Monday, December 5, 2016

Tzachi the Baptist, Bibi Christ & His First Coming

If Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, then  Israel's visiting Superman (Aren't they all?) National Security & Foreign Affairs Minister, Tzachi Hanegbi, is slower than glacial speed:

"Laconic and soft-spoken, Hanegbi nonetheless has a reputation as a hard man in Israeli politics. He gradually has moved from the right to the centre, and is now a passionate advocate of the two-state solution." (Israelis see hope in switch to Trump, Greg Sheridan, 3/12/16)

Thanks for that, Greg,

To begin with, the Palestinian West Bank was occupied in 1967. That's almost 50 years ago.

The Palestinians adopted the two-state solution at the Arab Summit in Fez in 1982. That's 34 years ago.

And again at the Madrid Conference of 1991. That's 25 years ago.

And again at the Oslo Accords in 1993. That's 23 years ago.

And again, at the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative. That's 14 years ago.

But NOW Hanegbi's "a passionate advocate of the two-state solution"?

Will wonders never cease?

Greg must've been so impressed that he forgot to mention 1) settlements; 2) the West Bank Wall; 3) occupied East Jerusalem; 4) the Jordan valley etc etc.

OK, so William Blake could see "A World in a Grain of Sand/ And a Heaven in a Wild Flower." But what about our Greg? He can see Passion in a Block of Ice!

Just imagine what he's going to see when "the one who comes after [Hanegbi], the straps of whose sandals [he is] not worthy to untie" gets here:

"Hanegbi's visit is a precursor to the planned visit of Netanyahu early next year, which will be the first time a serving Israeli prime minister has come to Australia. Hanegbi believes it will take the relationship into a new dimension of much broader and deeper practical co-operation."

I swear, the fabled Second Coming will be an anticlimax after this!

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Q&A With Clueless Christensen & Peter Hartcher

Q - George Christensen: "Where are the balls in Australian politics? Where have they gone?" (The leader of the opposition, Matthew Knott, Good Weekend, 3/12/16)

A - Peter Hartcher: George, mate, they're in Israel's hands. As that "Australian official" I quoted back in 2010 told me: "It wouldn't matter whether it was John Howard or Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott in the prime minister's chair, they know we wouldn't sever relations. They know they've got us by the balls', partly because of the strength of the Israel lobby'." (Betrayed PM should not be taken for granted, Sydney Morning Herald, 26/1/10)

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Murdoch's Australian: What Lurks Within

Anthony Klan is a 'journalist' for Murdoch's Australian.

1) Here's the opening line of his recent "EXCLUSIVE," Federal cash 'went to Hamas' (28/11/16)

"The Australian government has been one of the largest funders of the Hamas terror organisation in Gaza over the past seven years, Israeli authorities allege."

2) Now here's the explanatory footnote at the end of the article:

"The author travelled to Israel with the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies as part of a journalists delegation from November 5-10. He stayed in Israel self-funded for two weeks, during which time he researched and produced this article."

3) The first and last columns of Klan's 6-column article enclose a commentary by the Australian's Paul Maley, (Why one man's arrest is such a big deal for our nation) on the arrest of Australian Islamic State groupie Neil Prakash.

Take-home question:

Having noted just these three features of Klan's piece, do we really need to read the thing?

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Israel is a Democracy & Other Fairy Tales

In reacting against the hypocrisy of Americans (and Australia's little Americans) over Fidel Castro's death, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Ruby Hamad argues, with the best of intentions, that:

"Israel is both a democracy (flawed but a democracy nonetheless) and an oppressive occupier that gets away with shocking human rights abuse. Yasser Arafat was indeed resisting this Israeli oppression and occupation, and in doing so he turned a blind eye to terrorism and the victimisation of innocent Israelis." (All heroes have their dark side, no matter what side they're on, 30/11/16)

However, these two sentences are more fairy tale than fact:

1) Israel is a democracy. Palestine had an indigenous majority and a non-indigenous settler minority up to 1948. The settler minority then drove out the indigenous majority and has refused to allow them back in ever since. Only when those driven out (and therefore disenfranchised) in 1948 are allowed back and given the vote, will Palestine/Israel be a democracy. All it is now is an ethnocracy, just like white South Africa before apartheid was consigned to the dustbin of history.

2) Arafat is a terrorist. You simply cannot place the reactive, retail violence of an occupied, oppressed, and colonised people on the same level as the wholesale violence of those who occupy, oppress, and colonise them. International law rightly recognises the right of an occupied, oppressed, and colonised people to resist occupation and colonisation by any means. It does not, however, recognise anyone's right to occupy or colonise another people's land. Arafat was not a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. The settler-colonial apartheid state of Israel is the only terrorist here.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The Guardian's Skewed Coverage of Palestine/Israel

What happens when a news site is under the control of a Zionist editor - in this case, The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland?

