely European ancestry. They are Jews. Yet not only were they born in this land but so where their parents. Are you going to tell them to leave? Don't they have the right to live in safety and security?
But by the same token, we must ask ourselves what price we place on this security? The words of Rabia Terri Harris are worth pondering ...
Reconciliation assumes that hostilities have ended, that it is time to heal wounds and unite enemies. Such moments are sacred. But not every moment is like this. When something bad is going on, merely to accept it is craven. Attempting to justify it is worse. But refusing to understand it is monumentally stupid ... Hope depends on the notion that there is a bottom you can touch, a point at which the cycle must begin to reverse. But Israel/Palestine seems sometimes an infinite descent into Hell. When the object is extermination, there is no reciprocity to reach for, no reasoning together, no way out, nowhere to go but down. Hamas’s wish for the obliteration of Israel is explicit. But who is actually obliterating whom?
Many Israelis live in fear, and bitterly resent it. They want to go about their business undisturbed, which is one definition of peace. Every sort of violence is condoned in pursuit of this peace. Elimination of the Palestinians is not precisely mentioned: some thoughts are forbidden. But unless you manage to wipe out your enemy entirely, the long-term usefulness of violence in obtaining peace of any kind is exactly zero.
Thus spoke Prophet Zechariah, whose words were being read during Hanukkah when the bombings began: Not by power nor by might but by My spirit, saith the Lord. God’s sovereign truth. But many Israelis are disinclined to trust in God, for God did not protect them. They think they can do a better job themselves.
But the futility, indeed insanity, of HAMAS's pseudo-bravado also isn't ignored. Harris continues:
Many Palestinians live in despair, denizens of a nightmare. When you are in despair, the options are limited. By far the most widespread choice is brute endurance: don’t think, don’t feel, just go on (Waiting for Godot should be staged in Gaza). But sometimes one can endure no more: then there’s insanity. Because any action feels better than none; insane hope feels better than no hope at all. Throw a few pointless missiles, feel like a man, and hope God will reward you. Death is coming either way.
Over the weekend I was watching the 6.30pm edition of SBS World News at a friend's place. The newsreader mentioned that "there are no Western journalists reporting from Gaza". Is SBS seriously suggesting that "non-Western journalists" are incapable of reporting news?
Then this morning The Australian carried a report from AP/AFP stating that "Israel yesterday scrapped arrangements to allow the first foreign reporters into Gaza since it launched an all-out war against Palestinian militants, adding to mounting media frustration at being locked out of the war zone".
When are allegedly authoritative Western newsagencies going to get off their high horses and acknowledge that the English language service of Al Jazeera has beaten them to it? A large number of my friends have discovered that the satellite dish on their roof picks up Al Jazeera English, which boasts such non-Western journalists as Sir David Frost, Rageh Omaar (formerly of BBC World) and Riz Khan (formerly of BBC World and CNN). Quite a few Al Jazeera English reports hail from such third world journalistic backwaters as New Zealand and Australia.
Israel clearly isn't happy with Al Jazeera. Then again, the newsagency has frequently fallen foul of the Iranian, Afghan, Egyptian and Saudi governments. One Al Jazeera photo-journalist, Sami El-Hajj, was captured by the United States and spent years at the Guantanamo gulag.
Al Jazeera has four reporters on the ground in Gaza, including from Gaza City's Shifa Hospital, carrying interviews from European volunteer doctors working for a variety of NGO’s. Al Jazeera’s Jacky Rowland reports from both sides of the Israel/Gaza border. Suffice it to say that their reports don’t exactly confirm claims by senior Israeli leaders like Tzvipi Livni that there isn’t a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Al Jazeera also has’t spared senior HAMAS leaders like Osama Hamdan in Beirut from tough questioning about why they don’t just promise not to fire further rockets into southern Israel.
The AP/AFP cited above reports that "Israeli officials are unapologetic about the ban, saying many foreign reporters are biased against Israel and easily manipulated or intimidated by Hamas". It doesn’t help when Israeli Defense Forces kill family members of Western journalists like Fares Akram.
First published in Crikey on Wednesday 07 January 2008.
UPDATE I: The following responses were left on the Crikey website as at 6pm ...
Tim McCann Wednesday, 7 January 2009 2:01:15 PM Thanks Ifran, Sometimes it seems that Australian media outlets assume ordinary folk have no access to satelite or even online media resources and must simply rely upon 'Western Journalists" and commentators for the facts and analysis. Some of the reporting from the ground in Gaza is truly terrifying and at times nauseating, but it is worth it to stay in touch with more than one more BBC "reporter" shouting at us from an Israeli checkpoint overlooking, at a distance, an ongoing war.
steve martin Wednesday, 7 January 2009 2:42:04 PM On the few occasions I have accessed Al Jazeera on the internet I have found their reporting as good as any of the "western" reports.
Tom McLoughlin Wednesday, 7 January 2009 5:07:31 PM Margaret Simons noted on Content Makers blog that a certain former Channel 9 news producer, and respected ex ABC reporter Max Uechtritzs is also working for Al Jazeera with a link on her blog to the net streaming. It's an excellent reminder here Irfan and put so diplomatically too, considering. Here's the link.
Bookmark this on Delicious
