So what are the implications for Palestine/Israel reportage of Channel 9's coming merger with Fairfax Media, given the latter's already grossly inadequate and problematic handling of the issue?
The architect of the 1980s cross-media ownership laws, former Labor PM Paul Keating, is of the view that Channel 9 "will run the editorial policy" of the Fairfax papers given that, "in terms of news management, Channel 9... has... the opportunism and ethics of an alley cat."
That could mean that the Fairfax papers will, if anything, become more ferociously pro-Israel in the manner of Murdoch's rags. Certainly, the fact that former Howard government treasurer Peter Costello is the chairman of Nine Entertainment Co. is cause for concern in this regard, as the following snippet from a 2001 biography of the man indicates:
"Support for the PLO was becoming an article of faith within the student left. Peter Costello, 17, never been kissed, a devout Baptist... was appalled... Costello recalled: 'Do I know better than all these people? Probably not. But what I do know is that my best friend is Jewish... and the student union is collecting money for the PLO'." (Peter Costello: The New Liberal, Shaun Carney, pp 45-6)
Of course the leaders of the Australian Union of Students leaders at the time (1975) knew infinitely more about the Palestine/Israel issue than this gormless innocent, having done their homework as he acknowledges, but, typical of the student conservatives of this time, the idea of actually learning from those who knew what they were talking about was anathema to him. Frankly, if your mind is closed at 17, what hope is there on this or any other matter? Watch this space...
Showing posts with label AUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AUS. Show all posts
Monday, July 30, 2018
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
'Everybody Down There Loves Israel'
"The high level of support for Israel in Australia's Jewish community is often reflected by Australia's politicians. I was invited to a lunch for Israeli journalists in Jerusalem. One had just been to Australia on an organised trip, and when we were introduced she said to me: 'I love Australia! You guys talk Zionism better than we do!' I asked her what she meant. 'Everybody down there loves Israel. We met your Opposition Leader [Tony Abbott], who told us how much he loved Israel. We thought he was fantastic, but then we met Prime Minister [Julia] Gillard. She was even better. They were saying things you would not normally hear an Israeli say!'" (Balcony Over Jerusalem: A Middle East Memoir, John Lyons, 2017, pp 262-63)
OK, did you cringe? Vomit? Curse? Go foetal?
Really now, do you need to know anything else about the simple-minded pricks who 'run' this bloody country?
For God's sake, BUY LYONS' BOOK NOW and educate yourselves!
As for Abbott and Gillard, far from being poles apart politically, they were united in their opposition to any light being shed on the Palestinian cause. When the Australian Union of Students (AUS) bravely took up the Palestinian issue and sought to educate Australian students on the matter, the thuggish Abbott, along with his nerdy sidekick, Greg Sheridan, attended an AUS conference at Monash University in 1977, the highlight of which, for them, was their disruption of a film night on Palestine sponsored by the AUS. As for Gillard, when she became president of AUS in 1984, she made it her mission to, in the words of David Marr, "take Palestine out of student politics." Gillard, in fact, even threatened to take pro-Palestine student politicians to court for calling her a Zionist!
OK, did you cringe? Vomit? Curse? Go foetal?
Really now, do you need to know anything else about the simple-minded pricks who 'run' this bloody country?
For God's sake, BUY LYONS' BOOK NOW and educate yourselves!
As for Abbott and Gillard, far from being poles apart politically, they were united in their opposition to any light being shed on the Palestinian cause. When the Australian Union of Students (AUS) bravely took up the Palestinian issue and sought to educate Australian students on the matter, the thuggish Abbott, along with his nerdy sidekick, Greg Sheridan, attended an AUS conference at Monash University in 1977, the highlight of which, for them, was their disruption of a film night on Palestine sponsored by the AUS. As for Gillard, when she became president of AUS in 1984, she made it her mission to, in the words of David Marr, "take Palestine out of student politics." Gillard, in fact, even threatened to take pro-Palestine student politicians to court for calling her a Zionist!
Saturday, August 15, 2015
AUS vs Aunt Poppycock
Another extract from Greg Sheridan's recently published memoir When We Were Young & Foolish: A Memoir of My Misguided Youth with Tony Abbott, Bob Carr, Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd & Other Reprobates shows just how foolish the Australian's foreign editor was and still is:
"In 1974 the AUS [Australian Union of Students] national conference passed resolutions affirming that: 'AUS does not recognise the existence of the State of Israel' and in other resolutions referred to Israel as 'the Zionist entity'." (p 124)
For the complete 1974 AUS resolution, see my 7/5/14 post Viva Australian Student Activism 1. The only other resolution was that passed in 1975. It did not contain the expression "Zionist entity."
"This signified a particular level of contempt for the state and people of Israel and was meant to be as insulting as possible." (ibid)
Boo hoo...
Insulting? Or merely accurate?
The fact is that the 'Land of Israel', of which 'Israel', the Zionist entity, is merely the abbreviated version, is a Zionist fiction with about as much substance as King Arthur's Camelot.
Just because Sheridan's exceedingly strange Aunt Poppy filled his young head with poppycock when the nipper was too young to think for himself, and just because he's too damn lazy as an adult to do a bit of homework on the subject and think the matter through, doesn't mean the rest of us have to play along, OK? (On Auntie Poppy's messing with Sheridan's mind, see my 3/8/15 post Greg Sheridan: The Making of a Gentile Zionist.)
Let's get this straight. The simple fact of the matter is that in 1948 Arab Palestine was overrun, ethnically cleansed, and occupied by fanatical, land-grabbing Zionist forces (not long arrived from a fanatical, land-grabbing Europe), who, in an act of unbridled chutzpah, rebadged their ill-gotten gains 'Israel'.
Are we, therefore, seriously expected to forget all about this crime against humanity and adopt the perpetrator's re-branding of occupied Palestine? I think not. Calling it 'the Zionist entity' is merely keeping it real.
"AUS, and the campus left generally, supported the PLO, which was then pioneering airline hijackings and other forms of terrorism against innocent civilians. AUS proclaimed 'Resistance was not terrorism'." (ibid)
Howling nonsense! Every form of terrorism to assail the Middle East in modern times was pioneered either by pre-1948 Zionist terrorists or by the armed forces of their post-1948 Zionist entity.
For the terrorism of the pre-state mob, see my 27/6/09 post Breathtaking Zionist Hypocrisy. And for the pioneering airline hijackings of the Zionist entity, consider this:
"Israel would introduce plane hijackings to the world as early as December 12, 1954 when it hijacked a Syrian airliner and forced it to land in Israel. The Israeli airforce would often seize flying civilian airliners in international skies and divert them to Israel, subject the passengers to inspection, interrogation, as well as incarceration. Indeed, Israel remains the only party in the Middle East who shot down a civilian airliner, as it did in February 21, 1973, when it downed a Libyan passenger plane, killing 108 passengers on board..." (The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism & the Palestinians, Joseph A. Massad, 2006, p 5)
Finally, a bit of clarity on these matters from the Zionist entity's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion:
"If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural; we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but that was two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?" (ibid, p 5)
Why indeed?
AUS was spot-on in the 70s. Its awareness-raising campaign on Palestine, however, was lost on the closed mind of young Greg Sheridan. Incredibly, despite the wealth of information on the subject available today, he's still in thrall to Aunt Poppy's poppycock.
"In 1974 the AUS [Australian Union of Students] national conference passed resolutions affirming that: 'AUS does not recognise the existence of the State of Israel' and in other resolutions referred to Israel as 'the Zionist entity'." (p 124)
For the complete 1974 AUS resolution, see my 7/5/14 post Viva Australian Student Activism 1. The only other resolution was that passed in 1975. It did not contain the expression "Zionist entity."
"This signified a particular level of contempt for the state and people of Israel and was meant to be as insulting as possible." (ibid)
Boo hoo...
Insulting? Or merely accurate?
The fact is that the 'Land of Israel', of which 'Israel', the Zionist entity, is merely the abbreviated version, is a Zionist fiction with about as much substance as King Arthur's Camelot.
Just because Sheridan's exceedingly strange Aunt Poppy filled his young head with poppycock when the nipper was too young to think for himself, and just because he's too damn lazy as an adult to do a bit of homework on the subject and think the matter through, doesn't mean the rest of us have to play along, OK? (On Auntie Poppy's messing with Sheridan's mind, see my 3/8/15 post Greg Sheridan: The Making of a Gentile Zionist.)
Let's get this straight. The simple fact of the matter is that in 1948 Arab Palestine was overrun, ethnically cleansed, and occupied by fanatical, land-grabbing Zionist forces (not long arrived from a fanatical, land-grabbing Europe), who, in an act of unbridled chutzpah, rebadged their ill-gotten gains 'Israel'.
Are we, therefore, seriously expected to forget all about this crime against humanity and adopt the perpetrator's re-branding of occupied Palestine? I think not. Calling it 'the Zionist entity' is merely keeping it real.
"AUS, and the campus left generally, supported the PLO, which was then pioneering airline hijackings and other forms of terrorism against innocent civilians. AUS proclaimed 'Resistance was not terrorism'." (ibid)
Howling nonsense! Every form of terrorism to assail the Middle East in modern times was pioneered either by pre-1948 Zionist terrorists or by the armed forces of their post-1948 Zionist entity.
For the terrorism of the pre-state mob, see my 27/6/09 post Breathtaking Zionist Hypocrisy. And for the pioneering airline hijackings of the Zionist entity, consider this:
"Israel would introduce plane hijackings to the world as early as December 12, 1954 when it hijacked a Syrian airliner and forced it to land in Israel. The Israeli airforce would often seize flying civilian airliners in international skies and divert them to Israel, subject the passengers to inspection, interrogation, as well as incarceration. Indeed, Israel remains the only party in the Middle East who shot down a civilian airliner, as it did in February 21, 1973, when it downed a Libyan passenger plane, killing 108 passengers on board..." (The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism & the Palestinians, Joseph A. Massad, 2006, p 5)
Finally, a bit of clarity on these matters from the Zionist entity's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion:
"If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural; we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but that was two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?" (ibid, p 5)
Why indeed?
