<< NATION DIVIDED ~ MAIN ~ TERRORISM CURED >>
DISSENT AGAINST DISSENTER
Ex-SMH employee Antony Loewenstein:
As many of you know, I’m currently writing a book on Israel/Palestine for Melbourne University Publishing, due in May 2006.
By “many”, Antony means the 180 or so people who bother dropping by his terrible site each day. Antony is currently upset about the dissenting views of a Jewish Australian MP:
The following letter appears in this week’s Australian Jewish News. It’s written by Federal Labor MP, Michael Danby. Its agenda is clear. Why is a member of parliament trying to stop the publication of my book? What is he afraid of? History doesn’t look kindly on such attitudes. And we all know what other historical individuals favoured this behaviour.
Yes, we do: Nazis! (Interestingly, the Holocaust revisionists at the Adelaide Institute are quite fond of Antony.) Following are extracts from Danby’s letter:
In preparation for writing his book, Loewenstein sent me a number of questions, based on assumptions, which made his views so blatantly obvious that I refused to answer them or participate in his book.
I will have no part in his and [publisher Louise Adler’s] propaganda tract scheduled for publication in 2006, which will be an attack on the mainstream Australian Jewish community.
MUP should drop this whole disgusting project. If they proceed, I urge the Australian Jewish community, and particularly the Australian Jewish News, to treat it with dignified silence. That is our best response. If, God forbid, it is published, don’t give them a dollar. Don’t buy the book.
Why might Antony’s views have so alarmed Danby? Let’s examine them for any clues:
As a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state - a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era - reception to such ideas within the Jewish community is usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic. Australian Jews, generally speaking, are incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions.
Can’t imagine why Danby wouldn’t support Antony’s book. Which promises to be beautifully written:
There comes a point, and we reached this point years ago, that the Jewish community as a whole must take responsiblity for blinding supporting every move that Israel moves, despite the outrageous policies in the West Bank and Gaza, for example.
My book will have MUCH more on all this, so hold tight til early 2006!
There is SO much to say on all this. In the West, it is virtually impossible to discuss Israel honesty without being called an anti-Semite, and I know and believe that such moral blindness is leading to increased Jew hatred. It’s the same twisted logic as suggesting that Western actions have no relation to Islamic fundamentalism. Puuuulease.
At least Antony’s got the support of girlfriend Liz Wise:
Of course, I’m not as well-published as the Dreamboat on this issue, so I tend to escape wide public condemnation and calls for burning at the stake (though I’m told it does come up at illustrious Easter Suburbs Jewish dinner parties from time to time). No, I get hammered in other, more personal ways.
Lucky Liz! (By the way, it’s Eastern suburbs. Ahem.) Antony—er, the Dreamboat—next responds to reader complaints that he’s a hypocrite:
I’m not stopping the publication of anything, nor trying to do so. I believe in the free market of ideas. Danby is actively trying to get a work he disagrees with censored. It’s pretty clear. To most people.
It’s pretty clear, to most people, that Antony doesn’t believe in the “free market of ideas”. And that the free market of ideas isn’t much interested in Antony.
In preparation for writing his book, Loewenstein sent me a number of questions, based on assumptions, which made his views so blatantly obvious that I refused to answer them or participate in his book.
Is Loewenstein’s day job an Public Opinion Pollster?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 08 25 at 01:15 PM • permalinkI put a return there, so why did it still do that?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 08 25 at 01:16 PM • permalinkIn the West, it is virtually impossible to discuss Israel honesty without being called an anti-Semite, and I know and believe that such moral blindness is leading to increased Jew hatred.
This is the phrase that struck me. Because Israel stubbornly refuses to be overrun and obliterated by hordes of hostile Arabs, and because there are a lot of people who refuse to condemn Israel for that bit of survivalism, there is increased Jew hatred. Okay, in this crazy world, I buy that. But it leads me to think our dear Antony is afraid for himself. Those damn Israelis won’t shut up and let themselves be slaughtered, and that’s making things damned uncomfortable for Antony.
Antony also uses the word “censorship” a lot. I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.
Got to feel sorry for them really. At least they have each other’s delusions for company.
How can people calling themselves Jews be so supportive of the ghettoising (Gaza and much of the Arab world is now Judenrein) and extermination (see PLO Charter, mosque sermons etc) of Jews? I think there’s many a tome written about this psychosis.
And the Jew-hating parts of the media will gladly promote this libel from such Kapos.
