How did an undergraduate peacenik morph into a spokesman for Israel? asks Irfan Yusuf.
How did an undergraduate peacenik morph into a spokesman for the Israeli army?
The Guy Spigelman I remember was a long-haired hippie-type affiliated with the Labor Students Club (controlled by the Socialist Left faction) and was elected to the Macquarie University Students’ Council on a ticket entitled “Students Against Racism”, his number two being a female student of Jordanian background.
Though active in the Macquarie Uni branch of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), Spigelman was despised by Jewish members of the Liberal Club who saw him as too wishy-washy and too pro-Arab. Spigelman actively sought dialogue with students of Palestinian background.
In 1992, well before the Oslo accords and at a time when Palestinians were still regarded as a nation of terrorists, at a debate organised by AUJS on the topic of whether Israel should withdraw from the West Bank (or as some rightwing AUJS apparatchiks called it, “Judea and Samaria”) and Gaza, Spigelman supported Israeli withdrawal. Admittedly the reasons he used were more to do with Israeli security (he argued that a survey of retired Israeli generals showed most believe that holding onto the territories didn’t palpably increase Israel’s security) than with any right of Palestinians to a homeland. But he did hack into one Jewish student who made some racist remarks suggesting Arabs were inherently irrational and violent.
A 2006 post on Spigelman’s Australian Jewish News blog speculates on the factors that might affect support for Israel in Australia:
Another scenario — and this has been identified by polling undertaken in Europe — is that the world is becoming increasingly concerned with Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism — and while there is no great love for Israel, there is less love for the Arabs.
This should not provide us with much comfort. We should not rely on the problems the other side has in order to better our position.
The other side? Maybe Spigelman wasn’t as inclusive and ecumenical in his thinking as I may have thought. Still, Spigelman does have some good advice on how supporters of Israel can help their cause:
…I believe the best advocacy is one that is vigilant in engaging all sectors of the society – from the left to the right – combined with encouragement (and not stifling) of informed debate – including criticism when it is warranted.
It’s advice ignored by Israel’s own ambassador in The Age today.
********
A free press comes with responsibilities
Giving a platform to a terrorist group abuses democratic rights.
Yuval Rotem
January 16, 2009
FREEDOM of speech is a fundamental right underpinning the operation of any free and democratic society. However, The Age's decision to publish Khalid Meshaal's "Gaza: the great divide" (Comment & Debate, 7/1) is not an expression of this right.
The value of individual thought, individual determination and individual freedom must all be taken into account when determining whether something is an expression of this right, or merely an insidious expression intended to incite. Meshaal's piece clearly falls into the latter category.
He did not seek to express his opinion based on fact - he sought to inflame anti-Semitic rhetoric, aimed at wiping the democratic state of Israel off the map. Meshaal does not have a right to have his hate-filled rhetoric published. We did not witness column inches dedicated to the writings of Osama bin Laden after September 11 extolling the reasons for the attack; nor to Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Ali Ghufron justifying the Bali bombings.
We should not see newspaper space given to the leader of a terrorist organisation such as Hamas, extolling the reasons for firing rockets on Israel. We do not ask for special treatment, just the same standards that are extended to others.
The tagline named Meshaal as "head of the Hamas political bureau", a label that obscures his true position as one of the supreme leaders of a terrorist organisation. It is not only Israel that deems Hamas to be a terrorist organisation; it is also Australia, Japan, Canada - and almost every democratic nation in the world - because it carries out suicide bombings, stages attacks on civilians and calls for a genocide of the Jewish people. There are independent reports that argue Meshaal is not only a leader of Hamas, but also in charge of military operations. These military operations use human shields, booby trap civilian buildings and aim rockets at civilian targets.
This is not a limitation we seek because we want to restrict the voices of those living in Gaza, nor do we want to silence debate on the current conflict. But discussion must be informed, honest and open.
One of the primary functions of a newspaper is to provide readers with a range of views and opinions. It is not the role of a newspaper to provide a platform for an article replete with invective and misleading statements. By publishing Meshaal's piece, The Age gave legitimacy to the man, the entity he represents and their stated objective.
Deciding not to publish Meshaal would not have been a breach of the right to freedom of speech. It would have been a limitation to preserve the integrity of that right. All democratic nations place margins around the freedom of speech. Many countries legislate against hate speech, defamation and the like. The purpose of this is to ensure that all people enjoy the right not to be discriminated against, and to exercise their freedom of thought, belief and opinion. The decision to publish cannot be an easy one, and there is not always a clear right or wrong. However, editorial decisions must be made within context and with an awareness of the responsibility a newspaper holds.
Israel is the only democratic state in its region and is fiercely proud of this fact. In defending its right to exist as a secure nation, Israel maintains the freedom of the press as a cornerstone of this democracy. Hamas does not allow the citizens of Gaza freedom of expression, nor the ability to publicly criticise their activities. However, it seeks to abuse this very right in democratic and free societies.
In the same way that the Israeli Government does not seek to control the media in Israel, it does not seek to control the media in Australia. However, it does ask that The Age question its responsibilities that come with the platform it provides.
Yuval Rotem is the Israeli ambassador to Australia.
(An edited version of this article was first published in Crikey on 16 January 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment