"The landmark racial discrimination court case brought by Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin against Sydney University's Jake Lynch was yesterday finally brought to a close, when a judge rejected a last-ditch attempt by an Australian lawyer to keep it alive.
"Federal Court judge Alan Robertson issued orders allowing Shurat HaDin to withdraw from the case after it had accepted it had no natural persons left as plaintiffs, leaving it with no legal standing in an Australian court. He made a general order for costs in favour of Professor Lynch...
"The court hearing yesterday had been expected to mark the end of an epic courtroom battle pitting different interpretations of free speech and academic expression against one another..."
Don't you just love the Australian's spin on this?
"But at the hearing, the Australian lawyer who originally represented Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, sought leave to have a six week period in which he would decide whether his electric bicycle company, Green Freedom, would continue the case without Shurat HaDin. Mr Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, told Justice Robertson the court had earlier issued orders that had the effect of taking all plaintiffs except for Shurat HaDin out of the case, and it was absurd for Mr Hamilton to prolong the closure of the matter. 'It's got to stop, your Honour,' Mr Hazan told the court.
"Justice Robertson adjourned the morning hearing saying he would bring down his decision on Mr Hamilton's request after he had re-examined the court transcript. Professor Lynch said at the end of the morning court session, referring to the famous Monty Python skit, that Mr Hamilton's effort to keep the case going was 'like the Black Knight fighting on after King Arthur has chopped off his arms and legs.' Just hours later Justice Robertson issued orders rejecting Mr Hamilton's application for time to consider continuing the case, bringing it to an end for all parties." (BDS case finally brought to a close, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 17/7/14)
This case, unforgivably, was effectively ignored by the Fairfax press and the ABC. It was, however, taken up by Murdoch's Australian, not, I hardly need add, out of any concern for, or interest in "free speech and academic expression," as suggested in the above piece, but as part of the paper's ferocious and relentless campaigning against anyone who calls for the use of the BDS strategy against Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Any full and credible account of this vicious attack on Professor Lynch will reveal how, as Shurat HaDin's case began slowly to unravel, the Australian's once cheerleading, front page treatment became more and more subdued, and its coverage migrated to the inner pages, until finally being consigned to its Higher Education supplement. To see how it was reported at the beginning, check out my 2/11/13 post More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1.
Showing posts with label Andrew Hamilton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Hamilton. Show all posts
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 11: VICTORY
A message from Jake:
"My lawyer and the lawyer for Shurat HaDin have agreed that the proceeding by Shurat HaDin be dismissed for lack of standing. And they have agreed for the court to make orders that Shurat HaDin pay my costs of the application for dismissal of the case, and my costs of the proceedings that are not otherwise subject to earlier cost orders.
"Judge Alan Robertson will make the orders in the Federal Court in Sydney, on Wednesday July 16th at 9.30am.
"This comprehensive legal victory represents complete vindication for the principled stance I have taken in fighting off a despicable attack on political freedom in Australia.
"It gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.
"Shurat HaDin is a foreign agency, with admitted past links with the Israeli state, which wanted to use the Australian courts to stifle the growing movement of worldwide political activism for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions.
"The case began with the smear that BDS advocates are motivated by racism. That was accepted by many of Australia's leading politicians, to their discredit, when they signed up to the so-called 'London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism'.*
"But the attempt to make it stick in court proved a bridge too far. Legal process requires evidence, and logical argument. Once exposed to that test, a claim that passed muster in the corridors of Canberra immediately began to crumble.
"I have faced claims that I should be held responsible for decisions by performing artists, such as Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg, not to tour Israel. There was never a shred of proof to back up any of these allegations.
"On the narrower issue of the request that I received from Professor Dan Avnon to endorse his application for a Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship, Shurat HaDin managed to persuade neither Avnon himself, nor any other academic, to join their ill-conceived action.
"This week's renewed wave of indiscriminate Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians shows the urgency of taking political action to promote peace with justice. Israel will not change its routine recourse to militarism and lawlessness without coming under pressure.
"The disavowal by the Australian government of the international legal consensus on the occupation of Palestinian territory shows this pressure must come from civil society. That is the rationale for BDS, as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
"This legal victory for me, and thousands of supporters who have stood by me and contributed to my cause, represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Someone has to make a change. If not us, who? If not now, when?
"The case has given rise to the creation of two important groups to take up this cause: Australians for BDS: http://australiansforbds.wordpress.com/ And within the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS: http://sydneystaff4bds.org/
A message (LOL) from the head of Shurat HaDin, Nitsana Darshan-Litigator in yesterday's Australian:
"Professor Lynch was taking 'a cowardly approach' by 'trying to get the case dismissed on a technicality' rather than run 'a fair and public trial on the merits. He is running away from the fight like the Arabs ran from the battlefield in the Six-Day War'." ('No plaintiffs left' in case against Lynch, Ean Higgins, 9/7/14)
And, lest we forget Shurat HaDin accessory,Andrew Akiva Hamilton:
"A solicitor for Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, did not respond to requests for comment." (Israeli legal centre abandons lawsuit against Sydney academic, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 10/7/14)
Roll on BDS!
[*See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]
"My lawyer and the lawyer for Shurat HaDin have agreed that the proceeding by Shurat HaDin be dismissed for lack of standing. And they have agreed for the court to make orders that Shurat HaDin pay my costs of the application for dismissal of the case, and my costs of the proceedings that are not otherwise subject to earlier cost orders.
"Judge Alan Robertson will make the orders in the Federal Court in Sydney, on Wednesday July 16th at 9.30am.
"This comprehensive legal victory represents complete vindication for the principled stance I have taken in fighting off a despicable attack on political freedom in Australia.
"It gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.
"Shurat HaDin is a foreign agency, with admitted past links with the Israeli state, which wanted to use the Australian courts to stifle the growing movement of worldwide political activism for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions.
"The case began with the smear that BDS advocates are motivated by racism. That was accepted by many of Australia's leading politicians, to their discredit, when they signed up to the so-called 'London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism'.*
"But the attempt to make it stick in court proved a bridge too far. Legal process requires evidence, and logical argument. Once exposed to that test, a claim that passed muster in the corridors of Canberra immediately began to crumble.
"I have faced claims that I should be held responsible for decisions by performing artists, such as Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg, not to tour Israel. There was never a shred of proof to back up any of these allegations.
"On the narrower issue of the request that I received from Professor Dan Avnon to endorse his application for a Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship, Shurat HaDin managed to persuade neither Avnon himself, nor any other academic, to join their ill-conceived action.
"This week's renewed wave of indiscriminate Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians shows the urgency of taking political action to promote peace with justice. Israel will not change its routine recourse to militarism and lawlessness without coming under pressure.
"The disavowal by the Australian government of the international legal consensus on the occupation of Palestinian territory shows this pressure must come from civil society. That is the rationale for BDS, as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
"This legal victory for me, and thousands of supporters who have stood by me and contributed to my cause, represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Someone has to make a change. If not us, who? If not now, when?
"The case has given rise to the creation of two important groups to take up this cause: Australians for BDS: http://australiansforbds.wordpress.com/ And within the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS: http://sydneystaff4bds.org/
A message (LOL) from the head of Shurat HaDin, Nitsana Darshan-Litigator in yesterday's Australian:
"Professor Lynch was taking 'a cowardly approach' by 'trying to get the case dismissed on a technicality' rather than run 'a fair and public trial on the merits. He is running away from the fight like the Arabs ran from the battlefield in the Six-Day War'." ('No plaintiffs left' in case against Lynch, Ean Higgins, 9/7/14)
And, lest we forget Shurat HaDin accessory,
"A solicitor for Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, did not respond to requests for comment." (Israeli legal centre abandons lawsuit against Sydney academic, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 10/7/14)
Roll on BDS!
[*See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]
Friday, May 30, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 8: Damage Control
Unable to credibly paint Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch as some kind of BDS mastermind, Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, has now decided, in an apparent exercise in damage control, to focus its attack solely on his decision to factor in the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel when approached by Israeli academics seeking his endorsement for Sydney University fellowships.
(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)
The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:
"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.
"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...
"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'
"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?
"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."
[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]
(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)
The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:
"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.
