Tread carefully, dear leaders.
Remember that you are unelected representatives of Australian Jewry.
Remember that according to an AJN poll, 95% of respondents felt you are not representative of us or our interests.
Remember that your lack of mandate does not diminish the damage you can cause us.
Remember the Hanan Ashrawi Peace Prize affair. It gave birth to the Loewenstein phenomenon.
This year, a far more odious character than Dr Ashrawi has been awarded the same prize.
That the Sydney Peace Prize has been awarded to John Pilger, damages the reputation of the prize far more than any award might damage Israel. Pilger’s anti-Zionism long ago tipped into outright hostility to Jews. He completely refutes the right of Israel’s existence using methods (since imitated by Loewenstein) that demonise the worst of Israel in order to stigmatise all Israelis.
I remember in the 90s that “to Pilger” (along with ‘to Fisk” – referring to Robert Fisk) became a verb among those offended by his poor prose, his intellectual laziness, and his commitment to the most simplistic moral certainties. To Pilger meant to simplify and obfuscate simultaneously, to present polemic as investigation, to make a fool of oneself by getting the facts utterly wrong.
The man is a joke among the serious-minded.
But, dear leaders, you have the opportunity to turn him into so much more.
The choice is stark: either respond in a knee-jerk fashion, using ill-considered language that bolsters the anti-Zionist claim that Jews try to silence dissenters.
Or, wait to see if the mainstream media even picks up the story. Perhaps it will be buried in a back page of one of the dailies.
If so, accept that the prize is won. No amount of frothing at the mouth will convince anyone to rescind it. Let the story die. This is the best case scenario, and the least damaging for your “constituents.”
There is a chance, of course, that certain papers will try to exploit the “froth-factor” of this story. If so, take a deep breath. Let someone who can actually write well submit a considered opinion piece to the relevant paper.
This piece, after giving a brief overview of Pilger’s partisanship and antipathy to Israelis, must focus on individuals who have actually contributed to peace and might have been better suited to receiving the prize. By identifying people who embody universal values of charity, goodwill, fostering links between communities, and tangible efforts at improving lives, we as a community demonstrate that these are our values too.
We must contrast Pilger’s partisanship with examples of a genuine pursuit of peace.
Tread carefully, dear leaders. 100,000 Australian Jews are depending on you not to make us all look like enemies of peace.
Related posts:
I welcome back the SJ! I am pleased also that you are prepared to tackle this subject. Your views regarding Pilger are very interesting and mostly accurate – do remember however that outside of Israel/Palestine, Pilger has done much good in the world, especially in relation to issues like Indigenous Australians, East Timor, Refugees and Cambodia/Vietnam. Remember that Pilger has received human rights and journalism awards, as well as honorary doctorates and twice been named Britain’s Journalist of the Year.
There is nothing wrong with being partisan per se. My father served as a partisan with the Bielski brothers! We all are partisan; in that we follow our commitments and beliefs based on our values. To not be partisan is to be wishy-washy or worse, indifferent! People like Herzl, Ben Gurion, Weizman, Golda Meir, Jabotinsky, Begin and even our very own Isy leibler are all partisan.
Support this comment
0
SJ: Your readers may be interested in my earlier paper, “John Pilger on Israel/Palestine: a critical analysis of his views and sources” by Philip Mendes, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, In Press, Volume 22, 2009, pp.97-112. See abstract below.
In some ways this is a much worse choice than Ashrawi. She was definitely a two state moderate in the Palestinian spectrum which was why Geoff Levey and I criticized aspects of the campaign against her award in the joint chapter in our book, Jews and Australian Politics. Pilger is a hardliner who wishes to see the abolition of Israel.
Abstract: The Australian-born journalist John Pilger is recognized internationally as a vigorous advocate of left-wing causes. Included within this perspective is his strong support for the Palestinian struggle against Israel. Pilger’s discourse is generally delivered in black and white terms – Israel as the bad oppressor and the Palestinians as the oppressed victims – which leaves little room for the complexity of the conflict.
This paper critically analyses both Pilger’s one-sided viewpoint, and the frames and metaphors he uses to construct his arguments. Particular attention is drawn to the way he humanizes the Palestinian struggle by interviewing ordinary people rather than official leaders or sources, whilst in contrast he stereotypes Israeli actions by always citing Israeli government leaders and officials. In addition, he avoids discussions with balanced peace activists such as Sari Nusseibeh and Amos Oz who are critical of extremists on both sides of the conflict.
Support this comment
0
Pilger is an arrogant self-righteous potz. I can’t stand his carping tone and monoculturalism. But it is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. He is frequently on the mark in his critique of the powerful.
