As reported in the Crikey e-mail today, Michael Backman has written to Jewish community leaders apologising for the distress caused by his controversial column, published in The Age last Saturday. Backman says in his letter of apology:
I can now see that some of the forms of words used did not adequately explain what I intended to say. Most particularly, they have allowed some to read into the column sentiments that I did not intend, and which I do not believe.
He also apologised for “injudicious use of words and themes”.
But this wasn’t always Backman’s line. Some email correspondence has come to light that suggests when the controversy first broke, Backman was engaging in that time-honoured newsroom tradition: blaming the sub-editors. (UPDATE: Backman sees this differently. See UPDATE at the foot of this story.)
The exchange was initiated by Monash University student Justin Lipinski, who e-mailed Backman late on Sunday night, the day the column was published in The Age.
Lipinski politely asked Backman to justify his words, and in particular the reference to boorish Israeli tourists in Nepal. Backman replied almost immediately, and claimed that in the original, this point was “finessed” with a reference to the Israelis being reservists – but that this had been edited out by The Age.
Here is the correspondence:
Dear Michael, I Recently read your latest column in The Age about the Israel-Palestine conflict. While I respect your work on business in Asia (I recently recommended ‘Big in Asia’ and ‘Asia Future Shock’ to some friends) I had some trouble with this article. I was wondering what evidence you were referring to when you suggested that Israel is responsible for the recent series of terrorist attacks. I was also curious about why you felt the need to discuss rude Israeli tourists in an article about Gaza. Where is the nexus? Kind regards, Justin Lipinski.
And the reply:
Hi Justin, thanks for your message. I didn’t say that Israel was behind the said events but rather anger at the treatment of the Palestinians partly allows Islamic extremists justification for some of the autrocities they have committed. I really don’t think that should be controversial, but I do of course understand that saying anything critical of Israel will always be controversial for some! The Nepal reference was simply to say that many of the trekkers ‘are reservists and it is their sometimes high-handed attitidues that they bring with them into Gaza and so on. The finessing of the point was removed by the Age’s editors unfortunately. I know that the column has caused a lot of controversy, but really I don’t think it should. I think free debate is always worth defending even if some feel offended in the process. best regards Michael
And the rejoinder:
Hi Michael, Thanks for your speedy response!
I agree with you that free debate is always worth defending even if it offends some in the process. That’s why I subscribe to Crikey. That being said, if free debate is to be offensive, it must be grounded in some sort of evidence. There seemed no attempt to supply readers with any evidence that Islamic extremists justified their attacks by pointing to Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Non-biased evidence, although a tricky concept in itself, is important. Otherwise comments may be deemed as racist. I am by no means suggesting you intended to come across as racist, and I am sure that if you were given the space in the column you would have backed your arguments. But maybe reconsider writing in such a short column if you cannot add the necessary finess. Justin Lipinski.
Now there is something strange going on here. The article is no longer on The Age’s website but is on Backman’s website. Presumably this is the piece as he wrote it, rather than as The Age edited it. [UPDATE: Backman says not. See UPDATE at the foot of this post.] Yet there is no “finessing” of the relevant paragraph, as he claims. A check on the Factiva database reveals that in the article as published this paragraph is identical to the one on Backman’s website.
Also, strangely, the article on Backman’s site now includes a postscript with a link to the article I mentioned in a post earlier this week, making similar claims about rude Israeli tourists.
Does this mean, Mr Backman, that you are reading this blog? Or did you find that article for yourself? If you are reading, Crikey tried to e-mail you earlier in the week, and we are still waiting for a response. We’d like to talk.
UPDATE: Michael Backman has been in touch. He sent the following e-mail today:
Dear MargaretI did not receive an e-mail from anyone at Crikey. And until now, I have not had any communications with you personally, despite you apparently having been writing all week about what I might or might not have done, and what I might or might not think.Your heading and contention today that I have blamed the subs at the Age is wrong. I simply said in a private e-mail to someone that some finessing of one point (that in relation to Nepal) was removed. The line that was removed linked the point about young Israelis in Nepal back to Palestine.I do not blame the Age or the subs whatsoever for the thrust of my piece and the reaction to it. I have the utmost regard for all in the Business section at the Age.The column as it appeared on my website was as it was published. I do not distribute pre-edited versions of my columns as a courtesy to the Age.As I mentioned, you have included in your writings suppositions about me. At no stage have you bothered to check anything with me. A small example: I see that you have mentioned that “my” Facebook page has been removed. I do not use Facebook, I do not know how to use it, and until I was alerted to it in your writings I was not even aware that a Facebook page had been set up in my name. I believe that the page might have been established as a ‘fan’ page by someone in Malaysia for Malaysians to follow what I write about Malaysia. I have no idea about why it was removed or indeed anything else about it.SincerelyMichael Backman
Michael,
My editor, Jonathan Green, tells me he has sent you several emails over the last week. Obviously they have not reached you. I will check with him what email address he was using. I myself have hunted for contact details for you without success. I got this email address for the first time today, from Justin Lipinski. I will publish your letter to me on my blog straight away, as an update to today’s article. If you want to provide any other comment, or to write a piece of your own for Crikey about the events of the last week, I am sure my editor would be interested.
Yours, Margaret Simons
40 Comments
I am buggered if I know what all the fuss is about good gawd what did he do he called as he saw it,some of you people must have led very sheltered lives that’s all I can say.
I am still waiting for the Israelis to to justify killing 1300 and wounding lord knows how many more, murdering people on by the settlers on the West Bank, instituting Apartheid on the West Bank, trying to starve the Palestinians in GAZA.
