"Racism and Apartheid are intrinsic to the Zionist doctrine": More Hatred of Israel on "Your ABC"

The ABC, Australia's equivalent of the BBC, is publicly funded by the taxpayer, and in consequence is obligated, like the BBC, to be impartial and balanced on its coverage and commentary.

Like the BBC, however, it is unashamedly leftwing, and its current affairs programs, as well as its website, is the domain increasingly of activists and journalist-activists pushing their own leftist barrows, on a range of issues.  Theirs is a world in which traditional western values are derided and scorned,  a world in which the whackiest of gender bending is applauded and promoted, where racism and misogyny are fiercely condemned so long as the racism emanates from white people, and the sexism from men of "white privilege".

Such leftist extremism, needless to say, is a domain in which the national liberation movement of the Jewish People is depicted as colonialism and lsrael routinely demonised.  And nowhere is the latter calumny on the ABC's part better illustrated than in an excruciatingly biased piece of political propaganda on the ABC a few days ago (planted, sleight of hand, in, of all things, its Religion & Ethics page,) beginning:

'Can there really be any doubt that the creation of the State of Israel was, at its heart, a colonialist act of dispossession, and has established an “apartheid regime” that systematically discriminates against and subjugates its own citizens? The evidence is overwhelming.'

The author, Salman Abu Sitta, described by the ABC as "the Founder and President of the Palestine Land Society", is, inter alia, a member of the Palestine National Council.


Now 83, he is given carte blanche  by the odoous ABC to declare in the rant that

"It was a Zionist plan to convert Palestine into a land without (its) people. Hence the dispossession of Palestine carried out in 1948, in which 560 towns and villages were depopulated and largely destroyed. This major crime has continued to this day.

Racism and apartheid are intrinsic to the Zionist doctrine. Without the forcible expulsion of Palestinians, Israel could not have existed as it is today. There is not a single acre of land acquired by Israel in 1948 that was gained without recourse to military force...

 Zionism was a secular, nationalistic movement; many of its key advocates were atheists. These are the people who came up with the first detailed plan to colonise Palestine by expelling the indigenous Palestinian population and by delegitimating and marginalising them in their own country. The creation of the State of Israel and the expulsion of most of the Palestinian indigenous population in 1948 — the Nakba — represented the acceleration of the “slow motion” dispossession which was a feature of this Jewish Euro-colonial history...."

 I would submit that any concerned and conscientious citizen can reach this conclusion by reading about Israel’s daily violations of international law and human rights conventions in any part of Palestine under military control by Israel, and by looking at the scores of laws that specifically discriminate against Palestinians in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

How long must Palestinians wait for the justice and freedom which has been denied them since 1948? How long will the rest of the world tolerate the flagrant and ongoing practices of apartheid and systemic racism by the Israeli state?

In Australia, politicians frequently promote the importance of a global rules-based order in the context of criticising human rights abuses and violations of international law in various countries, but Israel has never been included in these condemnations. This omission does not serve the cause of world peace, nor the rights of the Australian citizens."

This deliberately planted antisemitic propaganda by a national broadcaster out of control needs to be vigorously protested, and vigorously refuted. 

In Australia, Nuts & Bolts of Bias Against Israel

There are some columnists who, if they did not exist, would have to be invented.

Australia's Andrew Bolt is one such.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPkR9mWGre4

(Hat tip: Ian)

Meanwhile, antisemitism hots up in Melbourne.

And, courtesy of the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER), Victorian Branch, an anti-Israel libel appears on an exam paper:

'A Victorian  year 12 Health and Human Development practice exam included a question asking about religious discrimination and how it can influence mental health giving an example that the demolition of  homes by  Israel persecuted Arabs.

A sample answer stated, “An example of an individual being persecuted for their religion could be the Arab families living in Israel who practice the Islam religion rather the Jewish religion. Including unlawful demolition of homes and forced displacement and detainment of these families.”...'

Read more here

"Too Late to Undo the False, Indeed Poisonous, Impressions":The ABC's apology for Stephen Sizer interview

Remember that insidious Pesach broadcast by the BBC's terrible Australian twin, the ABC, an interview with Stephen Sizer?

Well, in response to this robust protest by Peter Wertheim, the ABC has issued an apology of sorts to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

To quote a media release issued by the latter:

'The ABC has written to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) apologising for inaccuracies and for the omission of material context that occurred during an interview of Rev Dr Stephen Sizer which was aired on RN Breakfast on Good Friday, and the eve of the Jewish festival of Pesach (Passover), on 30 March 2018.

In a letter to ABC Managing Director, Michelle Guthrie, on 5 April 2018, the ECAJ complained that the interviewer, David Rutledge, had underplayed the gravity of accusations of antisemitism that had been made against Sizer and “projected a generally supportive attitude towards Sizer from the outset, which resulted in a soft interview that allowed Sizer’s self-serving, inaccurate answers to pass unchallenged.”

The ECAJ complaint alleged that “David Rutledge allowed Sizer to get away with claiming that none of the speakers at one of the conferences he addressed in Tehran in 2014 were criticised as antisemitic. In fact, as was reported at the time, the Iranian government-run Press TV described the conference as intending to “unveil the secrets behind the dominance of the Zionist lobby over the US and EU politics”, with one session devoted to examining “Mossad’s role in the 9/11 Coup d’Etat”, and another discussing “9/11 and the Holocaust as pro-Zionist ‘Public myths’ ”. In questioning Sizer, David Rutledge gave only partial information about, and under-played the full extent of, Sizer’s own statements legitimising outlandish conspiracy theories that blame Israel for the September 11 terror attacks in the US. The audience was not informed that the link which Sizer posted on his Facebook page in 2015 was to an article entitled “9/11 Israel did it”, and that Sizer had subsequently publicly apologised for posting it. There was no mention of the fact that Sizer’s Church in the UK had been so embarrassed by his public statements that it had extracted an undertaking from him to stop commenting on the subject while he remained a vicar, an undertaking which Sizer broke.”