"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...
"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'
"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?
"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."
[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 7
Here's a wonderful letter from yesterday's Australian on the decision by the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union to back Professor Jake Lynch's courageous stand for Palestine and against Israeli bullying and intimidation:
"The threat by Shurat HaDin lawyer Andrew Hamilton that Sydney University staff will be next in the firing line shows that he prefers bullying and intimidation over rational discussion (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, 19/5) Like Shurat HaDin's Federal Court case against Jake Lynch, these tactics are intended to drain critics of resources, and silence other advocates of the peaceful boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. In coming to Lynch's defence, Sydney University's National Tertiary Education Union is upholding members' rights to a working environment free of such harassment, as any union should. Its resolution, moreover, is in line with the university's administration which recognises Lynch's support for BDS as a legitimate exercise of his intellectual freedom. NTEU members have voted to begin a broad discussion on the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in particular the university's links to Israeli institutions. These ties do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Our institution's global conduct is a matter that staff have every right to discuss and take positions on - up to and including support for BDS." David Brophy, history lecturer, Sydney University, NSW
"The threat by Shurat HaDin lawyer Andrew Hamilton that Sydney University staff will be next in the firing line shows that he prefers bullying and intimidation over rational discussion (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, 19/5) Like Shurat HaDin's Federal Court case against Jake Lynch, these tactics are intended to drain critics of resources, and silence other advocates of the peaceful boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. In coming to Lynch's defence, Sydney University's National Tertiary Education Union is upholding members' rights to a working environment free of such harassment, as any union should. Its resolution, moreover, is in line with the university's administration which recognises Lynch's support for BDS as a legitimate exercise of his intellectual freedom. NTEU members have voted to begin a broad discussion on the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in particular the university's links to Israeli institutions. These ties do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Our institution's global conduct is a matter that staff have every right to discuss and take positions on - up to and including support for BDS." David Brophy, history lecturer, Sydney University, NSW
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 6
Israeli lawmongers, Shurat HaDin, currently seeking to intimidate Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch in the Federal Court over his support for such fundamental human rights as freedom from military occupation, equality between people regardless of religious affiliation, and the right of refugees to return to the homes and lands from which they were once driven, are now threatening those who stand with him:
"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)
Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!
Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:
"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."
Alleged?
"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."
*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.
**The resolutions read as follows:
1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."
"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)
Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!
Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:
"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."
Alleged?
"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."
*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.
**The resolutions read as follows:
1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 4
"Sydney University professor Jake Lynch has claimed significant early victories in the landmark court case brought against him by Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin for his academic boycott of Israeli universities. In the Federal Court in Sydney yesterday, judge Alan Robertson rejected allegations Professor Lynch was a leader of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in Australia. Justice Robertson also struck out Shurat HaDin's allegation that Professor Lynch called for a boycott of Israeli academic Dan Avnon... Justice Robertson also struck out a paragraph claiming 'a purpose of BDS movement campaigns is to inflict pain on Israeli persons or organisations'. He gave Shurat HaDin 28 days to re-plead the paragraphs he struck out, and also ordered it to pay Professor Lynch's costs. The judge also said he would order Shurat HaDin to put up a bond to cover Professor Lynch's legal costs should it lose the case, unless its lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, agreed to provide advance notice if he intended to sell... his house and other assets." (Professor gets legal boost in BDS case, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 25/4/14)
Friday, February 21, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 2: Bigger Than Ben Hur
Some of the juicier bits from Suit against Israeli boycott supporter Jake Lynch 'too unwieldy' for court. The rest is just reiteration:
"Justice Alan Robertson told the lawyer for plaintiff Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, to work with Professor Lynch's solicitor... to try to simplify the case to avoid it dragging on... at huge expense. 'This is unlikely to be heard this year on the current rate of progress,' Justice Robertson told the court... 'It seems to me at the moment that the proceedings are remarkably complex,' Justice Robertson told yesterday's directions hearing in Sydney. Justice Robertson asked Mr Hamilton, who participated in the directions hearing by telephone, why this was the case. 'Why so many actions, why a class action, isn't there a simpler way,' Justice Robertson asked. Mr Hamilton responded that it was a 'class action against a group of people discriminated against' who were 'not able to bring their class action themselves.' Mr Hamilton started to say Shurat HaDin argued that Professor Lynch's stand adversely affected not just individuals but whole categories of people* when Justice Robertson cut him off. 'I don't want speeches, I just asked you a question, and the answer is no,' Justice Robertson said. Justice Robertson set down a yet to be decided day in mid-March for an interlocutory hearing of applications by both sides... Mr Hamilton, who informed the court he has a property in the Sydney beachside suburb of Coogee, said he would be happy to provide a statement of his own assets and liabilities, which he said were about $3 million and $1 million respectively." (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 12/2/14)
[*Memo to Andrew - sorry, Akiva - Hamilton. Don't forget to include in your list of claims the crippling transgenerational trauma experienced by the children - even unto the third and fourth generations - of those Israelis brutally robbed by Professor Lynch of the opportunity to attend Pink Floyd and Santana concerts.]
"Justice Alan Robertson told the lawyer for plaintiff Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, to work with Professor Lynch's solicitor... to try to simplify the case to avoid it dragging on... at huge expense. 'This is unlikely to be heard this year on the current rate of progress,' Justice Robertson told the court... 'It seems to me at the moment that the proceedings are remarkably complex,' Justice Robertson told yesterday's directions hearing in Sydney. Justice Robertson asked Mr Hamilton, who participated in the directions hearing by telephone, why this was the case. 'Why so many actions, why a class action, isn't there a simpler way,' Justice Robertson asked. Mr Hamilton responded that it was a 'class action against a group of people discriminated against' who were 'not able to bring their class action themselves.' Mr Hamilton started to say Shurat HaDin argued that Professor Lynch's stand adversely affected not just individuals but whole categories of people* when Justice Robertson cut him off. 'I don't want speeches, I just asked you a question, and the answer is no,' Justice Robertson said. Justice Robertson set down a yet to be decided day in mid-March for an interlocutory hearing of applications by both sides... Mr Hamilton, who informed the court he has a property in the Sydney beachside suburb of Coogee, said he would be happy to provide a statement of his own assets and liabilities, which he said were about $3 million and $1 million respectively." (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 12/2/14)
[*Memo to Andrew - sorry, Akiva - Hamilton. Don't forget to include in your list of claims the crippling transgenerational trauma experienced by the children - even unto the third and fourth generations - of those Israelis brutally robbed by Professor Lynch of the opportunity to attend Pink Floyd and Santana concerts.]
Saturday, January 18, 2014
With My Own Eyes
At last, the case of Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch has made it into the Sydney Morning Herald in the form of an article by Richard Ackland on Attorney-General George Brandis' plan to strip the Racial Discrimination Act of its prohibition on 'offending and insulting' ethnic/racial minorities (section 18C) in the interests of professional offenders such as Murdoch mouthpiece Andrew Bolt. Needless to say, Brandis will be spinning it as a blow for free speech.
Ackland makes the perfectly valid point that:
"What is now a distressing hypocrisy surrounding the campaign to reform or do away with section 18C of the act is that its advocates are generally the same people cheering on the use of the act as the basis of proceedings in the Federal Court against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch. He is being sued under different provisions of the act by Shurat HaDin - the Israel Law centre. The application was filed last October and it alleges that Lynch, from the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, refused to support an application by Israeli academic Dan Avnon for a Zelman Cowan fellowship at the University of Sydney. It is claimed that in an act of racial discrimination, he deprived Avnon of his professional rights. Lynch is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. The Shurat HaDin statement of claim goes further and says that by calling for a boycott of Israel, Lynch adds to a campaign that disadvantages owners of Israeli-related businesses and deprives Israelis of cultural opportunities such as seeing Santana and Pink Floyd. Avnon, of the Hebrew University does not seem to have suffered a setback as a result of Lynch's lack of support. He lists on his resume, among his forthcoming appointments, that he will be the Sir Zelman Cowan visiting scholar at the University of Sydney this year. So, on the one hand the act is evil for affecting the free speech in the narrow provisions that deal with offending and insulting ethnic and racial minorities, but is heroic when its broad provisions are engaged as a basis of proceedings against lefty academics in the BDS movement. The whole thing could land Brandis in a bit of a pickle." (Free speech is a double-edged sword, 17/1/14)
Ackland lists a number of organisations - Aboriginal, Greek, Chinese etc - who have been lobbying Senator Brandis not to ditch 18C. Included in the list is the professionally offended Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
Its involvement in this issue, of course, raises the perennial question of whether Jews, as a purely faith community, should be so involved.