AUS was spot-on in the 70s. Its awareness-raising campaign on Palestine, however, was lost on the closed mind of young Greg Sheridan. Incredibly, despite the wealth of information on the subject available today, he's still in thrall to Aunt Poppy's poppycock.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Viva Australian Student Activism 3
Continued from my previous post:
"THE DEBATE AGAIN
"Although the criticism of AUS increased in the 1975 debate, the arguments changed on the substance of the questions. Most of the debate rested on whether or not a democratic secular state was viable and whether or not the PLO was sincere in calling for one.
"The outcry over AUS involvement in this issue a second time was best expressed by the extraordinary Mungo MacCallum in Nation Review, in a virtual reprint of his 1974 article. The article was reprinted in an AUJS leaflet...: 'Last year the AUS Council sought ratification of motions designed to align Australia with the PLO and against Israel. In spite of the scandalous abuse of AUS resources in almost exclusively promoting the 'yes' case, student meetings around the country overwhelmingly rejected the council position... But... the AUS heavies have refused to accept the democratic verdict of the people they claim to represent and it's all on again.' (AUS's unofficial anti-Israel line, Nation Review, April 4-10, 1975) MacCallum went on to make startling allegations about the appointment of [Victorian left ALP activist] Bill Hartley as Education Research Officer on 'an unprecedented salary', and questioned whether AUS ought to meddle in affairs in which it has no influence. MacCallum was enthusiastically quoted and embroidered upon in a number of places. In every new leaflet and article, Bill Hartley's salary and conditions improved. By the time he reached the pages of Arena in May 1975, Hartley's salary had jumped $2,000 and he had a car and expenses as well.
"Two unauthorised leaflets distributed on Melbourne campuses attempted to win support by characterising the 1975 motions as a deliberate affront to the 'stupid' AUS membership. The leaflets posed the threat that support for the PLO '... means the Executive of AUS would have the right to give part of your membership money to the PLO to finance such activities as the murder of civilians...' Graffiti at [Sydney's] Macquarie [University] put it more simply: 'YOU WASTE HALF A MILLION STUDENT DOLLARS ON YOUR FILTH AND LIES.' (The leaflets were titled: 'At it Again!' and 'You Are Stupid (Says AUS)'. [A photograph of] the graffiti [can be seen] in Arena 23/4/75.)
"The crux of the debate, however, lay in the issue of the democratic secular state [of Palestine] raised in the first motion. As Simon Marginson points out, it was difficult for AUJS to oppose the concept of a democratic secular state or support for the UN resolution since they had used the UN to legitimise their own claims to occupied Palestine the year before. The main aim of their opposition was to discredit the notion of the democratic secular state by pointing to the Arab regimes and places such as Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Attempts were also made to discredit the UN itself, a move which placed AUJS members on the same par with the establishment which claims the UN has never really been useful since it became dominated by third world countries.
"The motions were defeated again but by a greatly decreased majority. Motion 1 [the democratic secular state of Palestine] was supported by 19% of campuses and by 25% of students voting. [Motion 2, AUS recognition of PLO] was supported by 16% of campuses and 20% of students. (Alternate News Service No 43 August 4, 1975) The fourfold increase in student support was due to several factors.
"AUS BASH CONTINUES UNABATED
"1976 was a good year for Zionist students and their allies, the Liberals and the Murdoch press. It was just like having the Middle East debate in 1974 and 1975 without the hoary questions of Israel and the Palestinians intruding. Most delegates will be aware of the scope of the attacks specifically from Zionist quarters in 1976 and we may be sure they will come up again during Council. They included:
1. The hounding of employees, former officers and... employees of AUS and its subsidiary service companies.
2. Ludicrous attacks on any officer if any bias was shown towards the Palestinian people. Of course, since most of the incoming officers had supported the gag motion it might be argued they could not have their cake and eat it too. However, AUS's only policy on the Middle East supported the right of the Palestinians to be heard in Australia so it could also be argued that as officers and individuals they had the right to attend demonstrations against Moshe Dayan and to generally be critical of Israel. However, at the anti-Dayan demonstration in Sydney, an Arab woman, unknown to any of the students present, was carrying a sign reading 'AUS for Palestine'. Outraged Zionists demanded that Macquarie [University's] AUS secretary or the NSW RO Sarah Sheehan remove the sign from the woman. Anonymous letters were printed in student papers accusing Sheehan of standing near the sign. One such letter, in Cautisone, even criticised Rodd Webb, former FCC and no longer even a member of the Union, for standing near the sign.
3. An unauthorised leaflet alleging close contacts between present AUS officers and Henri Fischer.
4. Continual attacks in the daily press from such people as [Frank] Knopfelmacher alleging AUS supports terrorism.
5. Most important [were Michael] Danby's proposals for wiping out left-wing influence in AUS.
"Ironically, 1976, of all years, was the year during which Israel's international image was severely tarnished. The West Bank riots and their brutal suppression; the closer connections with South Africa; the growing right-wing within Israel; the public service report attempting to further disadvantage Arabs in Israeli society; and the plight of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon expressed in the massacre of Tel-az-Zaatar are just a few of the ways in which Israel and the Palestinians were talking points. The only high point for the West in this dismal year for Israel was the raid at Entebbe, complete in paperback and 70mm. It says something about the nature of a country that it regards as its public relations high point the invasion of another country.
"The reaction of the Zionists and the repercussions for AUS made the Middle East debate one with wider implications. Obviously, as a students' union, AUS must involve itself in concerns related to education and students, but even policies in those areas may be compromised by the refusal of AUS leaders to debate Palestine in 1976. What use is our policy on Southern Africa; our policy against Fraser and cuts in spending; our policy for the repeal of all abortion laws if, as soon as a well-organised, noisy and unprincipled opposition emerges, we immediately back down? The policy AUS passed relating to the rights of the Palestinian people to put their case to the Australian people is just so much humbug when we consider that the leaders of AUS would not even allow their own membership to debate the question of Israel. To claim, as right-wingers and Zionists do, that the vote in both [1974 and 1975] just showed how unrepresentative the leadership of AUS misses the point. As Rodd Webb put it in an analysis of the 1974 debate in Arena: 'None of their sponsors really expected [the 1974 motions] to receive majority support [but]... it was a heartening demonstration of the operation of a wider democracy (in AUS) than had been practised before'."
Points of interest arising:
1) Journalist David Marr's observation on Julia Gillard as a student politician: "She wanted to take Palestine out of the AUS." (See my 14/8/10 post The Real Julia Gillard.)
2) For Tony Abbott, the AUS, and Palestine, I refer you to my 13/9/12 post Greg & Tony Do Monash.
3) Someone really ought to research the AUS's 1970s Palestine campaign thoroughly and examine its impact on our current crop of political suckholes for USrael.
4) And also for what light it sheds on the evolution of Zionist propaganda. You'll notice, for example, that one of the most common of contemporary Zionist talking points, the deflective, 'Why single out Israel? What about X, Y, and Z? ', had yet to be spun in the 70s.
Maybe I'll return to the subject of this campaign later on.
"THE DEBATE AGAIN
"Although the criticism of AUS increased in the 1975 debate, the arguments changed on the substance of the questions. Most of the debate rested on whether or not a democratic secular state was viable and whether or not the PLO was sincere in calling for one.
"The outcry over AUS involvement in this issue a second time was best expressed by the extraordinary Mungo MacCallum in Nation Review, in a virtual reprint of his 1974 article. The article was reprinted in an AUJS leaflet...: 'Last year the AUS Council sought ratification of motions designed to align Australia with the PLO and against Israel. In spite of the scandalous abuse of AUS resources in almost exclusively promoting the 'yes' case, student meetings around the country overwhelmingly rejected the council position... But... the AUS heavies have refused to accept the democratic verdict of the people they claim to represent and it's all on again.' (AUS's unofficial anti-Israel line, Nation Review, April 4-10, 1975) MacCallum went on to make startling allegations about the appointment of [Victorian left ALP activist] Bill Hartley as Education Research Officer on 'an unprecedented salary', and questioned whether AUS ought to meddle in affairs in which it has no influence. MacCallum was enthusiastically quoted and embroidered upon in a number of places. In every new leaflet and article, Bill Hartley's salary and conditions improved. By the time he reached the pages of Arena in May 1975, Hartley's salary had jumped $2,000 and he had a car and expenses as well.
"Two unauthorised leaflets distributed on Melbourne campuses attempted to win support by characterising the 1975 motions as a deliberate affront to the 'stupid' AUS membership. The leaflets posed the threat that support for the PLO '... means the Executive of AUS would have the right to give part of your membership money to the PLO to finance such activities as the murder of civilians...' Graffiti at [Sydney's] Macquarie [University] put it more simply: 'YOU WASTE HALF A MILLION STUDENT DOLLARS ON YOUR FILTH AND LIES.' (The leaflets were titled: 'At it Again!' and 'You Are Stupid (Says AUS)'. [A photograph of] the graffiti [can be seen] in Arena 23/4/75.)
"The crux of the debate, however, lay in the issue of the democratic secular state [of Palestine] raised in the first motion. As Simon Marginson points out, it was difficult for AUJS to oppose the concept of a democratic secular state or support for the UN resolution since they had used the UN to legitimise their own claims to occupied Palestine the year before. The main aim of their opposition was to discredit the notion of the democratic secular state by pointing to the Arab regimes and places such as Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Attempts were also made to discredit the UN itself, a move which placed AUJS members on the same par with the establishment which claims the UN has never really been useful since it became dominated by third world countries.
"The motions were defeated again but by a greatly decreased majority. Motion 1 [the democratic secular state of Palestine] was supported by 19% of campuses and by 25% of students voting. [Motion 2, AUS recognition of PLO] was supported by 16% of campuses and 20% of students. (Alternate News Service No 43 August 4, 1975) The fourfold increase in student support was due to several factors.
