July 14, 2004


The Sydney Morning Herald:

Margo is still sick and will be back on Monday, July 19.

Margo Kingston's new crapsite:

In fact MK is still busy with radio and other [media] commitments.

UPDATE. Lots more in the archives. Click and scroll.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 14, 2004 09:38 AM

Margo's website is "No Thappy John"

Who is John, and why is he thappy?

Posted by: Ken Summers at July 14, 2004 at 09:48 AM

If you include mental illness under the broad category of 'still sick', then you have to lean towards believing the SMH for once, after all the evidence has been thee for quite some time.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at July 14, 2004 at 09:49 AM

There is no contradiction here! Margo is, in fact, still sick in that not-quite-right-in-the-head way.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 14, 2004 at 09:50 AM

Dammit! Harry's connection is faster than mine.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 14, 2004 at 09:50 AM

Is this the classic "Telling the boss you're sick and telling everyone else you're at the beach, without realising that your boss knows the people you told the truth to?"

Posted by: Evildan at July 14, 2004 at 10:04 AM

Doubt very much M.K. has been anything but a sicko all her life.

Posted by: d at July 14, 2004 at 10:11 AM

Maybe she's a creative liar, the sort of native who, when you want to know the way to the village, has to be asked something different from the classic ``Would you say that this is the way to the village if I asked you?'' That won't work on them. Instead, ``Did you know that they're giving away free beer in the village?'' Then follow them. That's what's going on here.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at July 14, 2004 at 10:15 AM

Yes, the SMH didn't actually say that Margo wouldn't be sick anymore when she returns on the 19th, did they? Perhaps their statement should be read as "We're happy to report that Margo is still sick (in the head), therefore fulfilling her contractual requirements for employment at the SMH, and will thus be back on Monday, July 19."

Posted by: PW at July 14, 2004 at 10:20 AM

Nah guys, its a 'face' thing. See, The SMH as Margo's employer, pays her to add to the webdiary. There have been no posts for awhile because she is promoting her own product. The SMH knows this and is in an embarassing situation. Should they sack her? and risk the wrath of the socially 'aware' but mentally impared collective?

No, the easiest way is to ignore it, so she is sick. As has been said, no real lies told at all.

Posted by: nic at July 14, 2004 at 10:52 AM

Sick? She must have been drinking from the toilet again.

Posted by: superboot at July 14, 2004 at 11:47 AM

Paying journalists not to work? No wonder the SMH is going broke.

Posted by: EvilPundit at July 14, 2004 at 12:13 PM

Any newby journo will know that REVERSED out print is virtually unreadable especially on a BLUE background.
just as well as her first paprgraph praises the AKN article on the wonders of the "peace prize" awarded to Ashwari, that well known palestinian Christian dhimmy of Arafat's PLO.
Well after getting a letter from the dan Goldberg stating that there was NO EVIDENCE that NICK BERG was ritually murdered like Daniel Pearl because he was Jewish, this is a sign that i should cancel my sub to the AJN.
next week we will get an article from them telling israel what it must do to conform with the IJC ruling !
Frankly i'd far rather watch the ABC than read that rag!

Posted by: davo at July 14, 2004 at 12:33 PM

What evildan said. I would have been fired for that.

Posted by: Rebecca at July 14, 2004 at 12:54 PM

'Paying journalists not to work? No wonder the SMH is going broke.'

Paying her not to work is actually a good idea.

Posted by: ilibcc at July 14, 2004 at 01:04 PM

Followed a link from Margo's site to an article by Anthony Lowenstein in the AJN ('Australia Jewish News' .. Internet Edition). The article, 'Ashrawi affair highlighted community’s diversity', started with the following:

"THE sanctity of Israel is paramount for most Jews. A lack of sympathy and understanding of Palestinian self-determination is an unfortunate by-product of this support."

I find it hard to believe how ANYONE, let alone a person writing for a Jewish paper, could believe this crap. A "lack of sympathy and understanding" on the part of Jews towards the Palestinians! Give me a freekin' break.

For the most part, Jews, and the state of Israel, have bent over backwards trying to be sympathetic and understanding. Which side walked out on the last peace talks arranged by former Pres. Clinton? The peace talks that would have given the Palestinians almost all they wanted? (I am aware of the Palestinian 'reasons' for leaving so I need no enlightenment.)