In response, the ABC wrote, “The interview included information to indicate that Dr Sizer holds controversial views; is a critic of Israel; at times has been accused of anti-Semitism and that his activities could be used by explicitly anti-Semitic groups. However, Dr Sizer’s mischaracterisation of the Tehran conference which was not challenged or corrected in the interview, together with the lack of information on his repeated censure by his Church was not in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standard for accuracy: the interview did not present these issues with the necessary material context.”

“The program has appended an Editor’s Note to the website and provided relevant links to further information (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/good-friday-8:05/9601212). ThThe ABC apologises for this lapse and would like to assure you that this finding has been discussed with the program area and RN management, and a summary will be published on the ABC website”

The following note has now been included on the page of the ABC website that relates to the program that was aired on ABC RN on 30 March 2018: 

“NOTE: Presenter David Rutledge acknowledged to the audience that Dr Sizer’s views are controversial, that he has been accused of anti-Semitism and that he attended a conference in Tehran in 2014, which has been criticized for including speakers with anti-Semitic affiliations. However, the ABC accepts that the interview did not provide sufficient context for listeners to adequately understand the extent of the controversies. The ABC acknowledges that the Tehran conference did include anti-Semitic elements, and information on the Anglican Church’s censure of Dr Sizer can be found here.”'

Commenting on the ABC response, ECAJ co-CEO Peter Wertheim welcomed the ABC’s acknowledgement of inaccuracies and omission of material context, and its apology, but added, “Sadly, this will come too late to undo the false, indeed poisonous, impressions given to many ABC listeners to the program who heard the interview but will not be aware of the ABC’s admission of error and apology”.

“The ABC has also failed to appreciate the gravity of the wrong done when David Rutledge took it upon himself to tell Sizer, and the audience, “I accept you are not an antisemite”, instead of allowing the audience to draw its own conclusions. The ABC has pointed to David Rutledge’s academic qualifications and said that the ABC’s editorial standards permitted him to provide his own analysis. However, David Rutledge provided no analysis at all, only his own unsupported assertion. There is a big difference.”

Wertheim also criticised the ABC’s failure to address specifically the ECAJ’s complaint that “the ABC audience is surely entitled to know what Christian Zionism is from the point of view of a knowledgeable and articulate exponent, not merely from the point of view of a harsh and discredited critic”.

“We are now considering pursuing these unresolved aspects of our complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority”, he concluded. [Emphasis added]

Stephen Sizer: Statement by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry

This statement has been issued today by Mr Peter Wertheim, CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, regarding the ABC's interview with Stephen Sizer, aired on Friday, and mentioned in my Sunday post:

For centuries, Easter Holy Week was an occasion for incendiary sermons and outbreaks of mob violence against Jewish communities throughout Europe.   In recent years we have seen a more subtle version of that tradition take shape. Commentaries about Israel, especially in the lead-up to Easter, often go beyond mere criticisms that are similar to those levelled against any other country or government, and are couched in terms that evoke ancient calumnies against Jews as a group.  Some of Steven Sizer’s public statements have been in this category.

Although David Rutledge’s interview of Sizer on the ABC RN Breakfast program on Good Friday explored some of these statements, it was a soft interview that allowed Sizer’s self-serving answers to pass unchallenged.

Rutledge allowed Sizer to get away with claiming that none of the speakers at one of the conferences he addressed in Tehran in 2014 were criticised as antisemitic. In fact, as was reported at the time, the Iranian-run Press TV described the conference as intending to “unveil the secrets behind the dominance of the Zionist lobby over the US and EU politics”, with one session devoted to examining “Mossad’s role in the 9/11 Coup d’Etat”, and another discussing “9/11 and the Holocaust as pro-Zionist ‘Public myths’ ”.

Rutledge gave only partial information about, and under-played the full extent of, Sizer’s own statements legitimising outlandish conspiracy theories blaming Israel for the September 11 terror attacks in the US.  There was no mention of the fact that Sizer’s own Church in the UK was so embarrassed by his public statements that it extracted an undertaking from Sizer to stop commenting on the subject while he remained a vicar, an undertaking which Sizer subsequently broke.

Nor was there any mention of the fact that in November 2016, Inter-Varsity Press (IVP), one of Britain’s largest Christian publishers, withdrew Sizer’s books from sale and ceased to list them on its website.

Rutledge took it upon himself to tell Sizer “I accept you are not an antisemite”, instead of adhering to proper interviewing standards and allowing the audience to make up its own mind.   Under the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the 31 democratic countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, including the UK, the US and EU, certain kinds of criticisms of Israel are internationally recognised as antisemitic.  It is strongly arguable that some of Sizer’s statements about Israel fall within that definition, but Rutledge did not put this question to Sizer.

Finally, Rutledge should have taken to task Sizer’s egregious comments about Israel ceasing to be a democracy if it retains the settlements in the West Bank.  At official permanent-status negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders at Camp David in 2000, in Taba in 2001, in Jerusalem in 2008 and in Washington DC in 2010, both parties accepted the principle of “land swaps”.  This would involve incorporating into Israel’s territory a small part of the West Bank where the major settlement blocs are located in exchange for Israel ceding to the Palestinians an equivalent area of land from within Israel’s pre-1967 territory.

Overall, Rutledge’s interview was far beneath the standards of probing, well-researched, quality journalism that regular listeners expect from an ABC RN current affairs program.  For this he should apologise not only to the Jewish community but to the ABC’s entire audience.

Instead of pre-judging Christian Zionism by only featuring one of its critics, the ABC should for once set aside its customary hostility towards Israel and its Jewish and Christian supporters, and interview one of Christian Zionism’s more able exponents, such as Dr. Jürgen Bühler, the President of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.

David Singer: ABC News Admits “Human Error” Wiped Israel from Map

Regular readers of this blog will know that the ABC is the terrible twin of the BBC: publicly funded, obligated to objectivity, but pursuing a left-wing agenda nevertheless, one that more often than not entails bias against Israel. 