"AUS BASH CONTINUES UNABATED
"1976 was a good year for Zionist students and their allies, the Liberals and the Murdoch press. It was just like having the Middle East debate in 1974 and 1975 without the hoary questions of Israel and the Palestinians intruding. Most delegates will be aware of the scope of the attacks specifically from Zionist quarters in 1976 and we may be sure they will come up again during Council. They included:
1. The hounding of employees, former officers and... employees of AUS and its subsidiary service companies.
2. Ludicrous attacks on any officer if any bias was shown towards the Palestinian people. Of course, since most of the incoming officers had supported the gag motion it might be argued they could not have their cake and eat it too. However, AUS's only policy on the Middle East supported the right of the Palestinians to be heard in Australia so it could also be argued that as officers and individuals they had the right to attend demonstrations against Moshe Dayan and to generally be critical of Israel. However, at the anti-Dayan demonstration in Sydney, an Arab woman, unknown to any of the students present, was carrying a sign reading 'AUS for Palestine'. Outraged Zionists demanded that Macquarie [University's] AUS secretary or the NSW RO Sarah Sheehan remove the sign from the woman. Anonymous letters were printed in student papers accusing Sheehan of standing near the sign. One such letter, in Cautisone, even criticised Rodd Webb, former FCC and no longer even a member of the Union, for standing near the sign.
3. An unauthorised leaflet alleging close contacts between present AUS officers and Henri Fischer.
4. Continual attacks in the daily press from such people as [Frank] Knopfelmacher alleging AUS supports terrorism.
5. Most important [were Michael] Danby's proposals for wiping out left-wing influence in AUS.
"Ironically, 1976, of all years, was the year during which Israel's international image was severely tarnished. The West Bank riots and their brutal suppression; the closer connections with South Africa; the growing right-wing within Israel; the public service report attempting to further disadvantage Arabs in Israeli society; and the plight of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon expressed in the massacre of Tel-az-Zaatar are just a few of the ways in which Israel and the Palestinians were talking points. The only high point for the West in this dismal year for Israel was the raid at Entebbe, complete in paperback and 70mm. It says something about the nature of a country that it regards as its public relations high point the invasion of another country.
"The reaction of the Zionists and the repercussions for AUS made the Middle East debate one with wider implications. Obviously, as a students' union, AUS must involve itself in concerns related to education and students, but even policies in those areas may be compromised by the refusal of AUS leaders to debate Palestine in 1976. What use is our policy on Southern Africa; our policy against Fraser and cuts in spending; our policy for the repeal of all abortion laws if, as soon as a well-organised, noisy and unprincipled opposition emerges, we immediately back down? The policy AUS passed relating to the rights of the Palestinian people to put their case to the Australian people is just so much humbug when we consider that the leaders of AUS would not even allow their own membership to debate the question of Israel. To claim, as right-wingers and Zionists do, that the vote in both [1974 and 1975] just showed how unrepresentative the leadership of AUS misses the point. As Rodd Webb put it in an analysis of the 1974 debate in Arena: 'None of their sponsors really expected [the 1974 motions] to receive majority support [but]... it was a heartening demonstration of the operation of a wider democracy (in AUS) than had been practised before'."
Points of interest arising:
1) Journalist David Marr's observation on Julia Gillard as a student politician: "She wanted to take Palestine out of the AUS." (See my 14/8/10 post The Real Julia Gillard.)
2) For Tony Abbott, the AUS, and Palestine, I refer you to my 13/9/12 post Greg & Tony Do Monash.
3) Someone really ought to research the AUS's 1970s Palestine campaign thoroughly and examine its impact on our current crop of political suckholes for USrael.
4) And also for what light it sheds on the evolution of Zionist propaganda. You'll notice, for example, that one of the most common of contemporary Zionist talking points, the deflective, 'Why single out Israel? What about X, Y, and Z? ', had yet to be spun in the 70s.
Maybe I'll return to the subject of this campaign later on.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Viva Australian Student Activism 2
Continued from my previous post:
"1975
"The 1975 resolutions [passed at AUS's January 1975 Council] were far clearer in their formulation [than the 1974 resolutions]...
[MERC: These were 1) AUS supports the establishment of a democratic secular State of Palestine (encompassing the area of mandate territory) wherein all people presently residing in Israel and all Palestinian Arabs forcibly exiled from their homeland will have the right to Palestinian citizenship. This motion embodies the right of Palestinian citizens of all religions, race, colour, creed and sex to the protection of the new State and rejects racist legislation, such as the present Zionist 'Law of Return'. 2) AUS concurs with UN Resolution 3236 (XXIX) and the decision of the UN to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. 3) To counter the present media bias, AUS should continue to use its resources to publicise to both students and the general community the plight and continuing oppression of the Palestinian people by both Israeli and Arab nations.]
"As Simon Marginson has pointed out in his paper on the subject in Alternate News Service (No 43, August 4, 1975) the debate in 1975 showed a marked unity and turn to the right in Zionist arguments.
"THE GUPS TOUR
"Nowhere was this turn more evident than in response to the tour by a delegation of two members of the General Union of Palestinian Students in May 1975. At [AUS's] August 1974 Council there was an unanimous vote in favour of the motion: 'That AUS invite a representative of GUPS to do a speaking tour of campuses early in 1975 in order that membership can directly seek clarification of various aspects the Palestinian question.' Shortly afterwards, the then President [of AUS] Neil McLean wrote to GUPS in Cairo issuing an invitation. No reply had been received by Annual Council 1975, and in February Ian McDonald, the new president, issued another invitation. The invitation was delivered verbally by FCC Rodd Webb during a visit to Damascus that month and was accepted and publicised with little reaction.
"Meanwhile the question of allowing a PLO delegation into Australia had become a matter of public controversy. In January 1975, the Prime Minister [Gough Whitlam] had decided not to issue visas to a group of PLO members. This controversy, and the ALP's vacillation over the question, must be dealt with in another place. It is only relevant [in so far as it relates to] the question of the GUPS delegation and the public reaction of AUJS to its visit. The Labor Government, having satisfied itself that the GUPS delegation would not be representing the PLO, issued visas to Eddie Zananiri and Samir Cheikh who duly arrived in Melbourne on May 4, 1975.
"The public controversy in 1974 to the AUS stance paled in comparison to the storm which greeted the arrival of the GUPS delegation. A demonstration by right-wing Zionists outside AUS [headquarters] degenerated into a brawl when some Arab and Australian supporters of the tour diverted a small section of a May Day march to AUS under the impression that the GUPS delegation was under siege. The next day [Opposition Leader Malcolm] Fraser launched an attack against the tour in parliament while daily newspapers and television reported, editorialised [on], and once again scrutinised AUS' activity.
"The tour was eventful and well attended and received by the majority of students. Hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of students turned up to hear Zananiri and Cheikh. However, the speakers were frequently heckled and drowned out by Zionist demonstrators. At the first public campus meeting at Melbourne University, AUJS president Joe Gersh had to appeal to his supporters not to incite violence and held an alternate demonstration in front of the [AUS] building [in Carlton] as the Palestinian speakers were on the other side. Marshals at the Jewish demonstration were extremely anxious that some of their more extreme elements (there were reportedly several ex-Israeli soldiers in the crowd) would become violent. Unfortunately, very little of Zananiri's or Cheikh's speeches was actually heard. Both were drowned out completely, despite an effective PA system, by the constant rival chants of the Zionists and pro-Palestinians. (Imre Salusinszky, Nation Review, May 9-15, 1975)
"On May 7, The Australian reported that one of the leading Zionists at Melbourne University, Michael Danby, had resigned his position as AUS secretary on that campus in protest over the visit. A few days later Danby's resignation was reported in The Australian Jewish News because of: '... the fascist, racist actions and attitudes taken by AUS towards Jews and the scandalous abuse of AUS resources.'
"AUJS opposition to the GUPS tour was confused and contradictory. There had been no opposition at all at August 1974 Council; indeed, prominent members of AUJS had supported the tour (Arena, 21/5/75). At January Council [1975], AUJS members had also voted for a resolution condemning the Australian government's decision to ban the PLO tour. Days before the [GUPS] delegation arrived, AUJS condemned the tour and Joe Gersh declined an offer to debate the Palestinians when they arrived. Yet, within two days, Gersh demanded equal time on the platform with the delegation, a theme which repeated itself throughout the interruptions at public meetings. (There was eventually a debate on Monday Conference between Zananiri and Peter Wise).
"In [a] telegram to various ministers in the government, AUJS demanded the immediate deportation of the delegation, pointing out that under the Commonwealth Crimes Act anyone dedicated to the overthrow of an established government could immediately be deported (Australian Jewish Times, 8/5/75). To substantiate this demand AUJS attempted to draw links between GUPS and the PLO."
To be concluded next post...
"1975
"The 1975 resolutions [passed at AUS's January 1975 Council] were far clearer in their formulation [than the 1974 resolutions]...
[MERC: These were 1) AUS supports the establishment of a democratic secular State of Palestine (encompassing the area of mandate territory) wherein all people presently residing in Israel and all Palestinian Arabs forcibly exiled from their homeland will have the right to Palestinian citizenship. This motion embodies the right of Palestinian citizens of all religions, race, colour, creed and sex to the protection of the new State and rejects racist legislation, such as the present Zionist 'Law of Return'. 2) AUS concurs with UN Resolution 3236 (XXIX) and the decision of the UN to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. 3) To counter the present media bias, AUS should continue to use its resources to publicise to both students and the general community the plight and continuing oppression of the Palestinian people by both Israeli and Arab nations.]
"As Simon Marginson has pointed out in his paper on the subject in Alternate News Service (No 43, August 4, 1975) the debate in 1975 showed a marked unity and turn to the right in Zionist arguments.