Some of you are a bit over sensitive, I read the Article, and saw nothing wrong, grow up your adults now,if you don’t like the heat don’t go in the kitchen,this is getting as stupid as the senile Frank Devines paean of praise to GW Bush in this mornings OZ.
Hi John,
I am curious as to why you think we are being over sensitive? Which parts of the article did you deem fair? The part where Backman stigmatised Israeli tourists? Or the part where he suggested that Israel is responsible for every recent terror attack?
Remember, we are arguing about the article, not about the nature of the conflict.
John Ryan has asked the same questions twice. I will try to answer them. Israel gave Gaza back to the Palestinians. Immediately afterwards, Palestinian suicide bombers grew more active inside Israel, always with the obvious intent of killing as many innocent citizens as possible. Israel built its wall, which is ugly and inconvenient but effective in preventing suicide bombers from crossing into Israeli civilian areas. Hamas, a few years ago now, began targeting southern and western Israel with rockets fired from Gaza. Apart from damage to buildings and land, which can usually be fixed, the trauma to Israeli citizens living with the constant threat of alarms and rockets and horrible death – this has been considerable. That is, the trauma is considerable. Not one of us would like to live with it. It scars you for life; cannot ever be fixed. So Israel blockaded Gaza, explaining very clearly that if they stopped the rockets the blockade would be lifted. Hamas ignored the explanation and the pleas, continuing and increasing the rocket attacks and stationing themselves very carefully amongst civilians. After years of this, Israel warned again and again that the IDF would have to invade Gaza to get at Hamas, to once and for all stop rocket attacks. Hamas again increased the number of rockets launched into Israel. Israel invaded Gaza, after countless warnings. John Ryan asks what gives Israel the right to kill 1300 Palestinians? Israel has no “right” to kill anyone, but it does have a right to self-defence which it has learnt at last to exercise, and so it went after Hamas members who had stationed themselves very carefully amongst innocent civilians. That is why so many were killed. Israelis value human life, and all they want is to live in peace. Why do you think they struggled to have a homeland of their own? Because no other country in the world exists where they – Jewish people – can be truly at peace. They have been subjected to terror and torture for centuries, supposedly because they “killed Jesus.” Any thinking human being knows that the Roman occupiers of Israel killed Jesus who was a Jewish citizen of the Holy Land, but well, we humans seem to love a scapegoat. And we need to recall that – since the early 20th century – the stated mission of Arabs in the Middle East has been to destroy all Jews and – since 1948 – to push all Israelis into the Mediterranean. There was not one single Israeli soldier who wanted to risk his or her life by entering Gaza, but the IDF exists to defend its people. That is why it’s called the Israeli Defence Force. And as far as Backman is concerned, his smutty anti-Israel and anti-Jewish “journalism” belongs more to Joseph Goebbels of Nazi notoriety than it does in 21st century Australia. Talking about Israeli tourists in Nepal, has Backman ever experienced the rudeness and loudness of Australian tourists anywhere and everywhere in Europe? Our drunken young men of whom we are so proud?
What’s happening between Israel and Palestine is disgusting. Nobody can be morally right to back the Israelis! Israel is governed wrong. And Mr Backman put a strong stand on this (no matter what “forms of words he used”). It wasn’t about the Jews, it was about the Israelis. I read most of his articles, which include this particularly controversial one, and thought it was truthful and reasonable. If you have followed his works, you would know his uncompromising approach in attacking injustice faced by most of the minority in third world countries. Some felt the punch in the face because truth hurts. He’s an economist and a business commentator. He used to work in the Australian politics. He obviously knows his stuff. He dares say what others dare not. We need more people like him to bring on the free media. I cannot believe so many (or maybe not – just a particular group of community I would guess) would try to bring down the free media and crush a free-spirit columnist down. Give him a break. I’m so looking forward to his next column, which I doubt he will be writing for the Age again… due to the minimal support the Age has shown to its columnists. Anti-Semitic? What anti-Semitic? He could be a Jew! And one more thing – no matter how Jewish you are, you’re Australians. Move on from your past! Thank you for reading.
Margaret
I notice Michael Backman refers to a “private e-mail”. A few years ago Juan Cole complained that Christopher Hitchens had made some his “private emails” (to a listserve) public. Cole claimed that Hitchens had behaved unethically.
Megan McArdle’s response to this was interesting. She wrote:
“…Mr Cole is mistaken to call this unethical. It may have been unethical for the listserv member to forward the postings, but it is perfectly ethical–indeed standard–for a journalist to publish them once received (provided he himself is not a member of the listserv.)”
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005765.php
Do you share McArdle’s view?
I still think it was a good honest artical,and hysteria about Gobbels is just over the top,from what I can gather from the two people above you cannot criticise Israel at all. I know what the IDF is I have also read a great deal about Hitler and the treatment of the Jews,but to start ranting about Gobbles and co smacks to me of Censorship now of course the fact that Israel has had a blockade around GAZA for over 3 yrs,lets the settlers murder Palestinians in the West Bank steal the land and water,and I think you would get an argument from many that Israel started it by the Israelis killing 6 or 8 Palestinians and blowing up a tunnel.
So far as the tourist remark goes that is drawing a long bow,I have read criticism of the Americans,British, Australian Tourists you name it,so that,s a straw man to.
I would suggest you read your bible madam about Jesus and the priests of the temple who wanted him gone I dont think they were Romans,but then I think the Bible is a concocted fairy story,so I dont take a lot of notice of it,also from my reading who sheltered the Stern gang and the Irgun surely not civilians,I think that most all resistance movements mixed with civilians and used them as cover,either that or my history books have not been telling the truth.
