How Mike Carlton got it wrong

Philip Dalidakis shares his thoughts on Mike Carlton's take on Gaza.

Mike Carlton’s malevolent agenda Philip Dalidakis, commentator for Sky News and ABC News writes: Israel is a small and isolated western democracy surrounded by undemocratic states and terrorist-controlled territories. Israel is not beyond criticism, nor do I lightly accuse people of anti-Semitism. It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel, but it is if you don’t hold other regimes and conflicts to the same standard. Mike Carlton's article on the Gaza ceasefire fails this test. It drips with hatred towards Israel, and towards those who support Israel -- which includes the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews, as well as both major political parties. It is also typically nasty. It was not Carlton's views that got him in to trouble with the Sydney Morning Herald, but his response to people who challenged him, including myself who he labelled an "abusive fuckwit" (he may be a sound judge of character but in this case the evidence did not support his claim). More importantly, his article is full of false assertions and dishonest arguments. He says that Israel’s "stated aim" was to achieve "crushing military and economic dominance of the Palestinian people." Israel never stated any such aim. Israel’s stated aim was to stop Hamas firing rockets at Israel’s cities. That aim has now been achieved, and with Hamas stopping its rocket fire Israel has ceased responding. Carlton cites the number of deaths in Gaza as evidence for the assertion (made openly in his July column) that Israel is waging a "war of terror on the entire Gaza population ... Call it genocide, call it ethnic cleansing: the aim is to kill Arabs." The facts refute this claim. Israel conducted well over 5000 air strikes against targets in Gaza. The official death toll is about 2000. Does anyone seriously suppose that if Israel's sole aim was to "kill Arabs", it would have been so incompetent at doing so? Israel could have bombed Gaza to rubble and killed tens of thousands of Arabs if that had been its aim. But it wasn't. Israel’s aim was to destroy Hamas' rocket sites and tunnels. Israel attempted to minimise casualties, Hamas attempted to maximise them. It deliberately placed its launch sites in built-up areas, next to schools, hospitals and mosques, so that more people would be killed. As the Hamas Charter says: "death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of [our] wishes." Captured Hamas documents prove that this was a deliberate strategy, designed to persuade the gullible and the malevolent (Mike Carlton is both) that Hamas is somehow an injured innocent in this conflict. This conflict was entirely of Hamas' making. Hamas seized power in Gaza in 2007, murdered its political opponents, imposed a fascistic regime on the people, then turned Gaza into a base for waging war on Israel. This year alone Hamas has fired more than 3000 missiles into Israel, every one of them intended to kill Israeli civilians. It’s true that few Israelis were killed by Hamas' rockets. That’s because Israel, unlike Hamas, cares about the lives of its citizens and has spent fortunes on shelters, sirens and anti-missile systems. That does not in any way deny Israel the right to take action to stop these attacks. Carlton draws an elaborate analogy between this conflict and the Vietnam War. The analogy is a false one. The US was not fighting a war of self-defence in Vietnam. North Vietnam was not firing rockets at American cities. The US could afford to abandon Vietnam to its fate when public support for the war collapsed. Israel has no such luxury, and the Israeli public knows that. Polls showed over 90% of Jewish Israelis supported the campaign against Gaza. Carlton’s trump card is the letter to the New York Times condemning Israel and signed by 40 Holocaust survivors. He obviously doesn’t know much about Jewish demographics. There are about 120,000 Holocaust survivors still alive in the US, and probably twice that number in Israel. The vast majority of them support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. Even here in Melbourne, I could get more than 40 Holocaust survivors to sign a statement of support for Israel in a morning. They would tell Carlton, if he had the nerve to ask them, "Never again will Jews be denied the right to defend themselves." It suits Mike Carlton's malevolent agenda to suggest that anyone who supports Israel’s actions belongs to a "powerful and sophisticated Likud lobby." This is nonsense. I am a Labor party member and a Labor candidate for the coming Victorian state election. If I was an Israeli, I would not vote for Likud. I would vote for the Israeli Labor Party -- a progressive party which fully supported the campaign in Gaza. I support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and I oppose the expansion of settlements in the West Bank as counter-productive. But I also oppose people hiding behind the cloak of "proportionality" to deny Israel the right to defend itself while giving a free pass to proscribed terrorist organisations such as Hamas. That is anti-Semitism.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

26 thoughts on “How Mike Carlton got it wrong

  1. Damon

    It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel, but it is if you don’t hold other regimes and conflicts to the same standard.

