ABCwatch |
|
|
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation: too important to be left to its Friends. Email.
 Site Feed ABC alphabet Media Watch, 1
Others
Blogs
Archives
|
Saturday, November 08, 2003
WHEN IS SUPPORTING THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS a contribution to peace? When you're Hanan Ashrawi, it seems. Dr Ashrawi is a person of great political talents, who would grace the ranks of any political party in Australia. She demonstrated those talents in spades while in Australia, with a combination of high-sounding fudge and carefully calibrated nods towards even-handedness. On Auntie's 7.30 Report, almost-adequate journalist Kerry O'Brien pushed Ashrawi to the edge of self-revelation, but then held back. Who can blame him? Ostracism is so unpleasant. Hanan Ashrawi, in the course of your life as an activist, you've been a member of the militant offshoot of the PLO, Fatah, you actively supported the Intifada uprising from '88, Israeli critics accuse you of publicly applauding the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, of preaching hate against Israel. What have you actually done to promote peace in the region? You can read Ashrawi's answer here, but it boils down to this: she's worked politically for the Palestinian cause. She doesn't herself throw bombs. KERRY O'BRIEN: Throwing forward to today, in your speech for tonight, you deplore the cycle of violence involving both sides in very eloquent terms, but not once do you condemn specifically the violence of Hamas by name. There's not a reference to suicide bombers. Now, what signal do you think that sends? DR HANAN ASHRAWI: ... I did that on purpose because I don't want people to dictate my language to me. When I talk about violence, I know what I mean. And when I talk about extremism, and ideology and fundamentalism and that type of violence, I don't have to indicate which parties in Israel use that and which parts of the army use that, or what parts of Palestinian political society or military wings do that. KERRY O'BRIEN: But you are talking specifically about some of your criticisms of the Israelis. Just so. KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you condemn Hamas for its terrorism? DR HANAN ASHRAWI: I condemn all acts of violence, particularly those targeting innocent civilians on both sides. Now, I always make the distinction between political action and military action. Violent action is not to be condoned by anybody, regardless whether it's Hamas, Jihad or Fatah or anybody or popular front - and we've said that repeatedly. But she also says something else: KERRY O'BRIEN: Given the number of deaths, given the killings that have been perpetrated by suicide bombers organised by Hamas, shouldn't Hamas be disbanded if it can be disbanded? Would you want to see the serious attempts be made to disband Hamas? DR HANAN ASHRAWI: I would like to see first of all an active political pluralistic democracy in Palestine so that those who want to dissent can do so peacefully by political means. Then I would like to see an active judiciary under a rule of law so that those who violate the law will be held accountable in accordance with the law. I don't want to see a civil war because that's not the way to deal with this problem. You see we've ended somewhere completely different. Apart from asserting the moral equivalence of nail-bombing civilians and taking military action against those who do it, Ashrawi is telling us that killing Israeli civilians must go on until the Palestinian political system suits her. As a Palestinian politician I think Ashrawi is right. If she took on Hamas and the rest she'd be marginalised. But is she a peace-maker? Consider where endorsing suicide-bombing leads. Sabih Abu Saud turned 16 only a fortnight ago, and this week, he blew himself up when approached by Israeli troops, lightly wounding one soldier. Unlike other parents of so-called martyrs, the boy's father refrained from declaring his son a hero. So far, the father, Kamal, has shown more political courage than Hanan Ashrawi, but he's just a civilian. "We love our children just as the Israelis love their children," he says. "We are not educating our kids to kill themselves or others. I don't like killing. It is against my principles," Kamal adds. Right after his son blew himself to pieces he angrily accused the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades of preying on a little boy, saying they should have left the 16-year old alone. Which is precisely what Ashrawi refuses to say to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. By the time we spoke with Kamal Abu Saud he'd received a visit from the group, and his criticism of it has now stopped and he needn't bother looking to peace-maker Ashrawi for support. What about Kamal's next son, Assad? "Yesterday I sat with Assad and told him