War has Lured Bigots out into the Open

By Waleed Aly
July 31, 2006

The bombardment of Lebanon has spawned a humanitarian crisis. Hundreds have been killed. Well over half a million have been displaced [...]

Only last week, 25,000 Australian citizens were caught in the middle of this military bombardment...In such a situation, the only relevant question for the Australian Government is how, not if, to evacuate them. And indeed...this was precisely the Federal Government's response. Simple, really.

How then, did an unambiguously tragic humanitarian mess...give life to what the Prime Minister last week acknowledged was an emerging debate on dual citizenship? Suddenly...Western Australian MP Wilson Tuckey is arguing that dual citizenship should be abolished; that people should choose one or the other. [...]

This absurdity stems from the fact that, at least according to an odious array of letter writers, talkback radio callers and newspaper columnists, these Australians trapped in Lebanon were not Australian after all. They were Lebanese-Australians. They held Lebanese passports, too. They even lived in Lebanon. On this basis, faced with Australian citizens in grave peril, this group's rhetorical response was not to advocate for their rescue, but to question their loyalty.

In so doing, they created a new category of person: the pseudo-citizen to whom we owe nothing or at least not a rescue mission from a war zone. After all, that costs taxpayers' money. Why should we spend it on saving their lives?

It is perhaps the most disgusting argument I've heard over the course of a decidedly ugly fortnight. One might have thought that money spent saving...lives...could scarcely be called wasted. It is irredeemably repugnant to argue that people can be undeserving of the Australian Government's help simply because they hold another passport and spend extended periods of time overseas.

It is tempting to say this discourse merely reflects a recently emerging narrative of Australian nationalism. Several federal politicians and business leaders have sounded off about loyalty to Australia in recent...times of insecurity and stress. [...]

But it seems clear now that there is something deeper at play here. Last Wednesday, Assaf Namer, an Australian citizen fighting with the Israeli army in Lebanon, was killed in a Hezbollah ambush in Bint Jbeil...The public testimonials to a man who loved Australia and had Australia in his heart are plentiful.

We have heard how he planned to return to Sydney, marry his girlfriend and spend his time between Australia and Israel. We have heard of his parents' anxiety when he told them of his decision to volunteer for military service. What we have not heard is anyone...questioning his credentials as an Australian for his demonstrably zealous loyalty to a foreign state.

Similarly, when Israel began pounding Lebanon, putting at risk the lives of thousands of Australian citizens, I don't recall pro-Israeli spokespeople being bombarded with questions about whether their primary loyalty was to Israel or their fellow Australian citizens.

Let me be abundantly clear: had such questions been asked, I would have found them repulsive. [...] They exhibit a grotesque myopia, and fail to acknowledge that as Australians we are still connected...the world around us. But, if the emerging philosophy of vehement nationalism is truly about nothing more than total and undivided loyalty to Australia, it is precisely the kind of question that was begging to be asked.

And if Iran was attacking England, leaving many London-based Australian citizens stranded, it surely would have been. And British-Australians (the largest group of Australians with dual citizenship) would, rightly, be unquestionably Australian.

Instead, it was only endangered Australian-Lebanese civilians who were required to justify their Australian existence. Perhaps here, it becomes clear that the loyalty question is about something else.

Perhaps the objection is not purely to what the Prime Minister calls hyphenated Australians. At least for some commentators, it would seem that some hyphens are more acceptable than others. It is not the hyphen's mere existence that is of concern, but what is on either side of it.

Nationalism, though sometimes harmless, has occasionally provided cover for bigotry. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in this instance, that cover has been blown.

Waleed Aly is an executive committee member of the Islamic Council of Victoria.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Yes, another article by Waleed Aly. It can't be helped, the man simply talks too much sense.