UPDATE: The Michael Backman column has been removed from his website. His Wikipedia entry has been recently edited, and his Facebook page seems to be missing.
I was out frying other fish yesterday so did not catch up with the controversy consuming The Age newsroom until late afternoon. This morning as I ring around, it is clear that the newsroom remains tense and upset. Staff are rallying around. They fear unfairness.
It’s all about an anti-Semitic column by regular contributor to the business pages, Michael Backman. published last Saturday – and about the bizarre “apology” The Age had on page two yesterday.
The original column has been taken down from the Age website, but is still available on Backman’s own website,
Bad enough. Very bad, in fact. How did such a racist column come to be published? Keep reading, but first some more background.
Yesterday a bizarre apology was published on page two of the Age, under the usual pro forma information about contact numbers and the like:
A column by Michael Backman headlined “Israel living high on US expense account’’ was published in error.
The Age does not in any way endorse the views of the columnist, apologises for the distress the column caused to many readers, particularly in the Jewish community and regrets publication of the column.’
Now, if publishing the column was strange, this was even stranger. The wording suggested that the column was – woops – published as a production error – without anyone realising or thinking about it or noticing what it said. This was not the case, as I detail below.
As for saying that the Age does not endorse the views – who ever said it did? Every day newspapers around the world publish columns expressing dozens of views that the editorial team does not endorse. That is part of the job of a newspaper.
So why was this strange apology published? Part of the background is the instant action by the Jewish community, and in particular the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council and its chairman Mark Leibler and executive director Colin Rubenstein.
Rubenstein spoke to Age editor Paul Ramadge on Monday morning, and he and Leibler met Ramadge face to face that afternoon.
Rubenstein told me this morning that Ramadge “happily agreed” that the column was offensive and outrageous, said its publication was due to a “breakdown in editorial proceedures” and promised that he had the affair “under the microscope”. He also promised an unreserved apology.
Is Rubenstein happy with the result? This morning he did not argue when I suggested the wording of the apology was a little strange, but said it was a “gesture in the right direction”. What was really needed, he said, was an investigation into how the piece came to be published and an assurance that such things could not happen again.
Caroline Overington of The Australian has been breaking the news on this controversy, and expressing strong opinions on her blog. She was the one who got comment yesterday from former Age editor Michael Gawenda, which The Australian (no doubt gleefully) published as a news story today. Gawenda accused the paper of journalistic failure. He said to Overington:
I think the real question here is what publication of this article says about the prevailing journalistic culture at The Age. The apology is a non-apology really. It apologises for the hurt it caused some people, especially Jews. This is a clayton’s apology–the sort, for instance, that Wayne Carey once offered up when he apologied for grabbing a young woman’s breast.
The apology states that The Age does not hold the views expressed in the article. I assume The Age publishes many oped pieces that do not express the views of The Age.
What this apology seems to be aimed at doing is limit the damage to the paper from the publication of this piece. What I want to know is how it came to be published and how The Age has reached the point where racist rubbish like this gets published. And what the new editor in chief intends to do about changing this culture.
There is a history to this. Just a few months ago Gawenda accused editor Ramadge of “payback”. This was because Gawenda had been sacked as a columnist after his criticism of of Farifax management in the A. N. Smith Lecture in journalism at Melbourne University. There is no love lost between the two men.
Nevertheless there is no doubt that the apology is weird – and so is the fact that the article ran at all.
So how did it run?
I have to say here that I am somewhat constrained. I am not naming names, because I have found out this morning that the person within The Age who is getting the blame – and who has taken responsibility for the “error” – is both under enormous strain, and not solely or chiefly to blame. Nor, in case management should think otherwise, are they talking to me.
There is a strong view in the newsroom that there is unfairness afoot in the promised “under the microscope” review.
Here is what happened, as I understand it. The Business editor, Michael Short, was on holiday. So too was Ramadge. Backman’s column arrived as usual. It was clearly evident that it was a strange piece, well off Backman’s area of expertise and offensive to Jews. Should it be run?
There was debate around the sub’s table. The person who is now getting the blame for running it was reluctant. Others argued strongly in favour of publication. Part of the argument was that pieces critical of Muslims often got a run. The Age should not be seen to be frightened of the “Jewish lobby”, and Israeli treatment of Palestinians and actions in Gaza were legitimate topics of debate.
The final decision was collegiate – and now of course deeply regretted.
So what are we to make of all this?
Here’s what I think. The column is clearly offensive, and also weird and badly written.
It makes the classic logical error of the racist – generalising from the particular deeds of an individual or group to the race as a whole. It manages to blame Jews for Muslim extremism and violence, talks carelessly about that classic of anti-Semitic hate speech – that Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus – and leaps bizarrely from what is happening in Gaza to the alleged rude behaviour of Israeli tourists trekking in Nepal.
I don’t think it should have been published.
Yet is the case really all that clear cut compared to other things that have been published recently in mainstream media, without the organisation concerned feeling the need to apologise, or to disassociate itself from the views expressed?
I can understand how this decision was made, in an understaffed holiday season newsroom where the subs are reduced in number and under pressure.
Think about other controversial material recently published. What about some of Paul Sheehan’s columns? Crikey, reported a case a while ago where Sheehan used the words “parasites” to describe refugees let in during the 1970s and 80s (in other words, Lebanese). These words were quickly amended in the website version, but are still on Brisbane Times site.
Sheehan’s writing is largely a legitimate, though controversial, questioning of policies of multiculturalism and immigration. There are also legitimate questions to be asked about Israel’s actions in Gaza and treatment of Palestinians. Sheehan sometimes steps over the line, as Backman has. He still gets published, and nobody suggests it is necessary for the Sydney Morning Herald to disassociate itself from his views.
Then there are the practices described by Media Watch in this program a few years back. There are the diatribes from Alan Jones in the lead up to the Cronulla riots.
Or the Janet Albrechtsen column that led to her stoush with Media Watch, that includeed this paragraph:
‘French and Danish experts say perpetrators of gang rape flounder between their parents’ Islamic values and society’s more liberal democratic values, falling back on the most basic pack mentality of violence and self-gratification.’
The Australian July 2002
You can read for yourself the controversy that generated on the Media Watch site. The Australian, of course, vigorously defended Albrechtsen. No apologies or disassociation.
Then there was the media treatment of African youths in Flemington late last year, something I have written about in Crikey before. In that case the facts were incorrectly reported, and that resulted in opinion columns based partly on incorrect facts, chiefly by Andrew Bolt. No apologies. No disassociation.
I think the Backman column shouldn’t have been published. It’s a pretty vile and silly piece.
Do I think it was so extreme, so obviously and extraordinarily vile, that it was obviously not the kind of thing the mainstream media should publish? No.
Colin Rubenstein said to me this morning that “it is a long time since we have had this kind of thing from the mainstream media.”. Well, I disagree. It happens all too often. The Jewish community is efficient at combatting it, and in this case good on them. Not all communities have such able spokespeople.
What will the “under the microscope” examination promised to Leibler and Rubenstein by Ramadge amount to?
I hope not laying blame where blame does not really belong.
I would hope that it might result in some transparency – in Ramadge taking the readers into his confidence about what happened, and engaging in some debate about what constitues legitimate, if controversial expression of views, and what crosses over the line in to unacceptable racism.
If space prohibits doing this in the pages of the newspaper, there is always online, where the technology favours an open exchange with readers.
I rang Ramadge asking for comment yesterday afternoon. I have not yet had a return phone call. I have not been able to contact Backman.
88 Comments
This is a complete beat up. Backman has written an anti-Israel piece, not an anti-semitic one. The paragraph about Nepal was ill advised, but the point he was making was not anti-semitic, it was a (clumsy) attempt to draw attention to the smugness that characterises many Israelis in the absence of any real opprobrium about their role in world affairs. Until Israel can be criticised without the alarm bells of anti-semitism ringing then the situation in the middle east will remain as is. I know Backman personally – he is one of the more pragmatic people I have ever met, hardly an ideologue and in no way a bigot.
It’s sad to see you selectively mis-quoting this article in order to conflate anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel. To underline how intellectually dishonest you are being, here is the actual quote in context about Jesus, which says the exact opposite of what you accuse the article of:
“The enmity many Muslims now feel for Israel has nothing to do with religion. The historical persecutors of the Jews have been Christians —
their punishment for the death of Jesus. Jews and Muslims have lived in peace for hundreds of years in many parts of the Islamic world. ”
Shame, Margaret, shame.
Pegacat, I don’t think you prove anything here. I said that Backman talked carelessly about this classic part of anti-Semitic beliefs. And he does.
I agree with Peter, up to a point. The first three-quarters of Backman’s article concur entirely with my view on Israel’s responsibility for its share of the conflict and hatred, and the reality of the cause of much Muslim anger (apparently unspeakable for leading politicians here and in the US). He is careful to admit Israel’s right to defend itself.
But the last couple of paragraphs cast a pall over the entire piece. Just substituting the word “Israeli” for “Jew” does not get around what is essentially anti-Semitic gossip and propagation of unhelpful stereotypes. After knowing how the article veers into that territory, a re-read reveals that the cogency of his entire opinion is diminished. As Margaret says, it becomes just “weird”. The Age needed to do some heavy editing before running that.