In this, his latest article, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer examines a recent admission, owing to a challenge from him, regarding an omission on the ABC's part, and how they have arrogantly stopped short of apologising for their "error".

BBC watchers, especially those who have complained to the BBC over items of bias, will certainly feel a sense of déjà vu when they read this.

Writes David Singer:

ABC News has belatedly admitted that “human error” caused Israel to be wiped from the following map:

This admission came during the investigation of a complaint lodged by me concerning a segment aired on Media Watch featuring the above map titled “Misplaced map outrage”

Audience and Consumer Affairs (“AACA”) – a unit separate to and independent of the content making areas of the ABC – dealt with my complaint alleging that Media Watch had breached the ABC's editorial standards of accuracy.

Media Watch had focused on a Daily Mail story dated 19 August which accused the ABC of wiping Israel off the map.

Media Watch sought to provide the context missing from the Daily Mail article – namely, that the ABC report was about repealing a law which allows rapists to escape punishment if they marry their victims, that Israel had never had that law whereas such laws had been applied in Palestinian territories.

The ABC had responded to the Daily Mail on 21 August:

“[t]he graphic did not represent a map of the Middle East but a visual representation of the countries relevant to the story”.

Media Watch presenter Paul Barry justified Israel’s omission from the map:

“But two days is obviously an age in the Mail’s hectic newsroom. And clearly no one bothered to watch the ABC report. Because if they had they would have known that the nations in blue are where this law has been abolished. And the nations in yellow are those that still have it on their books. And Israel was not on the map because it never had the offending statute." 

AACA’s investigation found otherwise:

“With regards to the original image used on The World, we have sought additional information from ABC News who have advised that unfortunately due to human error the yellow shading covered a larger area than where the laws are applicable. But as marry-your-rapist laws have never been enacted in Israel, Israel was not labelled on the map so as not to mislead viewers that Israel had or has any such laws. However, this was not an implicit political comment or any attempt to delegitimise Israel.”

AACA determined:

“Within the context of the Media Watch segment which especially sought to provide context to the Daily Mail’s article, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that viewers would not be materially misled by the inclusion of the graphic from The World. Nevertheless, we have noted your concerns and made them available to the program, ABC Television and ABC News for their consideration.” 

Challenging AACA’s determination as “perplexing” – I responded: 

“The yellow shading in covering a larger area than where the laws are applicable was not accurate because:

(i) the yellow shaded area mistakenly included Israel and

(ii) the yellow shaded area mistakenly identified and clearly labelled "Israel" as "Palestine" Surely this admitted "human error" needs to be publicly acknowledged by the ABC and a public correction or clarification issued.

I would further submit that this human error comes within part 2.1 of the ABC's editorial standards - which you do not appear to have even considered:

"2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context" 

AACA replied: 

“We have nothing further to add to our substantive response.”

This dismissive response coming from the annual $1 billion taxpayer-funded ABC is not acceptable.

Reprimanding those responsible for this “human error” and those who sought to publicly justify Israel’s exclusion from the map using artificially-contrived reasons is surely warranted – particularly as the ABC has been recently accused of anti-Israel bias.

Media Watch certainly needs to issue a clarification and apology.

David Singer: ABC "Media Watch" Program Continues to Wipe Israel off the Map

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

(It should resonate in particular with non-Aussie readers familiar with BBC bias against Israel, for as I've explained many times over the years, the ABC is the BBC's counterpart Down Under.)

Writes David Singer:

The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) – taxpayer funded to the tune of $1 billion annually – still continues to feature a map which falsely identifies “Israel” as “Palestine”.

This bizarre conduct came to light after the ABC had initially removed the segment “Misplaced Map Outrage” from its Media Watch website containing the offending map with the following headline:

 “Daily Mail accuses the ABC of wiping Israel off the map but misses the point of the story”

When I wrote to Media Watch approving of their decision to delete the segment and seeking an explanation for the segment’s removal – I was shocked to receive this response from Gabrielle Clark at Media Watch: 

“This hasn’t been purposely removed. Just looks like a back end publishing error. It is back online now.”

Shortly thereafter I received a further reply from Jason Whittaker, Story Editor, Media Watch:

"The story has not been removed from our website. It remains here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4729053.htm

We have issued no apology, retraction, correction or amendment to this item."

When I clicked on the link supplied by Whittaker, I noticed that 20 or more posted comments – including mine – had all been removed.

This prompted me to write to Whittaker asking him to:

“Immediately reinstate all the posted comments that have been removed in the course of someone in the ABC reinstating the segment to the website.”

I found Whittaker’s reply quite disturbing:

“You’re welcome to re-post the comment. We apologise if a technical error removed it.

As for the story itself, like I said, we stand by it and have nothing more to add. But if you’d like to take the matter further you can do so through the ABC complaints process (http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm) or through Free TV Australia (http://www.freetv.com.au/content_common/pg-viewer-feedback-and-complaints.seo).”

I then sent Whittaker the following detailed response:

'Thanks for your response and the suggestion I can re-post my comment.

What about reposting the more than 20 other comments that were removed by "technical error"? Are they too irretrievable?

Reposting my comment does not answer my complaint about the following false statement made by [the presenter] Paul [Barry] in the story:

"But two days is obviously an age in the Mail’s hectic newsroom. And clearly no one bothered to watch the ABC report.

Because if they had they would have known that the nations in blue are where this law has been abolished. And the nations in yellow are those that still have it on their books.

And Israel was not on the map because it never had the offending statute."

This statement was patently false because:

1. Israel was shown on the map

2. Israel was coloured yellow

3. Israel was mislabelled "Palestine"

Paul was clearly in error in making the above statement.

 Where he got the information to make this statement needs to be explained by Paul.

The segment was clearly tainted by this statement.