Feh.
Antony and Liz should go to shul, and start living as Jews. Being Jewish is a privilege with obligations, not a birthright.
My book will have MUCH more on all this, so hold tight til early 2006!
There is SO much to say on all this.
Emphasis on closed-class words (words that don’t change with vocabulary changes) is the mark of a good writer.
And how many beginners are unaware of their importance!
It’s a shame the THAT clause of the SO got dropped.
And here I thought that merely saying, in a letter in a newspaper, that a publisher ought not print a book, was not “trying to stop it” being published. (Well, unless the letter is by the dictator or head of the secret police, but as Danby is neither, and Australia has neither, that’s a moot point. Certainly the publisher isn’t going to act out of fear of a single MP’s letter to the editor.)
Antony should stop acting like a Nazi already.
Nazis didn’t write polite letters to the editor saying things “shoudln’t be” published, and asking for “dignified silence” about them.
They did do things like impute sinister agendas to Jews, though.
There’s a better reason for not publishing Antony’s book.
It will be crap.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 08 25 at 05:00 PM • permalinkWhat is it with these “progressives”? They all seem to see themselves as subject to censorship or repression of their views. Is it simply paranoia or is it more that this delusion makes them feel like real dissidents, railing against a system that would “disappear” them at a moments notice.
Danby’s comments were totally innocuous and this guy makes him sound like a book-burner.
Did anyone see Lateline on Wednesday night?
The successful removal of Jews from settlements in Gaza and the West Bank apparently wasn’t a positive sign after all according to the author of a new book highly critical of Zionism. The guest, enthusiastically questioned by Jones, seemed to think that the whole idea of a two State solution was immoral and a crime against the Palestinian people. They, she said, were paying for the crimes perpetrated on the Jewish people by the Nazis. So you see, no matter what Israel does, it will never be good enough for many of the current proponents of a two State solution, because their demands, like the unreasonable demands of groups like Hamas, will predictably increase the more Israel yields.Brian, did you also notice how SBS and the ABC breathlessly reported that violence was expected from the “ultra-right wing Jews” every day during the evacuations? Kinda failed to materialise didn’t it?
I bet the commentariat are upset that the settlers generally behaved like civilised human beings.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 08 25 at 09:14 PM • permalinkI was struck by one particular image on LGF’s Gaza photofile - a resistant settler, who has obviously given in to the pullout, comforting a young boy, while shaking hands with an IDF member. The settler has a huge military rifle slung over his shoulder! The idea that these settlers, in all the emotional extremity of their position, had weapons like these, but never dreamed of using them. What a moral lesson to so many other people, and one that of course goes uncommented on by the MSM.
Tim, why are you so hostile towards Antony Loewenstein? There is no suggestion on the post that Antony has not embraced the free market of ideas, how did you draw that inference? There are lots of Israelosceptic Jews, and they are generally left-wing like AL. In terms of the free market of ideas, he may well be more mainstream than you . Why is so abhorrent about AL’s views that you are on a continual Antonywatch for every spelling mistake etc?
Aw for the love of Mike- where does Tim find these clowns, Chris Sheils, Margeux, and now Antony “Dreamboat"-
Dreamboat aka Good Ship Lollipop-
Ooooh la la…
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 25 at 09:43 PM • permalinkThere are lots of Israelosceptic Jews
You forgot the rest of the sentence, let me help you:
There are lots of Israelosceptic Jews outside Israel.
As for why this tends to be rather repugnant when it’s coupled with lots of nasty vitriol towards anything related to the Israeli state as it is in Antony’s case, see RebeccaH at #4. In short, I think she’s absolutely right; Antony would be more than happy to sell the entirety of Israel down the river if it assured his own safety. He’s a pitiful little critter and if he wasn’t a “journalist”, the public perception of him would be only a couple of steps removed from crackheads like Joe Vialls. Well, it probably is, anyway.
In the West, it is virtually impossible to discuss Israel honesty without being called an anti-Semite
This is absolute crap.
There’s an old saying, Two Jews, three opinions.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East (perhaps except Iraq now) where a dissident newspaper or anti-Government editorial doesn’t see journalists shot. Look at the political disagreement worldwide about the Gaza withdrawal as well.
Are these people labelled antisemites? Of course not.
There are however real antisemites in the world. One of their latest tactics is to argue that Jews label everyone an antisemite therefore, it follows, such accusations are worthless.
In other words, antisemites are trying to rob the Jews of this defence against one of mankinds oldest hatreds.