I have to say this sad episode says more about the untramelled power of a hyper sensitive Jewish lobby in Melbourne than it does about The Age’s editorial judgement. I really see nothing anti-Semitic in Backman’s opinion piece. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether the cost of the support of Israel by United States and much of the West is worth the cost.
Backman made the quite reasonable point that the Israelis have made no attempt to live in peace with the Palestinians and we are all paying for their arrogance.
The bigger issue here is the hyper-sensitivity of the media, as ever, to accusations of anti-Semitism from a Zionist lobby, which hides behind accusations of racism to forestall criticism of the state of Israel and its influential backers in the West.
If the column is merely “anti-Israel”, why is Backman saying that the – ahem – “Israelis” need to be more like the Parsees, a religious group rather a nation state? And of course, to be less money-grubbing and arrogant as individuals while they’re about it?
So you take the view that any criticism or Israel is anti- Semitic,can you explain why it is OK for Israel to kill over 1300 people and injure heavens know how many others,build a wall around both GAZA and try to starve out GAZA and the West Bank,killing the Palestinians at will on the West Bank by the Settlers.
Also steal land houses ect on the West Bank,not a work about war crimes by the IDF,with The Australian you kinda of expect a one sided view of the world,maybe you should go read the fabrication by MarkL on LP has up, using the same Anti- Semitic excuse,then read the post that was posted by patricm
John, no I don’t take that view. I am horrified by what is going on in Gaza. Broadly, I agree with what Malcolm Fraser has said here: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/israels-actions-foster-extremism-20090115-7i5h.html
and earlier, here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/balanced-policy-the-only-way-to-peace/2008/05/09/1210131260171.html
But I still think Backman’s column veers over the line into anti-Semitism, not only anti-Zionism. The fact that we are arguing about whether I am right about that or not is a repeat, really, of the argument the Age subs had on the night in question.
Yes, Backman went a little over the top. But this sort of thing appears in The Australian all the time, but from the other side of the fence – usually with that unpaid public relations hack for the Zionist neo-cons, Sheridan, casting the entire Muslim world as a nest of bomb-packing mad-eyed mullahs.
The fact is, due to the lobbying power and business links of the Zinonist lobby, the media in Australia (and the US) is much more sensitive to columns that criticise Israel than it is to any other camp in this debate.
The shame is that Backman’s excellent underlying argument – one that a large number of Australians would endorse – gets lost in the ritual, hand-wringing and usually hysterical accusations of anti-Semitism.
Unconditional support of Israel is not worth the trouble.
Mr Denmore: Your first two paragraphs are exactly the point I am making.
Australian Jewish News:
Age editor apologises for “error of judgement”
ASHLEY BROWNE
THE editorial team at The Age has offered an unreserved apology to the Jewish community for the controversial Michael Backman column that appeared in last Saturday’s newspaper.
A formal apology appeared on page two of Tuesday’s edition (January 20) of the newspaper, with The Age editor Paul Ramadge telling The AJN that the anti-Semitic views expressed by Backman “have no place at The Age. We completely reject his views”.
“We fully accept that the article has caused hurt and distress to the Jewish community and we apologise without reservation,” he said.
Ramadge said the story was published while he and other senior editors were on leave.
“We have a different crew editing the paper during the holiday period,” he said.
Ramadge would not comment on whether any Age employees would lose their jobs over the publication of the story, but did admit that more than one Age staffer were guilty of “errors of judgement”.
“We have taken steps to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again,” he said, adding that the staffer was being dealt with internally.
Ramadge, who replaced Andrew Jaspan as editor of The Age last year, met with community leaders Mark Leibler and Dr Colin Rubenstein on Monday and will meet Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem on Thursday to try and repair the damage caused by the article.
Backman’s article appeared less than two weeks after Jewish Community Council of Victoria representatives John Searle and Geoffrey Zygier met newspaper management to express concerns over the paper’s coverage of the war in Gaza.
Ramadge told The AJN he did not believe The Age has a credibility issue with the Jewish community.
“We’re starting to get feedback from Jewish leaders praising us for our balanced coverage,” he said.
“Not everyone will agree with everything we publish on Israel. That comes with the territory.
“But we want to continue to tell great stories and The Age will continue to have a dialogue with Jewish leadership in that respect.”
Ramadge said he believes The Age is being proactive in dealing with disgruntled Jewish readers on this issue.
He also plans to personally respond to every letter of complaint he has received since Backman’s article appeared on Saturday January 17.
Related article
Communal groups’ anger over Age article
The piece was a point of view it was not anti -Semitic. You harp on about the Jews killing Jesus. That is a common thread through history and was a battle cry in the pogroms. It’s even in Riders in the Chariot by Patrick White. Let’s not forget that it wasn’t so long ago that the Catholic Church graciously absolved the Jews of blame. Backman was making that point I did not read into his column any suggestion that he supported that view. He wrote:”The enmity many Muslims now feel for Israel has nothing to do with religion. The historical persecutors of the Jews have been Christians —
their punishment for the death of Jesus. Jews and Muslims have lived in peace for hundreds of years in many parts of the Islamic world.
When Catholic Spain and Portugal expelled its Jews, the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul invited them in. It is the Palestinian issue that has
ruined all this.”
Where is the anti-semitism in that statement?
The piece was very anti Israel and as such is a view that should be heard. I would have run it I can’t see why you are so squeamish when you give Sheehan a free pass on some of his stuff. You neglect to point out that the Albrechtsen quote was fabricated. The person she quotes never used thee word “Islamic” in that context. She added it to her piece. That is what Media Watch brought up.
Your piece is just nonsense and shows once again the sensitivity to people to the Israeli lobby in Australia. It is a sensitivity not extended to the Palestinean people in this country.
I note the Jewish board of deputies was handing out awards for coverage and the Australian got a big red tick. The SMH was attacked for having the temerity to run Paul McGeough’s analysis. As possibly one of the world’s top writers on the Middle East most would think his stuff was interesting and fair.
But because it didn’t follow Colin Rubinstein line it was anti Semitic. In the Age today (grovelling payback) we have Mark Liebler at length on not negotiating with terrorists. He neglects to say that Israel was formed by a bunch of terrorists who among other things blew up the King David Hotel One of the terrorists, Menachim Begin went on to become PM another is the father of Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Take a deep breath and understand the difference between a strong point of view and antisemitism. It is a charge used by Israel like a cloak to prevent the world from seeing what it is doing in Gaza. Israel has to be scrutinised like everyone else. Backman was doing just that.
Mr Denmore, how many opinion pieces critical of Israel have been published over the past month without the publisher being so embarrassed by them that they pulled them from the website and offered a public apology? If this episode a “shame”, the blame lies not with “the lobbying power and business links of the Zinonist lobby”, but with Backman himself.
Hi Margaret. Gutsy piece. Possibly overcompensating for your go at Sheehan a bit? In context it was dumb but doesn’t compare with the actual criminal slaughter in Gaza which is the real issue the Friends of Israel are desperate to avoid.
In point of fact I have blogged and implied by direct phone call to the SMH that Sheehan should resign for their paper to have any credibility – not because he didn’t declare his financial interest until a week later, as such. After being exposed. Rather that he wrote that execrable biased, racist (?), piece while the Israeli slaughter was under way, and getting it wrong on who broke the ceasefire as reported by The Guardian – Israel 4th November 2008 airstrike killing 6 – combined with 4 month prevention of UN supplies during the truce. In other words not Hamas. (Yes there were a few rockets during the 4 months of truce but not proven Hamas.)
That implicates Sheehan in prolonging the killing. Just as Olmert did over Cond Rice in the UN general assembly. That’s real people, real body parts, real responsibility. Just like Howard signed us up to Iraq slaughter.
………………..
As I say on the main ezine string, with referencing, this was a gift for the pro Israel lobby here, who in many cases are in disgrace and exposed as either dupes or liars for the Greater Israel agenda, expelling the Palestinians.
Still as you say dangerously generalised comments. The problem is Israel and Jewish population and diaspora are not monolithic. This is clear from Haaretz to peacenik MPs, to PM Yitzak Rabin murdered by an Israeli nutter, to many of my lefty or greenie contacts in Bondi in Sydney. What’s confusing is that it’s the Govt going to war as symbolic of the collective.
What I think Mr Backman has done has had a rush of blood in reaction to the jarring disgusting images of criminal murders of civilians in Gaza and suffered a serious lapse of judgement.
That’s the toxic effect of war and the siren song of (in his case emotional) violence. As Gandhi has said it never works, neither to satisfy the grievance or repair the injury. A dead child is still dead. Several hundred still dead. Children being 50% of 1.5M, 45% of kids suffering anaemia. And on it goes.
This is an extract of the piece that ran in the London Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald TODAY 21 Jan 2009 regarding a slaughter in Gaza of some 48 civilians:
“”We were terrified as shells hit the roof in other parts of the house but we thought we were lucky because they did not hit our room.
“Eventually we heard soldiers banging on the door at around 6.30am. Atiyeh went to the door with his hands raised holding his ID but they shot him in the doorway and he fell forward.”
Faraj Samouni, 22, Zahwe’s son, said the children started to scream as Israeli soldiers entered.
