It is always worth keeping in mind that, despite the lurid fantasies of the right-wing nut jobs at News Corpse to the effect that the ABC is a bastion of leftist radicalism, the state broadcaster is in fact merely the propaganda arm of the Australian establishment.
Last night's Four Corners program, Inside the Greens: A Party in Turmoil, which featured former Greens leader Bob Brown and others attacking NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, was a case in point.
Cast your mind back to 2010-2011, when Sydney's Marrickville Council, dominated at the time by The Greens, bravely took a stand for Palestine by adopting a pro-BDS policy against the purchase of Israeli products, and when its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne only narrowly failed to snatch the NSW state seat of Marrickville from Labor for her party at the 2011 state election.
Many of Rhiannon's detractors on Four Corners have form going back to that time. Here's a reminder:
Sally Neighbour, the current executive producer of Four Corners, used to write for Murdoch's Australian, and earlier took The Greens to task (Divided we fall) in Morry Schwartz's The Monthly. (See my 3/2/12 post Get Rhiannon! 2)
Richard Di Natale, the current federal leader of the party, once cluelessly agreed to the proposition that the Palestinians should "recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish state," before later backtracking when apprised of the implications of what he'd said. (See my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified.)
Bob Brown, the party's founder, has attacked the NSW Greens in the Murdoch press, claiming NSW Greens' support for BDS was "against his advice" and urging the branch to stick to "bread-and-butter issues." (See Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage, 1/4/11)
Ian Cohen, a former NSW Greens MLC, has condemned his party's support for BDS as "old style" and expressed concern about "Jewish community outrage." (See my 31/3/11 post Kahane Down Under?)
Christine Milne, Di Natale's predecessor, has spoken out against BDS, travelled to Israel (although whether or not at her own expense we do not know), and once spoke in favour of regime change in Libya. (See Some Questions for Christine Milne (21/4/12), Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed? (11/7/14), A Gripe About The Greens (24/3/11))
Jeremy Buckingham, a NSW Greens MLC, joined the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel and signed the so-called London Declaration on Combatting Antisemitism. (See my 27/5/13 post Et tu, Jeremy?)
The issue of the NSW Greens' support for Palestine emerged only obliquely in the program. Presenter Louise Milligan's bias against that support, however, was clear at this point:
Milligan: While her leader is travelling the country, trying to hold his party together, Lee Rhiannon has flown to the Middle East and is crossing into Palestine.
Rhiannon: When you see it like that you can see why they call it an apartheid wall. What you see when you arrive in this country is apartheid. From the West Bank to Gaza, people are treated as second class citizens. Their human rights are ignored or abused.
Milligan: And she's still lobbing political grenades at her party: reviving a campaign to boycott Israeli businesses in Australia which has seen a backlash against the Greens in the past.
Rhiannon: There is a value in this campaign, and it's a reminder of why people like ourselves in Australia and around the world... it's time to reassess this form of struggle, because there are very clear examples of the value it brings to solidarity and the results it can achieve.
Milligan: Her leader disagrees.
Di Natale: It's not something that the Australian Greens have ever supported. It's not something that I support.
Milligan: It's these sorts of clashes with the federal party that have prompted the Greens elders to tell Four Corners it's time for Senator Lee Rhiannon to go.
Brown: Oh, well, you know, I've been living with Lee for 30 years, but it's the end of Lee's reign. The end is nigh, and I look toward the future.
Showing posts with label Bob Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Brown. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Why Do I Get the Feeling?
OMFG, Jonathan Freedland's Guardian is so bloody depressing.
I've just taken a peek, God help me, at the 1,000+ torrent of (overwhelmingly) garbage and bile, aka comment, on its website following Gabrielle Chan's article, Bob Brown endorses action against Lee Rhiannon as Greens turmoil deepens (26/6/17).
What vile, stagnant swamp, I wonder, breeds these sadsacks and mental defectives? Is it any wonder we've got swamp monsters like Abbott, Trumble, Shorten, Dutton, Hanson and the like plaguing us?
In over a thousand 'comments' only one got why the admirable Senator Lee Rhiannon has come under fire from the know-nothings (di Natale) and has-beens (Brown) in her party:
"Why do I get the feeling that Lee's strong stand on the atrocities happening to the Palestinians is behind the hostility to Lee? The Greens may not accept corporate donations, but that does not mean that there are not forces behind the scene pulling strings."
Whoever you are, you have that feeling because you know what's going on.
Update (28/6/17): "'What is happening here is that someone is anonymously feeding journalists misinformation about me. I know that Greens members and our MPs condemn such behaviour.' The campaign against her was about much more than the Turnbull government's Gonski 2.0 school funding 'con-job', she said. 'It is a vicious attempt to destroy my reputation'." (Rhiannon vows she won't be driven out of Parliament, Adam Gartrell, Sydney Morning Herald)
I've just taken a peek, God help me, at the 1,000+ torrent of (overwhelmingly) garbage and bile, aka comment, on its website following Gabrielle Chan's article, Bob Brown endorses action against Lee Rhiannon as Greens turmoil deepens (26/6/17).
What vile, stagnant swamp, I wonder, breeds these sadsacks and mental defectives? Is it any wonder we've got swamp monsters like Abbott, Trumble, Shorten, Dutton, Hanson and the like plaguing us?