I am surprised I did not get the usual “but your Anti Semitic” but then so are the people Israel is oppressing are from Semitic stock,but I also read and watched a documentary that say that Israelis and the Palestinians are drawn from a common ancestor,any way sorry you don’t like my opinion but thats what I think,and I suggest the the lady who penned the semi hysterical tome have a Bex and a good lie down
Don Arthur, Interesting question, and thanks for asking.
In this set of circumstances, I agree with McArdle’s view. I have no obligation to protect a relationship of confidentiality between third parties. But I would also say that the case is different from the one you quote. There were no explicit rules or agreements between Backman and Lipinski that the correspondence would be kept confidential. And there were public interest reasons for making it public.
I would not say that it is ALWAYS ethical for a journalist to publish what was intended as private correspondence. There are considerations of privacy over and above any agreement made between third parties.
In this case, Backman had published a column – which is in itself a public act. Lipinski, as a concerned reader, took him to task about what he had written. The correspondence was about the way in which Backman was fulfilling his public role. It was not about Backman’s personal life, private financial dealings, health or any other aspect of his private affairs. Had it been, I wouldn’t have published the correspondence, unless there was some clear public interest reason for doing so, (and I can’t imagine what that would be.)
In other contexts, I have criticised news organisations for publishing a footballer’s confidential health information, which was given to them by someone who “Found” or perhaps stole it. In that case, I would say that no matter how the journalist got the information, publishing it was wrong because of the breach of privacy. I didn’t think the “celebrity” and “role model” aspect of the footballer’s identity was sufficient public interest argument to override the very high level of privacy we attach to health records. Many of my colleagues disagreed with me on that, claiming that because of his public role, the breach was fair enough. I remain unconvinced.
But this case is quite different. This was a case of a reader asking a journalist to be accountable for how he was performing his public role. Particularly when the matter has caused such intense concern among a section of the public, I can’t see that it is unethical for Lipinski to pass that correspondence to me, or for me to publish it. It is an extention of the accountability.
It is similar, though not identical, to an elector writing to a politician about what he has said in parliament, then publishing the reply. Or a shareholder writing to the Chairman of a company, and publishing the result to fellow shareholders.
Journalists should be accountable to their public for how they perform their public roles.
Don,
Backman seemed to ‘finess’ (as he put it) his point in my email, thus I thought the email was a more accurate representation of his opinion than The Age article. As he put it:
“The Nepal reference was simply to say that many of the trekkers ‘are reservists and it is their sometimes high-handed attitidues that they bring with them into Gaza and so on. The finessing of the point was removed by the Age’s editors unfortunately.”
So if my email gave him an opportunity to further finess his point, why would he mind if the email were given to Crikey?
With regard to some of the other blogs, this discussion is about Backman’s article, not the Gaza conflict per se. For those who want to discuss the conflict, write on a different blog (I’m sure there are plenty out there!).
sorry Don, I think I strayed slightly from your argument, which questions whether disseminating private emails is ethical. Before we explore this, why do you feel this email is private? Are all emails private? What makes an email private?
Cheers.
From Fox News website http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.”
Everyone knew at the time that it was because of Israel’s actions and their U.S. support. This at least should be unarguable although I seem to remember at the time Bush claimed it was because Al Qaeda hated freedom or some such. So let’s at least agree on this and move on.
I just hope no extremists respond similarly to this latest effort by Israel, otherwise we might see the demolition of a fair chunk of Manhattan I would have thought.
Justin, I think to some degree posts about the Backman issue have to be about the conflcit in Gaza. Today’s edition of The Age contains both a letter from Backman apologising for his column and a news piece about that apology. An argument could therefore be mounted from a news value perspective. Does the Backman controversy warrant the degree of coverage it has received considering the seriousness of the situation in Gaza, which it afterall implicates?
My continuing concern – aside from the quality (or lack thereof) of Backman’s article – is that the controversy provides a distraction from what is a far more important issue.
Any backtracking by either Backman or The Age should be very clearly differentiated in the reporting from the paper’s position on Gaza. It is pretty clear that Israel has acted in a disproportionate, indiscriminate and brutal manner in its current Gaza campaign. An earlier comment that Israel has a right to defend itself must be carefully qualified so that it does not give Israel the right, in pursuing its own defence, to kill and injure innocent men, women and children.
Justin – “private email” is how Michael Backman described the message. I deliberately used quotes to avoid making a judgment.
I cannot get my head around the fuss that Blackmans article has started. Here we are in 2009, still working through the “guilt trips” we expect to bear based on what our forbears did to the Jews, not Israel, all those years ago.
Israel was formed as a result of?…………….. (Did everyone answer an act of War by Great Britain?) in the year …….. (of course everyone said 1946 or 1948 didn’t they)?
Palestinians have lived in Palestine since ………. (has anyone any real idea)?
Gaza and the West Bank were “given” to the Palestinians, after they had lived there since before any of us were alive. That smacks of Telstra shares being sold to the owners, though I accept I am oversimplifying things.
If we can’t read and analyse articles ourselves, and then comment on them without the board of deputies getting their knickers in a twist, what really is the point of being a nation of free thought and discussion?
Surely, as grown-ups, we can read someone’s views and not have a the board of deputies all over us for it. Christ, it isn’t as though they spend heaps of time and energy doing anything for the community outside their cloistered zone of influence.
