zaterdag 5 augustus 2017

Full transcript of Trump's phone call with Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull




Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the guardian

Full transcript of Trump's phone call with Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull

This is the White House transcript of the phone call between Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull on 28 January 2017, as published by the Washington Post

Trump Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull: Good evening.
Donald Trump: Mr Prime Minister, how are you?
Turnbull: I am doing very well.
Trump: And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?
Turnbull: He is a great mutual friend yes.
Trump: Well you say hello to him. He is a very good friend. By the way thank you very much for taking the call. I really appreciate it. It is really nice.
Turnbull: Thank you very much. Everything is going very well. I want to congratulate you and Mike Pence on being sworn in now. I have spoken to you both now as you know. I know we are both looking to make our relationship which is very strong and intimate, stronger than ever – which I believe we can do.
Trump: Good.
Turnbull: I believe you and I have similar backgrounds, unusual for politicians, more businessman but I look forward to working together.
Trump: That is exactly right. We do have similar backgrounds and it seems to be working in this climate – it is a crazy climate. Let me tell you this, it is an evil time but it is a complex time because we do not have uniforms standing in front of us. Instead, we have people in disguise. It is brutal. This Isis thing – it is something we are going to devote a lot of energy to it. I think we are going to be very successful.
Turnbull: Absolutely. We have, as you know, taken a very strong line on national security and border protection here and when I was speaking with Jared Kushner just the other day and one of your immigration advisors in the White House we reflected on how our policies have helped to inform your approach. We are very much of the same mind. It is very interesting to know how you prioritize the minorities in your executive order. This is exactly what we have done with the program to bring in 12,000 Syrian refugees, 90% of which will be Christians. It will be quite deliberate and the position I have taken – I have been very open about it – is that it is a tragic fact of life that when the situation in the Middle East settles down – the people that are going to be most unlikely to have a continuing home are those Christian minorities. We have seen that in Iraq and so from our point of view, as a final destination for refugees, that is why we prioritize. It is not a sectarian thing. It is recognition of the practical political realities. We have a similar perspective in that respect.
Trump: Do you know four years ago Malcom [sic], I was with a man who does this for a living. He was telling me, before the migration, that if you were a Christian from Syria, you had no chance of coming to the United States. Zero. They were the ones being persecuted. When I say persecuted, I mean their heads were being chopped off. If you were a Muslim we have nothing against Muslims, but if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent – but if you were a Muslim from Syria that was the number one place to get into the United States from. That was the easiest thing. But if you were a Christian from Syria you have no chance of getting into the United States. I just thought it was an incredible statistic. Totally true – and you have seen the same thing. It is incredible.
Turnbull: Well, yes. Mr President, can I return to the issue of the resettlement agreement that we had with the Obama administration with respect to some people on Nauru and Manus Island. I have written to you about this and Mike Pence and General Flynn spoke with Julie Bishop and my national security adviser yesterday. This is a very big issue for us, particularly domestically, and I do understand you are inclined to a different point of view than the vice president.
Trump: Well, actually I just called for a total ban on Syria and from many different countries from where there is terror, and extreme vetting for everyone else – and somebody told me yesterday that close to 2,000 people are coming who are really probably troublesome. And I am saying, boy that will make us look awfully bad. Here I am calling for a ban where I am not letting anybody in and we take 2,000 people. Really it looks like 2,000 people that Australia does not want and I do not blame you by the way, but the United States has become like a dumping ground. You know Malcom [sic], anybody that has a problem – you remember the Mariel boat lift, where Castro let everyone out of prison and Jimmy Carter accepted them with open arms. These were brutal people. Nobody said Castro was stupid, but now what are we talking about is 2,000 people that are actually imprisoned and that would actually come into the United States. I heard about this – I have to say I love Australia; I love the people of Australia. I have so many friends from Australia, but I said – geez that is a big ask, especially in light of the fact that we are so heavily in favor, not in favor, but we have no choice but to stop things. We have to stop. We have allowed so many people into our country that should not be here. We have our San Bernardino’s, we have had the World Trade Center come down because of people that should not have been in our country, and now we are supposed to take 2,000. It sends such a bad signal. You have no idea. It is such a bad thing.
Turnbull: Can you hear me out Mr President?
Trump: Yeah, go ahead.
Turnbull: Yes, the agreement, which the vice president just called the foreign minister about less than 24 hours ago and said your administration would be continuing, does not require you to take 2,000 people. It does not require you to take any. It requires, in return, for us to do a number of things for the United States – this is a big deal, I think we should respect deals.
Trump: Who made the deal? Obama?
Turnbull: Yes, but let me describe what it is. I think it is quite consistent. I think you can comply with it. It is absolutely consistent with your executive order so please just hear me out. The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose – 1,250 to 2,000. Every individual is subject to your vetting. You can decide to take them or to not take them after vetting. You can decide to take 1,000 or 100. It is entirely up to you. The obligation is to only go through the process. So that is the first thing. Secondly, the people — none of these people are from the conflict zone. They are basically economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That is the vast bulk of them. They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.
Trump: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?
Turnbull: OK, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —
Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.
Turnbull: This is our experience.
Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.
Turnbull: I agree with you, letting one million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.