“I shouted ‘children, children’ in Hebrew but they started shooting,” he said. “Ahmed was hit two times. His sister Amal was hit in the head and is still in hospital.”…………….
“Atiyeh’s body lay where he had been shot for almost two weeks while Israeli soldiers occupied a four-storey house next door, leaving a collection of racist graffiti. Most was written in Hebrew but Israeli soldiers had also marked the walls in English, with messages such as “ARabs need 2 die”, “Arabs are pieces of shit” and “1 is DOWN 999,999 TO GO”.
In http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israel-may-face-warcrimes-case-for-alleged-atrocities/2009/01/20/1232213646924.html
More to the point why didn’t the AGE publish the article in the SMH and other real papers around the world about what those lovely, gentle Israeli’s wrote on the walls of the Samouni family home after they had slaughtered 48 of them.
I have really had a gutful of the jewish lobby playing victim and demonising anyone who dares to suggest that Israeli’s are very often brutal thugs and that the Gaza attack was about colonising the land and is not and never has been about their religion.
It’s pathetic the way Rubenstein whines and the way the lobby try and distort the news at every level.
The internet is not kind to them and debunks their lies all the time.
I read Backman’s piece and it was no more racist than all the diatribes about muslims, like the vile crap by Leibler today in the AGE.
Same old spin off the embassy website. Meanwhile the Gazans keep dying.
What no one seems to have remarked about is that The Oz’s editorial attack itself engaged in serious stereotyping of Muslims, alleging they all hate Israel and that their hatred is based on religion. I did submit something to Crikey about this, but I guess it’s hard to be heard above all the hoo-hah on the Obama inauguration.
News Limited has little right to lecture Fairfax on racism and stereotyping.
Oh, you are all so lucky that none of you are Jewish. To be Jewish in Melbourne, is to accept the racist taunts on Saturdays, while walking to our security protected synagogues. When was the last time any of you walked into a church with security ?
Its to wonderful to send children to schools whose borders are protected 24hrs a day even during the holidays, lest a bomb is planted.
You are all so lucky not to be a jew that is hated, and despised, for what ?
Sensitive ? You bet, from the age of 6… The Melbourne public taught me to be this way, from riding on the trains, trams, “forebetwo-dirty jew”, dirty mingy stingy jew.
Its bad enough that Israel is getting poor publicity of the Gaza conflict, without having more ammunition for the lunatic fringe believing we did cause 9/11, Bali, London (you did hear the one about the economic melt down too, didn’t you).
We developed a voice in this country to protect every Australians sovereign right to walk the streets in peace.
So Peter, Pegacat, Pat Rourke et al, you want to think that Backmans piece of crap is appropriate, spend a week with me, in Marvelous Melbourne.
Oh its so great not to be a jew.
Mr Bowe, you miss my point. I don’t agree that the piece warranted The Age’s grovelling apology. It was crudely argued in places, agreed. But the guts of what he was saying is entirely reasonable. As a former journalist, I disagree strongly on principle with both. Much worse is said everyday about Muslims in Australian newspapers without this sort of gutless over-reaction by editors afraid of a Zionist lobby with an unhealthy and unrepresentative degree of influence on public affairs in this and other countries in the West.
I agree with you that Backman’s article was a bit over the top, and should have been properly edited. But I am concerned about the horror expressed at his general criticism of the Israeli Government.
There are Jewish human rights sites (www.btselem.org for example) which express views of similar strength.
The unbridled power of the local Israeli lobby is very worrying.
Oh and one more thing…
Backmans innocent piece was publish in the Malaysian Insider.
Here are a sample of the comments made to the blog
no wonder europe wanna kick these people out
written by MZH, January 17, 2009
Typical character of Zionist Jews = …the young Israelis are rude, arrogant, and argue over trifling amounts of money even though they clearly have means…
eh?
written by kenu, January 17, 2009
“One characteristic that is common among persecuted groups is a strong investment in education — when people’s physical wealth is in danger of destruction from war and persecution one store of wealth that stays with individuals even when they must flee as refugees is education. It explains why such groups often insist on their own schools — education is too important to be entrusted to others.”
eh? is the writer talking about Palestine or Malaysia?
…
written by JaguhKampung, January 17, 2009
For a group of people many described as the smartest and most powerful people on earth, I can’t understand why they can be so stupid to think that they can make people submissive by force or violence.
why are Israel rude and arrogant
written by Dude from MY, January 17, 2009
Israeli are brought up to think they are master of the universe. their religion religious upbringing is constantly telling them are put her by god to be above the rest. That is why the are always perceived as rude, arrogant and etc.. if Israel needs to change like the writer suggest, its the religious upbringing that need to change, to be more moderate.
…
written by abuhawa, January 17, 2009
i like this backman. his writing about Malaysian politics is really impressive….
and..hopefully, the israel fanatics can understand this Palestian-Israel much clearer from this backman…
What does Israel wants? Make war or make Peace??
written by Amadas, January 17, 2009
The current Israeli regime is emulating what the Romans had done centuries ago….be ruthless in killing off its enemies…Perhaps it can attempt to kill off all of its current enemies and impose its terms in Gaza with the tacit support of Uncle Sam but this current action by the Israeli regime will not bring the ordinary Israeli permanent peace in Israel.
It will come a day in the future when Israel has to live by its own means and co-exist with its neighbours. The sooner this happens…the better!!
president bush should read this.
written by mohammad abdullah, January 17, 2009
a copy of this article should be sent to president bush. that is if he can read. can he ? maybe then shoes wont be thrown at him .
who r v…?
written by Gideon, January 17, 2009
who r v 2 judge d God chosen people…..?
The true face of HAMAS
written by Joeawk, January 17, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OGhj43GAE
Backman is wrong this time and rather unfair and silly…
written by Sube, January 17, 2009
Mr Backman writes well on Malaysia so far. But here his bias shows thru on the Palestinian issue. Blaming the terror attacks on Israel is unfair. Using that logic we might as well blame all women for getting raped because they are tempting, blame houseowners for getting robbed because they hvae things, etc. The terrorists are intrinsically out to create mischief and a false vision of an Islamic Caliphate reminiscient of a lost past. The Middle east conflict is an excuse. Even after peace they will find another reason to exert their muscles because of this false idea of world domination like the communists! But they will fail.
Jews and Muslims co-exist yeah but on Islamic terms. Has Blackman visited the muslim states in the Middle East? One can also blame the Muslims for forcing Israel into a corner. If the muslims were more reasonable Israel would not have to be so defensive.
Israelis arent the only ugly people while visiting Nepal and it is unfair to use such a narrow anecdotal evidence. Backman should know better. This is how racial prejudice starts. Japanese tourists were once hated as were Americans. I once was at a durian store and suddenly this busload of Taiwanese tourists disembarked from their bus and immediately swamped the store and almost pushed me aside. Then there are the Arab tourists in Malaysia. Ask the local taxi drivers and storekeepers for some of their stories not dissimilar to Backman’s Nepal anecdote. Should we then hate the Arabs and Taiwanese too?
Muslims are as unreasonable as the Jews and they are from the same racial stock. You only need to watch an Arab behave and you will know what I mean. The Jews are not the only arrogant people and I have lived among them. But to pick on the Jews in the way Backman has is clearly off the mark and Backman has underperformed in this instance. The Arabs are a cantankerous people and hotheaded and not easy to deal with.
In Malaysia the muslims dictate everything even though they don’t have the right. For eg in other muslim countries muslims can marry non-muslims. But in Malaysia only muslims can marry muslims so people convert but never change their religion at heart. And they can’t convert back to their former religion. Yet they boast about their religion being just! And all the corrupt cops and those in government are muslims!
If Israel is living on US expense, so are the Palestinians on UN and Arab expense.
Hong Kong had one million refugees from China. Yet it is a prosperious country. Why can’t the Palestinians do something constructive instead of just talkign about destroying Israel? Now they are paying the price for those pesky rockets. Why disturb the bull when you know it can be a raging one? Until the Palestinians drop their silly idea of destroying Israel they will suffer more.
And journalists and others who attack and blame Israel without ascribing blame to Hamas are playing into their hands and show their own prejudice. People want to believe what they want and journalists that write so unfairly are jumping on the bandwagon of populism and political correctness.
There you have it.
I agree that the Beckman article is not racist, not anti-Semite, is openly anti militarist Zionist. It does struggle a little critiquing the Israeli youth in Nepal, but its worth trying to make such a point, if the anecdote is true.
I dont doubt being Jewish has its moments of racism in Melbourne. But so to is being aboriginal nearly everywhere, Lebanese in east coast Sydney, Catholic in some very polite establisment old money circles.
Israel and its Zionist diaspora and supporters need to evolve rapidly. They have tied themselves to the most dangerous institutions; finance capital, corporate capitalism, mainstream media, US military empire.
Disaster capitalism will destroy Israel, it will destroy the US, it will destroy the world.
Can I suggest, that the Zionists who some want to win this, consider some of the intellectual work of some of their true leaders.
After all, Jesus of Nazareth, Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein are all Jews and have a rather different message.
Gaza is a prison, and this is a prison riot.