In over a thousand 'comments' only one got why the admirable Senator Lee Rhiannon has come under fire from the know-nothings (di Natale) and has-beens (Brown) in her party:
"Why do I get the feeling that Lee's strong stand on the atrocities happening to the Palestinians is behind the hostility to Lee? The Greens may not accept corporate donations, but that does not mean that there are not forces behind the scene pulling strings."
Whoever you are, you have that feeling because you know what's going on.
Update (28/6/17): "'What is happening here is that someone is anonymously feeding journalists misinformation about me. I know that Greens members and our MPs condemn such behaviour.' The campaign against her was about much more than the Turnbull government's Gonski 2.0 school funding 'con-job', she said. 'It is a vicious attempt to destroy my reputation'." (Rhiannon vows she won't be driven out of Parliament, Adam Gartrell, Sydney Morning Herald)
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Brown Bungles Bush on Iraq
In his 3rd annual Green Oration delivered in Hobart on March 23, Greens leader Bob Brown shows just how out of depth he can be on foreign policy issues:
"Nine years ago, after the invasion of Iraq which president George Bush ordered to promote democracy over tyranny, I proposed to the Senate a means of expanding democracy without invasion." (Global democracy alone will save us from ourselves, The Age, 31/3/12)
Bush did not - repeat not - invade Iraq to promote democracy.
In his most important speech in the lead-up to the war, delivered in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 7, 2002, democracy nowhere gets a mention.
Bush's declared reasons for the war revolved solely around Iraq's "homocidal dictator" and his much-hyped "weapons of mass destruction." Oh, and al-Qa'ida, of course:
"The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly." (The Iraq Papers, ed. by Ehrenberg et al, 2010, pp 85-91)
Democracy promotion was trotted out as a rationale only when the fabled WMDs could not be found.
Did any Greens member present at the above speech take Brown to task for this appalling display of ignorance, I wonder?
For those who want to know why Bush really went to war against Iraq, see my 22/12/08 post Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze.
"Nine years ago, after the invasion of Iraq which president George Bush ordered to promote democracy over tyranny, I proposed to the Senate a means of expanding democracy without invasion." (Global democracy alone will save us from ourselves, The Age, 31/3/12)
Bush did not - repeat not - invade Iraq to promote democracy.
In his most important speech in the lead-up to the war, delivered in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 7, 2002, democracy nowhere gets a mention.
Bush's declared reasons for the war revolved solely around Iraq's "homocidal dictator" and his much-hyped "weapons of mass destruction." Oh, and al-Qa'ida, of course:
"The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly." (The Iraq Papers, ed. by Ehrenberg et al, 2010, pp 85-91)
Democracy promotion was trotted out as a rationale only when the fabled WMDs could not be found.
Did any Greens member present at the above speech take Brown to task for this appalling display of ignorance, I wonder?
For those who want to know why Bush really went to war against Iraq, see my 22/12/08 post Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Gallant Sir Bob
"[Media commentary] is relentless... It almost looks as if [it's] testing a woman to see at what stage she'll break." (Brown condemns relentless sexism against Gillard)
That was Greens leader Bob Brown speaking in defence of Prime Minister Julia Gillard on ABC Television's Lateline last night.
Two fascinating questions arise from his Lateline interview:
1) Why does he never once name the media outlet primarily responsible?
2) Why is he not defending fellow Greens senator Lee Rhiannon from the even more virulent, relentless campaign directed against her by Murdoch's Australian?
That was Greens leader Bob Brown speaking in defence of Prime Minister Julia Gillard on ABC Television's Lateline last night.
Two fascinating questions arise from his Lateline interview:
1) Why does he never once name the media outlet primarily responsible?
2) Why is he not defending fellow Greens senator Lee Rhiannon from the even more virulent, relentless campaign directed against her by Murdoch's Australian?
Friday, February 3, 2012
Get Rhiannon! 2
Hot on the heels of Christian Kerr's smearing of Greens senator Lee Rhiannon as a natural born Stalinist, and BDS as her anti-Semitic devil-child, came a February 1 hatchet job on the NSW branch of the Greens by the Australian's chief political correspondent Matthew Franklin: Greens 'riven by branch warfare'.
Kerr's Back in the USSR theme was revived, with Franklin quoting supposed "revelations" that the NSW Greens are "run by a 'cadre' of Leninist-style ideologues whose activities are making it appear to be populated by 'lunatics'."
Franklin's "revelations" were conveniently drawn from an article in the latest issue of The Monthly magazine by Sally Neighbour, curiously described merely as a "journalist."
Is the reader supposed to have forgotten that Sally Neighbour, far from being a genuinely independent journalist, is actually a News Limited employee?
So, since we're dealing here with a case of churnalistic incest, with Franklin simply paraphrasing Neighbour, why not bypass the monkey and proceed straight to the organ grinder herself?
But first, a general observation: Does anyone really believe that the Australian would be so obsessed with Lee Rhiannon but for her support for the Palestinians?
Does anyone remember its repeated lashings of Labor's Julia Irwin?
For any Australian politician to speak out forthrightly and honestly in defence of the Palestinian people is to cross the Australian's reddest line - its near automatic, knee-jerk editorial support for apartheid Israel. It is not, therefore, the Greens per se that get the Australian going, rather it's the prospect that, in seriously embracing the BDS campaign, the Greens may one day arrive at a clear and principled, anti-Zionist position on the Middle East conflict.
Let us proceed then to Neighbour's Monthly feature article Divided we fall.