From where I sit, I've seen Israel trying to enter into some sort of treaty with the Palestinians for many years. All I've seen the Palestinians do is become perpetual martyrs and allow their leaders to talk them into sacrificing their children. (The leaders do not sacrifice their kids, it's the 'little people' who are asked to sacrifice.)

I don't think Israel is perfect, nor do I think Israel has totally clean hands. However, for all that Israel has put up with, she has much cleaner hands than the US would have if faced with a similar situation.

I don't understand how anyone could believe that Jews need to be more understanding and sympathetic to the Palestinians if they look at what has happened with a critical eye.

The fact that such trash was written in a Jewish publication speaks volumes about Jewish sympathy and understanding towards the Palestinians. Could a comparable article be written by a Palestinian in a Palestinian publication? I believe Palestinians have a way of dealing with perceived 'Jewish Sympathizers'? That way is to kill them.

Since Margo must endorse the 'non-sympathetic to the Palestinians' line about Jews, she could be on an Hawaiian vacation yet call in sick and see no contradiction whatsoever. The same sort of weird logic that believes the Palestinians need more sympathy from Jews would cause her to believe that, calling in sick = almost anything.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 14, 2004 at 02:13 PM

What a rip-off. She's on company sickness benefits, while promoting her book. Needless to say, none of her gutless bosses would dare take her on, because they use the same scam when promoting *their* books. Right, Marian?

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 14, 2004 at 02:39 PM

What about a second edition for both Margo's and the NZ market:

"Not Hippy John"!

Posted by: nic at July 14, 2004 at 03:22 PM

Ashwari preaches her revisionist history to audiences of uninformed journalists who are too lazy to learn the history of the ME.
She is a wealthy palestinian christian who must pay Jisya to the Umma and be more anti israeli than any muslim palestinian to maintain her position, whilst other christians are persecuted and oppressed by the islamic pals.
She first assesses the Western Interviewer's knowledge and if he shows ignorance she turns on her lies and distortions.
her success is due to a combination of ignorance and willing bias in her audience.
Its a form of Holocaust revisionism.
Margo Kingston, even if she has some knowledge of ME history knows that she must ignore it to stay in with her leftoid buddies.She would'nt want to be sent to Coventry.
there are a heap of revisionist left wing journalists out there who are no better than the right wing supporters of david Irving , faurisson or Dr Toben of the adelaide institute.

Posted by: davo at July 14, 2004 at 03:35 PM

Davo: re blue background - it seems like they read your comment. It's now readable. Well, I mean I can see it. It's still not readable...

And on the subject of readability. Penguin set up the NHJ! site. Penguin is a publisher, right? You'd think they'd employ an editor or two, or at least an office girl who could string a sentence together. But here's what you find when you click on 'Legal':

The views, opinions and material represented in this website in no way necessarily represent any reflection of or endorsement by Penguin Group (Australia) or any staff there-of.

Er, yeah, whatever you say.

Posted by: Hanyu at July 14, 2004 at 04:33 PM

Chris - funnily the chapter by Lowenstein on the NHJ website didnt mention my comment in webdiary http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/11/1068329558839.html where I pointed out that he quoted Ashwari completely distorting the truth and omitting historical facts. Apparently the lack of palestinian statehood is Israel's fault, ignoring the fact that while Jordan illegally occupied the west bank from 48-67, neither the palestinians nor any arab country even tried to set up a palestinian state like the jews had done. It suited their agendas better to use palestinian refugees to foster hatred of israel, rather than setting up a state for them.

Posted by: Evildan at July 14, 2004 at 04:58 PM


"Its a form of Holocaust revisionism."

"there are a heap of revisionist left wing journalists out there who are no better than the right wing supporters of david Irving"

How the fuck do you arrive at those conclusions?

By your measure, you're lumping the likes of Loewenstein, Chomksy, Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Binjamin Beit-Hallahmi (Jews all) in with the Holocaust Revisionists likes of Irving, Toben, Ernst Zundel et al.

So these Jews propagate an image of Israel that is less than flattering - so you label them Holocaust Deniers.