Trump: Well, there could be two million people coming in Germany. Two million people. Can you believe it? It will never be the same.
Turnbull: I stood up at the UN in September and set up what our immigration policy was. I said that you cannot maintain popular support for immigration policy, multiculturalism, unless you can control your borders. The bottom line is that we got here. I am asking you as a very good friend. This is a big deal. It is really, really important to us that we maintain it. It does not oblige you to take one person that you do not want. As I have said, your homeland officials have visited and they have already interviewed these people. You can decide. It is at your discretion. So you have the wording in the executive order that enables the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state to admit people on a case by case basis in order to conform with an existing agreement. I do believe that you will never find a better friend to the United States than Australia. I say this to you sincerely that it is in the mutual interest of the United States to say, “yes, we can conform with that deal – we are not obliged to take anybody we do not want, we will go through extreme vetting” and that way you are seen to show the respect that a trusted ally wants and deserves. We will then hold up our end of the bargain by taking in our country 31 [inaudible] that you need to move on from.
Trump: Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.
Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.
Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.
Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian government is consistent with the principles set out in the executive order.
Trump: No, I do not want say that. I will just have to say that unfortunately I will have to live with what was said by Obama. I will say I hate it. Look, I spoke to Putin, Merkel, Abe of Japan, to France today, and this was my most unpleasant call because I will be honest with you. I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.
Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically —
Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison. I am doing this because Obama made a bad deal. I am not doing this because it fits into my executive order. I am taking 2,000 people from Australia who are in prison and the day before I signed an executive order saying that we are not taking anybody in. We are not taking anybody in, those days are over.
Turnbull: But can I say to you, there is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal. Look, you and I have a lot of mutual friends.
Trump: Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this. You have brokered many a stupid deal in business and I respect you, but I guarantee that you broke many a stupid deal. This is a stupid deal. This deal will make me look terrible.
Turnbull: Mr President, I think this will make you look like a man who stands by the commitments of the United States. It shows that you are a committed —
Trump: OK, this shows me to be a dope. I am not like this but, if I have to do it, I will do it but I do not like this at all. I will be honest with you. Not even a little bit. I think it is ridiculous and Obama should have never signed it. The only reason I will take them is because I have to honor a deal signed by my predecessor and it was a rotten deal. I say that it was a stupid deal like all the other deals that this country signed. You have to see what I am doing. I am unlocking deals that were made by people, these people were incompetent. I am not going to say that it fits within the realm of my Executive Order. We are going to allow 2,000 prisoners to come into our country and it is within the realm of my executive order? If that is the case my executive order does not mean anything Malcom [sic]. I look like a dope. The only way that I can do this is to say that my predecessor made a deal and I have no option then to honor the deal. I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?
Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.
Trump: How does that help you?
Turnbull: Well, we assume that we will act in good faith.
Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?
Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.
Trump: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?
Turnbull: Correct, we have stopped the boats.
Trump: Give them to the United States. We are like a dumping ground for the rest of the world. I have been here for a period of time, I just want this to stop. I look so foolish doing this. It [sic] know it is good for you but it is bad for me. It is horrible for me. This is what I am trying to stop. I do not want to have more San Bernardinos or World Trade Centers. I could name 30 others, but I do not have enough time.
Turnbull: These guys are not in that league. They are economic refugees.
Trump: OK, good. Can Australia give me a guarantee that if we have any problems – you know that is what they said about the Boston bombers. They said they were wonderful young men.
Turnbull: They were Russians. They were not from any of these countries.
Trump: They were from wherever they were.
Turnbull: Please, if we can agree to stick to the deal, you have complete discretion in terms of a security assessment. The numbers are not 2,000 but 1,250 to start. Basically, we are taking people from the previous administration that they were very keen on getting out of the United States. We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.
Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.
Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision. We are a generous multicultural immigration nation like the United States but the government decides, the people’s representatives decides. So that is the point. I am a highly transactional businessman like you and I know the deal has to work for both sides. Now Obama thought this deal worked for him and he drove a hard bargain with us – that it was agreed with Obama more than a year ago in the Oval Office, long before the election. The principles of the deal were agreed to.
Trump: I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it – Start Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.
Turnbull: You will not.
Trump: Yes, I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week by these people. This is a killer.
Turnbull: You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it
Trump: I have no choice to say that about it. Malcom [sic], I am going to say that I have no choice but to honor my predecessor’s deal. I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made. It is an embarrassment to the United States of America and you can say it just the way I said it. I will say it just that way. As far as I am concerned that is enough Malcom [sic]. I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous.
Turnbull: Do you want to talk about Syria and DPRK?
Trump: [inaudible] This is crazy.
Turnbull: Thank you for your commitment. It is very important to us.
Trump: It is important to you and it is embarrassing to me. It is an embarrassment to me, but at least I got you off the hook. So you put me back on the hook.
Turnbull: You can count on me. I will be there again and again.
Trump: I hope so. OK, thank you Malcolm.
Turnbull: OK, thank you.