After a sketch of party history, she sets out her thesis:
"To... achieve... the success he aspires to, Brown needs to run a formidably tight and disciplined political ship, steered by a dedicated, professional party organisation, with the absolute support of its members and branches. Which brings us to their real dilemma. For like all political parties, the Greens are bedevilled by factional rifts, personal animosities and turf wars, which have intensified as the party has grown and have recently erupted in an acrimonious contest for the heart, soul and future of the party."
You can see where all this is coming from. Rather than a rigorous, disinterested and objective assessment of party travails and prospects, we're essentially getting the Bob Brown version.
Brown seems to me to be afraid of the Murdoch press (See my 5/4/11 post Murdoch Spooks Bob Brown on Palestine), and happy to talk to its churnalists in an effort to appease and reassure the beast, even if to the detriment of any of his colleagues courageous enough to cross the rag's red line on criticism of Israel. As for Sally Neighbour and the Australian, the prospect of the BDS campaign gaining traction in Australia's rising third political force is a major concern. The language says it all:
"Nine days after the Christmas drinks in Canberra, a far more toxic atmosphere prevails as the NSW Greens assemble for their bi-monthly meeting of the State delegates Council (SDC)... It's been a tortuous year for the party in New South Wales, with festering tensions brought to a head by an ugly bunfight over BDS... The fracas has culminated in a motion condemning 3 state Greens MPs who failed to support the policy, MLCs Cate Faehrmann, Jan Barham and Jeremy Buckingham. The motion states: 'MPs who do not support the position and policy of the SDC, thus being in violation of the NSW Greens Constitution, will be asked to resign their seat in parliament'. Tempers erupt as the motion is moved, its backers arguing the renegade MPs should be punished for splitting the party, opponents condemning it as an outrageous bid to deny the MPs a conscience vote."
Given that Neighbour wasn't actually there (the Greens couldn't possibly be that stupid), the question arises: who can have been her source for the dynamics of this meeting? Then there's the absence from the above account of the motion's context. That the "renegade" trio chose, in effect, to climb into bed with the likes of MLCs David Clarke (Liberal right), Fred Nile (Christan Democrats) and Eric Roozendaaal (Labor right) when they voted for Clarke's motion viciously smearing BDS at the behest of the Israel lobby (two of whose representatives were present in the visitors gallery) and undermined the informed and principled positions taken at the time by fellow Greens MLCs John Kaye and David Shoebridge, was the context for the SDC motion, but Neighbour deliberately leaves it out at this point. Only much further along in the piece, does she make reference to it, but then only in passing:
"[W]hen Liberal MLC David Clarke moved a motion opposing BDS and the Max Brenner protests, Faehrmann and Barham spoke in qualified support of it."
That Faehrmann's "qualified support" of Clarke's disgusting motion was born of complete ignorance of the issue, part regurgitation of the Australian's editorial line that the protests were 'counterproductive' and part Israel lobby line that a certain chant heard at them is anti-Semitic, is, of course, of no interest to Neighbour and is misconstrued in her article as some kind of free-thinking and courageous "speaking out."
By way of introducing Lee Rhiannon into the 'discussion', Neighbour trots out the sinister "Leninist cadre" line already featured by Franklin.
Typically, such nonsense is always attributed to unnamed individuals who speak "off the record," presumably because they're in mortal fear of a 2 pm knock on the door by the KGB. The existence of a cowed and quivering Greens opposition is suggested by "another" (oh really?) who is alleged to have said:
"They are stuck in an old rut which is all about running the show, controlling the structure, maintaining a code of silence. This old guard, this control clique, has done a lot of damage to the Green brand in NSW'. They're jokingly referred to as 'the Eastern Bloc - because they live in the eastern suburbs, and they're all communists'."
OK, now that the reader has been softened up, it's time for Neighbour to finger the supposed Leninist cadre's Svengali:
"The lightning rod for much of this critique (!) is Lee Rhiannon... Rhiannon's membership of the Socialist Party of Australia in the 1970s and 1980s... has been well reported... Rhiannon is routinely held up in media commentary about the 'watermelons' (red on the inside) dragging the Greens leftwards..."
Well reported? But only in the Australian.
Routinely held up in media commentary about the 'watermelons'? But only in the Australian.
Did I not mention incest?
Further along, on the subject of BDS and Marrickville Council, Neighbour has former Greens MLC Ian Cohen screaming that "[Marrickville] made us look like lunatics, dealing with an international issue on local and state government level." But don't expect Neighbour to ask Cohen the obvious: Did he also consider the MLCs who used the Legislative Council as a platform to condemn BDS lunatics? Similarly, while Neighbour quotes Max Phillips, a staffer of Jeremy Buckingham, complaining that BDS is not a "core issue" for the Greens, she doesn't bother asking him whether he thinks condemning BDS in state parliament should be seen as "core" business for that body.
Neighbour concludes:
"Right at the heart of this contest [between the NSW Greens' 'old' and 'new' guards] is a profound disjunct over what should be the ultimate aim of the Greens. For Brown and his supporters, it is self-evident: attaining power by being elected, where possible into government, in order to implement their policies. But for others the primal purpose is staying faithful to the grassroots origins and philosophy, without which the Greens would have no support and no future - even if it's at the cost of attaining power."
Or, to put it another way, between those who put power before principle and those who put principle before power. And the most reliable litmus test for sorting out the two is, of course, Palestine.
Brown's mob, it seems, have made their bed, and it speaks volumes for them that they're prepared to share it with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his stable of court reporters at the Australian, and politicians such as David Clarke, Fred Nile and Eric Roozendaal.