On the other hand, if Jews are seen as an ethnic/racial community, in line with the Zionist 'Jewish people' dogma, which ECAJ subscribes to, one wonders whether Ackland understands that ECAJ, as an organisation that wishes to retain 18C but is part and parcel of the Zionist/Murdoch attack on BDS and its proponents such as Professor Lynch, is also in something of a pickle, its unconvincing attempt to distance itself from Shurat HaDin's litigation by describing it as "inappropriate and counter-productive" notwithstanding.
As Shurat HaDin's Australian operative, Andrew (Akiva) Hamilton, has said:
"There is more than one way to confront BDS and our efforts complement those of the ECAJ." (Shurat HaDin, ECAJ disagree on skinning the BDS cat, j-wire.com.au, 3/11/13)
Took the words right out of my mouth, Akiva! As Irgun leader Menachem Begin might have said in the late 40s: 'There is more than one way to deal with the British and the Arabs, and our efforts complement those of the Haganah nicely, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?'
Still, all credit to Ackland for raising the case of Jake Lynch. I hope he reports on the coming court case in February.
Ackland makes the perfectly valid point that:
"What is now a distressing hypocrisy surrounding the campaign to reform or do away with section 18C of the act is that its advocates are generally the same people cheering on the use of the act as the basis of proceedings in the Federal Court against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch. He is being sued under different provisions of the act by Shurat HaDin - the Israel Law centre. The application was filed last October and it alleges that Lynch, from the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, refused to support an application by Israeli academic Dan Avnon for a Zelman Cowan fellowship at the University of Sydney. It is claimed that in an act of racial discrimination, he deprived Avnon of his professional rights. Lynch is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. The Shurat HaDin statement of claim goes further and says that by calling for a boycott of Israel, Lynch adds to a campaign that disadvantages owners of Israeli-related businesses and deprives Israelis of cultural opportunities such as seeing Santana and Pink Floyd. Avnon, of the Hebrew University does not seem to have suffered a setback as a result of Lynch's lack of support. He lists on his resume, among his forthcoming appointments, that he will be the Sir Zelman Cowan visiting scholar at the University of Sydney this year. So, on the one hand the act is evil for affecting the free speech in the narrow provisions that deal with offending and insulting ethnic and racial minorities, but is heroic when its broad provisions are engaged as a basis of proceedings against lefty academics in the BDS movement. The whole thing could land Brandis in a bit of a pickle." (Free speech is a double-edged sword, 17/1/14)
Ackland lists a number of organisations - Aboriginal, Greek, Chinese etc - who have been lobbying Senator Brandis not to ditch 18C. Included in the list is the professionally offended Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
Its involvement in this issue, of course, raises the perennial question of whether Jews, as a purely faith community, should be so involved.
On the other hand, if Jews are seen as an ethnic/racial community, in line with the Zionist 'Jewish people' dogma, which ECAJ subscribes to, one wonders whether Ackland understands that ECAJ, as an organisation that wishes to retain 18C but is part and parcel of the Zionist/Murdoch attack on BDS and its proponents such as Professor Lynch, is also in something of a pickle, its unconvincing attempt to distance itself from Shurat HaDin's litigation by describing it as "inappropriate and counter-productive" notwithstanding.
As Shurat HaDin's Australian operative, Andrew (Akiva) Hamilton, has said:
"There is more than one way to confront BDS and our efforts complement those of the ECAJ." (Shurat HaDin, ECAJ disagree on skinning the BDS cat, j-wire.com.au, 3/11/13)
Took the words right out of my mouth, Akiva! As Irgun leader Menachem Begin might have said in the late 40s: 'There is more than one way to deal with the British and the Arabs, and our efforts complement those of the Haganah nicely, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?'
Still, all credit to Ackland for raising the case of Jake Lynch. I hope he reports on the coming court case in February.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Dr Hammer & Dr Kedar...
... coming to a Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies near you.
For the casual reader of The Heart of Darkness (aka The Australian) it must sometimes look as though Israel is Human Rights Central:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics, who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor [Jake] Lynch's policy, even though as yet they have not been the subject of specific actions. Dr Leonard Hammer, of the Hebrew University, a human rights lawyer, and Dr Mordechai Kedar, of Bar Ilan University, an Arabic studies specialist, have regularly lectured overseas, including in Australia, Mr [Andrew] Hamilton told The Australian. 'They both are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Sydney University's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), where Lynch has implemented his boycott,' Mr Hamilton said. 'However, just as a sign on a bar saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed' discriminates against and disadvantages all Jews and blacks, even if they didn't even want to go into the bar, so Jake Lynch's BDS academic boycott discriminates and disadvantages all Israeli academics,' he said." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', Ean Higgins, 28/12/13)
Hm... so both Hammer and Kedar "are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at CPACS."
Gee... the former's "a human rights lawyer" so he must be a good bloke, sort of an Israeli Julian Burnside I imagine, and the latter's into "Arabic studies" so he'd be favourably disposed towards the Palestinians, right? And... and... Shurat HaDin's a fearless fighter for all those Israelis quivering in fear at the prospect the next terrorist outrage just around the corner, yes?
As if!
Whoops! Shurat HaDin's Andrew Hamilton must have forgotten to tell Ean Higgins that Hammer is "the Academic Director to Shurat HaDin." (Leonard Hammer, judaic.arizona.edu)
And here's Kedar waxing scholarly on the subject of a Palestinian state: "A Palestinian state with territorial-terrorist contiguity would be an existential threat to Israel, and therefore Israel should assert its right - it can and must say to Obama and Kerry: No!!!" (Sisi:1, Obama:0, mordechaikedar.blogspot.com.au, 29/12/13)
You can just imagine these two touching down at Sydney Airport:
Australian Customs: Occupation?
Hammer & Kedar: No, just visiting.
For the casual reader of The Heart of Darkness (aka The Australian) it must sometimes look as though Israel is Human Rights Central:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics, who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor [Jake] Lynch's policy, even though as yet they have not been the subject of specific actions. Dr Leonard Hammer, of the Hebrew University, a human rights lawyer, and Dr Mordechai Kedar, of Bar Ilan University, an Arabic studies specialist, have regularly lectured overseas, including in Australia, Mr [Andrew] Hamilton told The Australian. 'They both are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Sydney University's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), where Lynch has implemented his boycott,' Mr Hamilton said. 'However, just as a sign on a bar saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed' discriminates against and disadvantages all Jews and blacks, even if they didn't even want to go into the bar, so Jake Lynch's BDS academic boycott discriminates and disadvantages all Israeli academics,' he said." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', Ean Higgins, 28/12/13)
Hm... so both Hammer and Kedar "are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at CPACS."
Gee... the former's "a human rights lawyer" so he must be a good bloke, sort of an Israeli Julian Burnside I imagine, and the latter's into "Arabic studies" so he'd be favourably disposed towards the Palestinians, right? And... and... Shurat HaDin's a fearless fighter for all those Israelis quivering in fear at the prospect the next terrorist outrage just around the corner, yes?
As if!
Whoops! Shurat HaDin's Andrew Hamilton must have forgotten to tell Ean Higgins that Hammer is "the Academic Director to Shurat HaDin." (Leonard Hammer, judaic.arizona.edu)
And here's Kedar waxing scholarly on the subject of a Palestinian state: "A Palestinian state with territorial-terrorist contiguity would be an existential threat to Israel, and therefore Israel should assert its right - it can and must say to Obama and Kerry: No!!!" (Sisi:1, Obama:0, mordechaikedar.blogspot.com.au, 29/12/13)
You can just imagine these two touching down at Sydney Airport:
Australian Customs: Occupation?