vrijdag 4 augustus 2017

Our Non-Unitary Executive


Home


Our Non-Unitary Executive

By Jack Goldsmith
 Sunday, July 30, 2017, 9:00 AM


The Trump Presidency is a strange combination of menacing and impotent.  It is also fractured internally like no presidency in American history.
The menacing element is plain.  Trump sets everyone on edge with incessant verbal attacks and relentlessly indecorous behavior.  The maelstrom that is his presidency seems like it could at any moment push the country off the rails—massive pardons to kill the Russia investigation, a Justice Department meltdown as a result of firings and resignations, a North Korean miscalculation, or who-knows-what-other-crazy-thing.  Many people worry how the impulsive Trump will handle his first crisis.    
As for impotence, Trump has accomplished nothing beyond conservative judicial appointments.  His administration is otherwise a comedy of errors in the exercise of executive power.  What is most remarkable is the extent to which his senior officials act as if Trump were not the chief executive.  Never has a president been so regularly ignored or contradicted by his own officials.  I’m not talking about so-called “deep state” bureaucrats.  I’m talking about senior officials in the Justice Department and the military and intelligence and foreign affairs agencies.  And they are not just ignoring or contradicting him in private.  They are doing so in public for all the world to see.
Consider:
  • Many of Trump’s nominees disagreed with many of his signature campaign positions--on waterboarding, the Mexican wall, the threat from Russia, and more--during their confirmation hearings.  The practice continued once they were confirmed.
  • Trump’s senior intelligence appointees openly disagree with him on Russia hack (see video below).
  • Trump’s Justice Department appointees have consistently gone against him on the Russia investigation: Attorney General Sessions’ recusal, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller, etc.  They also appear to have ignored Trump's call for investigations of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and voter fraud in the 2016 election. 
  • The Acting Solicitor General and the Director of Homeland say the Immigration order is not a travel ban, even though the President insists it is.   
  • Then-FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers testified that there was no evidence to support Trump’s claim that Barack Obama directed wiretapping of Trump in Trump Tower.
  • Secretary of Defense James Mattis seems to be running the Pentagon entirely on his own.  He also contradicted the president both on several matters related to NATO and when he said the United States was “not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil.”   The Defense Department has also thus far ignored Trump’s transgender tweet.
  • Soon after Trump dismissed the possibiilty of a future Palestinian State, U.N. representative Nikki Haley said the administration “absolutely” supports a two-state solution.  Haley also crossed Trump on the Russia hack, disagreed with him on some U.N. programs and on Russia sanctions, has taken a different tack on human rights, and even endorsed Special Counsel Mueller’s  investigation.   
  • Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his shell State Department have “repeatedly appeared out of sync with comments from Trump and the White House on critical matters.”
Trump’s tweets keep the attention on him, but the operation of some of the most important components of his administration seems entirely disconnected from the President and the White House generally.  The President is a figurehead who barks out positions and desires, but his senior subordinates carry on with different commitments.
As others have noted, it’s all a remarkable inversion of the unitary executive.  Even Trump’s hard power to fire subordinates—the crux of unitary executive power—hasn’t worked so well.  Comey’s firing led to a more vigorous independent investigation, thanks to Trump-angering actions by Sessions and Rosenstein.  Trump may well fire Sessions, but last week he suffered the embarrassing spectacle of Senate Republicans and conservative commentators warning him not to.  It’s clearer now than a week ago that firing Sessions would bring Trump to yet a worse place vis a vis his own administration and Congress.  The exercise of hard power won’t help him.
The fractured executive branch is partly a result of terrible executive organization but mainly the product of an incompetent, mendacious president interacting with appointed or inherited executive branch officials who possess integrity.  The President says and does things that his senior officials, when asked, cannot abide.  And so they tell the truth, often with an awkward wince, or they ignore the President.  And in response to this overt disrespect, President Trump does … nothing.
The president seems scary, and he is, but he also has no control over his administration.  There is lots of talk about Trump’s threat to the independence of the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence community, and the like.  But the truth is that these agencies are operating with an independence to presidential wishes like never before.  It’s a very strange state of affairs.  