I am surprised that in these circumstances your response is:

"As for the story itself, like I said, we stand by it and have nothing more to add"

With the greatest respect – I think you do – especially as the segment involved an ABC program – The World – where an incorrect map bearing an ABC logo was used  – indicating someone in the ABC had prepared it for specifically for The World program.

Your website proudly proclaims: "Media Watch has built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989."

On the face of it Media Watch and Paul Barry appear to have become unwitting victims of shenanigans within the ABC – having been fed false information which was relied on by Paul to make the offending statement which – if true – would have certainly debunked the Daily Mail story.

However the statement was false.

I initially expressed my approval that the segment had been removed – which was the right thing to do in the circumstances – only to now be told it was due to a "back end publishing error" and incredibly find it is back on the website again.

That is shocking.

Paul needs to pursue the person in the ABC who fed him the information that formed the basis of the offending statement and also find out the person in the ABC who authorised the preparation of the map and allowed it to go on air in the misleading and deceptive form it did.

The segment also needs to be removed from the website.”'

Whittaker’s pathetic response was:

“David, I won’t be entering into further correspondence about this. As I’ve said, we believe our report was fair and we have no intention of correcting it. And I’ve given you avenues to take your complaint further if you’d like to do that.

Appreciate your engagement with the program. All the best”

For Media Watch to act in this high handed and dismissive manner is a national disgrace.

Removing the segment that contained the false map was certainly the right action for Media Watch to take. Reinstating it was contemptible.

Those responsible for this total fiasco should be reprimanded – perhaps dismissed.

Jason Whittaker’s title should be changed to “Fake Story Editor”.

Paul Barry remains silent.

Media Watch’s credibility has hit rock bottom.

Media Watch boasts to viewers:

“Everyone loves it till they’re on it”

Media Watch itself is now centre-stage on Media Watch and clearly does not like being targeted for false reporting.

Sophie, Israel & A Lyons Share of Spleen

Bet that makes her happy!

The ABC's overtly leftist and unashamedly biased-against-Israel Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeill has found a champion in the form of The Australian newspaper's Israel-bashing John Lyons. 

To quote the Guardian Down Under , in "his Middle East memoir Balcony Over Jerusalem" Lyons claims  

'he was subjected to consistent pressure from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) while based in Jerusalem for the Australian for six years, as were the ABC’s Sophie McNeill and the veteran ABC correspondent Peter Cave....

In 2015, AIJAC sent a file on McNeill to Jewish members of the ABC board, including the then chairman James Spigelman, and this file claimed among other things that she was unsuitable because she had said “one of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza”.

The then ABC managing director Mark Scott ordered a detailed response from corporate affairs, which he took to the board.

“I will not cower to the AIJAC,” Scott said, according to Lyons.

Scott was also forced to defend McNeill from attacks at Senate estimates after the dossier was sent to key parliamentarians.

“Before this reporter set foot in the Middle East, there was a campaign against her personally taking up that role,” he said in response to a question from senator Eric Abetz.

“I am saying that she is a highly recognised and acclaimed reporter … she deserved that appointment and she needs to be judged on her work.”

In a letter to the board, Scott wrote: “The article [by AIJAC] demonstrates to Sophie McNeill and the ABC that her every word will be watched closely by AIJAC and she starts on the ground with this key interest group sceptical. We are all aware she will be under even closer scrutiny now. As they seek to influence our coverage, this is a pre-emptive ‘shot across the bows" .....'

Taking aim at Australia's steady pro-Israel foreign policy ("illogical and unhealthy") and at AIJAC and its director Dr Colin Rubenstein, Lyons asserts

“For more than 20 years, Australians have read and heard pro-Israel positions from journalists, editors, politicians, trade union leaders, academics and students who have returned from the all-expenses-paid Israel lobby trips. In my opinion, no editors, journalist or others should take those trips: they grotesquely distort the reality and are dangerous in the sense that they allow people with a very small amount of knowledge to pollute Australian public opinion.”

(What his opinion is of trips sponsored by APAN, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, is not reported.)

Inter alia, Dr Rubenstein has told the Guardian:

“We did put together a public document explaining why we thought Sophie McNeill … was an inappropriate choice for Middle East correspondent for the taxpayer funded ABC, with its statutory obligations of impartiality.

Everything we do – critiquing media stories; contacting editors, politicians and journalists and explaining our point of view to them; writing our our letters and op/eds; making complaints – are absolutely normal elements of deliberation and debate in a democratic society.

I would call on those who oppose our views, including Mr Lyons, to engage with different views in a democratic, tolerant and constructive spirit, rather than demand, as he appears to be doing, that those who disagree with him be silenced or suppressed.”

He's  absolutely right, of course.

The ABC is Australia's equivalent to the BBC: a national broadcaster upon which objective reporting is incombent in return for public funding, in the ABC's case not out of a licence fee but out of taxes.  But, again like the BBC, it is in the grip of the arrogant repulsive Left, and it promotes its leftwing agenda at will, thumbing its nose at critics and packing the panel and the audience to "flagship" programs such as Q&A (its version of the BBC's Question Time) with a surfeit of leftists.  In fact, if anything, its current affairs output and what it chooses to report and comment on is more brazenly leftist than the BBC's.

Sophie McNeill came to journalism and the ABC from a background of political activism and a determination to continue to pursue that activism.  This is how, six years ago,  she described her view of a journalist's role:

"If you just try to frame stories from the point of view of the people who are really suffering in a situation, be it in Lebanon, if you re hanging out in a Palestinian refugee camp, [or] in Gaza you re hanging out, you know, at the children’s cancer ward. One of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending some time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza. I just think if you just – if you look at a situation and you just – yeah, I guess just try to spend time with the people who are – who really don t have any power and it is hard, you know, for them to have a voice. Then that’s, yeah, that’s the kind of journalism I want to do.... Everyone knew what was happening in Gaza ... you saw all the horrific videos ... a lot of people died ... there are no excuses any more..."

 See here

Two years ago AIJAC's Ahron Shapiro observed:

"Any reporting by an ABC employee, including McNeill, is required to follow the following standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

 4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

And also

 4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another."