"THE GUPS TOUR
"Nowhere was this turn more evident than in response to the tour by a delegation of two members of the General Union of Palestinian Students in May 1975. At [AUS's] August 1974 Council there was an unanimous vote in favour of the motion: 'That AUS invite a representative of GUPS to do a speaking tour of campuses early in 1975 in order that membership can directly seek clarification of various aspects the Palestinian question.' Shortly afterwards, the then President [of AUS] Neil McLean wrote to GUPS in Cairo issuing an invitation. No reply had been received by Annual Council 1975, and in February Ian McDonald, the new president, issued another invitation. The invitation was delivered verbally by FCC Rodd Webb during a visit to Damascus that month and was accepted and publicised with little reaction.
"Meanwhile the question of allowing a PLO delegation into Australia had become a matter of public controversy. In January 1975, the Prime Minister [Gough Whitlam] had decided not to issue visas to a group of PLO members. This controversy, and the ALP's vacillation over the question, must be dealt with in another place. It is only relevant [in so far as it relates to] the question of the GUPS delegation and the public reaction of AUJS to its visit. The Labor Government, having satisfied itself that the GUPS delegation would not be representing the PLO, issued visas to Eddie Zananiri and Samir Cheikh who duly arrived in Melbourne on May 4, 1975.
"The public controversy in 1974 to the AUS stance paled in comparison to the storm which greeted the arrival of the GUPS delegation. A demonstration by right-wing Zionists outside AUS [headquarters] degenerated into a brawl when some Arab and Australian supporters of the tour diverted a small section of a May Day march to AUS under the impression that the GUPS delegation was under siege. The next day [Opposition Leader Malcolm] Fraser launched an attack against the tour in parliament while daily newspapers and television reported, editorialised [on], and once again scrutinised AUS' activity.
"The tour was eventful and well attended and received by the majority of students. Hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of students turned up to hear Zananiri and Cheikh. However, the speakers were frequently heckled and drowned out by Zionist demonstrators. At the first public campus meeting at Melbourne University, AUJS president Joe Gersh had to appeal to his supporters not to incite violence and held an alternate demonstration in front of the [AUS] building [in Carlton] as the Palestinian speakers were on the other side. Marshals at the Jewish demonstration were extremely anxious that some of their more extreme elements (there were reportedly several ex-Israeli soldiers in the crowd) would become violent. Unfortunately, very little of Zananiri's or Cheikh's speeches was actually heard. Both were drowned out completely, despite an effective PA system, by the constant rival chants of the Zionists and pro-Palestinians. (Imre Salusinszky, Nation Review, May 9-15, 1975)
"On May 7, The Australian reported that one of the leading Zionists at Melbourne University, Michael Danby, had resigned his position as AUS secretary on that campus in protest over the visit. A few days later Danby's resignation was reported in The Australian Jewish News because of: '... the fascist, racist actions and attitudes taken by AUS towards Jews and the scandalous abuse of AUS resources.'
"AUJS opposition to the GUPS tour was confused and contradictory. There had been no opposition at all at August 1974 Council; indeed, prominent members of AUJS had supported the tour (Arena, 21/5/75). At January Council [1975], AUJS members had also voted for a resolution condemning the Australian government's decision to ban the PLO tour. Days before the [GUPS] delegation arrived, AUJS condemned the tour and Joe Gersh declined an offer to debate the Palestinians when they arrived. Yet, within two days, Gersh demanded equal time on the platform with the delegation, a theme which repeated itself throughout the interruptions at public meetings. (There was eventually a debate on Monday Conference between Zananiri and Peter Wise).
"In [a] telegram to various ministers in the government, AUJS demanded the immediate deportation of the delegation, pointing out that under the Commonwealth Crimes Act anyone dedicated to the overthrow of an established government could immediately be deported (Australian Jewish Times, 8/5/75). To substantiate this demand AUJS attempted to draw links between GUPS and the PLO."
To be concluded next post...
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Viva Australian Student Activism 1
To the student activists who ruffled Tony Jones' feathers on Q&A on Monday night, I dedicate this little walk down memory lane.
All but forgotten now, but well worth recalling as a bold example of 1970s grassroots politics, was the brave attempt by progressive Australian Union of Students (AUS) activists to make Palestine core university business.
Interestingly, I could find only one reference to the AUS campaign on the net - of the kind, as you'll see, that screams out for a corrective. It's by - groan - Zionist academics, Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth of Monash University:
"These anti-Zionist fundamentalists loved the gun not the olive branch, and they quickly captured the pro-Palestinian agenda. In 1974 and again in 1975, the extremist-influenced Australian Union of Students (AUS), passed motions calling for the elimination of the State of Israel, and its replacement by a democratic secular state of Palestine. The latter was a disingenuous euphemism for an ethno-religious Islamic Arab state given that most Palestinian Muslims are highly religious and overwhelmingly reject secular and democratic ideas." (How the Far Left hijacked the Palestinian cause, Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth, onlineopinion.com.au, 18/11/09)
Stuff and nonsense, of course, proving that Zionism and scholarship don't mix.
The following unattributed account of the AUS Palestine campaign, The Palestine debate in AUS, was written for the Macquarie University student newspaper, Arena (27/4/77). I'll be posting it here in three parts (with typo corrections and additional material where necessary. :
"THE MIDDLE EAST DEBATE 1974-1976 AUS DROPS THE BANNER
"In 1974 and 1975 the Australian Union of Students took a series of motions and foreshadowed motions to its membership for debate and resolution. The motions were related to the state of Israel, the nature of Zionism and the plight of the Palestinian people. The ensuing controversy shook AUS to its foundations. The debate took the issue of Israel into the wider Australian community and for the first time students and others were able to hear the Palestinian point of view from both its Australian champions and two Palestinian students* who visited Australia in 1975 under the auspices of AUS. [*Eddie Zananari and Samir Cheikh of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS)]
"This paper deals briefly with the background and history of the debate and the wide-ranging consequences it has had on the Union's ability to debate controversial policy or hold a controversial position. While this paper may not be the last word on the matter, it attempts to cover at least some of the material and activity of the past 3 years for the information of delegates to Council.
[MERC: The 1974 motions read: 1) That AUS informs the National Union of Israeli Students (NUIS) that AUS does not recognise the existence of the State of Israel or of the NUIS as the official student in that region. 2) That AUS recognise the GUPS as a legal student union in that area of the Middle East known as Israel (in reality occupied Palestine). 3) That AUS having met in full Council, no longer believes that NUIS should be recognised as a member of ASA, and rather, believes that the GUPS and Arab Student Unions or any non-Zionist student organisation should be recognised in their place. 4) That AUS condemn the exploitation and degradation of the Palestinian people as carried out by the Arab nations and by Israel. 5) That AUS open a dialogue with the PLO in Beirut with a view to disseminating literature on the resistance through the organs open to AUS. 6) That AUS examine the student unions of the Arab regimes, to ascertain whether they are progressive organisations or simply apologists for their various reactionary regimes. 7) That AUS calls for the release of all members of the Palestinian resistance held in jails in occupied Palestine (Israel), the Arab countries and Greece. This includes all Jewish political prisoners not officially members of the PLO held in occupied Palestine. 8) That AUS support the liberation forces of Palestine. 9) That the Palestinian people have the historical, cultural, and moral right to the land of Palestine, presently embraced by Israel. 10) That any realistic settlement of the 'Middle East Problem' must accommodate the rights of the Palestinians in order to have any chance of resulting in permanent peace.]
"1974 - AN OVERWHELMING RESULT IN FAVOUR OF ISRAEL
"The public reaction to AUS January Council policy on Israel in 1974 was immediate. On January 20, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) issued a press release signed by its president, Arnold Roth. In the press release, Roth threatened that Jewish students would withdraw their membership en masse and give $1.00 per head to the cause of fighting the AUS motions: 'AUS has decided to wish Israel out of existence. It chooses to take an absurdly unrealistic view of the Middle East to reject the only democratically elected and representative student body in the Middle East, namely the National Union of Israeli Students, and in its place recognise the General Union of Palestinian Students, an Egyptian 'front' organisation...' (AUJS Press Release, 20/1/74) Further on the press release stated that, having accepted the aims and activities of the PLO, including terrorism, AUS had 'placed itself beyond any reasonable resemblance to representing the views of the mass of Australian students.' (ibid) Roth had acted hastily and without the assent of his executive. Later he modified AUJS' position and announced it would attempt to debate and defeat the resolutions rather than withdraw from AUS.
"The pro-Palestine motions asserted the justice of the Palestinian claims to Israel; recognised the GUPS as the representative body of the area of Israel instead of NUIS; proposed AUS establish dialogue with the PLO; gave support to the liberation forces of Palestine and called for the release of members of the Palestinian resistance imprisoned in Israel for their activities. The foreshadowed motions recognised the rights of Palestinians and Israelis, calling for the rights of national liberation for both Jews and Arabs, proposing a separate mini-state.
"While the arguments for the pro-Palestine motions were fairly consistent, the opposition was split. Arguing for the motions, activists debated the issues of Zionism, its philosophy and practice. They called attention to the plight of the Palestinian people and formulated the democratic secular state in which Jews and Arabs could live equally as the ideal solution to the problems of the Palestinian refugees and persecuted Jews. The opposition split its attack. Much of it centred on the right of AUS to take the controversial position it had. It accused AUS leaders of anti-semitism while a third argument (the most used) justified Zionism as a national liberation movement for the Jewish people. That argument agreed that everything in Israel was not perfect and that the Palestinians had a grievance. However, it disagreed with AUS' 'extreme' line, posing the solution of a mini-state for the Palestinian people.