I’ve read the Backman piece, and think it starts to lose its way in making weak generalisations about Israelis towards the end. I’m also not sure that it isn’t somewhat simplistic earlier on in attributing Islamist terror mainly to the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
What I find disturbing in this episode is the level of publicly opaque interaction between senior leaders of the Jewish community, and even (prospectively) of the Israeli ambassador, with Paul Ramadge. Have the meetings detailed in your post and in the comment excerpting Australian Jewish News been reported in the paper? I think they are important, and might set in useful context the opinion piece by Mark Leibler the paper has published today (as noted in another comment to this post).
Leibler’s piece makes the claim that the proportionality of Israel’s actions should be measured not in terms of the respective human toll from the actions of the Israelis relative to those of Hamas, but in terms of achieving the ‘military objective’. This is insupportable in terms of the long tradition of just war theory, and should be the real focus of concern, along with any editorial pressure exerted on the paper regarding its Gaza coverage.
I hope The Age will resist the editorial influence of powerful lobbies – and own up to its interactions with them – in reporting the profoundly tragic events that continue to unfold in Gaza. The morally unjustified use of human shields by Hamas in no way justifies the deaths of innocents at the hands of a powerful yet indiscriminate Israel. I take it no-one is claiming that the photos of dead children Backman publishes on his website are not authentic?
The criticism of the Backman piece is way over the top, given the GAZA atrocities committed by the Israeli NAZIS, and the genocide against the Palestinians of the past 41 years.
Again the Zionist lobby plays its anti-semitic card…I contend that Liebler & Rubenstein, with their familiar rant, are inadvertently
effectively promoting Hamas & the Palestinians every time they open their mouth. Keep up the good work.
Note to Peter: your whinging appears childish & mischeviously opportunistic. While I do not support bullying or racial stereotyping, the same kind of taunts have been made by emotionally immature children & adults, to every ethnic group that ever came to Melbourne (& any other city in the world) eg Italian, Greeks, Vietnamese, Latvians etc etc.
As for the security around your synagogue, I’d suggest that if the genocide against the Palestinians of the past 41 years was to end, the security would not be needed. Maybe you could put that view to your next synagogue service.
Crikey has this 100% right. The Age had failed to either stand by this as legitimate comment (and I really don’t believe this sort of stuff has any place in a mainstream newspaper) or to explain how this happened. But I am always troubled by the comments that Jews should not use democratic processes (legal remedies, lobbying, boycotting) to address what we see as wrong. And as for stifling debate on Gaza – I am an avid reader of the press and this the first and only instance I am aware of of the Jewish community saying something shouldn’t be published.There have been many pieces diagreeing with opinions and analyses anc overallbalance – but I am not aware of any other suggestion that articles were blatantly racist or may have breached Racial vilification legislation. This piece did nothing to do with the present situation- it was a pretext for the expression of pernicious views. To those of you who are ‘worried’ or ‘troubled’by the power of the Jewish/Zionist lobby – I stand by my right and my community’s right to use legitimate means to get fair outcomes. And I strongly urge members of other communities and ethnic groups who are villified in any forum to do the same! Shame on The Age for publishing this and shame on those of you who would have me back in my box – the irony is you accuse us of playing the victim card precisely because we use lawful means to refuse to be victims!
Backman’s article was junk, anyone with half a brain could see that. I would have thought that the Jewish community would have been able to discard the article on its lack of journalistic merits rather than playing the GRIEVOUSLY OFFENDED VICTIM card.
Could those who accuse Backman’s piece of anti-Semitism explain precisely why it is anti-Semitic? He criticises Israeli policies, which is presumably legitimate. He relates an anecdote about the behaviour of young Israelis in Nepal, and this is presumably legitimate too (we wouldn’t complain if he criticised the behaviour of young British football hooligans in Europe, would we?). I agree with other posters that the article gets a little flabby towards the end, but is it informed by racist stereotyping and if so how?
And yet Sabre – many on this blog clearly don’t see that Backman’s article is “junk”. You can accuse me of playing any kind of victim you like. It’s better than being called a “f-ing yid” (apropos of nothing at all! as my colleague did last year by using the term in casual conversation apropos of nothing at all – not realising that I was Jewish and might take it personally… And incidentally in that case, given that the name calling was in a small group rather than published in a newspaper, I spoke to him privately and explained how I felt. Was I being a lower case, upper case, grievous, or just non generic victim in that instance do you think?
I was very disappointed in the tone and quality of coverage from and about Gaza over Christmas. Reports and columns sunk into sensationalism and did little to promote a ceasefire, or to encourage a resolution that Israelis and Palestinians could agree with. Commentators within mainstream media simply seemed to ‘choose a side’, and then proceeded to imperfectly report inflammatory nonsense until casualties had accrued in sufficient numbers to justify unfiltered provocations strewn through mainstream media. The effect has been to further undermine and destabilise communities all over the world, regardless of national identity.
I feel part of the problem is a loss of focus. Perhaps journalists need to reassess the nature of their roles, during times of conflict. Opinionated commentary is a poor style choice when civilians are being fired upon on both sides of a border. Behaving like sports commentators egging on teams is childish, inappropriate and shows a complete lack of regard for the impact this has on real people. It is arrogant in the extreme to use a privileged position in mainstream media to deploy words that can create considerable collateral damage in a highly charged political environment.
I am guessing the decision to publish was made by young and inexperienced staff, working in the absence of a full team, without sufficient guidance from experienced editors.
Lawrence, that is unmitigated crap and paranoia. The public in Australia wouldn’t know a jew if they fell over one. You don’t need all this stupid security at your schools, they are not in danger and never were.
What I find disgusting is that somehow being jewish exempts you from the laws of the world and being Israeli means you get to legalise your own occupation of someone else’s land, drive out the people by force, bulldoze their towns and villages and so on.
What I find more disgusting is the partisan hackery in Australia where any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.
Well they criticise arabs daily and arabs are semite. So the whole use of the word semitic is f……..g bullshit.
Re your comment, mandi:
‘I stand by my right and my community’s right to use legitimate means to get fair outcomes.’
Yes, but let’s ensure those means are transparent in their influence on the reporting of the issue, and that the influence achieved reflects the objective facts. Again, and despite opinions about the quality of the Backman article, how can Israel be justified in its indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women and children used entirely without justification as human shields by Hamas?
Again, is anyone saying that the picture of dead children published on Backman’s website is not authentic? Is anyone disputing the massive imbalance between Israeli and Gazan casualties? Where is the proportionality in Israel’s response? Quibbling about the so-called Israeli ‘victim card’ is a distraction from the real issue of non-combatant deaths in Gaza that are a direct result of Israeli bombardments.
Following the Holocaust, I believe Israel had a widely acknowledged moral authority in its highly targeted pursuit of Nazi war criminals. I believe its present actions in Gaza are squandering that authority. Had Israel destroyed entire residential buildings housing innocent bystanders to get the monster Eichmann, its pursuit of him would have met with a far different international reception. How can Israel engage in such indiscriminate atrocities to eliminate terrorists living among the civilian population in Gaza?
Margaret, you’re just another tedious culture warrior I’m afraid. Your partisan attacks don’t qualify as journalism, so I’ll be skipping straight over your byline in future.
As evidence I’ll note that you didn’t blink at the well-resourced SMH being sucked in by a tawdry YouTube hoax, despite boring us all to tears with your smarmy persecution of that sad old man, Keith Windshuttle.
And yes, supporters of Israel *are* sensitive about its treatment by the western liberal press; as no doubt you would be if a group of people were to openly oppose *your* very existence.
Nope. I can’t see how valid criticism of Israel’s ethnic cleansing operations (and really, how else can you describe a one-sided “war” which has removed 1300 of a mere 400000 people in one go, involving everything from depleted uranium to bunker busters to white phosphorous; and less than 10 casualties on the other side) amounts to anti-semitism.
He’s criticising the abhorent actions of a militaristic state, not the people for who they are. That’s the key distinction.
Marilyn
Your words are very violent and reek of a huge dislike for jews.Its obvious you are not prepared to accept our narrative but you do of others.What does that make you? an anti Israeli?
I have no problem with a newspaper publishing well informed & balanced criticism of anything. Well informed.
I do have a problem with The Age ( and the buck stops with Paul Ramage – present or absent ) publishing a piece of racist garbage based on canards, stereotypes, biggotry and ignorance such as Mr Blackman’s piece last week.
The honourabnle thing, the honest thing and the most transparent thing to do is to terminate Mr Blackman’s column. I’m sure he can find work with Mr Eric Butler’s League of Rights publications.
A thousand people have just been killed, women and children, an economic blockade continues, there is no excuse. It’s time for the west to get over what happened 60 years ago in Europe and apply the same standards to Israel as would be applied to any other country.
Marilyn,
Said like a good student of the Adelaide Institute
“Jews and Muslims co-exist yeah but on Islamic terms. Has Blackman visited the muslim states in the Middle East? One can also blame the Muslims for forcing Israel into a corner. If the muslims were more reasonable Israel would not have to be so defensive.”
Which Muslims can one blame? The ones in Bosnia who elected a government that has Sven Alkalaj (a Sarajevo Jew and Bosnia’s former Ambassador to the US and NATO) as its foreign minister? The ones in Turkey who have elected a pro-Western Islamist-leaning government that still maintains diplomatic relations with Israel?