Why is it that people get so upset because someone has a view about the destruction Israel metes out to all and sundry (only among “ragheads” of course), and expects Israel’s activities to be excused because of the “great misery they have endured” over the ages. Sorry. I think it’s time Israel grew up and joined the council of other grown-ups and don’t see a few backyard rockets as being anything but a bunch of refugees in their own land, forced to live like animals, saying “enough” and “f+++ you Israel”, we are tired OF FIGHTING TO SURVIVE IN OUR OWN LAND.
When Israel and USA both realise that if Israel and the USA don’t do things to make people upset and angry to the point where they are happy to die for their cause, then, and only then, will the Osama bin Laden’s of the world be rendered silent and pointless, and the violence which is part of Israel, be finished.
And for the gainsayers, please, p[lease, don’t hold me up as anti-semitic, because I’m not. I am however, a realist.
Hi Darren,
While I do agree that Backman’s article is a distraction from the Gaza conflict, it is a serious issue in itself.
The article has traces of anti-semitism. Whether Backman intended this or not is another issue, but anti-semetic articles are have been rampant during the Gaza conflict, and The Age in particular has endorsed such articles. THE Trick is to mask anti-semetism in anti-zionism. This has been going on for years, and it’s time to put the brakes on.
That being said, I do take heed of your point that this nevertheless serves as some distraction to the recent Gaza conflict. Since you raised comments about disproportionate force and collateral damage, I thought I would discuss this:
On the one hand, it is likely that any state in Israel’s position would react in exactly the same way. Israel is a tiny state, surrounded by hostile Arab nations and a hostile Palestinian community internally. Israel has been involved in a series of conflicts which has seen to it being almost wiped off the map or taken over. Take for example the War of Independence, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the series of intifadas and sporadic terrorism. Thus, whenever Israel is provoked, it feels the need to return fire at an often disproportionate rate so as to deter aggressors. The media does not take this broader context into account when it berates Israel for its use of force.
On the other hand, what good will come out of fighting Hamas through brute force? By aiming to wipe out Hamas leadership, and in doing so killing hundreds of innocent civilians (accidently of course, don’t listen to media when they call the IDF blood hungry savages…they drop letters to warn Palestinians when they drop bombs), Israel runs the risk of fuelling anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East to a far greater extent than currently. While I recognise that many fundamentalists are anti-Israel on the basis of primitive anti-semetic beliefs, I believe that anti-semitism becomes increasingly millitant when they are directly affected by Israeli foreign policy i.e. force. For example, a Palestinian might hate Israelis from a young age because he has been brought up to do so, but when he sees his friends/family killed by Israeli bombs (even though they were aimed at Hamas leaders), it is likely that he will become increasingly millitant.
So what should Israel have done? Israel’s military strategy must definitely be assertive. It cannot run the risk of appearing weak when surrounded by hostile nations bent on its destruction. That being said, it should not have been as extensive as it has been. Clearly they should try and eliminate immediate threats, and they should definitely leave troops in Gaza to stop the flow of Iranian weapons. But there is no need to wipe out the entire Hamas leadership. This creates more casualties and thus more anti-Israeli sentiment.
How many readers trust anything Jonathan Green says? His blog carried the most extraordinarily crude post aimed at Pilger recently. It just about turned me off returning to Crikey at all.
There are too many Australian men writing nonsense to get a rise out of each other, without taking into consideration the impact this has on other people. Backman and Green seem to have lost the capacity to exercise reasonable judgement when they submit work to other publications, or publish on their own websites.
This seems to have turned into an ego fueled stoush between bloggers who write fairly badly and crave attention. Please keep a cool head Margaret, those two would collaborate together in an instant to take you down, particularly if your blog looked to be more popular than theirs.
Shh! Must not mention Israeli overkill in Gaza. Must not criticise Israeli expansionism. Must never, ever condemn Zionism. Shh!
Justin Lipinski (23/01/09@ 6:01pm) asks us to:”remember we are arguing about the article, not about the nature of the conflict.” I, David Hicks, respond by saying that if there were no Occupation of Palestine, there’d BE no conflict, no resistance to that Occupation & no article by the courageous Michael Backman & you & I wouldn’t be typing away here & now. Context Justin:we & the slaughter in Gaza are ALL interconnected.
Of course the apologists for the Zionist Sate of Israel are shrieking anti-Semitism & invoking the horrors of the Holocaust. Understandably so.World wide, vigorous criticism of Israel’s BEHAVIOUR over its latest Christmas slaughter is running hot. For the moment anyway.
We accept that the “American War” – as the Vietnamese call it -was lost due to the power of TV images turning people’s stomachs & eventually their minds. My hunch, my hope, is that IF the Israelis are ever thwarted in the clearly articulated ambitions of their Zionist project it will be because of the informative & unifying power of the internet.
TV saved the Vietnamese from total destruction:America couldn’t let go.The WWW today may save the Palestinians from their very own Holocaust: Israel cannot let go. Else they would have. I’m not saying Israel WILL ever return enough of the stolen lands of Palestine-now brutally OCCUPIED for decades- to allow a VIABLE state. But there IS a chance. President Obama is a chance:for justice & consequently peace in the middle east. He presents as an intelligent & compassionate human being. Go B. Hussein Obama.You have my vote so far.
Good on you Mr.Backman too! You have said no more than the Lonely Planet guide to the Middle East about Israeli’s behaviours. Most Israelis BEHAVE in a particular way. We, all of us BEHAVE in our own uniquely special ways.Mostly.We, all of us, reap the consequences of our BEHAVIOUR. We sow lettuce seeds, we harvest lettuce. If our nations sow greed & hatred for decades,we-the unhappy Israelis in this instance-will receive what we deserve. What goes ’round comes round. Anyone disagree?