Kerr's Back in the USSR theme was revived, with Franklin quoting supposed "revelations" that the NSW Greens are "run by a 'cadre' of Leninist-style ideologues whose activities are making it appear to be populated by 'lunatics'."
Franklin's "revelations" were conveniently drawn from an article in the latest issue of The Monthly magazine by Sally Neighbour, curiously described merely as a "journalist."
Is the reader supposed to have forgotten that Sally Neighbour, far from being a genuinely independent journalist, is actually a News Limited employee?
So, since we're dealing here with a case of churnalistic incest, with Franklin simply paraphrasing Neighbour, why not bypass the monkey and proceed straight to the organ grinder herself?
But first, a general observation: Does anyone really believe that the Australian would be so obsessed with Lee Rhiannon but for her support for the Palestinians?
Does anyone remember its repeated lashings of Labor's Julia Irwin?
For any Australian politician to speak out forthrightly and honestly in defence of the Palestinian people is to cross the Australian's reddest line - its near automatic, knee-jerk editorial support for apartheid Israel. It is not, therefore, the Greens per se that get the Australian going, rather it's the prospect that, in seriously embracing the BDS campaign, the Greens may one day arrive at a clear and principled, anti-Zionist position on the Middle East conflict.
Let us proceed then to Neighbour's Monthly feature article Divided we fall.
After a sketch of party history, she sets out her thesis:
"To... achieve... the success he aspires to, Brown needs to run a formidably tight and disciplined political ship, steered by a dedicated, professional party organisation, with the absolute support of its members and branches. Which brings us to their real dilemma. For like all political parties, the Greens are bedevilled by factional rifts, personal animosities and turf wars, which have intensified as the party has grown and have recently erupted in an acrimonious contest for the heart, soul and future of the party."
You can see where all this is coming from. Rather than a rigorous, disinterested and objective assessment of party travails and prospects, we're essentially getting the Bob Brown version.
Brown seems to me to be afraid of the Murdoch press (See my 5/4/11 post Murdoch Spooks Bob Brown on Palestine), and happy to talk to its churnalists in an effort to appease and reassure the beast, even if to the detriment of any of his colleagues courageous enough to cross the rag's red line on criticism of Israel. As for Sally Neighbour and the Australian, the prospect of the BDS campaign gaining traction in Australia's rising third political force is a major concern. The language says it all:
"Nine days after the Christmas drinks in Canberra, a far more toxic atmosphere prevails as the NSW Greens assemble for their bi-monthly meeting of the State delegates Council (SDC)... It's been a tortuous year for the party in New South Wales, with festering tensions brought to a head by an ugly bunfight over BDS... The fracas has culminated in a motion condemning 3 state Greens MPs who failed to support the policy, MLCs Cate Faehrmann, Jan Barham and Jeremy Buckingham. The motion states: 'MPs who do not support the position and policy of the SDC, thus being in violation of the NSW Greens Constitution, will be asked to resign their seat in parliament'. Tempers erupt as the motion is moved, its backers arguing the renegade MPs should be punished for splitting the party, opponents condemning it as an outrageous bid to deny the MPs a conscience vote."
Given that Neighbour wasn't actually there (the Greens couldn't possibly be that stupid), the question arises: who can have been her source for the dynamics of this meeting? Then there's the absence from the above account of the motion's context. That the "renegade" trio chose, in effect, to climb into bed with the likes of MLCs David Clarke (Liberal right), Fred Nile (Christan Democrats) and Eric Roozendaaal (Labor right) when they voted for Clarke's motion viciously smearing BDS at the behest of the Israel lobby (two of whose representatives were present in the visitors gallery) and undermined the informed and principled positions taken at the time by fellow Greens MLCs John Kaye and David Shoebridge, was the context for the SDC motion, but Neighbour deliberately leaves it out at this point. Only much further along in the piece, does she make reference to it, but then only in passing:
"[W]hen Liberal MLC David Clarke moved a motion opposing BDS and the Max Brenner protests, Faehrmann and Barham spoke in qualified support of it."
That Faehrmann's "qualified support" of Clarke's disgusting motion was born of complete ignorance of the issue, part regurgitation of the Australian's editorial line that the protests were 'counterproductive' and part Israel lobby line that a certain chant heard at them is anti-Semitic, is, of course, of no interest to Neighbour and is misconstrued in her article as some kind of free-thinking and courageous "speaking out."
By way of introducing Lee Rhiannon into the 'discussion', Neighbour trots out the sinister "Leninist cadre" line already featured by Franklin.
Typically, such nonsense is always attributed to unnamed individuals who speak "off the record," presumably because they're in mortal fear of a 2 pm knock on the door by the KGB. The existence of a cowed and quivering Greens opposition is suggested by "another" (oh really?) who is alleged to have said:
"They are stuck in an old rut which is all about running the show, controlling the structure, maintaining a code of silence. This old guard, this control clique, has done a lot of damage to the Green brand in NSW'. They're jokingly referred to as 'the Eastern Bloc - because they live in the eastern suburbs, and they're all communists'."
OK, now that the reader has been softened up, it's time for Neighbour to finger the supposed Leninist cadre's Svengali:
"The lightning rod for much of this critique (!) is Lee Rhiannon... Rhiannon's membership of the Socialist Party of Australia in the 1970s and 1980s... has been well reported... Rhiannon is routinely held up in media commentary about the 'watermelons' (red on the inside) dragging the Greens leftwards..."
Well reported? But only in the Australian.