To seek out an understanding of the myths and realities behind past and present Israel; Partition era co-existence, the formation of the Zionist paramilitaries, the events of the 1948, 76 and 73 wars - to investigate the realities of the occupation and how they've fed the current intifada - HOW DOES ANY OF THIS RELATE TO THE DISPICABLE AND PERNICIOUS FIELD OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL?

Simple answer pal - it doesn't. Harking back to the horrors of the Holocaust and summoning the spectre of Holocaust denial as a response to literature that is critical of Israel serves no purpose other than to needlessly slander people and silence all rational debate.

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 14, 2004 at 05:01 PM

Employee: Sorry boss I can't come into work today because I'm sick.

Boss: Well how sick are you?

Employee: Put it this way, I'm in bed with my sister.

Posted by: Ross at July 14, 2004 at 05:10 PM

67 war ...

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 14, 2004 at 05:10 PM

. . .to investigate the realities of the occupation and how they've fed the current intifada - HOW DOES ANY OF THIS RELATE TO THE DISPICABLE AND PERNICIOUS FIELD OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL?

Emphasis mine.

What's the relation? Three words. "Blame the Jews"

Posted by: Sortelli at July 14, 2004 at 05:42 PM

Although perhaps I should mention that it is a little strong to equate criticsm of Israel with anti-semetism at every turn. But it's hard to make the distinction when the only criticism is "Stop fighting back, Jews!"

Posted by: Sortelli at July 14, 2004 at 05:48 PM

"Blame the Jews"

Yet again another attempt to realign the ME conflict along historically advantageous lines, that being to recast Israel as the victim, a victim being blamed, a victim being victimised for "fighting back".

This missapropriation of Holocaust semiotics is covered by Norman G Finkelstein in his writings, I suggest you sus them out.

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 14, 2004 at 06:26 PM

Hard Up
if all you can offer is finkelstein then there is no point even discussing anything with you.
My opinion of him is similar to that of daniel Goldhagen's.
As for Benny morris , he has recently apologised for many of his "historical innacuracies.
you choose to believe what i call left wing revisionism of the History of Israel and to me this is equivalent to the right wing revisionism of holocaust history only it is politically correct because you try to kidnap the moral highground
. if we were to turn the tables and allocate holocaust revisionism to the left and revision of the history of the ME to the right.
Then everyone on the left would scream fascism and lies at the history of the ME whilst upholding the revisionosm of the Holocaust as politically correct.
It is only because the left believe they hold the moral high ground that it is acceptable for it to rewrite much of israeli history.

Posted by: davo at July 14, 2004 at 06:41 PM

Sorry, what I meant to write was:

Yet again another attempt to realign the ME conflict along historically advantageous lines, that being to recast "Palestine" as the victim, a victim being blamed, a victim being victimised for "fighting back".

Phew, see what one word can do?

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 14, 2004 at 07:01 PM

Benny Morris never apologised for any historical innacuracies. He's stood by all his research regarding Zionist massacres during the 1948 war. Where he has become the new darling of the right is by suggesting that the Zionist paramilitaries didn't do enough to "cleanse" the Palestinian population.

Morris built most of his research on Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel, a painstakingly researched book.

A hell of a lot more so than Joan Peter's From Time Immemorial at any rate.

"if we were to turn the tables and allocate holocaust revisionism to the left and revision of the history of the ME to the right"

That would never happen - so it doesn't really stand up as a hypothetical argument. It's like saying, "if we were to turn the tables and make the sky green and the grass blue."

Bottom line is that you cannot win the argument when forced to stick to the topic, ie the ME, so you backtrack fifty years or call up bullshit hypotheticals.

Should the Holocaust and the ME be viewed as 100% separate entities?

To a certain degree, yes.

I do however feel that the Holocaust and the prior Jewish Diaspora experience goes a long way to explaining the Jabotinskyist/Beginist Zionist mentality and hence Israel's Fortress Masada persona.

I understand the drive for 'bitahon' and the need for a Jewish State.

I just don't see why another group, with no historical gripes with the Jews, needs to get shafted in the process.