"THE PAPER WAR
"The debate, conducted through National U [the AUS paper], campus papers and leaflets, raged in the weeks before the vote was taken [March 1974?] and afterwards. The national press joined in, sometimes reporting, sometimes castigating AUS for daring to question the status quo in Israel. Left Zionists made flattering comparisons between Israeli parliamentary democracy and life and the reactionary Arab regimes surrounding Israel. They admitted Israel had made mistakes but that given time it would rectify them without any help from AUS: 'The Jewish leadership failed to recognise the emergence of Arab nationalism until after the event and this created a vacuum in the official Israeli policy which Israel is still trying to rectify today.' (AUS Position Paper 1974: The Middle East: An Alternative View, prepared by Peta Jones of UNSW Delegation)
"Right Zionists were less subtle. In a supplement to the Australian Jewish Times dated February 21, 1974 a few lines represented AUS policy as supporting terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian guerilla forces; pledging to disseminate propaganda supplied from Beirut; and claiming AUS was therefore unrepresentative of students. It announced that a demonstration was to be held at UNSW. As reported in National U, the Palestinian refugee problem was dismissed by one of the speakers as of little consequence. In a piece of street theatre, the AUS leadership was portrayed as a group of bloodthirsty dilettantes looking for a 'cause'. The 'cause' was represented by an actor dressed as a Palestinian complete with headdress, dark glasses and gun. (Torch Rally at UNSW, Geoff Tanks, NU, 11/3/74)
"One of the major emphases given by both 'left' and 'right' was to the question of anti-semitism. Since it was difficult, if not impossible to detect anti-semitism in any of the arguments presented verbally or on paper by the pro-Palestinian faction, a new definition was applied. Zionists claimed the interests of all Jewish people were inextricably bound up in Zionism, which had its roots in the Jewish religion and culture. Hence any criticism of the Zionist political movement was per se anti-semitic: 'I find the very idea of 'anti-Zionism' just incredible. Why aren't there any 'anti-Vietnamese national liberationist' groups around the world. Of course not! How can you legitimately oppose the self-emancipation of a people? Obviously you can't... except when it comes to the Jewish people.' (Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, Augustine Zycher, Arena, 13/3/74)
"A reply to this argument in the same publication pointed out: 'It has often been claimed... it is inconsistent... (to support)... Arab nationalism and not... Israeli nationalism... Any socialist worth his (sic) salt must distinguish between two types of nationalism. There is what can be called oppressive nationalism and... on the other hand oppressed nationalism... It cannot be expected, as the Zionists would like to claim, that the new Left would adopt a consistent view towards all nationalism because... (they)... do not wish the new Left to support Nazi nationalism.' (Why AUS is right on the Middle East, John Bechara)."
NB: The 1974 motions did not win majority support among students. That campaign, however, was but a prelude to the more substantial and eventful campaign of 1975. My next post will continue with the account of that campaign.
All but forgotten now, but well worth recalling as a bold example of 1970s grassroots politics, was the brave attempt by progressive Australian Union of Students (AUS) activists to make Palestine core university business.
Interestingly, I could find only one reference to the AUS campaign on the net - of the kind, as you'll see, that screams out for a corrective. It's by - groan - Zionist academics, Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth of Monash University:
"These anti-Zionist fundamentalists loved the gun not the olive branch, and they quickly captured the pro-Palestinian agenda. In 1974 and again in 1975, the extremist-influenced Australian Union of Students (AUS), passed motions calling for the elimination of the State of Israel, and its replacement by a democratic secular state of Palestine. The latter was a disingenuous euphemism for an ethno-religious Islamic Arab state given that most Palestinian Muslims are highly religious and overwhelmingly reject secular and democratic ideas." (How the Far Left hijacked the Palestinian cause, Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth, onlineopinion.com.au, 18/11/09)
Stuff and nonsense, of course, proving that Zionism and scholarship don't mix.
The following unattributed account of the AUS Palestine campaign, The Palestine debate in AUS, was written for the Macquarie University student newspaper, Arena (27/4/77). I'll be posting it here in three parts (with typo corrections and additional material where necessary. :
"THE MIDDLE EAST DEBATE 1974-1976 AUS DROPS THE BANNER
"In 1974 and 1975 the Australian Union of Students took a series of motions and foreshadowed motions to its membership for debate and resolution. The motions were related to the state of Israel, the nature of Zionism and the plight of the Palestinian people. The ensuing controversy shook AUS to its foundations. The debate took the issue of Israel into the wider Australian community and for the first time students and others were able to hear the Palestinian point of view from both its Australian champions and two Palestinian students* who visited Australia in 1975 under the auspices of AUS. [*Eddie Zananari and Samir Cheikh of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS)]
"This paper deals briefly with the background and history of the debate and the wide-ranging consequences it has had on the Union's ability to debate controversial policy or hold a controversial position. While this paper may not be the last word on the matter, it attempts to cover at least some of the material and activity of the past 3 years for the information of delegates to Council.
[MERC: The 1974 motions read: 1) That AUS informs the National Union of Israeli Students (NUIS) that AUS does not recognise the existence of the State of Israel or of the NUIS as the official student in that region. 2) That AUS recognise the GUPS as a legal student union in that area of the Middle East known as Israel (in reality occupied Palestine). 3) That AUS having met in full Council, no longer believes that NUIS should be recognised as a member of ASA, and rather, believes that the GUPS and Arab Student Unions or any non-Zionist student organisation should be recognised in their place. 4) That AUS condemn the exploitation and degradation of the Palestinian people as carried out by the Arab nations and by Israel. 5) That AUS open a dialogue with the PLO in Beirut with a view to disseminating literature on the resistance through the organs open to AUS. 6) That AUS examine the student unions of the Arab regimes, to ascertain whether they are progressive organisations or simply apologists for their various reactionary regimes. 7) That AUS calls for the release of all members of the Palestinian resistance held in jails in occupied Palestine (Israel), the Arab countries and Greece. This includes all Jewish political prisoners not officially members of the PLO held in occupied Palestine. 8) That AUS support the liberation forces of Palestine. 9) That the Palestinian people have the historical, cultural, and moral right to the land of Palestine, presently embraced by Israel. 10) That any realistic settlement of the 'Middle East Problem' must accommodate the rights of the Palestinians in order to have any chance of resulting in permanent peace.]
"1974 - AN OVERWHELMING RESULT IN FAVOUR OF ISRAEL
"The public reaction to AUS January Council policy on Israel in 1974 was immediate. On January 20, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) issued a press release signed by its president, Arnold Roth. In the press release, Roth threatened that Jewish students would withdraw their membership en masse and give $1.00 per head to the cause of fighting the AUS motions: 'AUS has decided to wish Israel out of existence. It chooses to take an absurdly unrealistic view of the Middle East to reject the only democratically elected and representative student body in the Middle East, namely the National Union of Israeli Students, and in its place recognise the General Union of Palestinian Students, an Egyptian 'front' organisation...' (AUJS Press Release, 20/1/74) Further on the press release stated that, having accepted the aims and activities of the PLO, including terrorism, AUS had 'placed itself beyond any reasonable resemblance to representing the views of the mass of Australian students.' (ibid) Roth had acted hastily and without the assent of his executive. Later he modified AUJS' position and announced it would attempt to debate and defeat the resolutions rather than withdraw from AUS.
"The pro-Palestine motions asserted the justice of the Palestinian claims to Israel; recognised the GUPS as the representative body of the area of Israel instead of NUIS; proposed AUS establish dialogue with the PLO; gave support to the liberation forces of Palestine and called for the release of members of the Palestinian resistance imprisoned in Israel for their activities. The foreshadowed motions recognised the rights of Palestinians and Israelis, calling for the rights of national liberation for both Jews and Arabs, proposing a separate mini-state.
"While the arguments for the pro-Palestine motions were fairly consistent, the opposition was split. Arguing for the motions, activists debated the issues of Zionism, its philosophy and practice. They called attention to the plight of the Palestinian people and formulated the democratic secular state in which Jews and Arabs could live equally as the ideal solution to the problems of the Palestinian refugees and persecuted Jews. The opposition split its attack. Much of it centred on the right of AUS to take the controversial position it had. It accused AUS leaders of anti-semitism while a third argument (the most used) justified Zionism as a national liberation movement for the Jewish people. That argument agreed that everything in Israel was not perfect and that the Palestinians had a grievance. However, it disagreed with AUS' 'extreme' line, posing the solution of a mini-state for the Palestinian people.
"THE PAPER WAR
"The debate, conducted through National U [the AUS paper], campus papers and leaflets, raged in the weeks before the vote was taken [March 1974?] and afterwards. The national press joined in, sometimes reporting, sometimes castigating AUS for daring to question the status quo in Israel. Left Zionists made flattering comparisons between Israeli parliamentary democracy and life and the reactionary Arab regimes surrounding Israel. They admitted Israel had made mistakes but that given time it would rectify them without any help from AUS: 'The Jewish leadership failed to recognise the emergence of Arab nationalism until after the event and this created a vacuum in the official Israeli policy which Israel is still trying to rectify today.' (AUS Position Paper 1974: The Middle East: An Alternative View, prepared by Peta Jones of UNSW Delegation)
"Right Zionists were less subtle. In a supplement to the Australian Jewish Times dated February 21, 1974 a few lines represented AUS policy as supporting terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian guerilla forces; pledging to disseminate propaganda supplied from Beirut; and claiming AUS was therefore unrepresentative of students. It announced that a demonstration was to be held at UNSW. As reported in National U, the Palestinian refugee problem was dismissed by one of the speakers as of little consequence. In a piece of street theatre, the AUS leadership was portrayed as a group of bloodthirsty dilettantes looking for a 'cause'. The 'cause' was represented by an actor dressed as a Palestinian complete with headdress, dark glasses and gun. (Torch Rally at UNSW, Geoff Tanks, NU, 11/3/74)
"One of the major emphases given by both 'left' and 'right' was to the question of anti-semitism. Since it was difficult, if not impossible to detect anti-semitism in any of the arguments presented verbally or on paper by the pro-Palestinian faction, a new definition was applied. Zionists claimed the interests of all Jewish people were inextricably bound up in Zionism, which had its roots in the Jewish religion and culture. Hence any criticism of the Zionist political movement was per se anti-semitic: 'I find the very idea of 'anti-Zionism' just incredible. Why aren't there any 'anti-Vietnamese national liberationist' groups around the world. Of course not! How can you legitimately oppose the self-emancipation of a people? Obviously you can't... except when it comes to the Jewish people.' (Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, Augustine Zycher, Arena, 13/3/74)
"A reply to this argument in the same publication pointed out: 'It has often been claimed... it is inconsistent... (to support)... Arab nationalism and not... Israeli nationalism... Any socialist worth his (sic) salt must distinguish between two types of nationalism. There is what can be called oppressive nationalism and... on the other hand oppressed nationalism... It cannot be expected, as the Zionists would like to claim, that the new Left would adopt a consistent view towards all nationalism because... (they)... do not wish the new Left to support Nazi nationalism.' (Why AUS is right on the Middle East, John Bechara)."