In a substantial article, he traced and analysed historic broadcasts by Ms McNeill that reveal her pattern of blatant partisanship in reportage concerning the Middle East.

He also drew attention to her pro-Palestinian activism.

For example:

'[I]n 2013, McNeill, along with prolific pro-Palestinian photographer Richard Wainwright were the only journalists presented to speak at the Human Rights in Palestine Conference at the ANU [Australian National University] ...

[W] hile living in Beirut in 2007, McNeill filed a story with the notorious anti-Israel website Electronic Intifada.

 Here, the content of the story she filed, which was about Lebanese mistreatment of Palestinians, was in itself not problematic. What is a problem, however, and what should have given ABC pause when choosing McNeill for her current job, is why McNeill chose to work with a website whose raison d’être is to increase popular support for the elimination of Israel and routinely publishes material justifying Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians.

Finally, in 2009 ... and again in 2013, McNeill initiated online campaigns to raise money for her “dear friend” and Gaza fixer, Raed Al Athamneh. Raising money to help someone you work with through a crisis is not necessarily inappropriate. But for a journalist to adopt the Palestinian narrative in their pitch for donations most certainly is.

 For example, she wrote “most of Gaza’s residents are refugees who used to live inside Israel’s borders, but were forced out when the country was created in 1948″.

This revisionist historical narrative that Israel forced out all the refugees – language used by her mentor Pilger – represents an endorsement of the Palestinian narrative that Israel is entirely responsible for the refugee problem, ignores the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians fled and were not forced out and ignores the war that was launched against Israel by the Arab nations and Palestinians who rejected partition.

In this essay, she also made an allegation that Israel “collectively punished” the Palestinians of Gaza, describing the blockade of Gaza as a means of punishing the Strip’s residents who support Hamas. [Emphasis added]

She initiated a fundraising campaign for Raed again in 2013, according to her friend and Australian Gazan Patrick Abboud and an appeal she posted on ABC Triple J Hack’s Facebook page.'

He observed:

'Her reporting does not show a clear record of separating her media career from her activism..

 And there is little doubt that her activism continues and influences her reporting in terms of how she frames stories, particularly about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. ...

What makes this matter even more serious is the fact that the Jerusalem bureau is undergoing changes. While until now there were two ABC Middle East reporters (most recently Hayden Cooper and Matt Brown) as well as some support crew, the ABC says that it is making Jerusalem a Video Journalist bureau later this year. That move, it would appear, would give McNeill substantially more autonomy than previous Middle East correspondents have had.  

The onus now lies on O’Neill [sic] to demonstrate that ABC management was not irresponsible in making the appointment – given her self-described dedication to frame stories from the point of view of the people who are “really suffering” (in her lexicon, the Palestinians) – and whether she can possibly fulfil the statutory obligation of an ABC correspondent to present news with due impartiality and to be fair to all perspectives.'

 Is it any wonder, given her continuing partisanship, that advocates of fair and objective reporting were, and continue to be, dismayed by her appointment to the ABC?

"Perniciously & Dishonestly": The anti-Israel bang of The Drum

Antony Loewenstein is a freelance Australian journalist who has made a name for himself, and a living, spewing propaganda against Israel.

Astonishingly, his book My Israel Question was published by no less a publishing house than the prestigious Melbourne University Press (MUP), headed by Louise Adler (who I believe is or has been a member of his Independent Australian Jewish Voices and is a frequent panellist on the leftwing ABC's answer to the leftwing BBC's Question Time, Q&A.)

"Astonishingly", because the book is a piece of political polemic, a diatribe, not a serious academic work, and in the world of academic publishing Down Under MUP is a leader indeed.

Even hard leftist anti-Zionist Jews condemned Mr Loewenstein's use of this image (featuring then prime minister Julia Gillard, a friend of Israel) on his website a few years ago.

Yesterday, Mr Loewenstein was a panellist on the ABC's The Drum, anchored by Ellen Fanning, which had a segment on "how Israel is reported on".

There was no attempt to balance the panel, and, worse, there was no attempt to explain to viewers that Loewenstein (a longtime favourite of the ABC) has form as a polemicist against Israel.
 

John Lyons of The Australian told viewers that "foreign correspondents in Israel censor themselves," and Loewenstein got stuck in to the "Israel lobby" which "perniciously and dishonestly" carries on its task. "Israel lobby bullying" soon became the theme of the segment, with Fanning making a half-hearted attempt to enquire about the "Palestinian lobby" before settling back and allowing the anti-Israel bias to continue.

How pernicious and dishonest of the ABC to include Mr Loewenstein on the panel with no counterbalance and no mention of his background as an anti-Israel polemicist.

The program can be viewed here, the segment in question starting around 18:55 

It should be protested.

Bibi Down Under: These don't like it up 'em

Unhappiness is being an Israel-hater and viewing something like this:

And being an Australian Israel-hater and seeing the warm, wonderful welcome that the Turnbull government has given to Bibi and Sara Netanyahu.

This unhappiness means that if you're the ABC (Australia's equivalent to the BBC, and just as left-oriented) you do all you can to undermine Israel on your news website by giving inordinate space to Israel- and Netanyahu-bashers, and you spruik for outraged Guardianistas for your flagship current affairs discussion program Q&A (the ABC's equivalent to "Question Time") by linking to an article by Bishop Browning, the chap from APAN who got 60-odd like-minded "prominent" Aussies to demand, to no avail, that the government in effect show Bibi a red card, not a red carpet:

As a fair and honest bloke (hounded by an anti-Israel mob) has commented below this pimping propaganda on Facebook:

"More ABC bias..Its appalling and they no longer seem to care.[ the wider public notices though] ..Notice the ABC never seems to report on the vile anti-Semitism of the Palestinian side [ or Muslim Jew hatred generally ]and its supporters among the far Left including the Greens..And yet the ABC has no qualms in employing a Sharia Law supporter..Well there you go..Citing The Guardian on this issue is a joke"

More unhappy Israel-haters, snapped by a representative of Green Left Weekly at an anti-Bibi demo  on Thursday evening in Sydney Town Hall Square:

Photo credit: Peter Boyle

Photo credit: Peter Boyle

Photo credit: Peter Boyle

Why, it looks as if what I believe was originally the ScottishPSC's slogan has traversed the world:

Photo credit: Peter Boyle

Click here for PressTV footage of the Sydney demo.