Hammer & Kedar: No, just visiting.
Monday, December 30, 2013
The Heart of Darkness
The masthead of Murdoch's 'flagship' paper in this country, The Australian, loudly proclaims itself to be The Heart of the Nation.
Now I'd only be inclined to go along with that claim provided that the adjective 'dark' preceded the noun 'heart'. Or, even better (and with apologies to Joseph Conrad), that it was replaced altogether with the words 'The Heart of Darkness', as befits the paper's status as the mouthpiece of the Abbottoir and all that is vile and retrograde in this country.
So what has provoked this little exercise in calling a spade a spade? What else but Ean - with an 'E' - Higgins' latest EXCLUSIVE:
"Sydney academic Jake Lynch's promotion of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] has discriminated against all Israelis in the same fashion as a pub owner hanging out a sign saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed', the lawyer leading a lawsuit against him will argue. Andrew Hamilton, representing the Israel-based legal action group Shurat HaDin, has submitted a sweeping statement of claim to the Federal Court alleging Professor Lynch has directly discriminated against academics, but also helped deprive all Israelis of cultural, educational, and professional opportunities." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', 28/12/13)
OMG! This is news? This is journalism? Seriously?
No, this is advocacy, pure and simple. The Heart of Darkness has donned the mantle of media-advocate for the plaintiff, and is getting in on the act even before the case is underway.
Call me sheltered, but I simply cannot for the life of me remember a media outlet intervening in a legal case in this fashion before. Of the 19 paragraphs that make up this pseudo-report, just one (1) is given over to a statement by the defendant. Extraordinary.
To return to those opening paragraphs. The simple fact of the matter here is that the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign is little more than a reaction to the behaviour of an apartheid state which, having booted out Palestine's non-Jews and stolen their lands and possessions, has put up a sign (known officially as the Law of Return) which reads, in effect, 'No Non-Jews Allowed'.
Needless to say, on Planet Zion, reality is invariably reversed. Strange things happen there. Anti-racists, for example, are labelled racists by the supporters of a state based at its most fundamental level - the level of who gets in and who gets all the perks that come with getting-in, as opposed to those who don't - on biology.
On Planet Earth (how weird that this has to be emphasised time and again), it is Professor Lynch, not Andrew Hamilton (or Akiva as he likes to style himself), who, as a backer of BDS, stands against institutionalised racism, discrimination and exclusion.
As to those poor Israelis deprived by Professor Lynch of "cultural, educational, and professional opportunities," get ready to cry the proverbial river:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics [Dr Leonard Hammer & Dr Mordechai Kedar], who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor Lynch's policy [because]... [t]hey are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Professor Lynch's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies..." (ibid)
"Shurat HaDin's statement... says two of the applicants, David Hans Lange and Jonathan Bose, and their wives were 'deprived of the opportunity to attend the local Israeli public performances of Elvis Costello' because a scheduled performance in 2010 for which they had tickets was cancelled 'due to implementation of boycott calls'." (ibid)
The Heart of Darkness bleeds for these miserable wretches.
Now I'd only be inclined to go along with that claim provided that the adjective 'dark' preceded the noun 'heart'. Or, even better (and with apologies to Joseph Conrad), that it was replaced altogether with the words 'The Heart of Darkness', as befits the paper's status as the mouthpiece of the Abbottoir and all that is vile and retrograde in this country.
So what has provoked this little exercise in calling a spade a spade? What else but Ean - with an 'E' - Higgins' latest EXCLUSIVE:
"Sydney academic Jake Lynch's promotion of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] has discriminated against all Israelis in the same fashion as a pub owner hanging out a sign saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed', the lawyer leading a lawsuit against him will argue. Andrew Hamilton, representing the Israel-based legal action group Shurat HaDin, has submitted a sweeping statement of claim to the Federal Court alleging Professor Lynch has directly discriminated against academics, but also helped deprive all Israelis of cultural, educational, and professional opportunities." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', 28/12/13)
OMG! This is news? This is journalism? Seriously?
No, this is advocacy, pure and simple. The Heart of Darkness has donned the mantle of media-advocate for the plaintiff, and is getting in on the act even before the case is underway.
Call me sheltered, but I simply cannot for the life of me remember a media outlet intervening in a legal case in this fashion before. Of the 19 paragraphs that make up this pseudo-report, just one (1) is given over to a statement by the defendant. Extraordinary.
To return to those opening paragraphs. The simple fact of the matter here is that the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign is little more than a reaction to the behaviour of an apartheid state which, having booted out Palestine's non-Jews and stolen their lands and possessions, has put up a sign (known officially as the Law of Return) which reads, in effect, 'No Non-Jews Allowed'.
Needless to say, on Planet Zion, reality is invariably reversed. Strange things happen there. Anti-racists, for example, are labelled racists by the supporters of a state based at its most fundamental level - the level of who gets in and who gets all the perks that come with getting-in, as opposed to those who don't - on biology.
On Planet Earth (how weird that this has to be emphasised time and again), it is Professor Lynch, not Andrew Hamilton (or Akiva as he likes to style himself), who, as a backer of BDS, stands against institutionalised racism, discrimination and exclusion.
As to those poor Israelis deprived by Professor Lynch of "cultural, educational, and professional opportunities," get ready to cry the proverbial river:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics [Dr Leonard Hammer & Dr Mordechai Kedar], who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor Lynch's policy [because]... [t]hey are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Professor Lynch's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies..." (ibid)
"Shurat HaDin's statement... says two of the applicants, David Hans Lange and Jonathan Bose, and their wives were 'deprived of the opportunity to attend the local Israeli public performances of Elvis Costello' because a scheduled performance in 2010 for which they had tickets was cancelled 'due to implementation of boycott calls'." (ibid)
The Heart of Darkness bleeds for these miserable wretches.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1
Murdoch's Australian is positively salivating over the latest legal manoeuvre by the Mossad-backed lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, against Associate Professor Jake Lynch, director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), over his courageous stand in defence of Palestinian rights.
Unreported in the Fairfax press or Guardian Australia, Shurat HaDin's pursuit of Professor Lynch is now getting front page treatment in The Australian. The latest spike in its ongoing 'coverage' of the issue began in earnest on October 30 with the kind of drive-by editorial especially reserved by the paper for anyone who refuses to bend the knee and kiss the Israeli ring.
Exploiting last Saturday night's random attack on a group of Jews at Bondi Beach by youths of Islander background (whose knowledge of, or interest in, Middle Eastern affairs would be less than zero), The Australian's editorialist, hyping the attack as an example of "the vile spectre of anti-Semitism," had no doubt who was to blame:
"It is not altogether surprising given the attitude of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University. Last year, the centre shunned a Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic who developed a civics course to unite Arab and Jewish students. Centre director Jake Lynch backed the oppressive boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. The existence of Israel is accepted in international law and by the UN but some Australian humanities academics think otherwise. In supporting the Palestinian cause, the Left must not allow anti-Semitism to become an article of faith among young people and risk reigniting hatreds that festered across Europe for centuries before 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust." (Dangerous anti-Semitism has no place in Australia: In backing Palestinians, the Left must not demonise Israel)
That outrageous libel was matched by the bizarre front page piece by Ean Higgins and Jared Owens about which I've already posted, To Jewish leaders, incidents prove you can never stop. (See my 30/10/13 post Only in 'The Australian', No. 16,972.) Accompanied by a photograph of a "Holocaust survivor," and opening with a reference to the Bondi Beach attack, it veered from one unrelated matter to another before finally reaching its intended target, Professor Lynch.
The very next day, October 31, again on the front page, we had the headline Anti-Israeli BDS campaign facing court test. The byline? Ean Higgins, naturally. It began:
"The emotive controversy over whether the BDS campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will be tested in the Federal Court after an Israeli organisation launched a landmark legal suit."
After outlining something of the history of the case, Higgins went on, on page 2 now, to detail the substance of Shurat HaDin's complaint:
"Shurat HaDin's case will argue that Professor Lynch's support for BDS amounts to racial discrimination against Israelis and Jews, in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the application filed with the court, Shurat HaDin claims that Professor Lynch's 'inherent purpose in participating [in] and publicly supporting the BDS movement is to do acts involving adverse distinction, exclusion, restriction and adverse preference based on the Jewish race, descent, national and ethnic origin of goods, services, persons and organisations," which, the godawful legalese notwithstanding, sounds more like a description of Israel's treatment of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.