Does anyone recall the three ‘demands’ of Osama B.L. post 9/11? What has improved for the people in Occupied Palestine? Zilch.
Let us talk about the BEHAVIOURS of this Pariah State of Israel.Our cowardly politicians & our craven press have bowed to Israel for much too long. The Israeli BEHAVIOUR is two hundred resisters eyes for one occupiers eye: as it was in Lebanon in late 2006. Let us name it thus with courage & clarity. Justice now for Palestine. Peace for Israel & us all on our sad, fragile Planet Earth. Decades of Occupation are much too much. And let us acknowledge that NOT EVEN the USA under Bush Jnr. accepted the OCCUPATION of Palestine by the Zionist State.
I have just this minute grasped the notion of ‘making peace.’ Peace can be MADE in Occupied Palestine. President Obama could make peace there by cutting off the BILLIONS of dollars per year in military hardware to Israel. Anyone disagree? Will he make peace though? Lets wait in hope for a little while longer.
FYI My post ‘The Backman Beat-Up’ at http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com Middle East Reality Check
David Hicks, in what way was the Gaza conflict comparable to the Holocaust?
No wish to derail the thread, Margaret, but Justin Lipinski’s and Don Arthur’s exchange about emails and privacy is interesting and nods towards the wider subject of journalistic conventions in the Info Age. There are a number that probably need either revamping or at least clarification:
- What’s formally ‘quotable’ these days? Thread one-liner? Txt? Tweet?
- What does ‘on the record’ now mean?
- Whither journalism & authorless words? (’A source’, ’senior figures in the government’, ‘Big tough anon poster’…)
The internet means that a lot more non-journalists are now dealing daily in the information ‘currency’ of the written word, in permanent contexts that occupy the twilight zone between dead tree on-the-record and off-the-record. Phone texts, Facebook sites, password protected chat rooms and old/closed thread comments, twitter chat…these things are inevitably going to start biting more and more writerly punters as the MSM continues to ‘bloggify’. Perhaps worth a post on journalistic conventions in the digital age some time? (Perhaps even seek out the views of working editors, explain how they deal with the myriad of different ‘grades’ of written word source content nowadays.
Some people have asked what was wrong with Backman’s ‘column’. The worst thing wrong with it, is that he never used a telephone. None of the claims he made seem to have been checked. The style was very ‘blog’ like, an accumulation of accusations compiled from whatever he could find in his inbox that day, verifiable or not.
Jack Robertson has an extremely good point in terms of derailing the thread re privacy and so on. As I have sat reading not only this thread, but also referring across to the Pilger article quoted in Green Left I am led to believe that the art of writing in public (journalism), is becoming a thing that many of us can and will continue to do.
One of the major things about threads such as this is that those of us who for many years have sat in the lounge shouting at the television news, decrying the use of force at the untrammeled levels employed by Israel, finally have a voice, and the nature of that voice and Google is that our words are here essentially, forever.
What Backman did in his article, was to use a very public voice to say what many people have been saying for many many years, and that is it is high time that people recognised that Hamas was elected by the Palestinians to lead and represent them, rather than the Quisling government they defeated at the polls.
For years America has exported their form of “democracy” to the unwary, the unyielding and the uncaring. Most of these people come from Moslem countries where the first level of government is the Tribe, the second level of government is the Warlord and that’s about it. For many people in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan the idea of Federalism, and an overarching government entity, are completely foreign ideas. They hold no place in the average man’s thought process simply because he’s never experienced them.
For America then to export their version of “democracy” to these people is a complete insult to their hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of doing things their way. Pilger’s reference when taken in context, merely says that as long as people have been saying and doing things this way for aeons, and has been working, then any effort or energy expended in changing that practice amounts to cultural genocide, which according to him, is exactly what Israel is trying to do to Gaza, with the support and collusion of New Labour in Britain, the Republicans first and now the Democrats in the USA and of course, at our obsequious best, Australia.
Nobody seems to remember that Palestine was always there. Israel was placed there as part of an act of war by the government of Great Britain. Nobody seems to accept that Gaza was there before Israel, that the Palestinians were there before the Jews, and that there are more Gazans and Palestinians than Israeli’s. Further, and possibly worse is that if Israel gets rid of all of the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians, who will do the jobs the Israelis won’t. As I understand it, Palestinians fulfil the roles of rubbish collectors, road builders, hard labourers and all the other jobs that are hard to fill.Will we see a major import of the Lemba to carry out those tasks?
When we sit down on our computer and read about the nastiness in the world, not just Israel but in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Northern Territory, North Queensland and so on, and decide to sit down and write about how we feel, what our views are and why and even perhaps offer some solutions, the power of the Internet makes those views and opinions part of history. So in reality what is privacy in terms of the Internet? Is there such a thing?
Singer
Just a note on tense, Justin-surely you mean “is”?
If only more people took the time to create a gravatar before posting. It makes posts look as though some people really care, as though they have done more than just haphazardly choose a new pseudonym at random – without bothering to ornament it. This, I believe, is the crux of the Backman problem. A hurriedly written piece, hurriedly edited and hurriedly posted, without thought or care for presentation. I wish commenters would think about how their posts appear to an audience, instead of just banging out grudges with few supportable facts and no style.
Daemon,
According to my understanding there is currently a ceasefire, albeit fragile. Am I mistaken?
