Die Sturmer, 1939, The Age, 2009

The Backman piece (17/01) is disturbing because suddenly one is reminded of Die Sturmer, 1939.

The feeling I get from Backman’s opinion is that the world is worse off because Israel exists. However, I have to say that my world is better because Israel exists. As a Jew, I have shelter from persecution because of Israel. I have shelter (in Israel) from anti-Semitic slander.

I have shelter from people like Backman who are too cowardly to say that they hate Jews, so they vilify Israel.  I have shelter from newspapers that are too cowardly to publish this in the Opinion section so instead they publish it in the Business section

When Backman tries to persuade the public that Israel is responsible for global terrorist attacks, we are reminded of Hitler telling the German people that the Jews were responsible for, amongst everything else, the losses they suffered in World War One. Here’s a novel idea.  Why don’t we blame the perpetrators of these evil events rather than the Jews?

Backman’s opinion is the ugly face of anti-Semitism.  The Age, in publishing this piece, is expressing the ugly face of anti-Semitism.

Nechama

Caroline, I think the real question here is what publication of this article says about the prevailing journalistic culture at The Age. The apology is a non-apology really. It apologises for the hurt it caused some people, especially Jews. This is a clayton’s apology--the sort, for instance, that Wayne Carey once offered up when he apologied for grabbing a young woman’s breast.

The apology states that The Age does not hold the views expressed in the article. I assume The Age publishes many oped pieces that do not express the views of The Age.

What this apology seems to be aimed at doing is limit the damage to the paper from the publication of this piece. What I want to know is how it came to be published and how The Age has reached the point where racist rubbish like this gets published. And what the new editor in chief intends to do about changing this culture.