"Shurat HaDin," Higgins continued, " is not seeking financial restitution... but court orders requiring [Professor Lynch] to apologise for his BDS campaign and desist from it. Professor Lynch rejected Shurat HaDin's claims, and said he would vigorously fight the court action. 'The campaign for an academic boycott of institutional links with Israeli universities is a non-violent campaign for peace with justice in respect of militarism and lawlessness,' Professor Lynch, who is in Britain, told The Australian. 'I am confident we will prove, in court if necessary, that it does not amount to any form of discrimination or racism'."
Higgins then introduced the subject of Shurat HaDin's links with Israeli intelligence, quoting its Australian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, as saying that "receiving tip-offs from Mossad... was part of the normal practice of lawyers seeking information and evidence to bolster their cases."
How fascinating. Whereas Australia's new foreign minister is adamant that "we don't comment on intelligence matters," Mossad is apparently more than happy to talk to any old Tom, Dick and Andrew!
Higgins then had Jerusalem's Hebrew University, which is seeking ties with Sydney University opposed by Professor Lynch, confirming that, yes, "it ran two programs for serving and future Israeli soldiers," but claiming that these were also "attended by students who were not connected to the military," a complete nonsense, of course, in a society where all Jewish Israelis, save the ultra-orthodox, are required to serve in the army.
He then quoted another Hebrew University spokesman as saying that the entire Hebrew University campus is "is all on Israeli territory." In fact, it is situated on Mt Scopus, an Israeli enclave in the Jordanian-ruled West Bank from 1948-1967.
Now exactly why the Palestinians should be expected to view Mt Scopus, which is east of the so-called Green Line, as Israeli territory when Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian claim to hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages west of the Green Line is one of life's little mysteries.
But then, even if we ignore the above elephant in the room and concede that Mt Scopus campus is all on Israeli territory, we still have to face the fact that all its access roads run through occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
But there's more! There always is in The Australian. There's also the letters page to insult our intelligence, this time with such gems as:
"There is no other tool than anti-Semitism for criticising Israel and the Jewish people.";
"... anti-Semitism deniers such as Jake Lynch," and his "platoon of supporters happily preferring uggboots to jackboots.";
"... a rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is expressing itself as anti-Semitism..."
Continued next post...
Unreported in the Fairfax press or Guardian Australia, Shurat HaDin's pursuit of Professor Lynch is now getting front page treatment in The Australian. The latest spike in its ongoing 'coverage' of the issue began in earnest on October 30 with the kind of drive-by editorial especially reserved by the paper for anyone who refuses to bend the knee and kiss the Israeli ring.
Exploiting last Saturday night's random attack on a group of Jews at Bondi Beach by youths of Islander background (whose knowledge of, or interest in, Middle Eastern affairs would be less than zero), The Australian's editorialist, hyping the attack as an example of "the vile spectre of anti-Semitism," had no doubt who was to blame:
"It is not altogether surprising given the attitude of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University. Last year, the centre shunned a Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic who developed a civics course to unite Arab and Jewish students. Centre director Jake Lynch backed the oppressive boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. The existence of Israel is accepted in international law and by the UN but some Australian humanities academics think otherwise. In supporting the Palestinian cause, the Left must not allow anti-Semitism to become an article of faith among young people and risk reigniting hatreds that festered across Europe for centuries before 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust." (Dangerous anti-Semitism has no place in Australia: In backing Palestinians, the Left must not demonise Israel)
That outrageous libel was matched by the bizarre front page piece by Ean Higgins and Jared Owens about which I've already posted, To Jewish leaders, incidents prove you can never stop. (See my 30/10/13 post Only in 'The Australian', No. 16,972.) Accompanied by a photograph of a "Holocaust survivor," and opening with a reference to the Bondi Beach attack, it veered from one unrelated matter to another before finally reaching its intended target, Professor Lynch.
The very next day, October 31, again on the front page, we had the headline Anti-Israeli BDS campaign facing court test. The byline? Ean Higgins, naturally. It began:
"The emotive controversy over whether the BDS campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will be tested in the Federal Court after an Israeli organisation launched a landmark legal suit."
After outlining something of the history of the case, Higgins went on, on page 2 now, to detail the substance of Shurat HaDin's complaint:
"Shurat HaDin's case will argue that Professor Lynch's support for BDS amounts to racial discrimination against Israelis and Jews, in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the application filed with the court, Shurat HaDin claims that Professor Lynch's 'inherent purpose in participating [in] and publicly supporting the BDS movement is to do acts involving adverse distinction, exclusion, restriction and adverse preference based on the Jewish race, descent, national and ethnic origin of goods, services, persons and organisations," which, the godawful legalese notwithstanding, sounds more like a description of Israel's treatment of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.
"Shurat HaDin," Higgins continued, " is not seeking financial restitution... but court orders requiring [Professor Lynch] to apologise for his BDS campaign and desist from it. Professor Lynch rejected Shurat HaDin's claims, and said he would vigorously fight the court action. 'The campaign for an academic boycott of institutional links with Israeli universities is a non-violent campaign for peace with justice in respect of militarism and lawlessness,' Professor Lynch, who is in Britain, told The Australian. 'I am confident we will prove, in court if necessary, that it does not amount to any form of discrimination or racism'."
Higgins then introduced the subject of Shurat HaDin's links with Israeli intelligence, quoting its Australian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, as saying that "receiving tip-offs from Mossad... was part of the normal practice of lawyers seeking information and evidence to bolster their cases."
How fascinating. Whereas Australia's new foreign minister is adamant that "we don't comment on intelligence matters," Mossad is apparently more than happy to talk to any old Tom, Dick and Andrew!
Higgins then had Jerusalem's Hebrew University, which is seeking ties with Sydney University opposed by Professor Lynch, confirming that, yes, "it ran two programs for serving and future Israeli soldiers," but claiming that these were also "attended by students who were not connected to the military," a complete nonsense, of course, in a society where all Jewish Israelis, save the ultra-orthodox, are required to serve in the army.
He then quoted another Hebrew University spokesman as saying that the entire Hebrew University campus is "is all on Israeli territory." In fact, it is situated on Mt Scopus, an Israeli enclave in the Jordanian-ruled West Bank from 1948-1967.
Now exactly why the Palestinians should be expected to view Mt Scopus, which is east of the so-called Green Line, as Israeli territory when Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian claim to hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages west of the Green Line is one of life's little mysteries.
But then, even if we ignore the above elephant in the room and concede that Mt Scopus campus is all on Israeli territory, we still have to face the fact that all its access roads run through occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
But there's more! There always is in The Australian. There's also the letters page to insult our intelligence, this time with such gems as:
"There is no other tool than anti-Semitism for criticising Israel and the Jewish people.";
"... anti-Semitism deniers such as Jake Lynch," and his "platoon of supporters happily preferring uggboots to jackboots.";
"... a rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is expressing itself as anti-Semitism..."
Continued next post...
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Behind the Sacking of AusAID
Tony Abbott's Suppository of All Wisdom, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, is a happy man at last:
"The Abbott government is determined to reform Australia's overseas aid program - and it is in urgent need of reform. The move to scrap AusAID as an independent statutory agency and to make it part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a huge and welcome step on the road... The government intends to keep the focus on sorting out waste and poor priorities in aid. Partly to this end, Teresa Gambaro... will be the chair of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade. Ms Gambaro was a tough-minded critic of the aid program when she was parliamentary secretary..." (AusAID shake-up good for diplomacy, The Australian, 19/9/13)
And you can see why when you recall last year's frustration with these AusAID vipers:
"Australian taxpayers should not be forced to fund organisations with links to terrorists. This is the case with aid to at least one Palestinian group. It's not against the law, but it's wrong. It's morally and politically objectionable. It ought to stop. The Australian government aid agency, AusAID, gives millions of dollars, through the private charity World Vision, to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, which works in the Gaza Strip. The problem is the UAWC and its personnel have deep links with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the relevant UN list, Australian legislation and the legislation of numerous other countries. It is one of the central progenitors of modern terrorism." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
After all, hadn't these reptiles been exposed by none other than Andrew>Akiva Hamilton's doughty crusaders for human rights, Shurat HaDin?