Routinely held up in media commentary about the 'watermelons'? But only in the Australian.
Did I not mention incest?
Further along, on the subject of BDS and Marrickville Council, Neighbour has former Greens MLC Ian Cohen screaming that "[Marrickville] made us look like lunatics, dealing with an international issue on local and state government level." But don't expect Neighbour to ask Cohen the obvious: Did he also consider the MLCs who used the Legislative Council as a platform to condemn BDS lunatics? Similarly, while Neighbour quotes Max Phillips, a staffer of Jeremy Buckingham, complaining that BDS is not a "core issue" for the Greens, she doesn't bother asking him whether he thinks condemning BDS in state parliament should be seen as "core" business for that body.
Neighbour concludes:
"Right at the heart of this contest [between the NSW Greens' 'old' and 'new' guards] is a profound disjunct over what should be the ultimate aim of the Greens. For Brown and his supporters, it is self-evident: attaining power by being elected, where possible into government, in order to implement their policies. But for others the primal purpose is staying faithful to the grassroots origins and philosophy, without which the Greens would have no support and no future - even if it's at the cost of attaining power."
Or, to put it another way, between those who put power before principle and those who put principle before power. And the most reliable litmus test for sorting out the two is, of course, Palestine.
Brown's mob, it seems, have made their bed, and it speaks volumes for them that they're prepared to share it with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his stable of court reporters at the Australian, and politicians such as David Clarke, Fred Nile and Eric Roozendaal.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
An Open Letter to Bob Brown
Dear Bob,
You'll recall that back in September you placed a series of questions on notice in the Senate. These were based on the premise that, with respect to the import into Australia of Israeli products, it was meaningful to distinguish between those originating in Israel's West Bank settlements (which could conceivably be boycotted) and the rest.
After becoming aware of these questions, I wrote a post - Does Bob Brown Believe in the Tooth Fairy? (15/10/11) - taking issue with that premise.
I draw your attention, therefore, to the following Haaretz news report, which simply confirms the point I made in that post, namely that there is no point whatever in such a distinction, and that all Israeli products should be the subject of a boycott campaign:
"An interesting document has recently found its way to several right-wing members of Knesset. Produced by the rightist NGO Mattot Arim, the survey rates MKs and cabinet ministers according to the aid they provided to the settlement movement and to the 'national camp' as a whole... Published every 6 months... the Mattot Arim report breaks down the legislative, lobbying, and media activity of the MKs - from bills preventing the boycott of products made in the settlements, to media interviews. In addition, ministers are lauded for harnessing their ministries for pro-settlement development, such as improving the internet and cellular networks in the West Bank... The latest survey... [listed] 100 parliamentary achievements attributed to the various MKs, and revealed the often unpublicized activities taking place on the ground to advance West Bank settlements and the rightist patina of the 18th Knesset. In one example, the report noted that the Knesset's Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee approved the transfer of NIS 10 million to emergency services in the West Bank. The Knesset's Finance Committee also approved NIS 2 million to improve cellphone reception. Moreover, gun laws were amended in a way that makes it easier to acquire weapons for self defense. In addition, the report cites the activity of government ministries to cancel out radio interference originating from the Palestinian Authority and the erection of permanent transmission sites for regional radio stations. Digital television transmission was also improved. More than half of the settlements were plugged into Bezeq's advanced internet networks, and the Israel Postal Company launched new gun-proof delivery vehicles which would allow for regular service to threatened settlements..." (Right-wing NGO exposes extent of Israel's support of West Bank settlements, Jonathan Lis, Haaretz, 24/11/11)
You'll be interested to note, Bob, that of the top 10 MKs who get ticks from Mattot Arim for their "activity of a national character," 7 come from the ruling Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Interesting, eh?
Cheers,
MERC
You'll recall that back in September you placed a series of questions on notice in the Senate. These were based on the premise that, with respect to the import into Australia of Israeli products, it was meaningful to distinguish between those originating in Israel's West Bank settlements (which could conceivably be boycotted) and the rest.
After becoming aware of these questions, I wrote a post - Does Bob Brown Believe in the Tooth Fairy? (15/10/11) - taking issue with that premise.
I draw your attention, therefore, to the following Haaretz news report, which simply confirms the point I made in that post, namely that there is no point whatever in such a distinction, and that all Israeli products should be the subject of a boycott campaign:
"An interesting document has recently found its way to several right-wing members of Knesset. Produced by the rightist NGO Mattot Arim, the survey rates MKs and cabinet ministers according to the aid they provided to the settlement movement and to the 'national camp' as a whole... Published every 6 months... the Mattot Arim report breaks down the legislative, lobbying, and media activity of the MKs - from bills preventing the boycott of products made in the settlements, to media interviews. In addition, ministers are lauded for harnessing their ministries for pro-settlement development, such as improving the internet and cellular networks in the West Bank... The latest survey... [listed] 100 parliamentary achievements attributed to the various MKs, and revealed the often unpublicized activities taking place on the ground to advance West Bank settlements and the rightist patina of the 18th Knesset. In one example, the report noted that the Knesset's Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee approved the transfer of NIS 10 million to emergency services in the West Bank. The Knesset's Finance Committee also approved NIS 2 million to improve cellphone reception. Moreover, gun laws were amended in a way that makes it easier to acquire weapons for self defense. In addition, the report cites the activity of government ministries to cancel out radio interference originating from the Palestinian Authority and the erection of permanent transmission sites for regional radio stations. Digital television transmission was also improved. More than half of the settlements were plugged into Bezeq's advanced internet networks, and the Israel Postal Company launched new gun-proof delivery vehicles which would allow for regular service to threatened settlements..." (Right-wing NGO exposes extent of Israel's support of West Bank settlements, Jonathan Lis, Haaretz, 24/11/11)
You'll be interested to note, Bob, that of the top 10 MKs who get ticks from Mattot Arim for their "activity of a national character," 7 come from the ruling Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Interesting, eh?