NB: The 1974 motions did not win majority support among students. That campaign, however, was but a prelude to the more substantial and eventful campaign of 1975. My next post will continue with the account of that campaign.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Greg & Tony Do Monash 1
From yesterday's Australian, classic Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, annotated:
"When Tony Abbott and I were involved in the Australian Union of Students, this was a very extreme organisation. It sent money compulsorily collected from students to support the Palestine Liberation Organisation which was then engaged in acts of murderous terrorism. It had a policy that all men were complicit in the crime of rape. And it defined men as being males over the age of 7. So that was it. Turn 8 and you're a rapist.
"In 1977, Abbott and I drove down from Sydney to Melbourne to attend an AUS conference at Monash University. The AUS conference was extremely hostile for two modestly conservative boys like Abbott and me [who seem to have had a particularly hard time coming to grips with the phenomenon of lesbianism]. The stench of marijuana lay heavy in the air, and every communist and Trotskyist sub-group had assembled, it seemed, its entire national membership. We found the atmosphere of the conference so uncongenial, and so threatening, that we went across the road and asked the Catholic college if we could stay there for the duration of the conference.
"No doubt the silliest thing we did at the conference was to attend a Palestinian film night. Because AUS was spending our money, we wanted to assert, non-violently, our right to be there. So we heckled the film a bit. [That these boofheads might actually have learnt something from watching the films obviously did not occur to them.] Although we were outnumbered at least 10 to one, and new reinforcements from other hard-left groups soon turned up, the film was stopped and we were told we had to leave. We were making the point that we shouldn't have to leave because the evening was being funded by our compulsorily collected student union dues. One woman from the far Left came up behind Abbott, took off her wooden clog and whacked him hard over the back of the head. I'll never forget Abbott's response. He turned round, paused and said: 'Madame, if you were not a lady, I'd be tempted to strike you back.' Then we left.
"This incident came back to my mind as I read the scabrous propaganda of David Marr in his Quarterly Essay, Political Animal, the making of Tony Abbott. Marr claims that in 1977, when Abbott was defeated for the presidency of the Student Representative Council by Barbara Ramjan, he went up to her, came within an inch of her nose and punched both sides of the wall beside her as an act of intimidation. Marr records Abbott's denial of this but says he, Marr, believes the incident took place as described by Ramjan. Marr is wrong. And this mistake reflects his overall sloppiness as a journalist, failure as a historian and distorting bias as a polemicist. [The pot calls the kettle black.]
"Yesterday I spoke to Jeremy Jones, who was elected to the SRC on the same night Abbott lost that election to Ramjan. Jones was a member of the Labor Party and led a Labor ticket in student elections. He was no ally of Abbott. He went on to occupy very distinguished communal leadership positions within the Jewish community. He is a leader in particular of inter-faith dialogue and was very reluctant to let me quote him because he doesn't want remotely to enter partisan politics. But he knew every in and out of student politics at that time. He knew every accusation that each side made against the other. He is certain he would have heard of any such alleged incident by Abbott and he is also certain he never heard any such allegation made. In other words, he is certain it didn't happen. Abbott flatly denies it and says: 'It never happened.' [On Jones, see my 28/11/11 post My Brush With Superman.]
"Abbott was my best friend at that time. We talked over everything. The meaning of life, the purpose of politics, who'd win the rugby league grand final, what girls we planned to ask out, petty squabbles we might have had with our parents. I remember the night in question quite well. No such incident was ever discussed by Abbott or by anyone else in his circle. It is utterly inconceivable. Marr could have found this out if he were a competent historian. But Marr is instead what he accuses Abbott of being, an undergraduate pamphleteer desperately seeking to distort any bit of so-called evidence he can find to support a pre-existing narrative he has all mapped out. [For Sheridan's pre-existing narrative of the Middle East conflict see my series of posts, West's Wild East (18/8/09 - 26/8/09).]
"I feel a bit like Jones: disinclined to enter the controversy because it makes me look too partisan. [Greg Sheridan too partisan? Never!] In my time in student politics there was quite a bit of real violence. Michael Danby, now the federal Labor member for Melbourne Ports and the chairman of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, was severely bashed by a group of Maoist thugs. Peter Costello had his arm broken on a serious assault by a leftist claiming allegiance to the anarchist cause. At the AUS conference I attended there was a scuffle at one point and the leader of the Maoist group screamed at one of our friends: 'There's a bullet with your name on it. You'll bleed tonight.'
"I knew Abbott very well and he was never, ever, violent. He was a good bloke then, he's a good bloke now. Marr's dishonest and obsessive agit-prop is a fraudulent caricature that manages to reverse reality at almost every point. But I'll let Marr in on a little secret. There was one reason the Left really hated Abbott. It was because he won." (The Tony that I - and others - remember was never violent at uni, 12/9/12)
And here's Marr's Quarterly Essay account of Tony (alas, Sancho doesn't get a mention) doing Monash:
"After a summer in Western Australia spent surfing, carousing in pubs and selling pots door to door, Abbott turned up at Monash University in January 1977 for his first AUS conference determined to fight the good fight and make a name for himself. In both he exceeded his own high expectations. A wilderness of factions were in play, factions often controlled, as the [Bob Santamaria's] Democratic Clubs were, from behind the university gates. The right's determination to control or crush AUS had been revitalised by the students' decision a few years earlier to support the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The anti-PLO campaign brought together the Liberals, the right of the Labor Party, the National Union of Jewish Students and Santamaria's people. It proved to be the training ground of a new cohort of leaders on both sides of politics: Abbott, Peter Costello, Eric Abetz, Michael Yabsley, Michael Danby, Michael Kroger, Nick Sherry and, a little later, Julia Gillard*. Abbott was asked by the Weekend Australian to write an account of the conference that appeared under a banner headline: 'I ACCUSE Phoney student thugs/ Use spit and abuse/ To create terror... by Tony Abbott' In his eyes, this 'tragic farce' was a time of scuffles in corridors, angry confrontation, factional bastardry - always of the left - fear, provocation, systemic danger and facile causes in which nothing of any consequence was achieved. 'Generally the air was heavy with the not-unpleasant odour of marijuana. The conference hall was gaily decked with gaudy Maoist flags and communist slogans. Some delegates wore badges cheerfully urging the 'smashing' of Fraser and the shooting of Kerr. Books on sale covered everything one wanted to know about abortion, street fighting, subverting universities, indoctrinating the young, and homosexuality.' These thousands of words - ending with a pure Santamaria flourish about the great risks these influences posed to 'those who will eventually lead society' - were Abbott's debut in mainstream journalism. Whether his account was fair or wildly exaggerated is by now impossible to judge." (pp 12-13)
[*On Gillard and AUS see my 25/7/10 post Me, A Zionist? How Very Dare You!]
"When Tony Abbott and I were involved in the Australian Union of Students, this was a very extreme organisation. It sent money compulsorily collected from students to support the Palestine Liberation Organisation which was then engaged in acts of murderous terrorism. It had a policy that all men were complicit in the crime of rape. And it defined men as being males over the age of 7. So that was it. Turn 8 and you're a rapist.
"In 1977, Abbott and I drove down from Sydney to Melbourne to attend an AUS conference at Monash University. The AUS conference was extremely hostile for two modestly conservative boys like Abbott and me [who seem to have had a particularly hard time coming to grips with the phenomenon of lesbianism]. The stench of marijuana lay heavy in the air, and every communist and Trotskyist sub-group had assembled, it seemed, its entire national membership. We found the atmosphere of the conference so uncongenial, and so threatening, that we went across the road and asked the Catholic college if we could stay there for the duration of the conference.
"No doubt the silliest thing we did at the conference was to attend a Palestinian film night. Because AUS was spending our money, we wanted to assert, non-violently, our right to be there. So we heckled the film a bit. [That these boofheads might actually have learnt something from watching the films obviously did not occur to them.] Although we were outnumbered at least 10 to one, and new reinforcements from other hard-left groups soon turned up, the film was stopped and we were told we had to leave. We were making the point that we shouldn't have to leave because the evening was being funded by our compulsorily collected student union dues. One woman from the far Left came up behind Abbott, took off her wooden clog and whacked him hard over the back of the head. I'll never forget Abbott's response. He turned round, paused and said: 'Madame, if you were not a lady, I'd be tempted to strike you back.' Then we left.
"This incident came back to my mind as I read the scabrous propaganda of David Marr in his Quarterly Essay, Political Animal, the making of Tony Abbott. Marr claims that in 1977, when Abbott was defeated for the presidency of the Student Representative Council by Barbara Ramjan, he went up to her, came within an inch of her nose and punched both sides of the wall beside her as an act of intimidation. Marr records Abbott's denial of this but says he, Marr, believes the incident took place as described by Ramjan. Marr is wrong. And this mistake reflects his overall sloppiness as a journalist, failure as a historian and distorting bias as a polemicist. [The pot calls the kettle black.]
"Yesterday I spoke to Jeremy Jones, who was elected to the SRC on the same night Abbott lost that election to Ramjan. Jones was a member of the Labor Party and led a Labor ticket in student elections. He was no ally of Abbott. He went on to occupy very distinguished communal leadership positions within the Jewish community. He is a leader in particular of inter-faith dialogue and was very reluctant to let me quote him because he doesn't want remotely to enter partisan politics. But he knew every in and out of student politics at that time. He knew every accusation that each side made against the other. He is certain he would have heard of any such alleged incident by Abbott and he is also certain he never heard any such allegation made. In other words, he is certain it didn't happen. Abbott flatly denies it and says: 'It never happened.' [On Jones, see my 28/11/11 post My Brush With Superman.]