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
A point not lost on then opposition development assistance spokeswoman Ms Gambaro (rambammed 2006/2012):
"It would appear that AusAID is providing funds to World Vision to fund an organisation that has links to a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
For the full story, read my 6/5/12 post Greg Sheridan On His Hind Legs.
PS: "Then there are the millions of dollars Australian taxpayers have generously stumped up for the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Works Committees. A number of the board members and office-holders of this group are intimately associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the key progenitors of terrorism against Western targets, pioneering especially attacks on passenger aeroplanes." (Rational approach to aid long overdue, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 21/9/13)
Now compare that dogmatic, guilty-as-charged assertion with last year's more measured approach:
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation. I think that overstates the legal case but I think the moral and political case against funding the UAWC is overwhelming. In the Palestinian territories, it can be difficult to work effectively on the ground and not rub shoulders with people who have terrorist connections." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
"The Abbott government is determined to reform Australia's overseas aid program - and it is in urgent need of reform. The move to scrap AusAID as an independent statutory agency and to make it part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a huge and welcome step on the road... The government intends to keep the focus on sorting out waste and poor priorities in aid. Partly to this end, Teresa Gambaro... will be the chair of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade. Ms Gambaro was a tough-minded critic of the aid program when she was parliamentary secretary..." (AusAID shake-up good for diplomacy, The Australian, 19/9/13)
And you can see why when you recall last year's frustration with these AusAID vipers:
"Australian taxpayers should not be forced to fund organisations with links to terrorists. This is the case with aid to at least one Palestinian group. It's not against the law, but it's wrong. It's morally and politically objectionable. It ought to stop. The Australian government aid agency, AusAID, gives millions of dollars, through the private charity World Vision, to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, which works in the Gaza Strip. The problem is the UAWC and its personnel have deep links with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the relevant UN list, Australian legislation and the legislation of numerous other countries. It is one of the central progenitors of modern terrorism." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
After all, hadn't these reptiles been exposed by none other than Andrew>Akiva Hamilton's doughty crusaders for human rights, Shurat HaDin?
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
A point not lost on then opposition development assistance spokeswoman Ms Gambaro (rambammed 2006/2012):
"It would appear that AusAID is providing funds to World Vision to fund an organisation that has links to a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
For the full story, read my 6/5/12 post Greg Sheridan On His Hind Legs.
PS: "Then there are the millions of dollars Australian taxpayers have generously stumped up for the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Works Committees. A number of the board members and office-holders of this group are intimately associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the key progenitors of terrorism against Western targets, pioneering especially attacks on passenger aeroplanes." (Rational approach to aid long overdue, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 21/9/13)
Now compare that dogmatic, guilty-as-charged assertion with last year's more measured approach:
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation. I think that overstates the legal case but I think the moral and political case against funding the UAWC is overwhelming. In the Palestinian territories, it can be difficult to work effectively on the ground and not rub shoulders with people who have terrorist connections." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Academic Refuses to Jump Through Zionist Hoop
"A complaint filed at the Australian Human Rights Commission against those involved in the University of Sydney BDS controversy has been dropped after the academic at the centre of the row failed to respond in detail to the issues raised. Jake Lynch, director of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, will face possible legal action in the Federal Court... 'We expected there would be some attempt (by Dr Lynch) to conciliate, but his response was fairly brief* and he effectively declined to do so,' Mr [Andrew > Akiva] Hamilton said." (Civil rights group** to initiate court action, Kylar Loussikian, The Australian, 11/9/13)
[*Could it have been 'Go jump!' by any chance?; **Civil rights group?! LOL. Only in Murdoch's Australian.]
[*Could it have been 'Go jump!' by any chance?; **Civil rights group?! LOL. Only in Murdoch's Australian.]
Monday, August 26, 2013
Desperately Seeking Australian Apartheid
It's amazing the lengths some guys will go to to impress a girl. (Now to understand just how that statement ties in with the quotation below, you're going to have to stop reading this post NOW and go directly to my June 28 post, His Brilliant Career, where all will be revealed. Simply click on the Andrew Hamilton label below.)
Now as you will have gathered after reading my earlier post on him, Andrew (call me Akiva) Hamilton is an example of what has been called OZCS - Over-Zealous Convert Syndrome. In Hamilton's case, of course, the conversion has been to political Zionism, and such is the lad's zeal that, in addition to taking on Associate Professor Jake Lynch, he's now taking on his very birthplace, Australia:
"The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement justifies its racist persecution of Jewish Israeli businesses in Australia, the UK, Europe and North America with the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state... But the analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false on every level. A comparison of Israel with Australia... reveals this clearly... Israel is one of the most un-apartheid states in the world, with a record of successful multiculturalism, protection and integration of minorities that puts most western countries, including Australia, to shame. Apartheid South Africa had a system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination against 'blacks' and 'coloreds' in every aspect of South African society. This was similar to, but more extreme than, the system of racist laws that Australia had in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)." (Israel, the un-apartheid state - a comparison with Australia, The Jerusalem Post, 21/8/13)
Now Hamilton's contention that Israel is "one of the most un-apartheid states in the world" is, of course, pure bunkum. For a state which converted an indigenous Arab majority into a minority by a) packing it off to exile in refugee camps in surrounding countries and refusing its return; and b) passing a Law of Return which allows in as citizens only persons deemed to be Jews, regardless of their origin, to be characterised as "un-apartheid" is high-order chutzpah, something we've come to expect from Mr Hamilton.
But rather than re-canvass the issue of apartheid Israel in this post, simply click on the Israeli apartheid label below and read through my various posts on the subject, particularly those which refer to the seminal work of Israeli scholar Uri Davis.
Without in any way underestimating the genocidal impact of white settler-colonialism on Australia's indigenous Aboriginal population, and keeping in mind that the sine qua non of both South African and Israeli apartheid derives from a body of discriminatory legislation, I intend here to deal only with Hamilton's assertion that Australia was some kind of apartheid South Africa lite until its Aboriginal population achieved 'equality' with other citizens in 1967.
To begin with, his charge that Australia had a "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)" is contradicted by such an elementary reference source as Wikipedia:
"It is frequently stated that the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginal people Australian citizenship and that it gave them the right to vote in federal elections. Neither of these statements is correct. Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1949, when a separate Australian citizenship was created for the first time (before that time all Australians, including Aborigines, were 'British subjects'). Aboriginal people from Queensland and Western Australia gained the vote in Commonwealth elections in 1962. However, the Commonwealth voting right of Aborigines from other states was confirmed by a Commonwealth Act in 1949 (the constitution already gave them that right but it was often interpreted differently before 1949). They got the vote in WA state elections in 1962 and Queensland state elections in 1965."
Finally, an examination of the historical background of of the Australian Constitution with respect to Aborigines in no way supports Hamilton's fiction:
"To understand the constitutional provisions which the Referendum [of 1967] amended, it is necessary to examine their origin at Federation. During the Federal Conventions of the 1890s, representatives barely mentioned Aborigines. Aboriginal welfare rested with the States. As the Commonwealth had no territory of its own (receiving the Northern Territory from South Australia only in 1911), it had no Aboriginal population to directly administer. Secondly, popular belief at the turn of the century held that Aborigines were a 'dying race' whose future, therefore, did not warrant a lot of discussion. The resulting Constitution of 1901 mentions Aborigines in only these two clauses: Section 51: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:... (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. Section 127: In reckoning the number of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The motivation for Section 51 (xxvi) was the Commonwealth's desire to to have control over the migration, status or expulsion of non-white groups such as Chinese and Kanaka labourers. Aboriginal people, by being exempted, would not become the focus of discriminatory Commonwealth laws... The genesis of Section 127 was to create 'fairness' among the States. Only the white population would be counted in estimating the share of customs revenue each State was required to contribute to the Federal Government; States with large Aboriginal populations would therefore not be disadvantaged. An additional rationale related to the calculation of seats in the Federal Parliament, which were based on census figures." (Thesis: 'As One People': Interpreting the 1967 Referendum, Jane McLachlan-Chew, Department of History, University of Melbourne, 2006, available at recognise.org.au)
This then, is Hamilton's "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)," which is supposed to be "similar to" South African apartheid's "system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination aganst 'blacks'... in every aspect of South African society."
