MY "MY ISRAEL QUESTION" QUESTION NUMBER TWO

In the introduction to his book Antony Loewenstein states his intent:

My Israel Question reframes the Israel-Palestine conflict from a very personal perspective.

This simply means everything that follows is from a lefty perspective; anything that doesn't conform is either omitted or manipulated to suit.

The section of the book cryptically titled 2003: SBS in the gun is a good example. The focus is on the intimidatory effect on SBS of a 67 page AIJAC report alleging and documenting SBS bias. I'm far too lazy to type out long excerpts from the book but the gist is contained in the referenced Webdiary post – Closing down dissent, by AIJAC and SBS.

In the Webdiary post it's noted early on that AIJAC's report is 67 pages but this is omitted from the book and, unlike many other referenced online sources, no web address is provided. This leads me to believe Loewenstein has determined to conceal the long and detailed list of complaints in the report. In any event, AIJAC didn't exactly shout its allegations from the public rooftops. (No one I've asked about this has heard of the AIJAC report.)

In treating the AIJAC report Loewenstein notes that it contains several factual errors and even discusses two of them. It is therefore safe to assume that, factually, the report is overwhelmingly correct.

Loewenstein's problem with AIJAC in this instance is that it issued a report that might prompt SBS to reflect on its Middle East reporting. Now I'm not certain of this because I know next to nothing about SBS and AIJAC, but I bet AIJAC has a much smaller budget and staff than does SBS. In my mind this makes AIJAC the brave David challenging the much larger, and government funded, Goliath. How is dissent a bad thing?

In the end nothing much came of the AIJAC report with SBS doing much bobbing and weaving not mentioned by Loewenstein. As when SBS responded to questions from the Senate Estimates Committee:

Senator Santoro asked:

I understand that the SBS received a complaint about the following on SBS World News from February 19, 2001: Reporter Richard Mason said “America and Israel are going ahead with their provocative Patriot Missile tests.”

The complainant quite rightly pointed out that this was commentary and not news. The patriot is a defensive missile and it does not become objectively provocative because some people choose to allege that it is.

The complaint was summarily dismissed, why?

Answer:

SBS is unable to identify the complainant and therefore the complaint in question from the AIJAC report “SBS-TV and the Middle East”, which the Senator’s office has advised is the source of this question.

Senator Santoro asked:

The SBS also summarily dismissed a complaint from February 20, 2001 in relation to this coverage: "Ariel Sharon’s rule has seen both sides lock horns in a spiralling war of attrition” even though the complainant pointed out Mr Sharon had not even taken office and decisions were being taken by the caretaker Prime Minister Mr Barak.

Why was this complaint dismissed?

Answer:

SBS is unable to identify the complainant and therefore the complaint in question from the AIJAC report “SBS-TV and the Middle East” which the Senator’s office has advised is the source of this question.

That's dissent-stifling bureaucratic maneuvering if ever I've seen it but Loewenstein isn't about to attack SBS because it so consistently pitches the lefty line.

In the book Loewenstein is critical of SBS for giving in to the "intense" AIJAC pressure and then lying about it (page 196):

My SBS source also informed me that SBS management had placed on hold certain documentaries and current affairs segments on the Middle East question that were thought to be too sensitive. When I questioned SBS management about this, they said they were 'not aware of any programs being placed on hold'. But investigating further, I discovered that SBS management had several times rejected documentaries, films and current affairs programs that critiqued the actions of the Israeli government and military.

His reference for this is the same Webdiary post above.

If you click on the Webdiary link above and scroll to the bottom you'll find this note:

DISCLOSURE: SBS Dateline has been working on a story about dissenting Jews in Australia who speak out against the Occupation and the Sharon government. I am featured on this program. At the time of writing, this program has been placed on indefinite hold due to the perceived concerns and sensitivities of pro-Zionist groups.

I can certainly see how Loewenstein might be a bit upset with AIJAC for, you know, prompting SBS to reconsider promoting his attention seeking, fearless, dissenting Jew nonsense.

This brings me to today's my My Israel Question question: is it appropriate for someone with a conflict of interest to reference his own past writing citing information from unnamed sources?


As an aside, SBS might well have decided against showing three documentaries but it did air Jenin, Jenin, much to the chagrin of the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC). Here's Loewenstein's take on the ensuing kerfuffle (page 199):

The film told the story of the of the IDF invasion of the Palestinian town of Jenin in 2002 and claimed that excessive tactics [sic] were used and numerous citizens were murdered by the Israeli army. Robert Fisk told me in February 2005 that he hadn't called Jenin a massacre at the time, but given the information he now had, 'I should have'. Jenin, Jenin undoubtedly painted a disturbing picture of the Israeli invasion – though it did contain some errors, including a reference to a western wing of a hospital being shelled when the hospital did not have a western wing – and was the first film banned in Israel in 15 years. (The ban was later overturned by Israel's High Court.) Being controversial, however, was surely no reason for a film to be consored in Australia.

This is from the BBC report on the High Court overturning the ban:

Despite rejecting the ban, the court described Jenin, Jenin as a "propagandistic lie" which falsely accused Israeli soldiers of intentionally killing children, women, the disabled and the mentally ill.

Delivering the original Supreme Court ruling last November, Justice Dalia Dorner said: "The fact that the film includes lies is not enough to justify a ban."

Israel's High Court is not wrong to have doubts about the film:

A Palestinian filmmaker who produced a documentary alleging Israeli troops committed war crimes in a refugee camp admitted in a deposition last week to falsifying scenes, using inaccurate information and obtaining financing for the project from the Palestinian Authority, WorldNetDaily has learned.

When asked by the Senate Estimates Committee about airing Jenin, Jenin SBS responded:

In addition to the matter noted in 1 and 2 above, SBS advises it has since broadcast the documentary “Jenin – Massacring Truth” (on 10 May 2005) as a counterbalancing program. This program examines the widespread misreporting of the confrontation between the Israeli Army and Palestinian militants in Jenin. It looks at the misrepresentation by the media of events at Jenin. SBS notes that three formal complaints were received in relation to this documentary claiming it had shown insufficient balance. SBS considers that over time a range of perspectives has been presented on the subject.

If you're relying on Loewenstein as a source of information you're making a mistake.