dinsdag 1 augustus 2017

'Anonymous' browsing data can be easily exposed, researchers reveal






'Anonymous' browsing data can be easily exposed, researchers reveal

 in Las Vegas

Tuesday 1 August 2017 

A journalist and a data scientist secured data from three million users easily by creating a fake marketing company, and were able to de-anonymise many users

‘We wrote and called nearly a hundred companies, and asked if we could have the raw data, the clickstream from people’s lives.’We wrote and called nearly a hundred companies, and asked if we could have the raw data, the clickstream from people’s lives.’ Photograph: Steve Marcus/Reuters


A judge’s porn preferences and the medication used by a German MP were among the personal data uncovered by two German researchers who acquired the “anonymous” browsing habits of more than three million German citizens.
“What would you think,” asked Svea Eckert, “if somebody showed up at your door saying: ‘Hey, I have your complete browsing history – every day, every hour, every minute, every click you did on the web for the last month’? How would you think we got it: some shady hacker? No. It was much easier: you can just buy it.”
Eckert, a journalist, paired up with data scientist Andreas Dewes to acquire personal user data and see what they could glean from it.
Presenting their findings at the Def Con hacking conference in Las Vegas, the pair revealed how they secured a database containing 3bn URLs from three million German users, spread over 9m different sites. Some were sparse users, with just a couple of dozen of sites visited in the 30-day period they examined, while others had tens of thousands of data points: the full record of their online lives.
Getting hold of the information was actually even easier than buying it. The pair created a fake marketing company, replete with its own website, a LinkedIn page for its chief executive, and even a careers site – which garnered a few applications from other marketers tricked by the company.
They piled the site full of “many nice pictures and some marketing buzzwords,” claiming to have developed a machine-learning algorithm which would be able to market more effectively to people, but only if it was trained with a large amount of data.
“We wrote and called nearly a hundred companies, and asked if we could have the raw data, the clickstream from people’s lives.” It took slightly longer than it should have, Eckert said, but only because they were specifically looking for German web surfers. “We often heard: ‘Browsing data? That’s no problem. But we don’t have it for Germany, we only have it for the US and UK,’” she said.
The data they were eventually given came, for free, from a data broker, which was willing to let them test their hypothetical AI advertising platform. And while it was nominally an anonymous set, it was soon easy to de-anonymise many users.
Dewes described some methods by which a canny broker can find an individual in the noise, just from a long list of URLs and timestamps. Some make things very easy: for instance, anyone who visits their own analytics page on Twitter ends up with a URL in their browsing record which contains their Twitter username, and is only visible to them. Find that URL, and you’ve linked the anonymous data to an actual person. A similar trick works for German social networking site Xing.
For other users, a more probabilistic approach can deanonymise them. For instance, a mere 10 URLs can be enough to uniquely identify someone – just think, for instance, of how few people there are at your company, with your bank, your hobby, your preferred newspaper and your mobile phone provider. By creating “fingerprints” from the data, it’s possible to compare it to other, more public, sources of what URLs people have visited, such as social media accounts, or public YouTube playlists.
A similar strategy was used in 2008, Dewes said, to deanonymise a set of ratings published by Netflix to help computer scientists improve its recommendation algorithm: by comparing “anonymous” ratings of films with public profiles on IMDB, researchers were able to unmask Netflix users – including one woman, a closeted lesbian, who went on to sue Netflix for the privacy violation.
Another discovery through the data collection occurred via Google Translate, which stores the text of every query put through it in the URL. From this, the researchers were able to uncover operational details about a German cybercrime investigation, since the detective involved was translating requests for assistance to foreign police forces.
So where did the data come from? It was collated from a number of browser plugins, according to Dewes, with the prime offender being “safe surfing” tool Web of Trust. After Dewes and Eckert published their results, the browser plugin modified its privacy policy to say that it does indeed sell data, while making attempts to keep the information anonymous. “We know this is nearly impossible,” said Dewes.