it's enough, you have already lost your brother," Kamal tells me. "So I asked him to stop any plans he may have." "I told him instead he should get married and have a family. We are not terrorists," he says. Despite this, all around Nablus there are pictures of 16-year-old Sabih praising him as a martyr. (sound of Assad Abu Saud speaking) "I am so proud of what my brother did, because it is for the dignity of the people of Nablus and all Palestinians," Assad says. So would he do the same thing? (sound of Assad Abu Saud speaking) "The answer to that is inside me, so I prefer not to say," he replies. The answer is also inside Hanan Ashrawi, and what she is saying is of no comfort whatever to the Kamal Abu Sauds of Palestine. This will only concern you if you really want peace, and not Victory to the PLO. You should really read this transcript. It's the epitaph for the Sydney Peace Prize. COMPASSION DEFINED, KILLING FOR PEACE, AND A RAIN OF POWERFUL BLONDES, all in the one week just passed. This is why blogging was invented! But where to start? BETTER START WITH COMPASSION, while I'm capable of feeling it. Adelaide Magistrate Brian Deegan suffered life's greatest blow, having to bury a child. His son Josh was killed in the Bali bomb blast. How could he not feel, among other emotions, rage? Deegan's rage was the kind that often destroys marriages after couples have suffered such losses. He directed it within the family, so to speak, railing at government policy, and crusading against the detention of illegal immigrants brought here by people-smugglers. Deegan became one of many supporters for Iranian Ebrahim Sammaki, who had found refuge in Indonesia where he had acquired a wife and two children. His wife was destroyed in the same blast as Josh Deegan, but only after Sammaki had paid smugglers to bring him to Australia. If you think Sammaki's might rank as a low priority for a refugee spot, compared with several million others rotting in camps around the world - or indeed any number of Indonesians, you're not the only one. Our immigration officials determined, at great expense to the rest of us, that it would be safe for Sammaki to go back to Iran. It seems a just decision, but was it compassionate? Not according to Sir William Deane, who is notorious for not letting the facts of the matter stand in the way of compassion. He, and his wife, sent cheques for the Sammakis. Democrats Senator Kate Reynolds agreed. She said Mr Sammaki could stay in her house when he was released from the Detention Centre by Minister Vanstone on compassionate grounds. And so did Magistrate Deegan, who paraded for Auntie's cameras before the release, and with Sammaki afterwards. I would like to think that there's been an exercise of compassion said the Magistrate, who is sworn in his own life to apply the law. He is recommending to the Government, which is attending to his "agenda" of issues, that they make ex gratia payments to Mr Sammaki for all the trouble Australia has put him to. He doesn't say whether he thinks the money should be paid to all detainees given residence in this country. That's just politics. So there you have three ideas of compassion: send a cheque, a room for the night, or a large slug of taxpayers' funds. If the throng of compassionate opponents of detention practised the first two versions, there would be no need for Deegan's version. Compassion as policy means just that: I feel good, you pay. According to Brian Deegan. Friday, November 07, 2003
COULD THIS BE about our favourite ABC current affairs programme, AM? IT'S not that they lie. No, it's just that even the nicest journalists are driven by our intellectual culture to peddle bizarre untruths. You bet. You sometimes think telling it straight would be a holiday for the AM crew. Tuesday, November 04, 2003
LORD BOB OF THE BARRICADES trips on his banner, and crushes Simon Crean as he falls. In what seems to be a public endorsement for the Coalition's US and China links, and a backlash against Greens senators shouting down Mr Bush, the Coalition's primary vote has jumped from 39 per cent to 46 per cent and the Greens' vote has fallen from 8 per cent to 6 per cent. Just a week ago Bob Brown was de facto opposition leader, according to the Bulletin's Tony Wright. And about as successful as the nominal Opposition leader. Monday, November 03, 2003