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 14, 2004 at 07:05 PM

you are right
The pals have been used as canon fodder in the 60 year old Islamic jihad against israel except now it has spread to the European countries.
It is a scandal of immense proportion, which has been managed and skilfully orchestrated by Arafat.
How one wonders, could a Rhodes scholar like Clinton have ever believed Arafat would sign on the dotted line. he must surely have known that no non muslim autonomous state could be allowed to exist on what was Islamic territory.
n 1948 menaced by the attacks from the arab states, israel begged the arabs NOT to leave but they were told to leave and return to take the booty of the jews after their annhilation. (they were inspired by Al husseini in duplicating what Hitler had tried to achieve). In Haifa, jews pleaded with them not to depart as there had been good relations between the parties.
At the UN they boasted that no arabs would want to stay behind in an Israeli state.
yet late ASHWARI broadcast that they had been forceably evicted.
At aroubd the same time around 700,000 jews started leaving arab lands. many of these refugees arrived penniless in israel and others were welcome by european countries and the US,
How many departed palestinian arabs were welcomed by their surrounding arab states and invited in ??
remenber black september. Jordan soon discovered the agendas of arafats PLO and dealt with them in a entirely different way to the Israelis.
20,000 were killed in a few days.
More than have perished at the hands of the israelis in THIRTY YEARS!
And then later there were the ravages in lebanon in which they dessimated the maronite christian communities. Who remembers those PLO massacres ttoday? Not thrleft wing press for sure.
all they remember thanks to Chomsky and Fisk is the shatilla massacre which they blame on Sharon for letting the Maronites take revenge for the unspeakable horrors they had endured.
Chomsky who waxed lyrical at the achievements of Pol pot's regime because "he was a member of the marxist club" and deserved solidarity until the
last moment.
ANother misconception of the "left" is that peace can be achieved with Islamist through "Negotiation"
The Pl0 and Hamas charters call incessantly for the destruction of Israel not for a seprate Pal state.
Isreal has been fighting for its life for 50 years whilst the caffe latte left pray for its demise and the UN tries to take away its self defence in every which way.
The saudis have built 50km walls io the yemen border to keep Al qaeda out.
the Indians have built 250km walls around Kashmir to protect themselves from Islamic militant rampages.
But Israel must tear down its wall.

Posted by: davo at July 14, 2004 at 07:22 PM

Darp Hau
Revisions by benny Morris

Through tom segev's "One palestine"
benny morris has modified his writings on Ben gurion and this :-

Morris came out about his change of heart at a lecture at Berkeley University in 2001. His audience was stunned: the man whose name had become virtually synonymous with post-Zionism, who had gone to prison in 1982 for refusing to serve in the Israeli army, was now taking a stand for his country. Since the 1930s, he told them, the Israelis had sought compromise time and time again; it was the Palestinians' Arab leaders who had refused every opportunity for peace. Israelis were fighting for their survival against a people who were bent on their destruction. Far from being the brutal oppressors of Palestinian lore, they had shown remarkable restraint under the circumstances.

More disturbing still to his former cohorts is Morris's current attitude toward the Palestinian exodus. While the right maintains that transfer was never intentional, and the left sees it as an original sin from which Israel can never recover, Morris has alienated himself from both camps with what he sees as the only realistic position. "Transfer," he writes in Revisited, "was inevitable and inbuilt

at: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2004-03-25.htm

there has been revisionism on both sides agreed but disagree on the levels of each side.

also at:

Posted by: davo at July 14, 2004 at 07:49 PM

Hey Hanyu!
you were right . all the blue reversed print has gone!
Do you supposes i should get a consultancy FEE!
yes I know the SMH has lost so much circultion and is cash strapped. guess they are holding up Margo's skinny dip wages.
Darn now i can read it my blood pressure will go up!

Posted by: davo at July 14, 2004 at 07:58 PM


Good links ..

But ..you know - Nowhere is Morris denying what took place in 1948. He's still claims that forced transfer (ethnic cleansing) and massacres took place.

The main difference being that before, he was disgusted by the idea, now he supports as he doesn't see a viable Israel being able to co-exist alongside such a large Palestinian population. He is now advocating a massive act of ethnic cleansing to prevent, as he sees it, the inevitable squeezing out of Jews from the levant by basic population dynamics.