It’s right up there with “I’m not antisemitic, I’m anti-Zionist”. Sure you are, and I bet many of your friends are Jewish as well… But but but but.....
I’m sure Flavius Antonius’ book will provide us with nearly as much innocent amusement as No Thappy John did…
BTW, is Margo gonna sink of her doubtless lavish royalties into WebDiary Part Doo?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 26 at 12:12 AM • permalinkIs it acceptable for Danby to seek to censor Antony’s book, regardless of how ridiculous Antony’s views may be?
This, of course, assumes that Tim (and possibly his commenters here), actually support censorship in the first effing place.
Thanks for the leading question, Nic. Do you think it’s acceptable for you to act like a patronizing jerk?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 26 at 01:06 AM • permalinkThe Dreamboat? *stunned silence* Wha-aa-aa-aaaaaaa??? LMAO
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 26 at 01:09 AM • permalinkRe. Dreamboat:
I think it was ekw who was saying the left is vastly rich in unexploited comedic material - there’s another case in point.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 26 at 01:10 AM • permalinkMore from Lady Luck-y Liz-
...But then the flyers that urged me to support Israel, give money, plant a tree, attend lectures delivered by ex-IDF war mongers, join Jewish youth groups, attend parties at nightclubs, and be an “active member” in the Jewish community really started to get on my nerves. The messages themselves were pretty innocuous - it was the sheer waste of paper that irritated me...
Damn Neo-Hippies it’s always about the trees.
Heck they asked her to plant one....
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 26 at 02:36 AM • permalinkA question that I’d like to see these extremists answer is why they hate Israel/Jews.
It’s downright pathological.
Nic? Nic? You still there? Perhaps you have an answer for us mate.
(For the pedants: Yes I know you can be a Jew and not an Israeli and vice versa. In this context I refer to Israel as the Jewish homeland.)
-- Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 26 at 03:32 AM • permalinkNic you idiot, refusing to publish a book, refusing to acknowledge a book one finds disgusting, refusing to buy a book isn’t censorship. He is free to schlep his MS to any publishing house he pleases, and all his little friends and sycophants are free to babble about the wonderful book and buy as many copies as they please. God lefties are stupid.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 26 at 06:53 AM • permalinkLet me guess his questions went along the lines of:
You are a jew and therefore a bigoted racist supporter of Arab genocide. How do you justify this to yourself?
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2005 08 26 at 07:00 AM • permalinkNic, is Danby really calling for censorship? Firstly, he makes a general, personal, rhetorical wish that a given book might not be published. A wish that he has no power at all to enforce. I might have breathed such a wish the first time I heard about Stupid White Men or Lying Liars or Not Happy John. It doesn’t really mean anything.
Then Danby wishes for the book, when it appears, to be met with silence. Hardly the attitude of a book-burning Savonarola. Generally, Danby is right to lament that a once-respectable academic publisher (despite the blot of the Manning Clark histories) is now yet another tool of trendy lefties - in this case Louise Adler (Mrs. Max Gillies).
Firstly, he makes a general, personal, rhetorical wish that a given book might not be published. A wish that he has no power at all to enforce.
Still, typical lefty conspiracy-mongering results. Danby isn’t just making a personal observation, no, he’s subtly relaying a threat of vicious censorship handed down directly from...well, whom? HoWARd? BusHitler? The Elders of Zion?
And what if brave Antony defies the secret masters of the world and gets his book published anyway? Is he going to be thrown off a refugee ship or something?
Nic White, for the sake of your sanity, you really oughta go into another profession than journalism. You frequently make sense, but you already have all the hallmarks of somebody who will be turned into a leftwing crackpot by longterm exposure to the newsroom culture. Wait, am I censoring you by suggesting this? I’m so sorry.
Oh, and Nic White, please take the dictionary gathering dust on your shelf down and open it to ‘censor’. If that’s too much trouble, here’s what it means:
1 a count of the population and a property evaluation in early Rome
2 a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically: a periodic governmental enumeration of populationThere is no way that Danby is enumerating Dreamboat. I hope that clears things up.
Hey, it’s a legitimate question as it’s the point Antony was making. It’s a question that has to get answered if you’re going to post about it. I don’t really care what the answer is, that your own opinion.
I’d appreciate not being abused for pointing out that the fundamental question in this matter has actually not been answered. Thank you, cukoo, for engaging in rational discourse.
And Jeffs, it is possible to ask a question without presuming to know the answer.
