Sickening bias at The Australian

I consider The Australian one of the better papers out there, but occasionally they print some leftist drivel from time to time. Having Philip Adams on their payroll is obviously going to lead to some anti-Western opinions being printed in their pages, but today's online edition has 2 stunning examples of naked anti-Israel hatred.

The 1st example is by loony leftoid, and self-hating Jew, Antony Lowenstein:

Antony uses his column space to come out in strong support of an anti-semitic book called The Israel Lobby, written by Walt and Mearsheimer, whom he gives the grand title of "Two distinguished US international relations specialists".

The study says that the US has been "willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state" and that the Israel lobby has managed to convince Americans that "US interests and those of Israel are essentially identical", when they are not.

You hear that ? Those stupid Americans are under the control of those fiendish Zionists with their mind-control rays. Another idiocy from Lowenstein:

This carefully reasoned study concludes that by blindly supporting Israel's agenda - a brutal occupation and desire for war against Iraq and Iran - the US has aided an aggressor state in the heart of the Middle East.

This has to be the biggest nonsense of all. Does Lowenstein live in this universe or another reality ? Israel was not at all a big supporter of the Iraq war, and Israel is also not a big supporter of occupying Palestinians. It has unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza and would do the same from most of the West Bank if it could only ensure its security. The only brutal aspect to the occupation is that its needed to stop murderous genocidal terrorists from carrying out huge attacks.

Lowenstein than goes on to despair how US media outlets fiercely attacked the book as anti-semitic, but alas not all is lost for Antony:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, more nuanced responses have appeared in Europe and Israel.

Ahah.. those sophisticated Europeans ! The biggest supporters and cheerleaders of Palestinian statehood, I'm not suprised they are glad to see more tools to bash Israel with. Antony Lowenstein claims that this book helps promote *debate*. Sure it does, just as if I wrote a book advocating rape or tortute, it would promote debate. People would rightly see my views as monstrous and not publish them. But would Antony cry foul for me if that happened ? No.. the only views Antony wants to see debated are those that are anti-Israel.

Unfortunately, the rest of the article is filled with Orwellian language that distorts the true meaning of events. When the ALP members used Parliament to describe Israel as a racist, imperialist, war-mongering rogue state, they were rightly denounced as anti-Israel. But look at Lowenstein's use of innocuous language:

For example, during 2002 and 2003 the ALP experienced the consequences of dissenting from the AIJAC view. A handful of backbenchers questioned Israeli policy in the occupied territories. A raft of Jewish leaders slammed the party as anti-Semitic. Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, as chairman of the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, told ABC Radio that a motion put forward by MP Julia Irwin - damning the occupation and calling for a secure Israel and Palestine - was "pandering to the pro-Palestinian position". It would appear that even the mild proposition that the Palestinian people should have the right of self-determination is taboo.

In the end, Antony's article is as stupid as the book it defends. There are many critics who have rigorously exposed the book as an anti-semitic smear based on distortions and half-truths. But Antony won't read and consider those arguments, will he now ?

The 2nd example of anti-Israel bias in today's Australian, is the reporting of a Palestinian terror attack on Israelis in Tel-Aviv. The Palestinian suicide bomber murdered 8 and wounded 52 people in a crowded restaurant. And you would think that this atrocity merits a headline of its own. But, the Australian ran with the following headline: " Abbas plea after suicide attack".

Generally when a journalist is writing from an anti-Israel perspective, and they try to offer a figleaf of "balance" in their reporting, they try to cover what they describe as "both sides" of the story. But are Palestinian statements as newsworthy as a huge bombing ?

Imagine on 9-11, instead of covering the actual terrorist attacks, the media focussed on Al-Qaeda spokespeople. Imagine if during a murder trial, the media report on the trial proceedings but not the actual crime itself. The actual news that should have been reported is "8 Israelis murdered in crowded restaurant". Instead, the small sidenote of "suicide attack" is presented. As LGF reports, dozens of mainstream media outlets have photos of the Palestinain suicide bomber who carried out the attack, but it seems only one online source (Getty Images) can be found which has the graphic images of the murdered and wounded Israelis.