Together with antisemitic comments such as these:

Aussie Observer

Netanyahu represents the fake Semites that down through the ages have been kicked out of every country on our planet... And those of us a brain know exactly why!

Rahul Sharma

Australia has a Jew PM and a puppet of Zionism. Nutter Yahoo is a terrorist war criminal and so scared that he flew around Malaysia and Indonesia so that his plane is not brought down and arrested. Australia should be ashamed for letting this evil sick criminal spout Islamophobia and Iranophobia on national TV.

justice and independence

NAZI = Nationalist Zionist.

 Meanwhile, in Western Australia, a chum of Jenny Tonge:

With Funds from Screen Australia, an anti-Israel Narrative

Australia's publicly-funded national broadcaster, the ABC, Australia's answer to the BBC, is like Al Beeb itself, obligated to be objective in its presentation of news and current events.  Again like the BBC, it is dominated by leftists and a leftist mindset prevails in the dissemination and discussion of news items, with virtual impunity.  Where the BBC has openly biased-against-Israel correspondents like Jeremy Bowen and Jon Donnison the ABC has the egregiously brazen journalist-activist Sophie McNeill.

One of the latest examples of the ABC's bias can be seen in a very recent News 24 interview with the American-educated Palestinian filmmaker Mai Masri, who's in Australia in connection with the Palestine Film Festival.  What's troubling about the interview is the partisan ambience of the news presenters (one in particular) in conducting the interview with Ms Masri, to the delight of anti-Israel groups like this one:

But it's not the ABC's anti-Israel bias with which this present post is primarily concerned, but rather a fresh source of on-screen activity.

It's greatly to be hoped that the leaders of relevant Australian Jewish communal organisations are watching closely the development of an initiative that, if it goes ahead as planned, seems set to demonise Israel on screens in this country and elsewhere.

The initiative in question is a doco (that's Aussie speak for documentary) to be called From Under the Rubble, written and directed by Anne Tsoulis, who, like cinematographer Fadi Hossam Hanona, is co-producer.

Blurbs tell us that the doco

"is a powerful story that puts a human face to war and gives voice to the civilian perspective.

The overwhelming majority of collateral damage in conflict zones are dead and wounded women and children who far outnumber the casualties incurred on the combatants.

We live in a time when women and children have limited protection under international law. Zeinat Samouni and her seven children live with the shocking memory of what happened to their family during Operation Cast Lead that saw the father and four year old brother, along with forty-eight other Samouni family members killed and many more injured.

The psychological damage and trauma does not end. It continues on with each ensuing conflict. Zeinat's six year old daughter, Ansam, and her siblings have now lived through three wars. When the bombings begin, Zeinat blocks the windows and tells her children it is only a storm and what they hear is thunder and lightning.

From Under the Rubble is Zeinat and her childrens' personal experience of what happened in the week that the IDF came to their farming region to set up their base during Operation Cast Lead from January 2nd - 7th 2009. Their story will be told through the use of archival footage, footage shot in present Gaza and an animation that the Samouni children created as party of their trauma recovery therapy. The documentary will juxtapose the innocent perspective of children with the harsh realities of war. Through their personal story we as filmmakers want to give an insight of the plight of women and children, not just in Gaza, but in conflict zones throughout the world. This story belongs to them all."

 The film's editor, Ken Sallow, has stated that the intention "is not to make a political diatribe, but a humanist film about survival".

The producer, John Moore, has averred:

"I am delighted to have recently come on board to work with Anne and Fadi on seeing this important documentary come to fruition.  From Under The Rubble takes a very personal POV [point of view], looking at the conflict through the experiences of one Palestinian family. It is a big responsibility telling such an emotive story in the context of such a highly contested conflict.  There is however a lot of material to inform our work as the war has been critiqued by an independent UN team in the Goldstone Report and several books have been written about it including by Australian philosopher Raymond Gaita.  I hope we can do justice to both sides of the conflict"

A UN team?  The Goldstone Report?  Don't they realise that the UN is deeply, probably irredeemably, hostile to Israel?  Don't they know that the Goldstone Report is flawed and largely discredited, repudiatd by Richard Goldstone himself?  Er, they probably do.  (If Mr Moore is sincere in hoping to do justice to both sides of the conflict he will surely insist on these facts being made clear in the documentary.)

I've seen the trailer, and there's nothing in it that suggests that the documentary will be anything other than a showcase for the anti-Israel narrative.

It features the Israel-vilifying Dr Mads Gilbert.

It features  children's drawings from Gaza, expertly animated.  (The pictures in question remind me of those that British activist Rod Cox has exhibited to appreciative anti-Israel audiences up and down the UK; I've seen those, and they bear a degree of sophistication, if you take my meaning.)

It features a quote on Cast Lead by Amnesty International.

There are in existence  drawings by Israeli children traumatised by Hamas rockets.  There's no indication that they will be shown.

 There's no indication that reference will be made to Israeli victims of Hamas terror.

There's also no indication that mention will be made of Hamas's evil policy of situating its weapons and fighters in civilian areas.

A further hint that the documentary is likely to be a prime piece of anti-Israel propaganda is the fact that it's being spruiked on social media by delighted anti-Israel activists in Australia.

Among its funders are Screen Australia and the South Australian Film Corporation.

Screen Australia is the federal government's principal funding agency for this country's screen production industry and, since it's an official body and has generously contributed towards the making of this documentary (which apparently costs $A250,000 to make), it is surely incumbent upon pro-Israel organisations and politicians in Australia to insist on a fair representation of Israel's case.  At the very least, the Israeli ambassador to Australia should be given the chance to appear.