I couldn’t be bothered responding to your accusations about the state of Israel. They are typical, boring and biased like the majority of anti-Israel blogs written on this website.
sorry Daemon,
I shouldn’t have had a go at you. It’s just that debates about Israel are all the same, and people from both sides keep regurgitating the same points from their ivory towers/homes. Why bother?
It is very hard over here in London to be able to acquire an informed view of this debate without being able to see the original article. While it hardly surprises me that The Age has expunged any record of Backman’s words from its website (that’s how things are nowadays at Fairfax, as I know from painful experience) I was surprised to find that Backman appears to have removed the article from his own website. Unless there’s something wrong with my aging Mac, it seems that he has deactivated the link on his site to his latest Age column. When I first clicked on it tonight I got a page full of happy snaps, and when I later tried to get the page again, the link didn’t work at all.
Does anybody have a copy of the article? If you do I’d love to read it. sfeneley@btinternet.com
Stephen and anyone else who is looking. Backman does indeed seem to have taken the article down and replaced it with pics, but if you do a google on “Backman The Age column” or some such, and click on the “cached” version, it still comes up.
Everyone else. I do tend to agree with Justin. I have tried to give free rein this debate, while moderating out some truly appalling stuff against both Jews and Muslims. But I don’t think we are really discussing the whole of the Middle East, are we? We are discussing a particular column, whether it should have been published, the aftermath and the relevant editorial and journalistic principles.
While not wanting to restrict the expression of views, may I suggest that the arguments about Israel have been well aired. I’d prefer to see further comments (assuming people are not exhausted) on the issues of 1. the column itself. 2. whether the Age should have published it. and 3. Whether The Age should have apologised.
My views on this are in my original post on the matter: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2009/01/21/the-michael-backman-column-weird-and-unpleasant-happenings-at-the-age/. They have not changed.
Even after reading all these comments, I do think the Backman column crossed over a line. While I disagree with what Israel is doing in Gaza, I think Backman in his clumsy generalisations and linking together of disparate things strayed from a critique of Israel’s actions into anti-Semitism. I am also prepared to believe that he did not intend this. He has acknowledged, since I wrote the original post, that his words gave rise to unfortunate interpretations and that he used ““injudicious words and themes”. I think he is right. I also still think that the subs should at least have brought these concerns to attention. If the Age then thought about it, and decided to publish, then it should have defended its decision against all comers. To publish something and then withdraw it is surely to say that editorial processes have failed. I am well aware of the power and tactics of the Zionist lobby in this country – but they, like any other citizens, are entitled to lobby. In this instance I think they had a case. I only wish every community subjected to racism in the media had the same lobbying ability and power to be heard. If The Age published the column knowingly, then it should have held its ground in the face of the lobbying. But that doesn’t mean it is wrong to lobby.
Another point is that surely it would be healthier if this debate was taking place on The Age website, with responses from the editorial team, rather than here? Not that I am complaining about the (considerable) extra site traffic, but I think it sad that the paper is not prepared to debate with its readers.
Clearly, there is plenty of room for disagreement about whether the column was racist or not. It is also possible to argue that even if I am right that Backman’s column crosseed a line into racism, it should still have been published under the Voltaire freedom of speech principle. As I said in the original post, I would also say that the Backman column was not so extreme as to be out of kilter with other racist material published in the mainstream media. I gave instances in the original post.
Moderating the comments on this blog has been interesting. I have moderated out some really vile racist stuff, but I have also allowed in a lot of stuff that will give offence, and certainly a lot of stuff I strongly disagree with.
I have been asking myself if I am applying lower standards than I would ask of The Age, and if so, whether I am right to do so? This all links in with an earlier debate provoked on this blog to do with the diffferences between blogging and journalism.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2009/01/17/more-on-bloggers-journalists-and-checking/
Comments invited – on any aspect of this. But I would prefer to make the focus the editorial and journalistic issues. We can’t solve the Middle East on this blog.
Margaret, you seem to miss the point about the Zionist lobby in Australia. Nobody is denying the right to lobby. But do you really believe that the lobby cares more about issues such as whether Christians blame Jews for Jesus’ death than it does about Backman’s justified criticisms of Israel’s military behaviour and the way it potentially impacts on all of us? Or, to put it more succinctly, does the lobby do what it does (in this case smear Backman) primarily out of concern for real manifestations of anti-Semitism, or rather to protect and/or sell Israel’s image to the Australian public? If the latter, can you/we afford to take their statements, such as those directed against Backman, at face value? And do you not see a problem with the overwhelming pro-Israel bias exhibited in The Australian and the SMH relative to The Age (and documented on my blog cited above) which can be put down to the relentless pressure exerted on our media outlets by the Israel lobby?
MERC: I imagine like most lobbies, the motivations are mixed. As for bias, I have endless correspondence alleging that the Age is anti-Israel and biased as well as other correspondence that argues as you do. I also have letters from people who claim the Age is pro-Israel. Round and round it goes.
Such accusations have been a commonplace in the media for the entirety of my career – 28 years.
All quote endless examples to support their own perceptions of bias.
I think you need to define your terms. What exactly do you mean by bias? And what would you accept as balanced? How are such things to be measured? The ABC, incidentally, has done a lot of work on these questions recently.
As for your other comments: I don’t deny the intense pressure exerted on journalists and media. I have experienced it myself, including in the wake of recent articles about journalists taking free trips courtesy of the Israeli Government.
But I think we make a mistake if we assume that everyone we disagree with is less than sincere. I suspect that the lobby is motivated both by a desire to convince on Israel’s position in general, but also by a genuine concern about anti-Semitism. By publishing a clumsy piece of journalism that could be seen as anti-Semitic, The Age gave the Zionist lobby a point of purchase and a legitimate point to make.
