Graham, I did point out a major error in the article. I am happy to expand but I think it would be better if you published an article giving a different viewpoint than that propounded by Ms Bishop. I would be happy to submit such an article. As an alternative I have suggested at least three authors whose grasp of what is going on in the Middle East is, to say the least, somewhat more authoritative than what we have been served up with to date.

Killarney, if you really wanted to test the system you wouldn't have announced that you just had, you'd wait and see whether you got a response. There is nothing faulty with the system, and you have not previously complained. I keep all emails and I did a search before responding to your comment.

Up to you whether you continue to post or not, but making unfounded accusations and then going off in a huff (interesting that you denied you were in a huff even before anyone had made the accusation) is not particularly convincing behaviour.

James, if you had pointed out a factual error then you would have reiterated it. Feel free to submit an article, but I make no guarantee that we will publish it. Articles need to meet a standard.

Graham, read the second and fourth paragraphs of my first comment. Both rebut what are manifest falsehoods in the Bishop article.

I will submit an article, but refrain from commenting on your "standards" which should perhaps be applied more uniformly in publishing factual material rather than politically motivated misinformation of the type under discussion.

James, seeing you seem reluctant to do any work, the relevant paragraphs are:

"It is also alarming that for someone who hopes to be Australia's next deputy PM and Foreign Minister Ms Bishop is alarmingly ill-informed about the Middle East in general and Iran in particular. Her bald assertion that Iran is "unquestionably" pursuing a nuclear arms capability flies in the face of two unanimous NIE reports that that is not the case."

"For her to repeat the tired and long discredited suggestion that Iran wants Israel wiped off the map just reinforces how much her views are guided by prejudice and ignorance rather than the facts."

These are not errors of fact. What you are disputing is her interpretation of facts. An entirely different matter.

Your assertion that her article is "full of errors of fact" is not correct, unless you have other evidence.

Graham,

I cited two examples. The first of these was a rebuttal of the claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. I based this conclusion on, among other things, the unanimous conclusion of all 16 US intelligence agencies that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program not later than 2003. Their reports are contained within the National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). The Israeli Defence Minister also acknowledged very recently that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. There are other sources as well, including the previously cited Gareth Porter.

If Ms Bishop has evidence, as opposed to an opinion, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program then she should share it with among others the US intelligence agencies. If she does not then a period of silence from her on those matters would be welcome.

My second illustration was the oft repeated claim that Iran threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". This particular lie first appeared in an Israeli newspaper. The most charitable interpretation is that it was a mistranslation of the original Farsi. Juan Cole, the respected Middle East expert from the University of Michigan is one of many who have corrected the record on that point.

For both of these lies to be repeated ad nauseum invites one of two conclusions. Either the writer is simply ignorant, for which there is no excuse because the evidence (as opposed to the opinion) is available for all who care to look. The other conclusion is that the writer is deliberately attempting to mislead. You decide which is applicable in this case.

As a lawyer I always try to draw conclusions based upon the evidence. If there is evidence to the contrary I am happy to listen to it and adjust my conclusions accordingly. What I will not do is change my mind because someone has a different "opinion".

Unless and until Ms Bishop produces evidence as opposed to opinion singularly free of an evidential basis I will continue to argue against her and all your other contributors who write in a similar vein.

Graham is it usual for a moderator to criticize an OLO contributors valid posting, on an essay published on OLO.
Though you may personally know Julie Bishop, surely it is up to Julie Bishop to respond, as in this instance comments on this essay as now digressed from the content of the essay in question.