(NB: I'll be returning to other false and misleading assertions in his Jerusalem Post piece as time permits and the spirit moves me.)
Now as you will have gathered after reading my earlier post on him, Andrew (call me Akiva) Hamilton is an example of what has been called OZCS - Over-Zealous Convert Syndrome. In Hamilton's case, of course, the conversion has been to political Zionism, and such is the lad's zeal that, in addition to taking on Associate Professor Jake Lynch, he's now taking on his very birthplace, Australia:
"The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement justifies its racist persecution of Jewish Israeli businesses in Australia, the UK, Europe and North America with the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state... But the analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false on every level. A comparison of Israel with Australia... reveals this clearly... Israel is one of the most un-apartheid states in the world, with a record of successful multiculturalism, protection and integration of minorities that puts most western countries, including Australia, to shame. Apartheid South Africa had a system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination against 'blacks' and 'coloreds' in every aspect of South African society. This was similar to, but more extreme than, the system of racist laws that Australia had in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)." (Israel, the un-apartheid state - a comparison with Australia, The Jerusalem Post, 21/8/13)
Now Hamilton's contention that Israel is "one of the most un-apartheid states in the world" is, of course, pure bunkum. For a state which converted an indigenous Arab majority into a minority by a) packing it off to exile in refugee camps in surrounding countries and refusing its return; and b) passing a Law of Return which allows in as citizens only persons deemed to be Jews, regardless of their origin, to be characterised as "un-apartheid" is high-order chutzpah, something we've come to expect from Mr Hamilton.
But rather than re-canvass the issue of apartheid Israel in this post, simply click on the Israeli apartheid label below and read through my various posts on the subject, particularly those which refer to the seminal work of Israeli scholar Uri Davis.
Without in any way underestimating the genocidal impact of white settler-colonialism on Australia's indigenous Aboriginal population, and keeping in mind that the sine qua non of both South African and Israeli apartheid derives from a body of discriminatory legislation, I intend here to deal only with Hamilton's assertion that Australia was some kind of apartheid South Africa lite until its Aboriginal population achieved 'equality' with other citizens in 1967.
To begin with, his charge that Australia had a "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)" is contradicted by such an elementary reference source as Wikipedia:
"It is frequently stated that the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginal people Australian citizenship and that it gave them the right to vote in federal elections. Neither of these statements is correct. Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1949, when a separate Australian citizenship was created for the first time (before that time all Australians, including Aborigines, were 'British subjects'). Aboriginal people from Queensland and Western Australia gained the vote in Commonwealth elections in 1962. However, the Commonwealth voting right of Aborigines from other states was confirmed by a Commonwealth Act in 1949 (the constitution already gave them that right but it was often interpreted differently before 1949). They got the vote in WA state elections in 1962 and Queensland state elections in 1965."
Finally, an examination of the historical background of of the Australian Constitution with respect to Aborigines in no way supports Hamilton's fiction:
"To understand the constitutional provisions which the Referendum [of 1967] amended, it is necessary to examine their origin at Federation. During the Federal Conventions of the 1890s, representatives barely mentioned Aborigines. Aboriginal welfare rested with the States. As the Commonwealth had no territory of its own (receiving the Northern Territory from South Australia only in 1911), it had no Aboriginal population to directly administer. Secondly, popular belief at the turn of the century held that Aborigines were a 'dying race' whose future, therefore, did not warrant a lot of discussion. The resulting Constitution of 1901 mentions Aborigines in only these two clauses: Section 51: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:... (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. Section 127: In reckoning the number of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The motivation for Section 51 (xxvi) was the Commonwealth's desire to to have control over the migration, status or expulsion of non-white groups such as Chinese and Kanaka labourers. Aboriginal people, by being exempted, would not become the focus of discriminatory Commonwealth laws... The genesis of Section 127 was to create 'fairness' among the States. Only the white population would be counted in estimating the share of customs revenue each State was required to contribute to the Federal Government; States with large Aboriginal populations would therefore not be disadvantaged. An additional rationale related to the calculation of seats in the Federal Parliament, which were based on census figures." (Thesis: 'As One People': Interpreting the 1967 Referendum, Jane McLachlan-Chew, Department of History, University of Melbourne, 2006, available at recognise.org.au)
This then, is Hamilton's "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)," which is supposed to be "similar to" South African apartheid's "system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination aganst 'blacks'... in every aspect of South African society."
(NB: I'll be returning to other false and misleading assertions in his Jerusalem Post piece as time permits and the spirit moves me.)
Friday, June 28, 2013
His Brilliant Career
The Australian's war of attrition against Australians involved in local initiatives of the global pro-Palestinian BDS movement, and support for Palestine more generally, flared up again on June 18 with the first of a series of Christian Kerr 'exclusives'.
Headed Israelis may sue boycott activists, Kerr reported that Israeli lawfare* outfit, Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Centre has written to the head of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, Jake Lynch, the Sydney Peace Foundation's director Stuart Rees, and "other figures in the local BDS movement, warning them they may be subject to civil, administrative and criminal legal action." The threats come from a "former NSW solicitor Andrew Hamilton, now working with Shurat HaDin."
[*Motto: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]
So just who is Andrew Hamilton?
Well, for one thing, he's the kind of guy that blows the Zionist conceit that Jews have the kind of special (and exclusive) connection to Palestine that trumps all other claims, particularly the claims of those who were living there before the Z-people began arriving after 1917, right out of the proverbial water. And that's because young Andrew, or 'Akiva' as he now styles himself, was actually born to a Catholic family in Sydney.
So without that incredibly useful Jewish mother to ensure red carpet treatment under Israel's apartheid Law of Return, the question arises how did young Andrew/Akiva make it as a presumably welcome addition to the 'Jewish' state?
Well, it's an interesting but quite depressing tale because it highlights the fact that even with 13 years of primary and secondary education, and another 3-5 years of tertiary education under one's belt, there is no guarantee whatever that one will emerge with an open and informed mind, or a capacity for critical thinking.
(Please note that the observations and inferences which follow are based solely on what Andrew has himself placed on the public record, namely 1) A chat with Akiva (Andrew) Hamilton, The Australian Jewish News, 8/6/12; and b) Arrivals: Articulate advocate, Gloria Deutsch, Jerusalem Post, 13/12/12.)
As Andrew puts it: "I went to a posh private school in Sydney and until the age of 14 I was a practicing Catholic." So far, so good. And then? "Through debating I met a lot of Jewish people, and later had many Jewish friends at university. I was an intellectual type and Jews tended to be the same."
Uh-huh. I find the reference to debating interesting. You see, while it may be useful for honing one's speaking skills, the general aim of this highly-stylized activity, often as not, is merely to best your 'opponents' irrespective of the merits or otherwise of your arguments. To state the obvious, it is not about examining an issue from all sides in a scholarly fashion and coming to a considered conclusion.
There is, moreover, little in Andrew's reference to his university years to suggest a free exchange of ideas based on wide reading and intellectual inquiry, a process critical to a rounded understanding of any political or social issue, let alone the Palestine/Israel question. No, it smacks rather more of Andrew uncritically soaking up the Zionist groupthink of his Jewish mates. Says he at one point, "Obviously Israel is absolutely integral to Judaism." Obviously?!
And isn't the following an odd comment from one who describes himself as "an intellectual type":
"His long spiritual search led him to Orthodox Judaism, and within 10 months he had completed his conversion."
"Long spiritual search"? Sounds more like a troubled youth than a budding intellectual.
But really, I don't think all this kind of talk should be taken too seriously for, as he admits, he "only converted to Judaism shortly before marrying his first wife, who was Jewish."
Ah, women...