Cheers,
MERC
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Does Bob Brown Believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown placed the following questions, re the labelling of goods from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, on notice on 8/9/11:
"(1) Is the Minister aware of any products imported into Australia that have originated in full or in part from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories or in Israeli industrial zones in the Occupied Territories?
"(2)(a) Is the government satisfied that all goods originating from Israel or the Occupied Territories are truthfully labelled with their place or places of origin? and (b) Does the government require this differentiation on labels or import documentation? If not, why not?
"(3) Is the Minister aware of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) or any other government agency taking action against companies that label goods 'Made in Israel' when they are actually made partly or in full in the Occupied Territories? If so, what was that action and was there any remedy?
"(4) Is the Minister or Austrade officials, who cover Israel and Palestine, aware of any contracts and/or agreements between Australian and Israeli companies to conduct research or business in the Occupied Territories, including in Israeli industrial zones in the Occupied Territories? If so, can details be provided of these arrangements?
"We await the Minister for trade's answers."
While welcoming any move by The Greens on the subject of Palestine, Senator Brown's questions seem to be based on a false premise: that boycotting goods made in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) is warranted, but boycotting goods from Israel proper isn't.
With this in mind, I therefore wish to place the following Questions on Notice for Senator Brown:
(1) Does the senator believe that Israeli settlements have materialised out of thin air? If not, why not?
(2) Does he believe that the current and former Israeli governments have been and are wholly innocent bystanders in the proliferation of Israeli settlements in the OPTs?
(3) Does he believe in the Tooth Fairy?
I await the Senator's answers.
Recommended reading: Boycott the state, not just the settlements, Yousef Munayyer, arabamericannews.com, 23/7/11.
"(1) Is the Minister aware of any products imported into Australia that have originated in full or in part from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories or in Israeli industrial zones in the Occupied Territories?
"(2)(a) Is the government satisfied that all goods originating from Israel or the Occupied Territories are truthfully labelled with their place or places of origin? and (b) Does the government require this differentiation on labels or import documentation? If not, why not?
"(3) Is the Minister aware of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) or any other government agency taking action against companies that label goods 'Made in Israel' when they are actually made partly or in full in the Occupied Territories? If so, what was that action and was there any remedy?
"(4) Is the Minister or Austrade officials, who cover Israel and Palestine, aware of any contracts and/or agreements between Australian and Israeli companies to conduct research or business in the Occupied Territories, including in Israeli industrial zones in the Occupied Territories? If so, can details be provided of these arrangements?
"We await the Minister for trade's answers."
While welcoming any move by The Greens on the subject of Palestine, Senator Brown's questions seem to be based on a false premise: that boycotting goods made in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) is warranted, but boycotting goods from Israel proper isn't.
With this in mind, I therefore wish to place the following Questions on Notice for Senator Brown:
(1) Does the senator believe that Israeli settlements have materialised out of thin air? If not, why not?
(2) Does he believe that the current and former Israeli governments have been and are wholly innocent bystanders in the proliferation of Israeli settlements in the OPTs?
(3) Does he believe in the Tooth Fairy?
I await the Senator's answers.
Recommended reading: Boycott the state, not just the settlements, Yousef Munayyer, arabamericannews.com, 23/7/11.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Murdoch Spooks Brown on Palestine
Federal Greens leader Bob Brown on BDS on the ABC's Lateline last night reminded me of former PM Rudd's contortions on the subject of asylum seekers back in 2009.
Remember the latter's 'tough but fair' mantra, which allowed the Opposition to claim they'd be even tougher on asylum seekers, and how that began a race to the moral bottom for both parties?
Instead of which, Rudd could simply have said: 'When it comes to asylum seekers, we will adhere strictly to the letter of international humanitarian law. End of story'.
Likewise, instead of embracing, defending and selling BDS as right and proper when dealing with a racist, apartheid state, Brown's ducking and weaving has merely handed his Zionised Labor and Liberal opponents a stick to beat him with.
As always, it's the Palestine test which sorts politicians of principle from the rest. Backing BDS was Brown's opportunity to pass that test with flying colours, but, sadly, he's whimped out.
Here's the relevant extract from the interview, with my comments in square brackets:
Ali Moore: [I]f we can look at the Greens, and of course your performance in the NSW state election... You picked up a seat in the Lower House for the first time, but many expected you to do better and the fact that you didn't was put down [By whom?] to the support of the Greens in NSW for a series of military, trade and services boycotts against Israel. [Er... it's called BDS.] You've said you don't agree with the NSW Greens 'who handled so badly that part of the campaign against my advice'. What were you telling the Greens in NSW? What didn't they listen to?