If it is stupid to generalise about 20-million odd Jews on the planet (and I certainly believe it is), imagine how silly it is to generalise 1.2 billion Muslims. But I do agree that Jews and Muslims need to do more to understand the variety of opinions on each “side” of the issue.
Hi all,
I’m new to this blogging game, but thought I might use this opportunity to ask a simple question. Firstly, if anyone interprets Backman’s article as non-racist, it shows your cards. Replace “Israeli” or “jewish” with any other religion or culture in the article and then make your decision. It’s racist everytime.
My question, which over the last month I have been unable to locate the answer for on any media front is – If Hamas are bombing Israel because of border blockades why then aren’t they bombing Egypt ??????? The southern border of Gaza has two Egyptian check points and one palestinian. None Israeli. Are those cheeky Israeli’s controlling Egypt as well ?? Surely you only need one door open to get in. Can someone please clarify this for me. Maybe you can start Charles.
This is a total beat-up by the Israeli cheer squad. Unfortunately they have achieved considerable success in promoting one-sided coverage of greater Israel’s numerous escapades in military adventurism.Anything critical of Israel–and there is much to be critical about–is loudly branded as anti-Semetic. As to that pompous huffer and puffer Gawanda, well look at his record whilst at THE AGE–remember those censored Leunig cartoons? Could that show a teeny weeny lack of objectivity???
What happened in Gaza was beyond belief. Compare the vast numbers slaughtered by Israel to the numbers killed by Hamas rockets–about 20–to see the disproportional response. UN buildings were shelled and the Red Cross took the highly unusual step of publically criticizing Israel’s antics. I suppose that means a batch of orally offensive Israeli cheer squad letters branding the UN and the Red Cross as supporters of terrorism. To use a shopworn cliche of journalism, I’m Braced.
One might ask the huffing posturing and strutting squadies why it is the 101% pure Israel banned the international press from reporting on their Gaza blitz. Let me hazard a guess: because those international press types are all anti-Semetic!
I am pleased to report that Michael Backmans facebook fan page has been deleted, probably by Michael himself. Michael probably felt compelled to do so after a surge of hate mail over the AGE article. The page also attracted comments from supporters of his viewpoint. I think Michael had probably had enough when one of his fans uploaded images of Gazan children wearing Hamas military gear.
Also, most importantly, Michael has removed his column on Israel from his website. Although you can still find it on google. I think he realizes he has bitten of more than he can chew
I was wondering how long it would take before Marilyn Shepherd piped up with more shrill hysterics about the eeevil Jewish Lobby.
Marilyn – Lobbying is a perfectly normal part of any democracy. It may surprise you to note that many people regard you as a one-woman lobby group (taxpayer funded).
You sneer at “the Jewish lobby”, as though ‘lobby’ some form of perjorative when in fact there is an extremely well funded and organised Arab and Palestinian lobby which somehow escapes your criticism. I can’t imagine why….
What disappoints me however, are the other less shrill comments here, which insist Backman’s article was merely critical of Israel, and not antisemitic.
I have grown tired of the number of commenteers who dishonestly insist that Jews label all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. They do not, and fair criticism of Israel has never been at issue. It is when criticism crosses so far over the line – as Backman’s did, that there is a problem. That some people can’t see that, says a lot more about their prejudices than the Jewish Community’s.
Of course there are some people who are simply convinced that killing Jews, or merely advocating their killing, is also ‘legitimate criticism’. It is disappointing that the far-left, soft-left and various fringe groups have jumped into bed alongside some of the most racist, misogynistic terrorist groups seen since WWII.
See: http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2009/01/jihad-in-melbourne-cbd-muslim-and.html for photos of it right here in Australia.
Quoth Marilyn:
“Well they criticise arabs daily and arabs are semite. So the whole use of the word semitic is f……..g bullshit.”
I’m not sure what’s worse. How completely inaccurate you are, or how angry you seem to get. Your posts are getting angrier and angrier by the day.
Palestinians are Zionists too. Now can everyone get over it and stop trading on the misfortune of civilians in Gaza and in Israel.
It is the responsibility of newspapers to check their articles – to be sure that it does not incite hatred towards any minority community. Especially a community that historically have received bile and hatred towards them, whether they be Jewish, Muslim or otherwise.
Of course the Gaza war was and is a tragedy, as tragic as the civil war in Congo, or the recent war between Russia and Georgia, and those are the wars or acts of genocide that have been reported. How many Sudanese men and women have been murdered and displaced in the recent past and why wasn’t there the immediate heated outrage towards the perpetrators such as there was during the Gaza war.
Where were the crack-pot conspiracy theorists then?
Isn’t it time to look within ourselves and see why the state of Israel induces the most vitriol, conveniently then bringing out the age old fanatical conspiracies and prejudices about the Jewish people.
Australia has the good fortune to be a civilised and educated country, we have the liberty to deconstruct our selective subjective responses to world events without fear. It is timely to re-examin our prejudices with intelligence, sifting out thought constructs that are Medieval in origin.
S.I.
Surry Hills
I read the article (it is available on his website now) and I don’t see what the fuss is about. He had an anecdote about arrogant Israeli students in Nepal – the same sort of thing you hear all the time about arrogant Americans, or arrogant Australians in Britain, or arrogant poms in Australia, but by no stretch of the imagination was it anti-Semitic. Overall, I think it was quite a sensible article, which made some good points.
I’m amazed that The Age felt it necessary to apologize. Is any criticism of the policies of Israel anti-Semitic now?
Just saw Daniel Lewis’ comments. Daniel, for the life of me I really cannot see how you can claim that Backman’s article “crosses so far over the line”. I’m staggered that you read into it as being anything other than criticism of the policies of Israel. Did you actually read the article?
I am quite sincerely at a loss. I would really like to know just what parts of the article are anti-semitic – what parts are ‘furthest over the line’.
No apology was necessary – it was an opinion piece and in Australia we are still entitled to have opinions, even if those opinions do not coincide with those of the increasingly voluble pro-Israel lobby which complains every time a story reflects badly on the Israeli government.
I don’t consider it as an anti-semetic piece. It was certainly anti-Israel but many of the points were well made.
I asked yesterday for an explanation of precisely why Backman’s piece is anti-Semitic. No one has yet taken up the challenge. George just repeated the accusation: “racist garbage based on canards, stereotypes, biggotry [sic] and ignorance such as Mr Blackman’s [sic] piece last week”. Could the canards, stereotypes, bigotry and ignorance be pointed out, please? Angry Andrew: “if anyone interprets Backman’s article as non-racist, it shows your cards.” If you’re not with us you’re against us, I suppose. “Replace ‘Israeli’ or ‘jewish’ with any other religion or culture in the article and then make your decision. It’s racist everytime.” I did that, but Angry Andrew’s conclusion wasn’t obvious to me. Daniel Lewis: “It is when criticism crosses so far over the line – as Backman’s did, that there is a problem. That some people can’t see that, says a lot more about their prejudices than the Jewish Community’s.” Whch seems to mean that if you don’t instantly agree with me you must be morally inferior.
Is this an issue which, from one side of the debate at least, is beyond rational discussion? If so, why? In the particular context of the invasion of Gaza (along with credible allegations of war crimes) it seems of some importance for civility and careful, measured discourse to prevail. Merely abusing someone who disagrees with you isn’t helpful.
Racist or not, the point is the piece should have nuked or better edited before it hit the subs desk. The subs, on this evening, were clearly trying to get the paper together without sufficient editorial assistance. It’s hard to see how their job — particularly now as the subs work across the paper and there’s not enough of them in the first place — involves making such a major editorial decision at that time of night.
Pft. Fairfax. Bah.
No apology was necessary – it was an opinion piece and in Australia we are still entitled to have opinions, even if those opinions do not coincide with those of the increasingly voluble pro-Israel lobby which complains every time a story reflects badly on the Israeli government.
I don’t consider it as an anti-semitic piece. It was certainly anti-Israel but many of the points were well made.
The Western media needs to get some balance in it’s reporting please. This is not a theoretical debate it’s about the reality of what Islam aims for. The destruction of Western civilisation (and the Jewish state of Israel) and “any opposing religious views”. This doesn’t seem to easily be understood by some individuals in Western socitiey who have never experienced war or religious intolerance. Because this is what we have a war of civilizations. Let me give you a history lesson then you can make some more of your moralistic judgements.
I was born in Egypt. I am Jewish but have half sisters who are muslims as well as Christians in my family. I am like Barrack Obama truly multicultural. During WWII I saw anti-western riots in Cairo where British & Australian servicemen were ambushed. Beaten to a bloody pulp withs sticks by muslims followed by fertility rituals where women walked over the bloody corpses.
Muslim Women in most Eastern muslim socities who reach puberty are circumcised to make sex painful so they remain faithful to their husbands. Who by the way can beat them and marry up to three women. These women often get vaginalinfections which compound their problems.
No dissent is allowed in Musim socities.
When Israel became a Nation Egyptian muslims decided we were to blame so we were subject to torture, imprisonment and murder because we were Jews… Where was the media?Where is The Age’s fair reporting!!