zondag 30 juli 2017

Pro-Israel advocates in Australia targeted three journalists, new book claims





Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the guardian


Pro-Israel advocates in Australia targeted three journalists, new book claims

John Lyons says he was put under constant pressure when covering the Middle East for the Australian, and so were ABC reporters Sophie McNeill and Peter Cave

ABC's Sophie McNeill The ABC’s Sophie McNeill was one of the network’s two reporters who were put under the microscope by pro-Israel advocacy groups, a new book claims. Photograph: Sophie McNeill/Instagram

Pro-Israel advocacy groups in Australia targeted the Middle East correspondent of the Australian newspaper and two ABC reporters, a new book claims.
John Lyons says he was subjected to consistent pressure from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) while based in Jerusalem for the Australian for six years, as were the ABC’s Sophie McNeill and the veteran ABC correspondent Peter Cave.
In his Middle East memoir Balcony Over Jerusalem, Lyons says Cave told him another group prepared dossiers on Cave and other ABC reporters “and sent them to like-minded journalists and members of parliament”.
Lyons says pressure also came from inside his own paper. He says the former editor of the Weekend Australian Nick Cater refused to publish his work and the pro-Israel lobby bombarded editors with criticism of his reports.
“I phoned Cater and he confirmed that he’d asked for my work to no longer appear in Inquirer [the Australian’s Saturday opinion section],” Lyons writes.
“I let [editor-in-chief Chris] Mitchell know that, from my point of view, the exclusion from Inquirer was just the latest in a long series of disagreements with Nick Cater … he intervened and told Cater that excluding me from Inquirer was not acceptable.”
Lyons writes that an Israeli embassy official was invited by Cater to the Australian’s head office in Sydney, and told editors that the embassy was not happy with him. “To me the idea of an officer of a foreign government wandering the floor of my newsroom criticising me was outrageous.”
Lyons interviewed Mitchell and others for the book, but Cater declined.
In 2015, AIJAC sent a file on McNeill to Jewish members of the ABC board, including the then chairman James Spigelman, and this file claimed among other things that she was unsuitable because she had said “one of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza”.
The then ABC managing director Mark Scott ordered a detailed response from corporate affairs, which he took to the board.
“I will not cower to the AIJAC,” Scott said, according to Lyons.
Scott was also forced to defend McNeill from attacks at Senate estimates after the dossier was sent to key parliamentarians.
“Before this reporter set foot in the Middle East, there was a campaign against her personally taking up that role,” he said in response to a question from senator Eric Abetz.
“I am saying that she is a highly recognised and acclaimed reporter … she deserved that appointment and she needs to be judged on her work.”
In a letter to the board, Scott wrote: “The article [by AIJAC] demonstrates to Sophie McNeill and the ABC that her every word will be watched closely by AIJAC and she starts on the ground with this key interest group sceptical. We are all aware she will be under even closer scrutiny now. As they seek to influence our coverage, this is a pre-emptive ‘shot across the bows’.
“The pre-emptive attack on McNeill is similar to the approach employed by lobby groups internationally. The US reporter Jodi Rudoren was targeted when she was appointed Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times in 2012 and accused of being biased against Israel and unsuitable for the post … The New York Times refused to bow to the pressure and Rudoren remained in the position.”
Lyons writes that AIJAC director Colin Rubenstein had unprecedented access to the Australian, speaking regularly to editors and even suggesting articles the paper should run.
After criticising Lyons’s reporting, Rubenstein emailed an alternative article to Cater.
Mitchell, who was supportive of Lyons, later told him that Rubenstein would go behind his back and call Cater if he refused to take his call, Lyons writes. “I got upset with Colin when he rang me and attacked [Australian reporter] Elisabeth Wynhausen as ‘a self-loathing Jew’. I thought it was inappropriate for him to be making that kind of comment about one of my staff. For some time after that I stopped taking his calls.”