Bob Brown: Well if you're talking about that advice [Hello? She is.], my advice is that you leave national matters to the national arena, and that includes foreign policy. [So NSW Greens can't have a policy of boycotting Israeli products, but it's OK for NSW Labor to have a policy of support for a trade agreement with Israel? See my 22/3/11 post To Boycott or to Bed] But also, if you see an attack coming down the line and a real effort to pursue this issue, as we saw with The Australian newspaper, then you deal with it early. [Oh, I see. If the Zionist lobby (which he never mentions), aided and abetted by the Murdoch press, get upset, then you back down?] Fiona Byrne in Marrickville is a lovely person [Damning with faint praise!] and she didn't deserve what happened [Notice how he never mentions the swastikas or the threatening phone calls? See my 27/3/11 post A Very Ugly Turn Indeed] and I think the Greens strategists...
Ali Moore: But do you support the policy? Do you support the policy that the NSW Greens have for a boycott?
Bob Brown: No, I don't, and I've said this before publicly, Ali, that it was rejected by the Australian Greens Council last year. And I've been talking with Jamie Parker, the new Lower House member for the Greens, who's made this fantastic breakthrough. He's the mayor of Leichhardt. He's going into the Parliament as a Greens voice in the Lower House.
Ali Moore: And he supports the policy.
Bob Brown: He said - he told me today there is no way that he will be bringing this policy into the NSW Parliament, that he expects me to be looking after foreign policy and that he's got very important issues other than that that he'll be taking into the NSW Parliament. He won't be taking this issue into the NSW Parliament.
Ali Moore: Well, given your view, in the Senate just a couple of days before the NSW state election, Senator Fifield moved to condemn the boycott of Israel instigated by Marrickville Council*. And of course you're candidate Fiona Byrne was the mayor of marrickville Council. You didn't support that motion. You wanted the opposition of the Greens recorded. Why?
[* "Senator [Mitch] Fifield (Victoria - manager of opposition business in the Senate) - I move: That the senate - (a) notes (i) the boycott of Israel instigated by Marrickville Council, part of the Global Boycott Divestments and Sanctions banning any links with Israeli organisations or organisations that support Israel, and prohibiting any academic, government, sporting or cultural exchanges with Israel, (ii) letters from Marrickville Council to members of parliament asking them to support the GBDS, and (iii) reports of the intention of the Greens Marrickville Mayor, Ms Fiona Byrne, to seek to extend the boycott of Israel to the entire state of NSW; (b) acknowledges that Israel is a legitimate and democratic state and a good friend of Australia; and (c) denounces the Israeli boycott by Marrickville Council and condemns any expansion of it. Question agreed to. Senator Bob Brown (Tasmania - Leader of the Australian Greens) - I ask that the Australian Greens' opposition to this motion be recorded."]
Bob Brown: Because the motion was not in the interests of the people of Israel or Palestine. [Is this guy serious?] It was a very politically-loaded motion, and I note that Eric Abetz now says, of all people, that he's going to bring a motion about this into the next parliament. Look, you know, that's the way the far right in politics works here. But, I would say...
Ali Moore: But will you be comfortable putting your opposition to this policy on the record?
Bob Brown: I've just done so, and so has our national council [Adam Bandt MP, & senators Young, Milne & Siewert]. But let me tell you, Ali, that the Greens do have a policy on an independent and self-governing state for both Israel and Palestine living next to each other [Borders?], for support for the UN motions [They're called resolutions, Bob.] that have gone through on this, for a non-violent trajectory towards the independent state of Palestine [Such a condition is not imposed on Israel, I notice.] in the future. And neither of the other parties have a policy. You go looking for it, you won't find one, but the Greens have had - been through the rigour of developing this policy and we stand by it.
Ali Moore: And this policy that the NSW Greens stand by, do you have the power as the federal party to intervene in a state branch if there's a policy you don't agree with, and, indeed, what will happen with Lee Rhiannon? The NSW senator takes up her position in July. Will she have to recant state policy to do so?
Bob Brown: No, neither of those things. We're not in the business of censuring every member of the Greens or branch or state party, but it is pretty obvious, isn't it that the national party looks after foreign affairs. I'm the spokesperson for the national Greens on foreign affairs. I know where my party room stand on that. They're not going to promote this policy. It has been rejected by the Australian Greens and that's where we stand. And so, if NSW Greens wish to maintain the policy, they've got nowhere to go with it. And, you know, so be it. What they do...
Ali Moore: Is it difficult though to, I suppose, have a united party when you have very decisive issues actually dividing the party on state and federal lines in this instance?
Bob Brown: Like every party, and I can tell you who prevails here: the Australian Greens do. I have discussed this with my party room. There's no way that this policy is going to be promoted by us in the Parliament, but we stand strongly by the policy I've just outlined. And...
Ali Moore: But what happens if Lee Rhiannon stands up in the Senate and speaks to that policy and supports it? [The implication being that we can't possibly have free speech in the Australian parliament.]
Bob Brown: Well, should she be prevented from doing as she wishes? I'm not in the business of suppressing people, but I think you will find that Lee will make up her own mind about that, but she - the party room has made a decision that that policy's not going - and the Australian Greens party rejected the policy so - and you know, let me go back again: we know what Australians want us to be dealing with; they want us to be dealing with a budget coming down the line which is going to cut their interest [in...?] to ribbons, which is going to cut thousands of jobs out of the public service, I predict, and which is going to, at the same time, give a massive tax break to the big corporations. That's where we'll be concentrating our effort in trying to get householders and average small businesses in this country a fairer go than the way in which the Labor Party - and backed by the Coalition - is heading as far as economic, what I think is quite unfairness in this country.
Remember the latter's 'tough but fair' mantra, which allowed the Opposition to claim they'd be even tougher on asylum seekers, and how that began a race to the moral bottom for both parties?