The Christian Coptic population of Egypt lives in daily fear of genocide. Every day harrassment, intimidation, rape & murder are committed; but where is the World media when there is a real issue? Asleep on the job because they don’t see it or are only interested where the word Jew or Israeli is involved so they can kick us again…
What about the Armenian genocide? Where is your balanced reporting on this issue? Has this minority group already been relegated to history as an extinct race? Where is the media reporting here?
What about the Chinese genocide of the Tibetan people? Where is the AGE reporting on this issue? Too scared too pick on China because it is too strong! So you pick on little Israel. How fair & balanced is that!
What about the Chechen people living under the Russian dictator Putin. Where is the balanced reporting on this? Nowhere to be seen….
And while we are on the subject what about the slaughter of Christans in Aceh by Indonesian Muslims. Or the Timor massacre by the Indonesian Army. Not much reporting here considering three Australian reporters were killed by them?And yet again we will train the special Kompassus elite killing squads once more……
The German Nazis killed six million yet the World media was very quiet…. Are Jews expendable? So my advice to The Age is to shut up or do your homework!!!!
Don’t blame Jews for problems created by anti-semitism and racists such as Michael Backman. Where does he come from and what is his religious belief? Does he have any? Lets see how he likes being targeted? How would he like to walk down the street and be attacked like we were in Egypt and now in Australia. He should shut his mouth unless he understands real pain and loss.
It appears that no matter what Jews do many people in the World hate Jews and wants to make us an extinct historical race and our culture only available in museums. Yet there is hope for the World if an African American can be President then maybe just maybe The Age will be more democratic and fair in it’s reporting!!
Meanwhile…
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9hjyq2FzRBo
I fail to see how Backman’s article can be called racist. For sure he serves it up to a country but how calling this country’s current policy as expensive and a failure is gilding the lily as far as I can see. If it were me writing it then the descriptors I would choose to describe that country would go along the lines of ‘apartheid’, ‘racist’, ‘murderous’…. you get the drift. Many countries around the world achieve the dubious distinction of almost universal opprobrium from time to time. Examples abound from the USSR to the USA (Iraq) to Zimbabwe etc etc. How come when Israel gets criticized for acting barbarically its critics are called racist, anti-Semitic etc while the critics of Zimbabwe are called human rights activists? It’s a very strange double standard we have here as in my humble opinion, both countries are barbaric which therefore makes me on one hand anti-Semitic and on the other a human rights activist. Backman’s article should have gone onto the Opinion Pages unchanged, unedited and unashamed as many, many people around the globe agree entirely with him. And as a final thought how can one be called anti-Semitic when I hold the view that all Semites are equal and that ultimately all on this planet are equal under heaven?
Robin,
Obviously you did not understand my response. You assertions are generalised and are very naive & simplistic.
You cannot equate dictatorships of half a billion muslims that surround to Israel; a small democracy of six million that are trying to survive daily terrorist attacks.
You speak with no knowledge of the Midlle East frim a comfortable armchair. I am sure that if you had rockets fired into your livingroom you would want the Australian Army to act and act promptly!
As an analogy understand that violence is never a good solution. However When the U.S bombed Japan it ended the war with less U.S casualties than conventional warefare. Israel has been under attack from terrorists and had several wars to defend itself. War leads to casualties. Israelis do not hide behind their women and children and use them as shields as do the Palestinian terrorists. What do you expect to happen?
If the rockets and bombers did not exist there would be no violence or war. Try and understand where this starts from please.
You need a reality check. Stop being anarmchair critic and go and live in Sderot.
I’m confused….. people keep bandying around the term “racist”. Whether one replaces “Israeli” with “Jewish” still doesn’t make it clear to me…..
“Israeli” is a nationality, as too “Australian”, both of which comprise many races and religions…..so anti-Israeli prejudice shouldn’t be condsidered racism.
“Jewish” is a religious descriptor, as too “Christian”, both of which comprise many races and nationalities….so anti-Jewish prejudice shouldn’t be considered racism either.
“Semite” (I guess) is the racial descriptor, meaning (quoting http://dictionary.reference.com) : “1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.” or “2. a Jew” or “3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.” So “semitic” can be a racial term (point 1), a religious term (point 2), or a tribal term (point 3). Many Jews would not necessarily consider themselves racially semitic….. (point 1)….. but religiously so (point 2)…..
In the press, “Zionist” seems to imply an intersection of “Israeli” and “Jewish”, although there are many Israeli Jews who are not Zionists, and indeed many non-Jewish, non-Israelis who are pro-Zionist…..so this is more a geo-philosophic term.. so an anti-Zionist would not be racist either.
So clear as mud ? Sheeshh….. someone help me here…… who’s racist, and against whom ???? Zionists, Jews, Israelis, Semites ??
I can’t see what the fuss is all about. The Age has nothing to apologise for. Backman simply told the truth as he saw it. Freedom of expression is a key part of Australia’s democracy. My reading of it is that he criticised Israel but was not actually anti-Jewish. He just told a few home truths. I wonder what treatment people who live in Israel get if they say anything against the policy of the State? The fact is that there is a major problem in the middle east and it is going to end in tears if we aren’t careful. I can understand the Zionist Jewish point of view, but not all Jews are Zionists. It looks as though the Australian Jewish Council wishes to stifle debate by labelling any comment with which it disagrees as anti-Jewish. With respect, I would caution them against such action. We are all affected by this in one way or another and debate is healthy.
Imagine The Age (or the Australian Jewish News, perhaps?) running a column – under the title ”Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi! Oi! Oi!” – suggesting, among other offensive stereotypes about Australians, that the behaviour of boozed-up Aussie yobbos and their scantily clad Sheilas cavorting in Bali and elsewhere in the region is an arrogant and insensitive affront to Indonesian Muslim sensibilities and that this, not Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians, was the major factor driving the Bali bombers to target the Kuta nightclubs. And, just for good measure, accounted for the bombings in London and Madrid, too. Fair and acceptable ”comment”?
Apologies to commenters whose contributions have sat in the moderation queue for a while this afternoon. I had a power outage, and couldn’t access the site. If I have lost anything, let me know.
As a 200% certified philo-Semite who admires Israel, wishes we had more Jews in Australia and wouldn’t mind if 50,000 people had been killed in Gaza if there was a good chance that the running sore in the Middle East was likely to be cured, what worries me is the damage done to Israel and its support in the West by the ridiculous reactions of Rubenstein, Leibler and other lobbyists as evidenced by many comments on this blog. Take a cool look at a pretty standard piece of opinion journalism, no more tripe than most, and expressing a point of view with some, if thin, evidence, that many share in large part.
Israel and its supporters ought to be grateful for the setting out so clearly for them what problems they face in winning the world’s opinions even if they wouldn’t think much of the main point which was to suggest that Israel has made Palestinians greater enemies than they had to be. The anecdotes about young (often recently ex-IDF) Israelis in Nepal? Just a commonplace observation and highly relevant if anyone is seriously interested in why Palestinians might find a lot of Israelis hard to take. (Even our sainted professional soldiers in East Timor were not universally regarded as friendly nurse maids and My Lai and Abu Greib are reminders of what young men – and women – from civilised countries can do).
The reference to “punishment for killing Jesus” was only a “careless” way of putting his point about Muslims, unlike Christians over comparable long periods, not having a religious problem with Jews/Israel if you factor in the hypersensitivity which means that many Jews and self-censors in the media will find a way of interpreting something that isn’t as clear as a mathematical formula as anti-Jewish. Read it without that starting point and it is just a way of illustrating his point.
By contrast, a proper sensitivity to the understandably heightened sensitivities of Jews since a civilised European country with largely assimilated Jews went mad would have alerted a sub-editor to the word “flashy” where it was said that the Parsees are not “flashy or arrogant”. “Arrogant” yes, because it is quite credible to suggest that Arab and, particularly Palestinian, perceptions are that Israelis are arrogant and that there are reasons for this perception (like American ignorance of and lack of curiosity about other countries and cultures as one might generalise about George W. Bush’s countrymen generally). But “flashy”? I just can’t see it being applied to Israelis. So, there you go, it is an old stereotype rearing its (not specially ugly) head. So does that mean that it is the smoking gun, the evidence that Backman is anti-Semitic? It should have been edited out but I think the explanation is, most likely, that he adopted a conventional literary or rhetorical approach, for which a ready-to-use cliché supplanted serious thought, and made what might have been just a word into a phrase for euphony or rhetorical balance. If a sub-editor had time he might have found “pleonasm” in Fowler to describe what Backman had written here (and, if, like me, he started searching for the right word with “hendiadys” which is not quite right he could have noticed “hackneyed phrases” as well, and decided that The Age always filled its quota of those with Backman’s help).
The only good that might come out of this for Israel is if enough of its most fervent supporters learn from the reaction to the reaction to Backman’s piece how to be more effectively and pragmatically realistic. When Israelis can be so critical of Israeli policy and actions how on earth do its Diaspora and fellow traveilling friends (like me) expect that the overblown protests at Backman’s piece, as though it had no arguable points or defensible observations in it and was blatantly anti-Semitic, will not turn non-Israelis off their legitimate message and points?
BTW I am surprised to see any favourable reference to Caroline Overington’s appalling over the top and misleading rant. It just reminded me that she “has form” though her apology in December 2007 to George Newhouse has been taken off the Australian website.