"Abbott was my best friend at that time. We talked over everything. The meaning of life, the purpose of politics, who'd win the rugby league grand final, what girls we planned to ask out, petty squabbles we might have had with our parents. I remember the night in question quite well. No such incident was ever discussed by Abbott or by anyone else in his circle. It is utterly inconceivable. Marr could have found this out if he were a competent historian. But Marr is instead what he accuses Abbott of being, an undergraduate pamphleteer desperately seeking to distort any bit of so-called evidence he can find to support a pre-existing narrative he has all mapped out. [For Sheridan's pre-existing narrative of the Middle East conflict see my series of posts, West's Wild East (18/8/09 - 26/8/09).]
"I feel a bit like Jones: disinclined to enter the controversy because it makes me look too partisan. [Greg Sheridan too partisan? Never!] In my time in student politics there was quite a bit of real violence. Michael Danby, now the federal Labor member for Melbourne Ports and the chairman of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, was severely bashed by a group of Maoist thugs. Peter Costello had his arm broken on a serious assault by a leftist claiming allegiance to the anarchist cause. At the AUS conference I attended there was a scuffle at one point and the leader of the Maoist group screamed at one of our friends: 'There's a bullet with your name on it. You'll bleed tonight.'
"I knew Abbott very well and he was never, ever, violent. He was a good bloke then, he's a good bloke now. Marr's dishonest and obsessive agit-prop is a fraudulent caricature that manages to reverse reality at almost every point. But I'll let Marr in on a little secret. There was one reason the Left really hated Abbott. It was because he won." (The Tony that I - and others - remember was never violent at uni, 12/9/12)
And here's Marr's Quarterly Essay account of Tony (alas, Sancho doesn't get a mention) doing Monash:
"After a summer in Western Australia spent surfing, carousing in pubs and selling pots door to door, Abbott turned up at Monash University in January 1977 for his first AUS conference determined to fight the good fight and make a name for himself. In both he exceeded his own high expectations. A wilderness of factions were in play, factions often controlled, as the [Bob Santamaria's] Democratic Clubs were, from behind the university gates. The right's determination to control or crush AUS had been revitalised by the students' decision a few years earlier to support the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The anti-PLO campaign brought together the Liberals, the right of the Labor Party, the National Union of Jewish Students and Santamaria's people. It proved to be the training ground of a new cohort of leaders on both sides of politics: Abbott, Peter Costello, Eric Abetz, Michael Yabsley, Michael Danby, Michael Kroger, Nick Sherry and, a little later, Julia Gillard*. Abbott was asked by the Weekend Australian to write an account of the conference that appeared under a banner headline: 'I ACCUSE Phoney student thugs/ Use spit and abuse/ To create terror... by Tony Abbott' In his eyes, this 'tragic farce' was a time of scuffles in corridors, angry confrontation, factional bastardry - always of the left - fear, provocation, systemic danger and facile causes in which nothing of any consequence was achieved. 'Generally the air was heavy with the not-unpleasant odour of marijuana. The conference hall was gaily decked with gaudy Maoist flags and communist slogans. Some delegates wore badges cheerfully urging the 'smashing' of Fraser and the shooting of Kerr. Books on sale covered everything one wanted to know about abortion, street fighting, subverting universities, indoctrinating the young, and homosexuality.' These thousands of words - ending with a pure Santamaria flourish about the great risks these influences posed to 'those who will eventually lead society' - were Abbott's debut in mainstream journalism. Whether his account was fair or wildly exaggerated is by now impossible to judge." (pp 12-13)
[*On Gillard and AUS see my 25/7/10 post Me, A Zionist? How Very Dare You!]
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Real Julia Gillard
Journalist David Marr's feature on Prime Minister Julia Gillard in today's Sydney Morning Herald is a portrait of the ultimate political careerist. The following extracts deal with her university years in the early 1980s. And take a look at the theme: She wanted to take Palestine out of the Australian Union of Student!
"She was a natural leader. That was never doubted. In the mad world of campus politics, she showed calm good humour, a sharp tongue and a combative streak. But her remarkable career as a student politician - first leading the Students Representative Council at Adelaide University and then heading the Australian Union of Students (AUS) in Melbourne - raised doubts early on about her deeper beliefs. 'It was progressive instincts that led me to get involved in the AUS', she says. But as its first woman president she found herself caught in a bitter partisan divide as she fought for the survival of this once radical body. Though a long time ago, it was a key battle in her career which still colours her political reputation. She wanted to take Palestine out of the AUS. 'When Whitlam brought the troops home, people then went on a mad cat [sic] pursuit of the New Vietnam and decided it was Palestine, completely misunderstanding that what had motivated most Australian youth was conscription. The question of Palestine was never going to be the new Vietnam for Australian students. So the union got more eccentric and irrelevant. I think it was right', she says, 'to draw a line under that'. The Right loathed her for even trying to keep AUS afloat. The Left loathed her for abandoning Palestine. Her pragmatic campaign to shift focus to educational issues - funding, scholarships etc - did not win much traction. She remembers the self-mocking credo of her faction: 'What do we want?' 'Gradual change'. 'When do we want it?' 'In due course'. The year after her term as president, AUS finally collapsed. Three irreconcilable views of Gillard emerged from this brawl, three conflicting images that dog her still: Gillard the leftie, Gillard the sellout, and Gillard the political operator." (The moment of truth, David Marr, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/8/10)
Marr's cliche about the mad world of student politics aside, while the best and the brightest students of the 1980s (and those of the 1970s) were grappling with one of the great moral and political issues of our time - the wiping of Palestine off the map - Gillard (who confides to Marr that "one of my prized possessions still is the prefect's tie that I got in [Unley High]. It was the first leadership position I ever had.") had decided that it was her mission, having captured the leadership of the AUS, to wipe Palestine off its agenda. And why? Because she, the union's head prefect, had decided it was an eccentric and irrelevant issue, that she had to draw a line under it and change focus to educational issues. Whether these are the real reasons, however, is anyones's guess. Whatever, they failed to gain traction, and after her leaving (wrecking?), AUS collapses! What a glorious legacy.
Keep in mind too that Gillard's ascendency in the AUS coincided with the aftermath of Israel's brutal attempt to wipe Lebanon (& the Palestine Liberation Organisation) off the map in 1982. Given Gillard's record above, what's the bet that the brutal Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon awakened not a flicker of concern in head prefect Gillard?
"She also earned a reputation, in some circles, of being a captive of the Zionist lobby. As Prime Minister, Gillard listed 'support for Israel' surprisingly high on the list of fundamentals of Australian foreign policy: only below the US alliance and the war in Afghanistan and above 'focus on our region'. She says, 'I am obviously a supporter of Israel as people would know'. The Prime Minister describes herself as 'not uncritical' of the settlements and a supporter of the two-state solution. But does she have any real, practical hope that two states will emerge? 'I think it's possible', she says and pauses for a long time. 'It's possible, but yeah it's hard. Across my lifetime, we've seen what appeared to be waves of progress which then didn't amount to real change. So I suppose that has instilled in me a sense of how difficult it is and how fixed the positions are'." (ibid)
Gillard did indeed have the reputation of being a captive of the Zionist lobby in those days. So much so that she took sufficient umbrage at being labelled a Zionist collaborator by some on the left that she threatened legal action.* Not, mind you, that the student politician who had proclaimed at the time, "I do not intend to have the tag of 'Zionist' follow me around for the rest of my life," really knew or cared what Zionism was. The above passage suggests someone who, for all her prattle about the virtues of hard work (telling Marr, for example, that "[My parents] taught me the value of hard work"), has obviously never lifted a finger, at any stage in her career, to educate herself on the issue of Palestine. Her every utterance on the subject, as above, smacks of ignorance and boredom.
[*See my 25/7/10 post, Me, A Zionist? How Very Dare You]
One of the ironies in Gillard's career is that she succeeded Labor identity Barry Jones as the member for Lalor in 1998. Jones was a reader and thinker, and took enough of an interest in the Palestine problem to read at least one book on the subject that we know of. In his autobiography, A Thinking Reed (2006), he recalls how "In January 1983 I was co-opted, at short notice, to join a Caucus delegation to Israel, organised by Barry Cohen*, MP for Robertson, underwritten by the Israeli Government and some Melbourne business people [MERC: That's right, rambamming has a long history!] One of the delegation had dropped out at the last minute so Barry invited me... The embassy had invited us to meet Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, Leader of the Likud, co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with President Sadat of Egypt and, as a younger man, a member of the Stern Gang [sic]. I had read a powerful book, The Longest War (1982), by Jacobo Timmerman, a courageous Argentinian publisher who survived torture, emigrated to Israel and wrote a tough analysis of human rights abuses against Palestinians. I tackled Begin directly, quoted a few sentences from The Longest War and invited him to comment. Begin shrugged, stretched out his arms and his voice went an octave higher. 'So he's got a pen? So he writes a book? What has that to do with me?' He refused to be drawn on Timmerman." (p 253)
[* "... a close friend so long as I refrained from any criticism, however mild, of Israel." (p 241)]
Unlike Jones, Gillard looks as though she'd rather die than pick up a book for any other reason than to kill time: "And for someone who's regarded as having such a fierce intellect, her library hardly sounds like a heady trip through academia... It's 'airport trash', page turners..." (Spotlight on the redhead, Mike Bruce, couriermail.com.au, 15/12/06)
And just imagine Gillard echoing these views of her predecessor:
"My view of politics has always been universal and historical. I was never attracted to it as the means of climbing the greasy pole or determining the spoils of office. I joined the Labor party out of a deep, but probably naive, commitment to egalitarianism and liberation. I saw the conservative symbol as a mirror in which a voter could see the beneficiary of voting Liberal or National: 'I'm voting for self-interest'. But I saw Labor as the 'other interest' party, and its symbol should have been a pair of binoculars because often the beneficiaries of its policies were remote: Aborigines, prisoners, refugees, famine and victims of disease." (ibid, p 135)
Unthinkable.