    Absolute and utter drivel. If that’s the opening statement I refuse to read it further. Go call someone else names.

  2. cairns50

    sorry Philip Mike Carlton got it right you got it wrong

    the truth hurts doesnt it?

  3. Michael

    A well constructed and argued article that will no doubt be condemned by thoughtless denialists. It is banal for the safe smug Australian siperati to condemn Israel. Try and see a little deeper.

  4. Kevin Herbert

    Philip Dalidakis’ comments are meaningless tosh, and are taken straight out of the Zionist Anti Defamation League’s widely discredited talking points.

    The definition of anti-Semitism has become so broad, and the label of anti-Semite so loosely applied, that it can now be used to describe almost any academic, author, activist, or correspondent that says anything critical about Israel or Jewish persons, regardless of the validity.

    US Jewish activist Dr Norman Finkelstein says that, “new anti-Semitism is neither new, nor anti-Semitism.” Finkelstein argues that organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have brought forward charges of new anti-Semitism since the 1970′s not to fight anti-Semitism, but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel from criticism.”
    According to the Anti-Defamation League, ‘new anti-Semitism’ can include legitimate criticism of Israel if the author does not equally criticize other countries that demonstrate similar behavior. This ridiculously faulty premise ignores the fact that many activists and journalists choose to singularly focus their attention on a certain region, country, or cause”

    The most significant fact about Dalidakis’ piece is that he thinks his views have any credibility in 2014.

  5. ilolatu

    “Israel’s stated aim was to stop Hamas firing rockets at Israel’s cities. That aim has now been achieved, and with Hamas stopping its rocket fire Israel has ceased responding.”

    Israel has responded to ceasefire by taking 400 hectares of Palestinian land.

  6. Draco Houston

    “It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel, but it is if you don’t hold other regimes and conflicts to the same standard.”

    Rubbish. Not reading the rest. Since when did we have to hold non-state actors to the same standard as an ally?

  7. Russ Hunter

    “Israel never stated any such aim [crushing military and economic dominance of the Palestinian people].”

    I think that is well and truly achieved already.

    Philip Dalidakis, you claim to want a two-state solution but have not a bad word to say about Israel. Spare me.

  8. Jake

    Philip, I’m sure you didn’t pen this reply to Carlton’s latest toxic piece in order to feel the love on Crikey, where the “liberal” minds are so set in their views that some freely admit they won’t bother reading if your view differs from theirs, while others re-visit their fantasies of Zionist talking points and show off big new words like “hasbara” because they think it makes them sound grown up and knowledgeable. Good onya for a clear and logical analysis. I’d add only that the destruction of Hamas’s tunnel network was another of Israel’s stated aims, once it became apparent how extensive and threatening it was.

  9. Dogs breakfast

    Philip Dalidakis, commentator for Sky News and ABC News writes

    “blah blah blah, anti-semitic, blah blah blah.”

    Well that’s new. Someone suggesting that anything written calling out Israel, the government, for the utter bastardry of recent times, is anti-semitic. I suppose that especially extends to those Auschwitz survivors and descendents what wrote that nasty letter, the Mr Carlton quoted from.

    How dare he quote Jews who are speaking up against the actions of a bereft and clueless government.

  10. Khupert the Runt

    Dear Philip,

    You don’t seem to understand how your words come across.

    Same old same old comes to mind.

    Carlton: “…drips with hatred…..towards….the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews”

    Not at all, he, like me finds it is simply tragic to see so many people unable to see the bigger sadder picture of two nations, one of which will always have the power to totally annihilate the other, unable to create a rational and fair peace, because they have an all too literal belief in words written thousands of years ago.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details