For the record, I don’t like the sound of the book either and don’t plan on reading it, so I’d certainly not begrudge anyone planning to do the same.
Nora: I have no idea. Perhaps you should ask them.
I’d appreciate not being abused for pointing out that the fundamental question in this matter has actually not been answered.
You mean this one?
Is it acceptable for Danby to seek to censor Antony’s book, regardless of how ridiculous Antony’s views may be?
No, it would not be acceptable. However, since Danby was not doing any such thing (nor can do any such thing, realistically), it’s not just the “fundamental” question here, but also an incredibly pointless one, which is kind of the point that people have been trying to hammer into your head for the last 15 posts.
JeffS must’ve been right, you have been taking lessons from bongoman in being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe I was wrong, and your journalism studies are already taking their toll on your critical thinking. To paraphrase another deliberately obtuse lefty patron of ours (nwab), I’m disappointed, Nic.
I’d appreciate not being abused for pointing out that the fundamental question in this matter has actually not been answered.
Nic, your question was:
Is it acceptable for Danby to seek to censor Antony’s book, regardless of how ridiculous Antony’s views may be? [/i
Your phrasing is such that you assumed that any censorship is acceptable to us in the first place. The “Is it acceptable....” is in inactive third person, and is directed to the group as a whole. Not to just Danby, who is the focus of part of the discussion, or to Antony.
If you had asked:
Do you think that Danby should seek to censor Antony’s book?
or
Is Danby right in trying to censor Antony’s book?
or
Why is Danby calling for censorship of Antony’s book?
You would have clearly stated that you think Danby accepts censorship. This would still be in error, but you would have insulted only Danby, and not Tim and us other RWDB.
This lesson in professional communciations comes to you free of charge, and courtesy of twenty odd years of writing technical papers, operation orders, and contingency plans. Should you still decide to embark upon your journalistic career, bookmark this post for future reference.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 26 at 12:09 PM • permalinkEh, dorked up the formatting. PIMF. :-(
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 26 at 12:10 PM • permalinkPM: Whether Danby is actually trying to censor the book isn’t really my point. Antony and others are saying he is calling for censorship. Therefore I am asking that if this is indeed the case, which you think it isn’t (which is fine by me), is a call for censorship Ok? You have now answered that, so Im considering the point resolved.
JeffS: OK. Point taken.
Whether Danby is actually trying to censor the book isn’t really my point.
Oh. I see.
THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU EVEN BRING THE SUBJECT UP?
You know, this really irritates me. You “antis” get too fucking comfortable on websites where you’ve been allowed your say because you kept just on the inside of the border of being assholes, and then you start pushing the envelope just a little bit, to “test” how much you can get away with. Well, Nic, I’m putting you on notice: you’ve used up your last bit of my goodwill. As far as I’m concerned you’re approaching worn-out welcome status at the speed of light.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 26 at 06:24 PM • permalinkYes, ArtVandelay, post #13, I did indeed notice!
As such, I left some very unattractive comments about their coverage on a couple of ABC websites! On a broacaster like the ABC who ALWAYS provides sympathetic coverage of protestors, the ONLY time I have ever heard that protestors were, “bent on conflict”, was when they were Israeli protestors!
I was amazed how many times reporter Matt Brown had to resort to using Israeli army training exercises dealing with actors portraying protestors, to get the kind of ‘conflict’ shots he was after!!ekb87, Nic White generally was polite and civil, and asked questions that were reasonable and thought provoking. However, a while ago, he started behaving in an obtuse fashion. It wasn’t consistent, and it took a while for me to realize it. But he has been sliding downhill....which is one reason why I am a trifle irritated with him. I hate to see a good mind go downhill.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 27 at 01:07 AM • permalinkNic—thanks for understanding my point. I learned this the hard way as well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 27 at 01:08 AM • permalinkYes you did. You’ve squandered it. Congratulations.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 27 at 08:08 AM • permalinkOh, and could the rest of you stop grovelling every time a leftist displays the sort of civilized behavior we expect from each other? “Thanks for understanding my point...” “...to be fair, Nic’s comment seemed polite and civil to me...” etc. etc. etc. It’s sickening. I know that it’s a never-ending wonder that some lefties are able to communicate their “ideas” without using lots of all caps, name-calling, and insults, but continually praising them for it only enlarges their already swollen egos while reassuring them that they should be treated like widdle babies who need constant praise for their every act, be it typing a comment without calling Dick Cheney “Hitlerburton!” or notifying mummy that they have a full diaper.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 27 at 08:15 AM • permalinkI wouldn’t classify it as “grovelling” but rather as acting civilly and courteously. This, in turn, allows us to debate the issues up to the point of diminishing returns.