Anne Tsoulis has written:

'....For me, part of the process of making this documentary is also to work with filmmakers in Gaza to help them build up their skills and to assist them to have a voice on an international platform.

I went to Gaza and was overcome by the warmth and resilience of its people.  Zeinat Samouni is a lioness, and the mother of all mothers.  What she and her children have had to endure defies the imagination.   Every day is a struggle for her to feed her children.  Evey day is a struggle for her to deal with their emotional trauma, let alone her own that she has suffered.  Being a widowed single mother makes it even more difficult for her with the stigma attached.  Her last words to me when I left Gaza were, "Anne, don't forget us."  The words are etched into my brain and makes me determined to make this documentary.  Her children stole my heart - they are my children now too.'

And Fadi Hossam Hanona has observed that the documentary

"must show the world what is happening here ... Every day here is a struggle for us."

If so, Hamas can be largely blamed for that.

As we read in the producer's comments quoted above, the documentary "takes a very personal POV".

But as he also states "I hope we can do justice to both sides of the conflict". 

That should be honoured in the observance, not in the breach.

When Jon Meets Sophie

Both the ABC's Jerusalem correspondent Sophie McNeill and the BBC's Australia (ex-Gaza) correspondent Jon Donnison are notorious for their anti-Israel bias.

They get away with their breaches of their employers' respective charters time and time and time again.

Lefty McNeill is an avowed activist and Lefty Donnison (with his numerous snide tweets about Aussie asylum policy as well as about Israel) behaves like one.

Here's the latest example of Jon and Sophie together.

One, if you'll pardon the expression, on top of the other.

Israel.  "Financial deals".  "Who would have thought it"

There wouldn't be a hint of leftist "rich man antisemitism" there, would there Jon?

"What is it with the Left and Jews? What is it with the Left and pandering to Islamists?" (includes videos)

Aussie Leftist media cartoon demonisation

As  the popular Aussie conservative columnist Andrew Bolt writes  in his syndicated column today regarding the Australian Labor Party (ALP):

 "The modern Left seems to have a Jew problem. The obsession with Jews even within Labor is extraordinary - and ominous.

What is it with the Left and Jews? What is it with the Left and pandering to Islamists?" 

Mr Bolt quotes from a sobering piece on the subject by Sharri Markson in The Australian newspaper, showing the Left faction of the ALP is so saturated now in leftist/Islamist bias against Israel as to be aiding and abetting that old demon, slumbering since the Shoah and now belligerently wide awake: Jew-hatred.

Ms Markson wrote, inter alia:

'.... The NSW ALP international relations policy committee chairman Michael Forshaw told The Australian yesterday that 39 resolutions had been received concerning Israel and Palestine, compared with 17 resolutions dealing with other international issues, such as the Syrian war, the Myanmar junta, Paris terror bombings, China free trade and foreign aid.

There were none on Saudi Arabia or Iran.

There are moves to recognise Palestinian statehood and to boycott products from Israel that originate in settlement areas, and many concerning banning trips to Israel while Benjamin Netan­yahu is Prime Minister. The move by Labor is partly driven by political motivations to secure the vote from Muslim communities in marginal southwest Sydney seats.....'

 She cites the main offenders, and their thraldom to the Muslim vote.

She reminds the reader of the 'incendiary remarks' (Jewish advocacy groups are “cancerous” and “malicious” and try to “deny, misinform and scaremonger”) made by NSW Labor politician Shaoquett Moselmane, who felt comfortable enough broadcasting ... anti-semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament' despite having ' ironically decried racism' in his maiden speech:

'He was not shouted-out of the high office he holds for racist commentary. On the contrary, Labor continues to support him and Moselmane is now a vocal advocate behind a push to ban Labor MPs from visiting Israel on trips funded by Jewish organisations…

The father of the anti-Israel movement is Bob Carr, whose speeches have on at least one occasion, in July last year, elicited anti-semitic commentary from the audience, with a remark made about “the Jews” and their “3000-year fundamentalist influence.”

And I remain deeply concerned by comments by [Tony] Burke ...  a Labor frontbencher which seemed to legitimise Islamist terrorism against Israel....'

In the videos below pro-Israel federal MP Michael Danby, from the ALP's right faction, which, happily, still includes supporters of Israel, is seen on Australia Day talking to The Shtick's Henry Greener about the menace of the ABC's Sophie McNeill and dishonest reporting about Israel.

This one (after a few opening bars of jazz) focuses more than the top one on Ms McNeill:

The BBC & the ABC's Sophie McNeill Have Themselves A Merry Little Christmas

It hasn't been half as blatant as this, when the BBC cribbed what its ideological stable mate wrote the year before

But it's Yuletide, and that gives the Corporation an opportunity as golden as the wise men's guiding star to have a go or five at Israel.  Just as its ideological stable mate The Guardian does each Christmas Eve too.

The Christmas story, with its cast of supporting characters, has again given the BBC (step forward Yolande Knell and Co.) the chance to spin some anti-Israel propaganda lite via a series of specially made videos with modern residents of Bethlehem standing in for those in the familiar narrative.

The people selected are no doubt good and worthy individuals, but it is the propagandistic use to which the BBC intentionally puts the interviews that sticks in the craw like a swallowed sixpence from a traditional Christmas pudding.

The propaganda shows this year in the interview with the "shepherd" and the "wise man" where the BBC has fun with its "Israel says" that comes up on screen.  It's as if to tell the audience: "Nudge, wink, well they would say that, but we don't believe them, do we?"

The interview with the shepherd is hardly balanced, with its male reporter saying: "Look how much injustice and grievance there has been on this land"...

It would be wrong to claim that the BBC never draws attention to the plight of persecuted Christians around the world.

But it seldom does so.

Yet, by contrast, it never misses an opportunity, at this time of the year, to air the grievances, real and imagined, of Christians in Bethlehem, because that provides as much fodder as Joseph's donkey could eat for a week in providing nourishment for the Israel-bashing cause.