ARe you saying that Backman’s expressions of regret and acknowledgement of grounds for concern are purely because of pressure? Don’t you think that HE is sincere?
You are absolutely right, Margaret. In making ‘clumsy generalisations’, and having ’strayed’ into anti-Semitism, Backman undermined any reasonable or valid critique that a more responsible writer might have constructed. Worse, by using untrustworthy material to create a ‘case’, he undermined any other point of view he might put forward about anything else, at any other time.
This is a problem other Palestinian advocates grapple with as well. In firing rockets, breaking cease-fires and publishing unresearched propaganda, some parties do put them selves in an almost indefensible position. This is important, because people who support these causes are aiming for the moral high-ground. How could Backman miss, so spectacularly?
The Age was right to nip debate on its website in the bud. Sadly, online ‘discussions’ featuring Israel and Palestine too often lead to loaded and misinformed exchanges. These sorts of ‘rabble rousing’ events do nothing for peace and if anything put Gazans, Palestinians and Israelis in even greater danger. There is no way people would have addressed Backman’s piece without discussing the piece’s content, with its inflammatory focus.
If The Age had tolerated this sort of debate, it would have been compelled to give a fair amount of ‘freedom’ to commenters (as it and other mainstream sites frequently do). Because if the Age had allowed the debate and then tightly censored comment, it would have been subject to criticism. More criticism than it has already. Once a decision has been made to allow comment, editing or ‘censoring’ content of this type can rouse the public ire and in some cases turn against a publication.
Moderation can also drain resources, and sometimes moderators can misread content from genuine sources when faced with a lot of material. This can generate problems in itself. Especially in the case of perceived bias. And particularly if some contributors feign genuity to cause trouble. Even a practiced moderate knows bias is difficult to avoid. I suspect mainstream news organisations haven’t the resources to moderate commentary as an independent would.
I am very glad The Age chose not to validate the sort of material these discussions invariably produce. Discussions can be held here instead.
Margaret: The Israel/Zionist lobby (to call it the Jewish lobby as some do is misleading and obscures its primary focus, which is to protect and burnish the reputation of Israel) is not most lobbies. I have come across vague references to a China lobby and an Indonesia lobby, but their strength and influence, whatever they may be, have minimal to non-existent impact on freedom of expression/ press freedom in Australia. In respect of genuine anti-Semitism, ie discrimination against or attacks on Jews as Jews, this is surely miniscule in Australia today relative to anti-Arab/Muslim racism. Moreover, it needs to be understood that for Zionists, Israel is believed necessary because non-Jews are supposedly innately anti-Semitic, and Jews simply cannot be secure in the long term outside their own Jewish state. Israel and Zionism, therefore, actually lose relevance in a world where genuine cases of anti-Semitism are few and far between. For Zionists, therefore, it’s not only genuine cases of anti-Semitism that can be used to argue (I believe mistakenly) for the relevance of a Jewish state, but also legitimate criticism of Israel (which is justifiably on the increase) can be, and is, often misconstrued as anti-Semitism to this end. I believe that I have shown Backman to be in this latter category and can do no better than re-quote The Australian’s editorial of 21/1/09: “There is no evidence that Backman hates Jews.” And this in the same paper that, on the Palestine/Israel conflict, is unequivocally not only on the Israeli side, but at the Likud end of the Israeli political spectrum, and has been hosting the campaign against him.
On The Age (or The SMH or The Australian) and whether it favours one side or the other (and I am unashamedly biased in favour of those who are being done over by imperial bullies as has been the case in Palestine for the past 60 years – but abhore spin and factoids) one has to test the proposition by examining, say, the paper’s opinion pieces over time. I have done this on my blog Middle East Reality Check (cited in my first comment in this thread) for the period of the Gaza massacres and found The Age has allocated roughly 50/50 space for both defenders and critics of Israel. My findings for The Australian and The SMH on the other hand show an 80%+ bias for pro-Israel opinion pieces. The post is called Overwhelming Pro-Israel Bias. Feel free to check it out. One could also do a count of pro- and anti-Israel letters or even critique the paper’s ME correspondent’s reports.
Finally, can I suggest that Antony Loewenstein’s ‘My Israel Question’ might be a good place to start on the subject of Australia’s Israel lobby and its “intense pressure,” as you put it, on journalists and media, just as Mearsheimer & Walt’s The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy is for its US counterpart and Mayhew and & Adams’ Publish it Not for its UK counterpart.
Re Backman’s expressions of regret, I believe that, like most other people who have a basic grasp of the dynamics of the Palestine/Israel issue (who is the hammer and who the anvil, as I like to put it), but are not in a position to argue chapter and verse with a skilled lobbyist, he perhaps feels at a disadvantage and so prefers to drop the issue. Were I in his shoes, I would have defended the piece against false charges of racism and anti-Semitism. There was, if you remember, talk of possible legal action against The Age in the initial report in The Australian of 20/1/09. Could he have been intimidated by this?
MERC,
Read the article ‘The New Anti-Semitism’ by Claudia Rosett and then get back to me on why you think it is a bad thing to have a powerful Jewish lobby.
It seems you underestimate anti-semitism, and the lobby’s need to tackle it.