I get enough abuse at Tim Dunlop’s blog. I’m hoping we can act better than the denizens of that blog.
(hides behind really big rock)
Posted by wronwright on 2005 08 27 at 08:26 AM • permalinkAndrea, that attitude is the reason why those on opposite sides of an artificially constructed fence dont get along very well. Its all bollocks.
The sooner the two “sides” stop throwing abuse at each other, stop making laughable assumptions about each other and then conforming to those assumptions, the better. Until then, the current situation is just going to continue needlessly.
Andrea, as the BlogMistress™ here, you rule, and I listen to what you say.
But you need to recall that I called Nic White a patronizing jerk up front. Indeed, I was the first person to jump on him.
I then lectured him on passive versus active voice writing techniques.
Rather than argue that I was far too blunt and condescending, and bringing up some silly counterargument (answer deflection, moving the goalposts, cheap shots, etc, as some lefties would do), Nic said, JeffS: Point taken.
I finally lamented that Nic is going down mentally. This is probably why he is asking me to drop him an e-mail {Nic, my e-mail address in the link is valid; just edit out NOSPAM}.
Under these circumstances, thanking Nic for “...understanding my point...” is hardly “grovelling”.
If you want to see me bitch slap some stupid airhead leftie, search the archives. Or let Bryla back into the blog. But I will choose when to be civil, and when to be uncivil.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 27 at 09:37 AM • permalinkstop making laughable assumptions about each other
So then, why did you phrase your entire line of inquiry in this thread based on the unspoken assumption that the posters as a whole here probably support censoring Antony’s book, when approximately nothing you’ve read on this blog before would support that assumption? And don’t tell me you didn’t make that assumption - your weaseling-out once you were called on it was straight out of the Howard Dean “no, I don’t know if it’s actually true, but it’s an interesting possibility, isn’t it” playbook.
You seem to have plenty of sensible ideas about how to conduct proper discussions, but you may want to cut back on the lecturing until you’re capable of putting your money where your mouth is. The lecturing style already didn’t go over too well here when nwab did it all too frequently, you may recall.
Nic, you need to understand that while I will discuss topics with you, I don’t much like being bullshitted. Making unstating assumptions and being obtuse qualifies as “bullshit”.
As PW correctly notes, you’re happy to set the rules...for everyone else.
I quite understand Andrea’s lack of goodwill for you. You seemed sensible at the start. I can only conclude that you were either dissembling (not the first time I’ve been caught out, just because I assume that other person wants to be civil), or you are progressively sliding Down The Slope towards being a bona fide moonbat. The choice is yours, but don’t expect anyone to kiss your arse in the process.
If you e-mail me, keep that fact firmly in mind.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 27 at 09:52 AM • permalinkI should probably add that I have no problem with incivility towards me. As long as it’s accompanied by an argument that amounts to more than reheated cow manure. I suspect others feel similarly, since I haven’t spotted any regular posters here who can dish out abuse but not take it. In other words, a post that makes a good argument but insults the hell out of me in the process is quite alright with me.
Unfortunately, many lefty visitors (not Nic generally) are unable to overcome the requirement to have an argument, but end up thinking they got banned because of their insults.
However, the opposite, namely exceeding politeness that masks an utter dearth of argument is almost as annoying as a spittle-flecked moonbat rant to me. I’m sort of in Andrea’s camp because of that. Congratulating people on writing civilly because there’s nothing else in their comment to congratulate them on strikes me as rather pointless.
Pointless, PW? Perhaps.
Certainly, if it’s overdone, as you rightly note. But positive reinforcement does work, and I refuse to put up an impentrable wall at the start of a debate. Elsewhile, all we have are a bunch of people screaming at each other, and not listening. Rather like what I see on the news during protests, or in Congress.
But, yeah, simply exchanging civil remarks is not communication. I understand that. I just don’t care for the bullhorn debating technique. The key is to give your opponent enough rope to hang himself, and then firmly snub the line.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 27 at 10:12 AM • permalinkA recent Melanie Phillips article on Jews who hate Jews describes how such a pathology has travelled over time.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001390.html
She draws on ‘The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege’, by American psychiatrist Kenneth Levin who describes the phenomenon of Jews who side with the oppressors of their own people.