Here's the sobering conclusion to Ben White's piece, How the Guardian continues to exclude Palestinians from its comments page:

"As shown by the absence of voices from the West Bank and Gaza, or the lack of a Palestinian perspective on critical issues such as Zionism, when it comes to The Guardian's comment pages, Palestine is just not a story - and when it is, it's an Israeli one." (, 28/11/16)

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

The Road Not Taken

From beginning (1917) to end (?), Palestine and its people have been comprehensively shafted by the international order. Arguably, the worst ever milestone in this process was UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which proposed the partitioning of British Mandate Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

It should rightly be viewed as the most shameful resolution ever passed by the United Nations in its now entire 71-year history, and today marks the 69th anniversary of its passing.

But the UN didn't have to go down the road to partition/ perdition in Palestine. If the UN had voted to refer the matter of Palestine's future to the International Court of Justice, as recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)'s Sub-Committee 2 (instead of settling for partition, as advised by Sub-Committee 1), the Palestinian people would, in all likelihood, have been spared the agony they have gone through now for the past 60 plus decades, and are still going through today.

Here is the first part of the concluding section of Sub-Committee 2's Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to The International Court of Justice. The next time you here a Zionist banging on about Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, remember this document: 

The General Assembly 

Considering that the Palestine question raises certain legal issues connected, inter alia, with the inherent right of the indigenous population of Palestine to their country and to determine its future, the pledges and assurances given to the Arabs in the First World War regarding the independence of Arab countries, including Palestine, the validity and scope of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, the effect on the Mandate of the dissolution of the League of Nations and of the declaration by the Mandatory Power of its intention to withdraw from Palestine,

Considering that the Palestine question also raises other legal issues connected with the competence of the United Nations to recommend any solution contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Charter of the United Nations, or to the wishes of the majority of the people of Palestine,

Considering that doubts have been expressed by several Member States concerning the legality under the Charter of any action by the United Nations, or by any Member State or group of Member States, to enforce any proposal which is contrary to the wishes, or is made without the consent, of the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine,

Considering that these questions involve legal issues which so far have not been pronounced upon by an impartial or competent tribunal, and that it is essential that such questions be authoritatively determined before the United Nations can recommend a solution of the Palestine question with the principles of justice and international law,

Resolves to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court on the following questions:

(a) Whether the indigenous population of Palestine has not an inherent right to Palestine and to determine its future constitution and government;

(b) Whether the pledges and assurances given by Great Britain to the Arabs during the First World War (including the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918) concerning the independence and future of Arab countries at the end of the war did not include Palestine;

(c) Whether the Balfour Declaration, which was made without the knowledge or consent of the indigenous population of Palestine, was valid and binding on the people of Palestine, or consistent with the earlier or subsequent pledges and assurances given to the Arabs;

(d) Whether the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine regarding the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine are in conformity or consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations (in particular Article 22), or are compatible with the provisions of the Mandate relating to the development of self-government and the preservation of the rights and position of the Arabs of Palestine;

(e) Whether the legal basis for the Mandate for Palestine has not disappeared with the dissolution of the League of Nations, and whether it is not the duty of the Mandatory Power to hand over power and administration to a government of Palestine representing the rightful people of Palestine;

(f) Whether a plan to partition Palestine without the consent of the majority of its people is consistent with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and with the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine;

(g) Whether the United Nations is competent to recommend either of the two plans and recommendations of the majority or minority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, or any other solution involving partition of the territory of Palestine, or a permanent trusteeship over any city or part of Palestine, without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine;

(h) Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine,

Instructs the Secretary-General to transmit this resolution to the International Court of Justice, accompanied by all the documents likely to throw light upon the questions under reference.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Good Grief!

Where would we be without Islit? Just imagine having to make do with Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Zola and the rest!

An extract from Jonathan Freedland's promo of David Grossman (David Grossman: 'You have to act against the gravity of grief - to decide you won't fail' Guardian, 26/11/16), annotated:

"The turning point was the 1967 war, when Israel gained the territories it has occupied ever since." 

Gained? Just fell into Israel's lap! As these things do.

"He sees that as a kind of navigational error, when Israel strayed off course..."

Israel as babe in the woods. See also, 'We live in a tough neighborhood.'

"I suggest to him that plenty, especially on the European left, would dispute the notion that all was fine until 1967: their disagreement would go further back, to the circumstances of Israel's founding in 1948."

Well they would, wouldn't they? Only a leftie could possibly believe such things!

"'I do not want to idealise the Israel before 1967,' he replies. 'Of course there are terrible things that happened in '48'."

Of course, but,

"'... before '67, there was still a hope that things can be corrected, that we are not doomed to continue to fight with our neighbours for another 50 years'."

Yeah, we thought then that all those bloody Palestinians we'd taken such time and trouble to drive out in '48 would just get up off their bums and somehow blend in with the Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis and Lebanese, and let them know just how wonderful we are so they'd all be banging on our door, wanting to open embassies.

"'To live by the sword and to die by the sword'."

Or rather, us living by the sword, and them dying by it.

"'What we have now is the belief that this is the only option open to us. That there is a kind of divine decree... It was not like that before 67'."

 Yep, us living by the sword, and them dying by it. You know how it goes: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations... and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

"It is this fatalism, this defeatist sense among his fellow Israelis that the situation with the Palestinians is immutable, an act of God or nature that cannot be reversed, that incenses Grossman most. It turns the Israelis into a nation of victims, he says, helpless before their fate."

But not quite so helpless that they can't blame their victims!