ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +


The Australian Broadcasting Commission is
a Federal Government organisation (QANGO?) that has directors appointed by the government in power, and is staffed by career union journalists whose narrative is (depending on your politics):
The ABC has a budget that exceeds $1,200,000,000 (One point two Billion dollars) which is over $100 p/a per Australian working taxpayer.

The ABC has attracted attention of the ruling Abbott conservative government for it's alleged biased and unverified reporting of refugees, climate change and Snowden's revelations.

To this I would add my own complaint about the recent ABC flagship "Four Corners" production on Israel.

Yes.  It is dreadful that the Israeli army wakes children at night and questions them about stone throwing.  And all the other inhuman things that the Israeli army apparently does.  None of those things has been alleged to be fatal or even produce permanent scars (except maybe psychological).

But that report was easy pickings.  The Israeli's did not object to the filming activities of the ABC crew.  There was no threat to life and limb.  The army soldiers are photographed maintaining a stony silence against provocative ABC questioning.

And most telling of all, the material was unconvincing.  The Israeli settler crime reported seemed to be that settlers' children were throwing stones at Palestinian children.  The ABC did concede as an afterthought that more Israeli children than Palestinian children had been hurt as a result of stone throwing.

However my issue was with the choice of locale.  Why did the ABC not report on Arab treatment of other Arabs in an Arab country?   Australian diary suggests government treatment of dissidents in Syria or Yemen or Turkey (The SE part) or IRAQ, Pakistan, Afghanistan, IRAN.  The ABC could get really adventurous and try sending a team into Sudan CAR, Nigeria...  Of course it might be hard to get personal life insurance for the journalists doing those report, but should that be an issue?  Rupert Murdoch's father made his name reporting from a war zone.

Might I remind readers that the UN created Israel from Palestine because of a civil war.  The UN has since similarly created the states of Kosovo and South Sudan.  What would the UN think if Serbia invaded Kosovo or Sudan invaded South Sudan?  Yet Palestine and/or Hezbollah have attempted to invade Israel (1948, 1967, 1973 etc.) variously with the help of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) and failed spectacularly.  Wikipedia lists other wars.  Why do we object to Israel ensuring that further invasions do not happen?  If that prevention involves waking children then consider the alternatives, as practised in Homs.

The Palestinians seem uninterested in adopting a realistic approach to signing a peace treaty.    Arafat's sticking point (that prevented him signing Clinton's peace treaty) was his insistence for the right of return of all Palestinians who can trace one ancestor to Israel.  Under that treaty (in a democracy), Israel would cease to exist. 

It is also a quite unfair requirement.  For instance, like the Jews in Israel, the Serbs were moved out of the Serbian homeland province of Kosovo during Turkey's occupation of Serbia.  Would the UN have allowed Serbians the same "right of return" to Kosovo as Arafat demanded of Israel?

As a final thought.  If you, dear reader, were forced to choose between raising your family in Israel or in any of the surrounding Arab states, which would you choose?