Saturday, March 19, 2016

Stirring Times in the Senate

Meet James Paterson, 28. A Victorian Liberal, James was seriously rambammed by AIJAC in 2009 and has until now been serving this great country of ours in his capacity as deputy executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), under the wing of the "visionary" John Roskam, from whom he has been learning "the indispensable role of values in political life and the importance of bold policy ambition."

Now James is serving this great country of ours in the Senate, from whence he has just delivered his maiden speech, the keynote of which was:

"I am a Liberal because I believe that we are most likely to achieve human flourishing if we give people freedom."

Which is why:

"I'm a strong supporter of the State of Israel."

Right... anyway, moving right along, James then played this familiar ditty on the shofar:

"I admire greatly what they have built in just a few short years. Today Israel stands not just as a beacon of democracy in a sea of despotism in its own region but as a shining example to the entire world of how to build a prosperous, tolerant, harmonious and creative country in the toughest of circumstances."

But that was merely an attention-grabbing flourish, as it were. As his colleagues sat there in awed silence, a mysterious nimbus of light formed around his head and, before you could say beacon of light in a sea of despotism, James was suddenly channeling JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country can do for Israel! Or words to that effect:

"I am proud of the generally bipartisan support that Israel has enjoyed from successive Australian governments. But I think we can do more to demonstrate our solidarity."

BUT HOW? roared the assembled multitude as one. James explained patiently:

"Like many nations, Australia has chosen to locate our embassy in Israel in Tel Aviv. But Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital city. Since 1950, Israel has asserted it is Jerusalem. Since 1967, it has administered the entire city. The Israeli government have demonstrated time and again that they are the best custodians for the religious and historical sites that are of significance to people of many faiths. I do not believe that the international community can continue to refuse to recognise their capital city of choice and the clear reality on the ground."

SO? roared the assembled multitude. AND YOUR POINT IS? At which James AIJACulated the following BOLD POLICY STATEMENT:

"It would be a symbolic but important step for Australia to formally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital city and to move our embassy there."

Roskam, who had been sitting there in the gallery, fondly observing his protege in action, suddenly leapt to his feet, punching the air and screaming: YES! YES! YES! HOW BOLD, AGILE & INNOVATIVE IS THAT?! IPA! IPA! IPA!

Still reckon the Senate's a waste of space? 


Anonymous said...

James Paterson's handlers didn't tell him about Article 47 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits annexation by the Occupying Power of the whole or part of the occupied territory. The most basic tenet of the law of belligerent occupation is that occupation as such does not transfer title to any part of the occupied territory.

James Paterson should note that the Australian parliament has ratified the Conventions, incorporated the Conventions into domestic law and become a High Contracting Power. Unlike the Bandit State, much admired by James Paterson.

James Paterson's campaign to move the embassy is therefore against international law as is any attempt to 'negotiate' any transfer of title.

A more honest approach by James Paterson and his ilk would be to campaign as an advocate against Australian participation in what has become customary international law. The Conventions themselves have made provisions for rogue nations to renounce the Conventions as a whole.

Of course Australia and Australians would consequently loose the protections provided by the Conventions and stuff Australia's diminished reputation.

Some, like James Paterson, may sincerely believe this is a small price to pay for the long held Zionist objective of moving embassies and achieving a veneer of fake legitimacy? Others will see the stunt a clumsy attempt to provide diplomatic cover for unrepentant and defiant war criminals.

Curiously there is no report of howls of derision from his senate colleagues. Unrepresentative swill, to put it mildly.

Anonymous said...

So the Senate is supposed to be a house of review. What a pity one senator in particular has demonstrated that he hasn't the slightest awareness of the basics. He only knows which party, the alien invader supremacists, he favours to rule the Middle East.

No wonder the Liberal, Labor and Green parties are keen to defer legislation on political donations, all claiming the Senate is dysfunctional. Very cosy.

Bring on the D.D.