Best bits:
“What is fascinating and sobering about Levin’s account is the common threads linking the Jew-hating Jews of antiquity with those of today: the intellectual snobbery, the sucking up to powerful patrons, the internalisation of the surrounding hatred, the belief that they could become invisible as Jews, and the blaming of fellow-Jews for their own persecution.
Those who are not thus broken by this psychological siege of the Jews, concludes Levin, have to become not just resisters but educators. ‘The alternative, however disguised in claims of higher principle, is an ignoble capitulation to murderous bigotry’— and Israel’s annihilation.”
Antony and Liz - “intellectual snobbery”, “sucking up”, “internalisation of hatred”, “invisibility”, “blaming”? Hey, looks like a pretty accurate thesis so far.
After a long day at the mall, enduring heat, a long bus ride, and an army of crying babies and screaming toddlers (today was Crying Baby and Screaming Toddler Day), a thought occurred to me: Nic, did you mean censure, instead of censor? Because the two words, though superficially similar, mean two different things. If you meant the former, then your comment with the correction—“Is it acceptable for Danby to seek to censure Antony’s book, regardless of how ridiculous Antony’s views may be?” makes sense. Because otherwise there is nothing in Tim’s post nor any of the other comments which indicates that anyone is advocating the government censor this person’s book. On the other hand, it does seem that the finished product will deserve a great deal of censure.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 27 at 08:49 PM • permalinkNic you idiot....He is free to schlep his MS to any publishing house he pleases
Quite so. Publishing houses publish books that are likely to sell in large numbers and make a profit. They are not in business of doing favours for conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind.
When Mr Lowenstein fails to find an obliging publisher it isn’t censorship; it’s just that he’s hawking is unmarketable. Blast those capitalist publishers – they’re probably all...Zionists!
However, all is not lost. He can do what many spurned authors do these day: self-publish!
The slight difficulty here is that savvy book buyers see a self-published book and think, “Self-published, eh. That one obviously didn’t make it past the wicket keeper. I’ll pass, thanks”.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 08 28 at 08:00 PM • permalinkPerhaps this has been done here before I’m new here, but Boy Antony is a not unfamiliar phenomenon.
Let us contemplate the following scenario: you are Jewish with an obviously Jewish surname, you want to be a journalist and you get into a “ communications “ course at 18 years of age, somewhere in the 1980’s or 1990’s.
You find yourself at an Australian academic establishment in the throes of frenzied, irrational, ill-informed Israel-hatred. Do you:
a. Engage in a gruelling battle with the faculty staff and impressionable students to resist the flood of propaganda with some intellectual honesty ? Thus ensuring social ostracism, low marks and probable career suicide ?
or
b. Endorse and embrace the whole pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist narrative? Assuring lecturers and students alike that you too, despite the Jewish background, detest Israel just as much as they do. No, more than them ! Thus maximizing your career options in journalism in Australia?
You choose the easy path. You immerse yourself in the zeitgeist. You even start to semi-believe your own rhetoric. A little way down the track you see a big opportunity: carve your way to prominence as a Jewish journalist who hates Israel. You cannot help but notice the UK’s Alexei Sayle getting a gig on the Observer hatefully disparaging Israel, you see Suzanne Goldenberg getting UK’s highest journalism awards for nasty, dishonest copy about Israel: apartheid on the beaches of Tel Aviv, etc.
A fellow journalist asks you to contribute a chapter demonizing the role of Australian Jewish organisations in their support of Israel. You, specifically, have been asked because you are Jewish, young and on the make. But so blinkered are you in your conceit and ambition that you are unconcerned that you have been selected because that way the editor can scoff at any accusations of anti-semitism. Your chapter is poorly written, undergraduate dross, but in that particular book, it goes down very well.
There could be another book of my own in this ( no matter how poor my writing, historical knowledge, insights etc ) you think. Lo and behold you get a prestigious publisher for it, Day 1. Your gonna be the new Robert Fisk/John Pilger but with more cred on Israel than either of them.
You beauteee!!
Posted by Luigi Vercotti on 2005 08 29 at 10:02 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Promises to be beautifully written-?
..the Jewish community as a whole must take responsiblity for blinding supporting every move that Israel moves...
Who the heck has the Jewish community been blinding? Damn it I want answers!
...every move that Israel moves...
The redundancy.
No, I get hammered in other, more personal ways.
Lucky Liz!
LMAO!