David Bernstein: we are on the same side about Israel but you illustrate my point that its fervent friends are doing it little good in the Backman case. Up to the second last sentence which suggests an absurdity I can well imagine such a piece being run by The Age, even with the suggested heading which would be thought by some sub-editor to beironically ambiguous because it is not what the hypothetical columnist is actually saying. And what has “fair” got to do with it? It would not be an opinion with no more or less credibility than much of the guff which gets printed. “Acceptable”? What kind of weasel word is that? Do you mean that The Age shouldn’t publish the opinion of someone who says, “based on my knowledge or Indonesia, the bombing of the nightclub had nothing to do with Muslim anger about Palestine but a lot to do with their hatred and contempt for Australians, not least over-exposed women, bringing their decadent and disgusting behavious, as they, and even quite a number of Australians, might see it, to their country”?
According to Sonny, anyone who criticises Israeli policies in Gaza is a crackpot conspiracy theorist relying on age old fanaticisms, anti-Jewish prejudice and medieval thought constructs. Obviously my hope for reasoned debate on this site was naive … Chaim Morris writes: “If the rockets and bombers did not exist there would be no violence or war. Try and understand where this starts from please.” Some of us thought it started way back, sixty years at least, and that it is Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from their lands which better explains the violence. Could we have some historical perspective here?
The Age subs seem to be bearing the brunt for this, while Backman benefits through increased traffic to his website. Where is the justice.
I’m with the subs who, despite The Age’s apology and Margaret’s breathless sermonising, still don’t have a problem with the column’s publication in the first place.
To paraphrase Voltaire I don’t agree with what he had to say but I defend his right to say it, and for others to respond, and for us to then to have a debate about the myriad issues that are thrown up.
This is the way a free-thinking democracy is meant to work. People say stuff and we argue: We expose ideas (and prejudices) to the disinfectant of sunlight.
Margaret, rather than nit-picking about the column’s publication you should be expressing concern that a lobby group – any lobby but in this case the Jewish lobby – was able to so quickly get a wringing apology from a newspaper for publishing an article that was neither inaccurate nor defamatory.
Think about it – The Age has apologised for publishing an opinion that was neither inaccurate nor defamatory, and that incited neither hatred nor violence. It was an OPINION and a major metropolitan daily apologised for publishing it, at the behest of an over-sensitive but politically and economically influential lobby group.
This is where the focus of your confected outrage should be aimed – at the spineless response by senior editorial management to a bit of arm-twisting. Their response should simply have been “f*ck off and write a letter or contrary opinion piece”.
The Australian media is already too tame and self-censoring. The last thing we need is for it to retreat even further into its shell.
Phillip, if you have to ask, I’m afraid you will probably never understand. I don’t know you well enough to say whether it’s naivety or malice on your part. I suggest you research the history of antisemitism, look up classic antisemitic conspiracy theories, for example, Jews and money, or Jews causing problems in the world. Then go and read Backman’s drivel. The Jewish people are extremely sensitive to that sort of thing, and they have at least six million very good reasons to be.
Focusing on just one example, if the Jewish state (as Backman claims) is responsible for most of the Islamic terrorism in the world, how does that square with Islamists murdering non Muslims in dozens of countries where there are no Jews, no Americans, no occupation and none of the other cliche ‘root causes’? It doesn’t. The problem lies within Islam, and Backman’s argument was not only inaccurate and naieve, it sounded a little too much like things we’ve all heard before, from Mein Kampf, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and any amount of Arab antisemitic television programming in the last few decades.
But as I said, if you have to ask…
The Age today published my letter in response to the Leibler piece. For those interested to see what kind of edits are made to submitted letters, see the two versions on my post, where I refer back here for the context of Leibler’s article.
I chanced to read Backman’s article whilst sitting on the toilet monday morning.
It was an interesting read given the current exposure to this most sensitive of world
issues which many hold as being the spawn for world terrorism.
What concerns me is the wholly Un Australian way that the Age has succumbed to the pressures of the influential Jewish lobby group.
I for one saw the article as being a fair reflection of the circumstances being reported to us by the print and electronic media, but to have the Age intimidated to retract the comments gives some insight as to why the newspaper suffers from a low circulation.
What happened to “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it ”
Most un Australian I say on the eve of Australia Day.
From
Jesus was also a successfull Jew.
Molly,
That’s right. When the U.N. partitioned the land and all the Arab armies decided to annihalate the embryonic Jewish State of Israel. The Jewish people did not try and kill their fellow Muslim arabs but asked them to join in unity to form a peaceful and free democracy. Some did stay and are citizens of Israel. Try being a Jewish citizen of Iran or Syria…Unfortunately all the might of the Arab armies could not defeat a tiny Jewish army..David and Goliath. By your comments I am sure you would have wanted it the other way around…Again comments from the uninformed.
“The Jewish people did not try and kill their fellow Muslim arabs but asked them to join in unity to form a peaceful and free democracy.”
For an alternate view of history I recommend reading “The Olive Grove” by Deborah Rohan.
Just dipping in to Crikey, and interested in this debate. Naturally most Crikey readers seem left-leaning (as I am myself). but unfortunately the left has lost nearly all moral and political credibility, which is why it has so strongly aligned itself with Islamist anti-Semitism, both around the world and in Australia. Of course not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it makes very fine cover for the bigots to operate in, and I’m sorry Margaret, but I think you are giving some of them air space here. Backman’s piece was trite, risible and bigoted, as any fair-minded observer instantly identified. Globally, Muslims have four main grievances at present: Palestine (yes, that involves Jews), Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq. So, one out of four. But your correspondents are not in general motivated to help Muslims, or they would worry about the other three conflicts too. I hope you can draw your own lessons from that, Margaret. I personally think Backman’s column was deeply unpleasant and certainly hope that The Age sacks him.
“Lawrence, that is unmitigated crap and paranoia. The public in Australia wouldn’t know a jew if they fell over one. ”
So why do I get called a “f***ing Jew” in the street?
David, I have already said in the original post that I don’t think the column should have been published. I also think there is room for debate and disagreement about that. I have also, earlier on this comments thread, given an indication of my views on the Israel/Hamas situation. As for the commenters on this blog, I am trying to give free range to the expression of legitimate views, while moderating the extremely unpleasant stuff out. And believe me, there is plenty of it. Not everyone will agree with my judgment calls, but they are being made.
Brian, I agree that the way in which The Age has handled this, having published the column, leaves a lot to be desired. I said that in the post. But I do think this column was clumsy, weird and badly argued, leaving open the accusation of racism. With his apology to the Jewish community today (as reported in Crikey) Backman himself acknowledges this. At the very least, the subs should, I think have alerted people to the nature of the column. I think that if you want to argue in the way Backman did, then you need to be very careful and accurate, not clumsy as he was. Nevertheless, if the Age decided to publish the column knowing what they were doing (and I can see that there is an argument for that, even if i don’t agree with it) then they should have defended their decision against all comers on Voltaire principles. To publish, then suggest that doing so was in the nature of a production error, is sad and pleases no-one. And, I wonder, why is this debate about what happened taking place here, and not on an Age blog? Surely the editorial team at The Age owe it to their readers to explain, and engage in debate. I don’t mind benefiting from what should be their site-traffic, but still…
I think the real issue in all the above is why does the Western media so readily lap up every single piece of Hamas driven propaganda, without ever questioning a word of it? A lot of people here speak about “Zionist controlled media” and the West’s apparent weakness before Israel but the last 3 weeks have shown what nonsense this is.
Over the last three weeks we saw countless examples of Hamas quoted information being passed of as undisputed fact, videos showing renowned PLO member “Mads Gilbert” posing as an unbiased Norwegian doctor (without ever a word about his background, his pledged support for the 9/11 attacks and his public statements that he would never treat a wounded Jew) – even examples of him performing CPR on a clearly unwounded child’s *stomach*, then pronouncing the child dead. Yet the media here laps it up.
Conversely, when Israel makes a claim, the media doubts it or ignores it.
Italian, non-Jewish I add, investigators have stated this very day that they can see no evidence that more than 600 people died in Gaza, yet instead the Western media quotes figures from Hamas that claim 1,300 – who also claim to have taken 47 Israeli tanks and killed 203 Israeli soldiers. Now we know for a fact the latter is a lie, so why does no one question the first part of the statement? Instead of questioning the word of Hamas, instead the BBC and their cohorts simply parrot everything they say and run emotive pseudo news over and over. In time, this will be the new ‘Jenin Massacre’ or Mohammad al Durra case – where initially the media all fell over themselves to paint Israel as evil monsters but when the evidence came to light that it was a work of fiction… are strangely quite and unapologetic.
No one is claiming what happened is Gaza is a good thing or that it’s not a tragedy. But the Western media have a very strong and very pronounced anti-Israel bias that was very clearly shown over the last three weeks. However we still have the same old people coming out and claiming that “them evil jooos” control the World and we shouldn’t have to bow down to them any more.