OK, so let's get to the bottom of this: what came first, the spiritual quest or the Jewish girl(s)?
For all Andrew's talk about finding Christianity "intellectually inconsistent," and having Jewish friends throughout his education, the following frank admission tells us where he's really coming from:
"I was attracted to Jewish women and became more interested in Judaism from that, and so that was my path to Judaism."
Men, really...
Now add to all that "quite a lot of work with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council" (AIJAC), and a move to Israel with the wife and kids in 2008, and you're in real tunnel vision territory.
Alas, Andrew's marriage broke down when his wife "wanted to go back to Australia with their two children." The result is that today, Andrew "travels back and forth to see them and usually combines his visits with talking about his work for Shurat HaDin."
All of which brings me to another point about Andrew. How favoured is he, and those like him, who now have not one but two homes to flit between - while millions whose ancestral land Palestine was 65 years ago are denied the right of return.
Be that as it may, Andrew is becoming more Akiva by the day:
"I fit in very well in Israel. I'm culturally very Israeli."
And what better way to fit in than by tapping into Israel's paranoid, fortress mentality, where countless existential threats are always just a whisker away from putting the whole bloody shebang out of business and have to be fought tooth and nail? More fun even than those high school debates of blessed memory!
And this is where Shurat HaDin comes in. What a ballsy, bolshie outfit:
"Shurat HaDin has won judgments against Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Arab Bank, [and] a range of organisations, and has actually collected about $120 billion for terror victims from those judgements."
Hm... terrorists? You betcha. You never know where they're going to turn up next. Boasts Akiva:
"Shurat HaDin was also very involved in stopping the second flotilla. Shurat HaDin wrote to the insurance companies that were insuring the various ships of the flotilla, pointing out that they would be in breach of US anti-terror law. So the insurance companies pulled the insurance. They did the same to the satellite communications companies, and they pulled the satellite comms from the ships so the ships couldn't sail. Then for good measure they contacted the Greek authorities, and thus the flotilla wasn't able to sail. And without any blood being spilled or any international controversy against Israel, the second flotilla was literally dead in the water."
It must've been a near-run thing that one. If only Shurat HaDin had been around to pull the plug on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor! How did we ever get this far without them?
And thanks to Akiva we now know what a seething hotbed of terror funding and coddling Australia really is: AusAID, World Vision Australia, APHEDA, Actionaid Australia, CARE Australia, Jake Lynch, Stuart Rees...
But not for too much longer - Akiva's on their case!
Oh, I almost forgot. In the spirit of 'behind every great man there stands a woman': "He introduced me to Yael, to whom I've just become engaged. She is an accountant, half English, and the wedding is fixed for January. Hamilton is looking forward to spending the rest of his life in Israel and is passionate about what a wonderful country it is." (Arrivals: Articulate advocate, Gloria Deutsch, The Jerusalem Post, 13/12/12)
[*Motto: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]
So just who is Andrew Hamilton?
Well, for one thing, he's the kind of guy that blows the Zionist conceit that Jews have the kind of special (and exclusive) connection to Palestine that trumps all other claims, particularly the claims of those who were living there before the Z-people began arriving after 1917, right out of the proverbial water. And that's because young Andrew, or 'Akiva' as he now styles himself, was actually born to a Catholic family in Sydney.
So without that incredibly useful Jewish mother to ensure red carpet treatment under Israel's apartheid Law of Return, the question arises how did young Andrew/Akiva make it as a presumably welcome addition to the 'Jewish' state?
Well, it's an interesting but quite depressing tale because it highlights the fact that even with 13 years of primary and secondary education, and another 3-5 years of tertiary education under one's belt, there is no guarantee whatever that one will emerge with an open and informed mind, or a capacity for critical thinking.
(Please note that the observations and inferences which follow are based solely on what Andrew has himself placed on the public record, namely 1) A chat with Akiva (Andrew) Hamilton, The Australian Jewish News, 8/6/12; and b) Arrivals: Articulate advocate, Gloria Deutsch, Jerusalem Post, 13/12/12.)
As Andrew puts it: "I went to a posh private school in Sydney and until the age of 14 I was a practicing Catholic." So far, so good. And then? "Through debating I met a lot of Jewish people, and later had many Jewish friends at university. I was an intellectual type and Jews tended to be the same."
Uh-huh. I find the reference to debating interesting. You see, while it may be useful for honing one's speaking skills, the general aim of this highly-stylized activity, often as not, is merely to best your 'opponents' irrespective of the merits or otherwise of your arguments. To state the obvious, it is not about examining an issue from all sides in a scholarly fashion and coming to a considered conclusion.
There is, moreover, little in Andrew's reference to his university years to suggest a free exchange of ideas based on wide reading and intellectual inquiry, a process critical to a rounded understanding of any political or social issue, let alone the Palestine/Israel question. No, it smacks rather more of Andrew uncritically soaking up the Zionist groupthink of his Jewish mates. Says he at one point, "Obviously Israel is absolutely integral to Judaism." Obviously?!
And isn't the following an odd comment from one who describes himself as "an intellectual type":
"His long spiritual search led him to Orthodox Judaism, and within 10 months he had completed his conversion."
"Long spiritual search"? Sounds more like a troubled youth than a budding intellectual.
But really, I don't think all this kind of talk should be taken too seriously for, as he admits, he "only converted to Judaism shortly before marrying his first wife, who was Jewish."
Ah, women...
OK, so let's get to the bottom of this: what came first, the spiritual quest or the Jewish girl(s)?
For all Andrew's talk about finding Christianity "intellectually inconsistent," and having Jewish friends throughout his education, the following frank admission tells us where he's really coming from:
"I was attracted to Jewish women and became more interested in Judaism from that, and so that was my path to Judaism."
Men, really...
Now add to all that "quite a lot of work with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council" (AIJAC), and a move to Israel with the wife and kids in 2008, and you're in real tunnel vision territory.
Alas, Andrew's marriage broke down when his wife "wanted to go back to Australia with their two children." The result is that today, Andrew "travels back and forth to see them and usually combines his visits with talking about his work for Shurat HaDin."
All of which brings me to another point about Andrew. How favoured is he, and those like him, who now have not one but two homes to flit between - while millions whose ancestral land Palestine was 65 years ago are denied the right of return.
Be that as it may, Andrew is becoming more Akiva by the day:
"I fit in very well in Israel. I'm culturally very Israeli."
And what better way to fit in than by tapping into Israel's paranoid, fortress mentality, where countless existential threats are always just a whisker away from putting the whole bloody shebang out of business and have to be fought tooth and nail? More fun even than those high school debates of blessed memory!
And this is where Shurat HaDin comes in. What a ballsy, bolshie outfit:
"Shurat HaDin has won judgments against Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Arab Bank, [and] a range of organisations, and has actually collected about $120 billion for terror victims from those judgements."
Hm... terrorists? You betcha. You never know where they're going to turn up next. Boasts Akiva:
"Shurat HaDin was also very involved in stopping the second flotilla. Shurat HaDin wrote to the insurance companies that were insuring the various ships of the flotilla, pointing out that they would be in breach of US anti-terror law. So the insurance companies pulled the insurance. They did the same to the satellite communications companies, and they pulled the satellite comms from the ships so the ships couldn't sail. Then for good measure they contacted the Greek authorities, and thus the flotilla wasn't able to sail. And without any blood being spilled or any international controversy against Israel, the second flotilla was literally dead in the water."
It must've been a near-run thing that one. If only Shurat HaDin had been around to pull the plug on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor! How did we ever get this far without them?
And thanks to Akiva we now know what a seething hotbed of terror funding and coddling Australia really is: AusAID, World Vision Australia, APHEDA, Actionaid Australia, CARE Australia, Jake Lynch, Stuart Rees...
But not for too much longer - Akiva's on their case!
Oh, I almost forgot. In the spirit of 'behind every great man there stands a woman': "He introduced me to Yael, to whom I've just become engaged. She is an accountant, half English, and the wedding is fixed for January. Hamilton is looking forward to spending the rest of his life in Israel and is passionate about what a wonderful country it is." (Arrivals: Articulate advocate, Gloria Deutsch, The Jerusalem Post, 13/12/12)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)