MS is right to point out that this tit-for-tat, by-rote slugfest between what are in essence two groups of wily Professional Offence-Takers has been going on for decades now. Anyone with any experience running a website or (I presume) editing a newspaper knows that even the blandest fence-sitting cliches on Israel-Palestine are likely to get you into strife with one or other lobby. No matter what ‘unbiased’ keywords your harried editors and subs come up with, rest assured that some or other sub-group in either Zealots’ Camp will quickly invest them with the same old several Millennia worth of fizzing hatreds and narcissistic self-pities.
Really, this shit is tired, lame, childish, energy-sapping. Lousy for writers and writing, too. What’s really needed from editors everywhere is a very big smack on the bottom for us all. Some editorial gonads, some editorial nerve, a bit of hearty, cheerful ‘Oh-fuck-offery’ the next time some manifestly contrived bit of guff about anti-Semitism or Islamophobia gets flung their way, following this or that allegedly ‘offensive’ article being published. Really. Fuck off, the lot of youse. Backman’s piece Jew-bashing? Oh, get fucked. Really. What nonsense. It’s the stuff of whining brats, this. Boo-hoo-hoo, poor widdle me, feel my Subjugated Pain. It’s soooo much bigger than yours. Meh.
Since when did Muslim and Jewish ‘community leaders’ become such fucking cry-babies?
Another thing both camps sorely need is some earthy piss-taking in MSM print. Because one of the key factors in not only the on-going partisan superficiality of debate wordwide on Israel-Palestine, but – unforgiveably – the intransience of the conflict itself…is not that we in the West with no particular axe to grind understand the ‘ishoos’ too little, or take them too lightly, but that we take them too seriously. We sit here endlessly extending our bloody patience and goodwill, our column space, our intellects, our ideas, our best people, our aid and investment…towards a couple of pig-headed self-aggrandising peoples in a self-proclaimed Holy Place who continue to blow the unholy shit out of each other looooong after most other peoples of the world have figured out how to get along without too much bloodshed. Or at least learned to have a goddamned breather from it every now and then. Neither side ever misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and both – especially through their respective intellectual emissiaries in and via the Western press – relentlessly wail and screech and claw the dirt and moan and beat their breasts and claw the dirt again and wail a bit more and rip their shirts and shriek and whine and bitch and whine and wave their5 dead kids about for the cameras and moan some more…oy, ayiee, poor us, poor us, poor US.
Yawn. Getting bored now. If more editors took THAT kind of even-handed, un-biased approach – look you two, sort it out or fuck off, just stop wasting my precious space, we’ve got better things to talk about these days – we might all be pleasantly be surprised.
Go on then, have a crack at me all you like, nutters on both sides. I have pretty much equal contempt for both sets of catastrophic, narcissistic certitudes. But before all you more moderate right-thinkers – whatever side – gird your right-thinkingness and reasonableness and hurl it my way: stop to think for a second. Is being ‘reasonable’ and ‘right-thinking’ on this ‘ishoo’ actually either, anymore? Is there a single sane person reading this website who doesn’t implicitly understand that every time they see a Colin Rubinstein clamber into print with a feisty, empassioned anti-anti-Semitism rant, what they’re reading is not a local leader of the Diaspora expressing genuine fears for the safety of his people but a shrewd political operator maintaining and exercising power within and over that community? Likewise, when watching the more panto-ish stage-outrage attacks on Israel from those ‘Palestinian spokespeople’ at the mass rallies, in the mosques, vox-pop’d at the head of job-lot amalgamations of the Aggrieved Streetwalkers?
Editors: stop taking either lot seriously, I say. And then the grown-ups among us just might be able to get a serious word in at last.
Ah yes, Justin, the ‘new anti-Semitism’. Have you read Norman Finkelstein on that? “The Latest production of Israel’s apologists is the ‘new anti-Semitism’. Just as Palestinians renewed their resistance to occupation and Israel escalated its brutal repression of the revolt, there was a vast proliferation of books, articles, conferences and the like alleging that – in the words of Anti-Defamation League (ADL) national director Abraham Foxman – ‘we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one’. As it happens, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism. Thirty years ago, ADL national leaders… published to great fanfare a study entitled The New Anti-Semitism, and less than a decade later ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter… put out The Real Anti-Semitism in America, alleging yet again that the US was awash in a new anti-Semitism. The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. Each campaign to combat the “new anti-Semitism” has coinicided with renewed international pressure on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territiories in exchange for recognition from neighbouring Arab states.” (Beyond Chutzpah, pp 21-22)
All these tiresome debates about anti-Semitism – real or imagined – obscure the more pressing issue and the one raised by Backman in his original column – that the West’s automatic and reflexive support of Israel in Middle East politics is not worth the cost. How are Australia’s interests advanced, for instance, by backing Washington’s wholehearted defence of Israel, right or wrong? Isn’t there a case for a more even-handed, pragmatic approach to the Palestinian question, one that recognises statehood for the Palestinians? Why should the lives of Australian civilians abroad be put at risk by defending Zionism?? I don’t get it.
Justin, ‘The New Anti-Semitism’ was authored by Phyllis Chesler. (Published 2003).
Tim, perhaps we are referring to different articles? The article I am referring to was published in Forbes.
I second Jack Robertson’s call for “editorial gonads,” if not his entire perspective or his spelling. Particularly relevant is his question “Is there a single sane person reading this website who doesn’t implicitly understand that every time they see a Colin Rubenstein clamber into print with a feisty, empassioned anti-anti-Semitism rant, what they’re reading is not a local leader of the Diaspora expressing genuine fears for the safety of his people but a shrewd political operator maintaining and exercising power within and over that community?” Margaret?
Justin. Chesler’s book was published about six years before the article. It covers the issue in more depth. The article borrowed the book’s title.
2 Trackbacks