A. Loewenstein Online Newsletter

When “liberals” see their role as defending occupying Israel

Posted: 08 Jul 2011

Australian academic Nick Dyrenfurth clearly has much time on his hands, writing essay after essay defending the glories of Israel but essentially ignoring the reasons so many people are increasingly against a state that willingly discriminates against Arabs based on race. He’s s a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies at Sydney University, clearly an area with vast understanding of what colonisation means for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
In yet another piece yesterday, he attacks the notion of anybody challenging Israeli politics:

Whilst I support Israel’s continuing existence I do not subscribe to key Zionist principles, namely that Jewish life in Israel is inherently superior to that of the Diaspora, and nor as a non-religious Jewish-identifying agnostic do I base that support upon religious grounds. Crucially I also reject the Zionist proposition that Jews inevitably cannot live amongst non-Jews. These are complex distinctions, much like the Palestinian/Israel conflict itself, which do not conform to a binary Zionist/Anti-Zionist worldview propounded by the likes of Brull, his anarchist idol Noam Chomsky and blogger-journalist Antony Loewenstein.

Once again, Dyrenfurth has the opportunity to get past name-calling and actually acknowledge what Israel is doing in Palestine but he refuses, either out of ignorance or dishonesty. It’s far easier simply damning Chomsky and me. Does he have any idea what Israel does to Palestinians under occupation? Does he care? And what is he doing to address these points, if helping Israel survive is a priority in his life?
Fellow Jewish dissident Michael Brull demolishes Dyrenfurth in a far more comprehensive way.

Murdoch only powerful because our elites allowed themselves to be seduced

Posted: 08 Jul 2011

Handy reminder from the New York Times on the kind of political and media culture that exists in Britain (and Australia, too) that allows a war mongering media mogul to exercise so much power:

When David Cameron became prime minister in May 2010, one of his first visitors at 10 Downing Street — within 24 hours, and entering by a back door, according to accounts in British newspapers — was Rupert Murdoch.
Fourteen months later, with Mr. Murdoch’s media empire in Britain reeling, Mr. Cameron may feel that his close relationship with Mr. Murdoch, which included a range of social contacts with members of the Murdoch family and the tycoon’s senior executives, has been a costly overreach.
Those concerns were intensified by the arrest on Friday of Andy Coulson, the former editor of The News of the World and, until he resigned in January this year, Mr. Cameron’s media chief at Downing Street.
…
For now, though, Mr. Murdoch and the executives of News International, the Murdoch subsidiary that controls his newspaper and television holdings in Britain, may be less concerned about the impact that the scandal may have on their political influence than on the more immediate legal challenges they face.
The company’s decision to close The News of the World will not end the scrutiny of the newspaper’s practices by the police, courts and Parliament and by a public panel of inquiry that Mr. Cameron has promised to appoint. Together, these investigations seem likely to make for an inquisition that could run for years, causing further erosion in the credibility of the Murdoch brand and costing News International millions of dollars in potential legal settlements.
…
But for all the questions about how Mr. Cameron will weather the scandal, Mr. Murdoch has been much the larger target. Simon Hoggart, a columnist for The Guardian, described the relief among British politicians at seeing the Murdoch empire brought low.
For years, members of Parliament “have been terrified of the Murdoch press — terrified they might lose support, terrified, in some cases, that their private lives might be exposed,” he wrote. “But that has gone. News International has crossed a line and M.P.’s feel, like political prisoners after a tyrant has been condemned to death by a people’s tribunal, that they are at last free.”

Murdoch’s lament; News of the World sleaze will reappear in his empire

Posted: 08 Jul 2011

Gaza ‘Flytilla’ activists arrested for chanting ‘Free Palestine’ at Tel Aviv airport

Posted: 08 Jul 2011

Name me a leading corporate politician who doesn’t bow to Murdoch?

Posted: 08 Jul 2011

The New Statesman says it well:

Finally, our leaders are outraged. The claim that the mobile phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler was hacked by the News of the World has been described as “truly dreadful” (David Cameron), “totally shocking” (Ed Miliband) and “grotesque” (Nick Clegg). Could this be the moment that Britain’s spineless politicians begin to break free from the pernicious grip of the Murdoch media empire?
In recent years, there has been no more sickening – and, I should add, undemocratic – spectacle in British public life than that of elected politicians kneeling before the throne of King Rupert. Paying homage in person to the billionaire boss of News Corporation became almost a rite of passage for new party leaders. Tony Blair, famously, flew out to address News Corp’s annual conference on an island off Australia in 1995. “We were thrilled when Tony was invited to be the keynote speaker,” writes Blair’s ex-chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, in his memoir.
The day after his speech in front of the media mogul, an editorial in the Murdoch-owned Sun declared: “Mr Blair has vision, he has purpose and he speaks our language on morality and family life.” By 1997, the Sun – which had heaped such abuse and ridicule on the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock – had officially come out for Blair and, in the wake of his landslide election victory, the new prime minister thanked the Sun for its “magnificent support” that “really did make the difference”.
But it didn’t. “I think the Sun came out for us because they knew we were going to win,” says Blair’s former communications chief, Alastair Campbell, now. In a study for the Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends in 1999, Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde concluded that it “was not the Sun wot won it in 1997″, adding: “[T]he pattern of vote switching during the campaign amongst readers of the Sun or any other ex-Tory newspaper proved to be much like that of those who did not read a newspaper at all.”
Yet Blair – and, lest we forget, Gordon Brown – continued to hug Murdoch close. “He seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet,” the former Downing Street spin doctor Lance Price has observed. On issues like crime, immigration and Europe, “his voice was rarely heard . . . but his presence was always felt”. Little has changed under Cameron. He appointed Andy Coulson as his director of communications in July 2007 – just six months after the latter had resigned as News of the World editor over the original phone-hacking scandal.
The Tory leader then made his own pilgrimage to the see the Sun King in August 2008, joining Murdoch on his yacht off the coast of Greece. It is said that he removed the liberal Dominic Grieve as shadow home secretary in 2009, on the insistence of News International’s chief executive – and close personal friend – Rebekah Brooks, who is now under pressure to quit over her alleged role in the hacking affair. The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, waved through proposals to allow Murdoch to buy all of BSkyB – in the midst of the hacking row.

Interview with Nick Davies, key Guardian journalist chasing Murdoch hacking

Posted: 07 Jul 2011

Paranoia inside the Murdoch bucker

Posted: 07 Jul 2011 08:46 PM PDT

It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch:
 
More here, here and here.