Lyons argues that Australian journalists should not accept the trips to Israel organised by the lobby . “During my time in Israel I would come to believe that Australia’s uncritical support of Israel is both illogical and unhealthy,” he writes.
“For more than 20 years, Australians have read and heard pro-Israel positions from journalists, editors, politicians, trade union leaders, academics and students who have returned from the all-expenses-paid Israel lobby trips. 
In my opinion, no editors, journalist or others should take those trips: they grotesquely distort the reality and are dangerous in the sense that they allow people with a very small amount of knowledge to pollute Australian public opinion.”
Rubenstein told the Guardian he had spoken to editors over the years, including Cater. “I find it hard to see in what way this is nefarious or improper.”
He added: “I certainly did speak to Chris Mitchell about Elisabeth Wynhausen in 2006, and specifically about a piece which read like a ‘hit job’ on both AIJAC and myself, while evoking all too familiar caricatures. I felt entitled to some right of reply - which I received in the form of a letter.
“I do not recall ever calling her a ‘self-loathing Jew’ and that does not sound like the kind of terminology I would use. As for Chris Mitchell’s claim about ceasing to take my calls, I must say I was not aware he felt that way at the time – which shows how infrequently I actually spoke to him.
“We did put together a public document explaining why we thought Sophie McNeill … was an inappropriate choice for Middle East correspondent for the taxpayer funded ABC, with its statutory obligations of impartiality.
”Everything we do - critiquing media stories; contacting editors, politicians and journalists and explaining our point of view to them; writing our our letters and op/eds; making complaints – are absolutely normal elements of deliberation and debate in a democratic society.
“I would call on those who oppose our views, including Mr Lyons, to engage with different views in a democratic, tolerant and constructive spirit, rather than demand, as he appears to be doing, that those who disagree with him be silenced or suppressed.”
The Guardian approached Cater but he declined to comment.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Comments :
1. Although the Guardian, this time at least, dared to speak out against / on the structural problem of foreign - Tel Aviv - intervention into the national (Australian) press.

2. The paper would even be more highly valued by me, if she - as the courageous Peter Oborne did earlier on the UK Israel-Lobby, after Mearsheimer and Waltz presented their shocking findings in the USA - would publish on the ways, that the UK press (as is UK politics) is put under the political influence of the western colonialist Tel Aviv regime.
3. The Guardian would also be highly obliged by me, if the paper would also include some thorough research after the way and manner that the 2016 USA presidential and congressional elections have been manipulated by the brutal zionist Tel Aviv regime.
4. For example by investigating the possible ties between jew-supremacist and Trump Super-PAC financier Robert Mercer (and Sheldon Adelson and Jahred Kushner) and a variety of governmental organisations placed under the official responsibility of the jew-supremacist Tel Aviv regime.
5. We already know - through, among other sources, declarations of former members of Congress and whistle-blowers from USA security services -  the iron grip that the Tel Aviv regime exploits on the members of the USA Congress (and the USA judiciary) .
6. We also know beforehand, that the special counsel Mueller - who (among other subjects) has been ordered to investigate a possible Russian influence on the 2016 USA elections - will systematically refuse to investigate any efforts by the Tel Aviv regime (in close cooperation with "the diaspora community" in the USA and elsewhere in the world), to try to manipulate the very same elections. 
7. So Mueller, for instance, most probably will never find out, whether there even might have been a collusion (to influence the 2016 USA elections) between (members of) the Trump campaign team, "Moscow" and "Tel Aviv"...