Of course, the plight of Christians suffering from manifestations of Islamic supremacy in the West Bank and Gaza is never going to feature in these Yuletide messages by the BBC.

Strange, isn't it, how the leftist Al Beeb permits all sorts of blasphemy and scorn on its airwaves against Christians and Christianity, yet gets all teary-eyed and sanctimonious about Christians (in the Holy Land, that is) when 24 December rolls around?

Meanwhile, the ABC's Sophie McNeill, a pro-Palestinian activist by background and inclination, joins in the festivities:

This excellent article by Michael Danby is what the lady's referring to; good onya, Mr Danby!

More current McNeillisms:

No wonder this woman, who, just like the BBC reporters, is bound by her employer's Charter to be objective but isn't, has her detractors!

Now that the ABC has named a successor to outgoing head honcho Mark Scott (defending her here)  Ms McNeill must no longer be able to get away with her outrageous bias.

Aussie Leftist Media Bias Against Israel: Michael Danby talks to Andrew Bolt (video) (updated)

In this interview, the splendid Aussie columnist Andrew Bolt and the staunchly pro-Israel Labor MP Michael Danby discuss leftist bias in Australia against Israel, beginning with the warped views of Melissa Parke, Labor MP for Fremantle, and proceeding to the disgraceful bias of the ABC (Australia's answer to the BBC).

Hat tip: Ian

Incidentally, here's what Mr Danby has recently written about the Iranian threat:

'Russian Deputy Chief of Staff General Nikolay Bogdanovsky was in Israel last week pursuing Israeli/Russian plans to avoid military confrontation particularly in the air over Syria.  To his credit, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had flown to Moscow with four Israeli air chiefs, as soon as the extent of the Russian military intervention in Syria was realised. You won’t read of this fundamental power shift from blockheaded, anti-Israel fanatics like Robert Fisk, or the Pollard–McNeill axis of their brand of Australian reporting. But the Russians have installed total air defence with sophisticated SA-22s covering much of Syria’s airspace. As Daesh (IS) doesn’t even have a crop duster, this makes even more farcical US President Obama and our Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s initial enthusiasm for Russian President Putin as there to join the fight against Daesh. Jerusalem is wise to make arrangements with Moscow as best it can in a world with a US administration so feckless and strategically confused.

[Australian Foreign Minister] Julie Bishop’s announcements of support for Syria’s dictator Assad, who has murdered 200,000 of his own people, as the only alternative to Daesh taking over Syria is untrue and unethical. But the massive Russian intervention, on the side of Iran and Hezbollah, cements in place Iran’s Shiite crescent from Lebanon, through Syria and Iraq, to Iran. Worse, the Iranian-controlled Iraqi government, where Australia has 300 of its finest soldiers trying to retrain its cowardly army, has announced its gratitude by openly joining a pact with Iran, Syria and Lebanon under Russian auspices

That is why I have moved a resolution in Parliament, for Australian soldiers to be withdrawn from the Taji military camp where we are at least implicitly cooperating with the Iranians (if we were serious about destroying Daesh, our guys would in Erbil training and arming the 25,000 Kurdish fighters who could occupy Raqqa, the centre of IS evil, in two weeks. From a direct national security point of view, of course, this would be much more useful, in preventing attacks like the ones in Parramatta, or Dandenong, by deranged Jihadist teenagers, who are getting their orders from Raqqa from Daesh, rapists and murderers like Al-Cambodi (Neil Prakash).)

But back to the main strategic shift, the Russian invasion of Syria and what is portends; it is another victory for Iran, after duping and cajoling the Americans and Europeans into the nuclear deal, which, in the medium-term, will refinance, re-arm, and renew Iran’s bid for the atom bomb.

At the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon war, an Israeli naval ship was hit by a Russian missile shore-to-sea missile, supplied to the Iranian stooges Hezbollah. In all of the years since 2006, the Israeli air force has been free to intercept, bomb and destroy further shipments from Iran to Hezbollah of the even more sophisticated 300km-range Yakhont missiles.

Julie Bishop should be reminded that these Iranian mercenaries Hezbollah are still classified as a terrorist organisation by the Australian Parliament. Our foreign minister thinks the nuclear deal with Iran is good, that Assad should be kept in office, and that Russia is fighting Daesh. Putin’s massive intervention, particularly his control of the Syrian skies, mean that, unlike every time in the past nine years, Israel will have to beg Putin to be allowed to destroy covert shipments of these deadly missiles to Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s long-range missiles target Israel’s people, her ports, her navy, and its gas installations.

Another negative outcome of Russia’s involvement in Syria is the reprieve it will give Hezbollah fighters. They have been stretched thin and thousands have been killed or injured. However, with close Russian air support, volunteer Russian troops, plus the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that have arrived as part of the Russian–Iranian ground offensive against non-Daesh rebels in the north and south. How strange it is for our foreign minister to say “If we use [the Iran nuclear deal] as an example of Russia’s preparedness to be part of a solution rather than part of the problem, then we can have some optimism that Russia’s involvement [in Syria] is positive.

Russia’s armed guarantee of the Hezbollah-Assad-Iraq-Iran alliance also brings Iranian power to the borders of Israel on the Golan. Well done, President Obama – your weakness in Ukraine and now Syria endangers the peaceful lives of people everywhere. Iran is a much more serious and existential threat to Israel than the hoodlums, crucifiers and rapists of Daesh.

At least I’ve been able to stop the Australian Opposition from giving its support to this existential power-shift. Selling a few more tonnes of Australian beef is not worth our soft-peddling on Iran and Syria.  Selling a few more tons of Australian beef is not worth our soft-peddling on Iran and Syria.  In a world turned upside down, the outcome of the nuclear deal with Iran gets worse and worse.'

 Update:
Two relevant articles on J-Wire today.
Regarding Danby, Julia Bishop, and Iran
Regarding Melissa Parke