Greetings from India, where this Jew who carries an israeli passport is working for a charity mainly supported by Jews and Baha’is which helps both Hindu and Muslim rural poor. Possibly the only joint Hindu-Muslim prayer ceremony in the world was held here near Mysore in November at the time of the Bombay bombings. There is a large history of intercommunal violence in this country too and to blame it on the Jews is ludicrous. On whom then do you blame the slayings of the Jewish religious figures in Bombay? The Hindus?
Naturally it is a small minority only, the Islamists, who desire trouble and create terror both here in India and elsewhere. However the world seems to forget that there have been more deaths from Islamist terror in India than in the rest of the world combined since partition.
Allow me to comment on Mr Backman’s piece. As someone who likes to read the Age I am very glad that he chose to criticise Jews rather than, say, Mohammed. I am glad that the Age is an Australian newspaper and not a Danish one. The Jewish lobby might be calling for Backman’s testicles right now, but we’ve seen what the other lobby do.
Here in rural Karnataka in South India, where they’ve never seen an Israeli before I came along, it is Americans who are unpopular. In a village where 60% of the population has never shat in a toilet and access to safe drinking water is a dream for most, I’ve heard Americans ask for Diet Coke. (The cafe owner said that India was a poor country and people could not afford to diet). There’s a popular song which derides American culture with the chorus “We used to drink the juice of tender cocunut and now we drink Pepsi cola”. Equally, I’ve been to places in South Asia where they don’t like Germans, and not too many like the British.
You know, I really miss Melbourne. I miss the Myer window, and the Myer music bowl (built by a Jew). I miss watching kids play soccer (a game much more popular since the Jew, Lowy, got involved in soccer Australia). I miss hanging out at the Arts Centre precinct (Pratt, Smorgon families). I miss my involvement in a community which provided the first Australian-born Governor General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, as well as General Sir John Monash, and former Lord Mayor and Parliamentarian Sir Benjamin Benjamins. I would have thought that the majority of members of the Melbourne Jewish community were quiet and unassuming, but in a way able to provide leaders like Monash. Sadly, I’m wrong, according to Backman.
The right of free speech carries with it a very heavy responsibility, the burden of which Backman has not shouldered. The Age must make an example of him. Symbolism is important it is time that someone is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness just to show those who might make similar mistakes that public stupidity is not to be condoned.
Without necessarily agreeing with everything in Backmann’s opinion piece (and why should I? its an opinion piece). It is rather disturbing and unsettling that such opinions should be banned.
Things like this
“This has
nothing to do with religion or politics: Nepalese people are some of the warmest, most hospitable in the world. Rather, they say that the
young Israelis are rude, arrogant, and argue over trifling amounts of money even though they clearly have means.”
are not anti-semitic, they are simply fact.
I have backpacked in over 60 countries now and see these attitudes time and time again. This doesnt mean that ALL israeli backpackers are like this, but culturally they tend to this.
An older more experienced Israeli explained it to me like this: “Israeli society is very competitive and aggressive so the type of extreme haggling is not necessarily unusual there. Also many of the Israeli backpackers are very young, have just finished highly stressful army service and tend to have a strong group bonding mentality”
A comparision could be extreme barracking practices of Australian cricketeers which are culturally acceptable in Australia but can be seen as far more offensive in India or Sri Lanka.
Ironically this comment
“Israel needs to change. The Parsees of India might provide a model. The Parsees are a very tiny, very rich ethnic and religious minority.
They own perhaps most of the land in central Mumbai as well as the country’s largest conglomerate. And yet ordinary Indians admire and
respect them. Violence against them is unthinkable.
How have they achieved this? They are not flashy or arrogant. Their overriding characteristic is a deep interest in the welfare of others.
They have established hospitals, libraries, schools, museums and many other institutions and, most importantly, not for the Parsee
community exclusively but for everyone. So the Parsees have peace and the Israelis do not.”
could easily describe the position of Jews in Australia, often quite prosperous but respected for strong charitable and community contributions.
So if its OK to praise the positive aspects of a culture it must also be OK to critique aspects as well.
“I have backpacked in over 60 countries now and see these attitudes time and time again. This doesnt mean that ALL israeli backpackers are like this, but culturally they tend to this.”
Perhaps, as a point of clarification I have only sometimes seen Israeli backpackers behave in very aggressive behaviour and most of the time seen them behave in an unexceptional way. They certainly do haggle hard, usually with good-humour.
But I have repeatedly seen tourism professionals single out Israeli backpackers as being difficult or heard hear-say reports to that tendency.
I have read this column and there is absolutely nothing even remotely anti-semitic about it. As others have asked, for those so apparently offended can they please point out the specific points that are so hate-filled? Margaret perhaps? There is nothing there actually is there? This is just another example of the rabid pro-Zionist lobby trying to shut down all discussion of how, objectively, Israel has behaved appallingly and unconscionably ever since its first miserable inception
At the risk of being hounded by the Israel lobby as an “anti-Semite”, the fact that Backman’s story was hastily pulled and the Age issued its cringeworthy “apology” to the usual Greek (Jewish?) Chorus of Zionist apologists is more of a concern that any purported offense caused to some readers of a particular political or relgious bent. Even the Israeli news media is more critical of Israeli government policy and the historic Zionist agenda there than our news media is here.
My daughter’s friend was recently seriously injured in a road accident in South America whilst among a group of backpackers from many different nationalities. The only ones among the backpackers who interrupted their tour and remained behind to comfort the young girl and her sister during her hospitalisation were two Israelis. While this, like the story of the Nepalese tourists, is also an anecdote (and this one is true and can be verified), I suggest that it clearly demonstrates more clearly what type of souls these young Israeli travellers are.
Most of them come straight out of a stint in army service where they have been fighting against an enemy whose charter says their country must be destroyed and they must be killed because (wait for this) they are Jews. There were people marching in the streets last week with banners supporting this vile philosophy and yet Backman and his apologists admonish Israel for not making friends with those who would annihilate them.
Interesting that the Baccman article has now been removed even from his own website! Thanks to the power of Google’s cache, I was still able to read it today. What does this say about censorship in 21st century Australia?
As someone who grew up Catholic in Northern Ireland, through the 20+ years of the “Troubles”, I’m perhaps more qualified than some to distinguish racism from politics. Of course “racism” against Jews still exists, though so too does “racism” against many other religious and ethnic minorities – indigenous Australians anyone? Muslim Australians?
In this case, I see Backman’s article as valid political statement. While he reports on the alleged racism of Nepalese shopkeepers, and while the point of some of his statements never seems to be made (which suggests to me too much editing by someone, rather than not enough), I do not detect racism in his own opinions.
To say that many Muslim extremists target the USA and other “Western” countries because of our support for Israel is a no-brainer. It’s a political fact.
Why did this piece appear on the Business page? Well it started out as a point about how much MONEY that support for Israel costs us all. He strayed from the point, and the article just tails off, but had he stuck to that point it would have been a valid one.
Pete
One final point:
Hamas rules Gaza, democratically elected by the people. When its government issues information, that information deserves to be treated with the same respect or cynicism as that from any other government media service (and I highly recommend cynicism). Comments above cite Israeli Government claims as “fact” while deriding Hamas claims. On what basis other than bias?
For Chaim Morris, abuse masquerades as reason (I must wish that Arab armies had wiped out Israel at the beginning and I’m merely ignorant) and no one is to criticise Israel unless there is also criticism of the Armenian genocide, Chinese actions in Tibet, and so on. On this basis no one is ever accountable no matter how distasteful or criminal or morally reprehensible their conduct. Once again I ask that the specific reasons why Backman’s article is anti-Semitic be explained to me. If this isn’t done then one reasonable explanation is that the article is NOT anti-Semitic. Why is that not the ONLY reasonable explanation?
The cached article is here
Margaret: The page has not entirely disappeared down the memory hole, yet – it is still in Google’s cache at http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:-k5×03mDggwJ:www.michaelbackman.com/NewColumn.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au
The Backman article is spot-on. Those who misquote him do so with prejudice. The fact that the Age meets with certain known Zionist elements to approve their stories even after the fact of publishing shows the power of the Zionist movement in this country. And now we know where Ms Simons sympathies lie; certainly not with the victims in Gaza. Hamas may kill its opponents but in Australia the Zionist lobby destroys you financially. You may as well be dead.
D Pruitt, I resent that. I have made my views about what Israel is doing clear. I am horrified by what is happening in Gaza. The fact that I think the Backman article should not have been published has absolutely nothing to do with that.
“Lawrence, that is unmitigated crap and paranoia. The public in Australia wouldn’t know a jew if they fell over one. You don’t need all this stupid security at your schools, they are not in danger and never were.”
Marilyn-
Oh marilyn, so we need no security at schools? Have you been at a jewish school? Ever had a bomb threat? No? I am so suprised. Newsflash, I GO to a jewish school, and have had a bomb threat. No one would know a jew if they saw one? Of course not, the “jew hat”, isnt associated with Jews. Your right. Havent had people violently throw money at you as a joke when your walking by, why am i not surprised? I have. Lawerence has unmitigated crap and paranoia? Really?
As a Jew & a committed Zionist in the traditional sense, ie as espoused by Herzl & others, I have to admit in all honesty that some Israelis can be a real pain in the ass!
They can be arrogant, rude & downright petty as I have observed travelling in Asia & Europe.
But then so are a few Aussies!
3 Trackbacks