He has a point theoretically. In a humanitarian sense, he is advocating genocide.

He's reportedly a nutcase thesedays anyway. Who knows.

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 14, 2004 at 09:55 PM

Is this crapsite on the National Public Toilet Map (viz Yobbo's link)?

Posted by: Egg at July 14, 2004 at 10:22 PM

Darp Hau said:

"Yet again another attempt to realign the ME conflict along historically advantageous lines, that being to recast Israel as the victim, a victim being blamed, a victim being victimized for "fighting back"."

I don't see people reacting to Israel through the filter of the Holocaust in this present time. There is probably some of that, but I don't see this as much of an issue in terms of world reaction. I see most of the world reacting to Israel through the filter of Palestinians *always* being the victims.

I am someone who until a few years ago believed that the Israelis and the Palestinians were equally to blame for their current situation. I believed if they could only all sit down at the table and make concessions that a treaty could be worked out. I believed the Palestinians were honest and above board in wanting to work things out.

I held this belief because I never took the time to examine the history of the conflict for myself. I allowed what was in the media (TV, radio, newspapers, news magazine) to shape my viewpoints on that situation. In my estimation, at the time, it was the Palestinians who were the main victims, not the Israelis. So, I was *very* sympathetic towards the Palestinians at one time.

I have since educated myself concerning the history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict and I have come to realize that much of what has been reported (that shaped my opinion) has been extremely one-sided and that side has *favored* the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

So, I don't see where the Jews/Israelis get a free pass because of the Holocaust. I have never given them a free pass for present actions because of what was suffered in the Holocaust. I do not view the current situation through any filter of the Holocaust at all.

I'm not sure if I was mislead in my earlier beliefs due to revisionist history, pure human ignorance, or Palestinian-Leftist propaganda. But I *was* mislead. I can easily understand how someone can believe that others have engaged in revising the history of that conflict to airbrush out things which go against the current meme we have shoved down our throats. (Meme is that Palestinians are the victims of the nasty Israelis.)

I believe, now, that the Israelis have been victimized by much of what has been reported concerning the ME. I did not, and do not, view Israelis/Jews as perpetual victims because of the Holocaust. Israel has a kick-ass military. Look at how many countries they stood up against and *WON*! These are *not* perpetual victims, in my estimation.

Israel *is* the victim of (pick one or all): bad reporting, lies, propaganda, revisionist history. All of these have caused Israel to look like the 'bad guy' and the Palestinians to appear as the victims.

Israel has put up with more crap from the Palestinians than the US ever would. Now they build a fence and they still get bitched at. They just CAN'T WIN. No matter what Israel does, the idea that they are entirely in the wrong has taken root and they are viewed through this filter.

Not everyone who holds views favorable to Israel does so because of Holocaust sympathies. I also do not believe that 'ordinary' Palestinians are the real 'bad guys'. I think the Palestinian leaders and the UN are the ones to blame for perpetuating the ME mess. These are the groups that feed a steady stream of anti-Israel 'news' to our Western press.

I'd be willing to wager a lot of money that many in the Palestinian leadership as well as the UN have become rich from the continuation of ME miseries. The amount of money may eclipse what we're hearing regarding the Iraqi 'oil-for-kickbacks' scheme. If Israel and the Palestinians were ever to achieve real peace with each other, the fountain of money that enriches the UN and the Palestinian leaders would dry up. So it continues because only one side, Israel, is interested in stopping the conflict.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 15, 2004 at 12:25 AM

Shouldn't the heading be "Whom to believe?"

Posted by: Jorge at July 15, 2004 at 02:42 AM

Thank you for your honesty about the revisionism you were subJected to regaRDING me HISTORY.
Indeed you are not alone many thousands have been indoctrinated with this revisionism and coordinated by pepople such as Hanan Ashwari.
Because there is so much photographic evidence, the Holocaust is far more difficult to revise than the history of israel and the ME.
Also there are many "Self Hating jew" who will not hesitate to spread licentious material for personal gain.
Those jews become "Instant STARS of the left wing intelligentsia".Any books they write which are critical of Israel are snapped up by publishers and become left with intelligentsia best sellers !

Posted by: davo at July 15, 2004 at 08:39 AM