Support this comment
0
I find this criticism of John Pilger baseless. Pilger has written extensively and spoken extensively. All you come up with is ad hominen attacks and abuse. Submit Pilger’s writings to a truthful analysis and questioning if you can. Pilger has worked tirelessly for justice for Aboriginals and al over the world. If that means exposing the ugly side of powerful states and persons, so be it. Pilger is not afaid of taking sides and that is a sign of moral courgae.
Support this comment
0
Mendes has achieved considerable expertise in ad hominem attacks and distortions. Because the PLo is now a collaborator, Ashravi is being rehabilitated post facto and since Pilger is uncompromising he is vilified. The heart of the matter is quite simple -colonisation. Pilger is not saying ordinary Israelis attack Palestinians and colonise them. he shows the state doing it to ordinary Palsetinians. Is the leftwing Mendes so enamoured of any state that he should seek to distort Pilger’s views ?
Support this comment
0
“The man is a joke among the serious-minded.” “There is a growing consensus on Pilger.” “Uninterested in basic fact checking.” Got some specific evidence of this?
I love how your article totally lacked evidence, then when the first person (Mohan) to challenge the assumptions you framed challenged you, you said to “refrain from any further off-topic comments”.
Oh and regarding the term ‘pilgerise’, I think Noam Chomsky put it well – “invented by journalists furious about his incisive and courageous reporting, and knowing that the only response they are capable of is ridicule.”
Support this comment
0
Helo sensible Jew. Ashravi was mentioned by name in your column and by inference as “odious”. I have read John Pilger’s web site and some of his books as well. If you find it odious, I would ask you to analyse his work. Presumably that is not off topic ? Jewish communal reaction to Pilger’s award! And I have been reading reports by Jews supporting the award on New Matilda!
Support this comment
0
Hello Sensible Jew. I have just read you response to Scott. No where do Scott or Chomsky say or infere that there is a “conspiracy” against Pilger. Chomsky merely makes the very valid observation that all Pilger’s critics can come up with is ad hominem attacks and abuse. You comments certainly reinforce the point. I would invite you to submit any of Pilger’s writings to an honest analysis.
Support this comment
0
No one denies you right to choose the topics for discussion. But you have chosen to slander Pilger and Ashrawi. Honesty dictates that you support your accusations ith evidence.
Support this comment
0
[...] First into the breach, after the announcement of the honour, was a blog, The Sensible Jew, which declared him “odious” and “a joke among the serious-minded”. It featured a post from [...]
Support this comment
0
Hi and thanks, David Z!
My issue with Pilger isn’t that he’s partisan. It’s that he actively inflames an already volatile situation, using dreadful prose and appalling research. It’s particularly offensive that academics and other luminaries should see his work as worthy of the Peace Prize. Pilger may have helped other groups, but he is a man driven by an almost messianic self-belief that ultimately harms the Palestinians. He bolsters their more radical and unrealistic aspirations and pushes the possibilities for real, lasting peace further into the background.
Support this comment
0
Hi Philip and welcome! Thank you very much for your contribution on Pilger. As I said to David, through his focus on – and generation of – the Sturm und Drang, Pilger contributes to a Palestinian narrative that can never be achieved.
I look forward to reading more of your comments on these issues.
Support this comment
0
Hi Almoni.
But so many others perform legitimate critique without the factual errors, the messianism, and the horribly divisive tactics.
Support this comment
0
Hi Mohan and welcome.
There is a growing consensus on Pilger.
It is possible to do good works and still be a rotten journalist who deals in cliches and uninterested in basic fact checking.
Feel free to google Pilger in order to get a feel for why his many, many critics take issue with him.
Support this comment
0
Mohan, your comments are straying towards the off-topic line.
This is not a discussion of Mendes, or even really of Pilger, but of Jewish communal reaction to him. Please refrain from any further off-topic comments.
Support this comment
0
Hi Scott.
As I mentioned before, this post wass not intended to generate discussion on the merits of Pilger. That Chomsky believes there is a journalistic conspiracy against the man, illustrates a certain mentality that I do not find productive or interesting to discuss.
You are welcoome to comment on the subject of the post, but please do not stray off-topic.
Support this comment
0
Mohan, with all due respect, it is for me to decide what the topics for discussion are. This is a site devoted to Jewish communal issues, not debate about the merits of Pilger or Ashrawi.
You should also know that the Jews (i.e. Michael Brull) writing in New Matilda occupy a very small minority of community opinion in Australia.
Support this comment
0
Mohan, your comments are repetitive. If you are unsatisfied with my answers please go elsewhere. Further repetition from you will be deleted.
Support this comment
0