I watched on Tuesday the appearance at the National Press Club of the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Dr Hillel Neuman. I thought he did a pretty good job in presenting Israel’s defence of its position on the war in Iran, including the invasion of Israel by Palestinian terrorists at the behest of Iran. I was particularly glad that he covered that last aspect, as it is too often overlooked that the real cause – and certainly the beginning – of the  war, was the monstrous attack by Hamas terrorists on 7 October, 2023, the murder of 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, many of whom were raped and butchered and the incarceration of hundreds of others in a network of tunnels. Moreover, he gave a spirited defence of the introduction of the death penalty for Palestinian terrorists convicted of murder, albeit under a law the application of which is subject to supervision by judges, a concession that I would not give them myself.

Needless to say, our courageous Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, has condemned this new law as, according to her, capital punishment is unjustified ‘in all instances’. In that regard, I wonder if she would maintain that capital punishment was unjustified in the ‘instance’ of the execution of Nazi war criminals like Albert Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Julius Streicher and Adolf Eichmann. Indeed, I wonder what penalty she would think was appropriate if it had been Senator Wong’s own family who were the innocent victims of the ‘instance’.

The ambassador at least got wide coverage in the media for the basic points that he made. However, and it is a big qualification, it was disappointing that the mainstream press did not cover what, for me, was the most significant aspect of his speech and the question time that followed. That was the manner in which the journalists who were present conducted themselves when asking questions. I have no criticism of journalists asking pointed questions, and Israeli diplomats are used to it and are more than well equipped to answer any questions likely to be bowled up to them. But he was entitled to be given a fair go which was far from what he received.

The questions came thick and fast. But in answering them, he was scarcely allowed to finish a sentence before being given another salvo. Indeed, the barrage of so-called questions were not questions at all, but speeches and lectures that were simply read out. He was continually interrupted, which was obviously intended to stop him from presenting his case. And the whole tone of the session was openly hostile and far from the alleged independence and impartiality that the National Press Club professes to apply. That must surely include that an invited speaker is given a reasonable opportunity to answer questions and present a case. That opportunity was clearly denied to the Ambassador.

The principal antagonists, but by no means the only ones, were of course from the ABC who seemed to be given a privileged opportunity to promote, under the guise of so-called questions, their well-established hostility to Israel which is as much like impartiality as chalk from cheese.

Not only was this on show during the speech and the questions asked by the press at this event, but it was followed up by the ABC’s own assessment of the event in its subsequent news reports. First, we had on show the now regular tactic of one ABC personality interviewing another ABC personality to give their opinion, guaranteeing that no one else would get a look in. Secondly, how fortunate we were to have Laura Tingle give us her allegedly impartial and objective report of how she had received the ambassador’s speech and his answers. By a remarkable coincidence, her assessment of every one of his answers was the same, namely that it was ‘unsatisfactory’ and did not measure up to what she required. In other words, to satisfy her, the answers had to be a plea of guilty as charged on every single issue. Indeed, the prevailing principle at the ABC now seems to be that whatever the issue is, any allegation against Israel is presumed to be true, until it discharges its burden of proof by proving its innocence to the satisfaction of the ABC, which will never occur. It really is appalling that the ABC’s objectivity has now descended into whether the organisation finds a statement by any public figure to be satisfactory or not.

It is therefore disappointing that the mainstream media did not give a complete and accurate report of the partisan performance by journalists at this event. If the antagonistic behaviour, the interruptions, the lecturing and the assertions had also been reported, most fair-minded observers would have concluded that the Israeli Ambassador was not given a fair opportunity to present his case as he should have been given.

Indeed, it is a wider problem that has now emerged in television interviews, and it is not confined to the discussion of events in the Middle East and the war in Iran. The regular practice has now emerged of the interviewer asking a question, the interviewee starting off with an answer, but then being immediately interrupted with a lecture, a statement or another question. This is a particular vice on the two most prominent ABC programs, 7.30 and Insiders, where interviewees, including politicians of all sides, are stifled.

It is one of the reasons why I was impressed by Andrew Hastie’s interview on Insiders last week, even if I was not impressed by his views on so-called tax ‘reform’, which seemed to me an argument for higher taxes. At least he locked eyes with David Speers, pressed on with his answers and it seemed that Spears was more intimidated by Hastie than the reverse, which is usually the case with Coalition politicians. I only hope we see more of the same resolute performance by politicians refusing to be interrupted, not so that they will win an argument but so that they will be given a fair opportunity to present their case.