ACADEMIC STYLE In his public statement opposing the award of the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi, Peter Wertheim raises the following points against her case: 1. Ashrawi has been openly and bitterly opposed to the Oslo peace process since its inception in 1993 2. In April about 570 PLO delegates met in Gaza to vote on a proposal to remove the clauses from the PLO Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. The proposal was endorsed overwhelmingly by 504 votes to 54. Ashrawi was one of the minority who voted "No" to the proposal. I presume he means April 2003. 3. Earlier this year when the "Performance-Based Roadmap to Peace" was endorsed by the international community, Ashrawi immediately issued a public statement to the Palestine Press Centre denouncing the initiative. 4. She publicly applauded the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. And in 1993 she became an apologist for terrorism, describing Hamas as "a legitimate component of the Palestinian political spectrum". These are specific challenges, and can be given specific responses. Instead the Chair of the Peace Prize committee, Stuart Rees responds to the criticisms by *ignoring three of them *referring us to "Hanan Ashrawi's web page" for proof that she supports a two-state solution. The problem here is the site referred to is not hers. It belongs to a corporate body of which she is the secretary. The organisation's views in support of a two state solution, or of any kind of solution, are not evident. Its support for Saddam Hussein is. Rees then goes on to protest at the unfair tactics of "the Jewish lobby" and the big money that is, he implies, the source of all criticism of his pet Prize. Ashrawi's own statements on the site are all attacks on Israel's position, like this September reference to the Road Map: Suddenly, the whole roadmap has become an instrument of Israeli “security” with Israeli dictated priorities and conditions. This hardly suggests a mind engaged in finding ways to strengthen the faltering peace process. She's entitled to attack Israel's policy, like any other Palestinian partisan. But should a partisan be given a "Peace Prize"? Only if "Peace" means today what it has meant since the Comintern was first established: victory for anyone opposed to the capitalists. Sunday, November 02, 2003
AN UNDESERVED HANG-OVER leaves me prostrate before the pulpit of Pastor Terry Lane. With only two avuncular neurones left firing, does the Pastor's preaching of the collectivist creed sound any more persuasive? Here's the gospel. Our electricity supplies should come from monopoly suppliers. These monopolies are 'naturally efficient' (he means publicly-owned monopolies - that's in the gothic type on page 323 of the prayer book). Two or more suppliers means wasteful duplication of managements. And Lo! And behold, too, brethren and sisters! When the eleventh Commandment of the Lord of Marxist heaven is broken, what do we see? Electricity prices to the South Australian consumer are rising. The privateers are costing us. Plagues of serpents and locusts must soon follow. Bow your heads and repent! Now our Pastor, subject to Auntie's episcopal decrees, is obliged to interrupt his sermons with regular bouts of antiphony with his occasional co-celebrants. Today's is Lew Owens, Chairman of the Essential Services Commission of South Australia. Lew is provided by the Parliament of South Australia with a rod of correction. With it he will, come 2005, chastise the naughty privates of the power industry. Lew is either the consumers' Tribune, or the Trojan Horse to bring down the citadel of competition, or a token for distracting the mug-punters, according to how you read his legislation and the ways of the wicked electricity market. What Lew can't do is introduce any new ideas within the ambit of the Pastor's pulpit. Twice he chants "privatisation has brought down the cost of producing electricity in South Australia". And twice the Pastor heareth him not, for the Truth of Lord Marx stoppeth his ears. What the Pastor can hear is that the good Christian Prince, Government, is no longer enforcing the cross-subsidy of small domestic consumers by the big consumers. Hence, since our privateers are reasonable people - for infidels, that is - the price of electricity to domestic consumers is going up, while the bigger consumers go on their way rejoicing. Now hear ye this , my people. Bigger consumers are to be called "business", and are verily as evil as the Devil's own armpits. Hospitals are possessed of the evil of business. Likewise schools, cafes in Carlton and O'Connell Street, art galleries and broadcasters without the fold of Auntie. Even more stamped with the sign of business are all those privates who provide most of us consumers in the Pastor's congregation with jobs, cheap goods and services, and hand over the shekels for the stipends of Pastors. Provided, of course, they can compete with the spawn of business evil in less enlightened lands, like Victoria. You see, Saint Leon Trotsky was right after all. Unless all peoples are made to bow before the throne of Lord Marx, we're all condemned to the curse of liberty and prosperity. Can the righteous Lew Owens preserve our consumer soul, and smite the evil of productivity, privacy and business within us? Be vigilant, and prayerful, brothers and sisters. And wait until 2005. |