"She was a natural leader. That was never doubted. In the mad world of campus politics, she showed calm good humour, a sharp tongue and a combative streak. But her remarkable career as a student politician - first leading the Students Representative Council at Adelaide University and then heading the Australian Union of Students (AUS) in Melbourne - raised doubts early on about her deeper beliefs. 'It was progressive instincts that led me to get involved in the AUS', she says. But as its first woman president she found herself caught in a bitter partisan divide as she fought for the survival of this once radical body. Though a long time ago, it was a key battle in her career which still colours her political reputation. She wanted to take Palestine out of the AUS. 'When Whitlam brought the troops home, people then went on a mad cat [sic] pursuit of the New Vietnam and decided it was Palestine, completely misunderstanding that what had motivated most Australian youth was conscription. The question of Palestine was never going to be the new Vietnam for Australian students. So the union got more eccentric and irrelevant. I think it was right', she says, 'to draw a line under that'. The Right loathed her for even trying to keep AUS afloat. The Left loathed her for abandoning Palestine. Her pragmatic campaign to shift focus to educational issues - funding, scholarships etc - did not win much traction. She remembers the self-mocking credo of her faction: 'What do we want?' 'Gradual change'. 'When do we want it?' 'In due course'. The year after her term as president, AUS finally collapsed. Three irreconcilable views of Gillard emerged from this brawl, three conflicting images that dog her still: Gillard the leftie, Gillard the sellout, and Gillard the political operator." (The moment of truth, David Marr, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/8/10)
Marr's cliche about the mad world of student politics aside, while the best and the brightest students of the 1980s (and those of the 1970s) were grappling with one of the great moral and political issues of our time - the wiping of Palestine off the map - Gillard (who confides to Marr that "one of my prized possessions still is the prefect's tie that I got in [Unley High]. It was the first leadership position I ever had.") had decided that it was her mission, having captured the leadership of the AUS, to wipe Palestine off its agenda. And why? Because she, the union's head prefect, had decided it was an eccentric and irrelevant issue, that she had to draw a line under it and change focus to educational issues. Whether these are the real reasons, however, is anyones's guess. Whatever, they failed to gain traction, and after her leaving (wrecking?), AUS collapses! What a glorious legacy.
Keep in mind too that Gillard's ascendency in the AUS coincided with the aftermath of Israel's brutal attempt to wipe Lebanon (& the Palestine Liberation Organisation) off the map in 1982. Given Gillard's record above, what's the bet that the brutal Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon awakened not a flicker of concern in head prefect Gillard?
"She also earned a reputation, in some circles, of being a captive of the Zionist lobby. As Prime Minister, Gillard listed 'support for Israel' surprisingly high on the list of fundamentals of Australian foreign policy: only below the US alliance and the war in Afghanistan and above 'focus on our region'. She says, 'I am obviously a supporter of Israel as people would know'. The Prime Minister describes herself as 'not uncritical' of the settlements and a supporter of the two-state solution. But does she have any real, practical hope that two states will emerge? 'I think it's possible', she says and pauses for a long time. 'It's possible, but yeah it's hard. Across my lifetime, we've seen what appeared to be waves of progress which then didn't amount to real change. So I suppose that has instilled in me a sense of how difficult it is and how fixed the positions are'." (ibid)
Gillard did indeed have the reputation of being a captive of the Zionist lobby in those days. So much so that she took sufficient umbrage at being labelled a Zionist collaborator by some on the left that she threatened legal action.* Not, mind you, that the student politician who had proclaimed at the time, "I do not intend to have the tag of 'Zionist' follow me around for the rest of my life," really knew or cared what Zionism was. The above passage suggests someone who, for all her prattle about the virtues of hard work (telling Marr, for example, that "[My parents] taught me the value of hard work"), has obviously never lifted a finger, at any stage in her career, to educate herself on the issue of Palestine. Her every utterance on the subject, as above, smacks of ignorance and boredom.
[*See my 25/7/10 post, Me, A Zionist? How Very Dare You]
One of the ironies in Gillard's career is that she succeeded Labor identity Barry Jones as the member for Lalor in 1998. Jones was a reader and thinker, and took enough of an interest in the Palestine problem to read at least one book on the subject that we know of. In his autobiography, A Thinking Reed (2006), he recalls how "In January 1983 I was co-opted, at short notice, to join a Caucus delegation to Israel, organised by Barry Cohen*, MP for Robertson, underwritten by the Israeli Government and some Melbourne business people [MERC: That's right, rambamming has a long history!] One of the delegation had dropped out at the last minute so Barry invited me... The embassy had invited us to meet Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, Leader of the Likud, co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with President Sadat of Egypt and, as a younger man, a member of the Stern Gang [sic]. I had read a powerful book, The Longest War (1982), by Jacobo Timmerman, a courageous Argentinian publisher who survived torture, emigrated to Israel and wrote a tough analysis of human rights abuses against Palestinians. I tackled Begin directly, quoted a few sentences from The Longest War and invited him to comment. Begin shrugged, stretched out his arms and his voice went an octave higher. 'So he's got a pen? So he writes a book? What has that to do with me?' He refused to be drawn on Timmerman." (p 253)
[* "... a close friend so long as I refrained from any criticism, however mild, of Israel." (p 241)]
Unlike Jones, Gillard looks as though she'd rather die than pick up a book for any other reason than to kill time: "And for someone who's regarded as having such a fierce intellect, her library hardly sounds like a heady trip through academia... It's 'airport trash', page turners..." (Spotlight on the redhead, Mike Bruce, couriermail.com.au, 15/12/06)
And just imagine Gillard echoing these views of her predecessor:
"My view of politics has always been universal and historical. I was never attracted to it as the means of climbing the greasy pole or determining the spoils of office. I joined the Labor party out of a deep, but probably naive, commitment to egalitarianism and liberation. I saw the conservative symbol as a mirror in which a voter could see the beneficiary of voting Liberal or National: 'I'm voting for self-interest'. But I saw Labor as the 'other interest' party, and its symbol should have been a pair of binoculars because often the beneficiaries of its policies were remote: Aborigines, prisoners, refugees, famine and victims of disease." (ibid, p 135)
Unthinkable.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Me, A Zionist? How Very Dare You!
At uni she snuggled up to them:
"A fellow student activist says [Julia] Gillard has always been 'very much on the pragmatic side. She was always that way in politics. She was more inclined to deal with the Liberals, the Zionists and various right-wing groups than she was with the Left'." (She's got it, Stevenson & Banham, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/7/03)
But then she swore blind she wasn't one:
"A recently unearthed document [MERC: Who did the digging & why?] showed Prime Minister Julia Gillard has faced accusations of pro-Israel bias since her student days... In 1984, when Gillard was president of the Australian Union of Students (AUS) - a precursor to today's National Union of Students - she reported extensively on a particularly vicious debate about the group's Middle East policy. During that debate, Gillard wrote 'It was alleged by some sectors of the 'Left' either that I was a Zionist or was actively collaborating with Zionists', at the same time 'AUJS (Australian Union of Jewish Students) representatives were treating me with total suspicion and distrust'. Continuing with the report, Gillard hit back at those who labelled her a 'Zionist'. 'It seems to me the height of ridiculousness that people I had never met could form this unshakable belief that I was a Zionist', she wrote. 'I can only say to them that any rational person would believe opinions formed on the basis of little or no fact are not worth much'. She even went so far as to 'use any legal remedy available to me' to put the allegation to rest. 'I do not intend to have the tag of 'Zionist' follow me around for the rest of my life simply because of the particular brand of play-pen politics that pervades some sections of AUS'." (Back to the future: Gillard deflects Zionist slurs, The Australian Jewish News, 23/7/10)
But today... ?
"Shown the document last week, a spokesperson for Gillard told The AJN, 'In the 1984 student union report, Ms Gillard was writing about a dispute over procedural motions. She was simply refuting claims of bias'. She confirmed the PM's current stance towards the Jewish State. 'The Prime Minister said earlier this month her interest in and support for Israel were longstanding and that remains firmly the case'." (ibid)
Zionism/Shmionism - yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever it takes.
"A fellow student activist says [Julia] Gillard has always been 'very much on the pragmatic side. She was always that way in politics. She was more inclined to deal with the Liberals, the Zionists and various right-wing groups than she was with the Left'." (She's got it, Stevenson & Banham, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/7/03)
But then she swore blind she wasn't one:
"A recently unearthed document [MERC: Who did the digging & why?] showed Prime Minister Julia Gillard has faced accusations of pro-Israel bias since her student days... In 1984, when Gillard was president of the Australian Union of Students (AUS) - a precursor to today's National Union of Students - she reported extensively on a particularly vicious debate about the group's Middle East policy. During that debate, Gillard wrote 'It was alleged by some sectors of the 'Left' either that I was a Zionist or was actively collaborating with Zionists', at the same time 'AUJS (Australian Union of Jewish Students) representatives were treating me with total suspicion and distrust'. Continuing with the report, Gillard hit back at those who labelled her a 'Zionist'. 'It seems to me the height of ridiculousness that people I had never met could form this unshakable belief that I was a Zionist', she wrote. 'I can only say to them that any rational person would believe opinions formed on the basis of little or no fact are not worth much'. She even went so far as to 'use any legal remedy available to me' to put the allegation to rest. 'I do not intend to have the tag of 'Zionist' follow me around for the rest of my life simply because of the particular brand of play-pen politics that pervades some sections of AUS'." (Back to the future: Gillard deflects Zionist slurs, The Australian Jewish News, 23/7/10)
But today... ?
"Shown the document last week, a spokesperson for Gillard told The AJN, 'In the 1984 student union report, Ms Gillard was writing about a dispute over procedural motions. She was simply refuting claims of bias'. She confirmed the PM's current stance towards the Jewish State. 'The Prime Minister said earlier this month her interest in and support for Israel were longstanding and that remains firmly the case'." (ibid)
Zionism/Shmionism - yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever it takes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)