Instead of which, Rudd could simply have said: 'When it comes to asylum seekers, we will adhere strictly to the letter of international humanitarian law. End of story'.
Likewise, instead of embracing, defending and selling BDS as right and proper when dealing with a racist, apartheid state, Brown's ducking and weaving has merely handed his Zionised Labor and Liberal opponents a stick to beat him with.
As always, it's the Palestine test which sorts politicians of principle from the rest. Backing BDS was Brown's opportunity to pass that test with flying colours, but, sadly, he's whimped out.
Here's the relevant extract from the interview, with my comments in square brackets:
Ali Moore: [I]f we can look at the Greens, and of course your performance in the NSW state election... You picked up a seat in the Lower House for the first time, but many expected you to do better and the fact that you didn't was put down [By whom?] to the support of the Greens in NSW for a series of military, trade and services boycotts against Israel. [Er... it's called BDS.] You've said you don't agree with the NSW Greens 'who handled so badly that part of the campaign against my advice'. What were you telling the Greens in NSW? What didn't they listen to?
Bob Brown: Well if you're talking about that advice [Hello? She is.], my advice is that you leave national matters to the national arena, and that includes foreign policy. [So NSW Greens can't have a policy of boycotting Israeli products, but it's OK for NSW Labor to have a policy of support for a trade agreement with Israel? See my 22/3/11 post To Boycott or to Bed] But also, if you see an attack coming down the line and a real effort to pursue this issue, as we saw with The Australian newspaper, then you deal with it early. [Oh, I see. If the Zionist lobby (which he never mentions), aided and abetted by the Murdoch press, get upset, then you back down?] Fiona Byrne in Marrickville is a lovely person [Damning with faint praise!] and she didn't deserve what happened [Notice how he never mentions the swastikas or the threatening phone calls? See my 27/3/11 post A Very Ugly Turn Indeed] and I think the Greens strategists...
Ali Moore: But do you support the policy? Do you support the policy that the NSW Greens have for a boycott?
Bob Brown: No, I don't, and I've said this before publicly, Ali, that it was rejected by the Australian Greens Council last year. And I've been talking with Jamie Parker, the new Lower House member for the Greens, who's made this fantastic breakthrough. He's the mayor of Leichhardt. He's going into the Parliament as a Greens voice in the Lower House.
Ali Moore: And he supports the policy.
Bob Brown: He said - he told me today there is no way that he will be bringing this policy into the NSW Parliament, that he expects me to be looking after foreign policy and that he's got very important issues other than that that he'll be taking into the NSW Parliament. He won't be taking this issue into the NSW Parliament.
Ali Moore: Well, given your view, in the Senate just a couple of days before the NSW state election, Senator Fifield moved to condemn the boycott of Israel instigated by Marrickville Council*. And of course you're candidate Fiona Byrne was the mayor of marrickville Council. You didn't support that motion. You wanted the opposition of the Greens recorded. Why?
[* "Senator [Mitch] Fifield (Victoria - manager of opposition business in the Senate) - I move: That the senate - (a) notes (i) the boycott of Israel instigated by Marrickville Council, part of the Global Boycott Divestments and Sanctions banning any links with Israeli organisations or organisations that support Israel, and prohibiting any academic, government, sporting or cultural exchanges with Israel, (ii) letters from Marrickville Council to members of parliament asking them to support the GBDS, and (iii) reports of the intention of the Greens Marrickville Mayor, Ms Fiona Byrne, to seek to extend the boycott of Israel to the entire state of NSW; (b) acknowledges that Israel is a legitimate and democratic state and a good friend of Australia; and (c) denounces the Israeli boycott by Marrickville Council and condemns any expansion of it. Question agreed to. Senator Bob Brown (Tasmania - Leader of the Australian Greens) - I ask that the Australian Greens' opposition to this motion be recorded."]
Bob Brown: Because the motion was not in the interests of the people of Israel or Palestine. [Is this guy serious?] It was a very politically-loaded motion, and I note that Eric Abetz now says, of all people, that he's going to bring a motion about this into the next parliament. Look, you know, that's the way the far right in politics works here. But, I would say...
Ali Moore: But will you be comfortable putting your opposition to this policy on the record?
Bob Brown: I've just done so, and so has our national council [Adam Bandt MP, & senators Young, Milne & Siewert]. But let me tell you, Ali, that the Greens do have a policy on an independent and self-governing state for both Israel and Palestine living next to each other [Borders?], for support for the UN motions [They're called resolutions, Bob.] that have gone through on this, for a non-violent trajectory towards the independent state of Palestine [Such a condition is not imposed on Israel, I notice.] in the future. And neither of the other parties have a policy. You go looking for it, you won't find one, but the Greens have had - been through the rigour of developing this policy and we stand by it.
Ali Moore: And this policy that the NSW Greens stand by, do you have the power as the federal party to intervene in a state branch if there's a policy you don't agree with, and, indeed, what will happen with Lee Rhiannon? The NSW senator takes up her position in July. Will she have to recant state policy to do so?
Bob Brown: No, neither of those things. We're not in the business of censuring every member of the Greens or branch or state party, but it is pretty obvious, isn't it that the national party looks after foreign affairs. I'm the spokesperson for the national Greens on foreign affairs. I know where my party room stand on that. They're not going to promote this policy. It has been rejected by the Australian Greens and that's where we stand. And so, if NSW Greens wish to maintain the policy, they've got nowhere to go with it. And, you know, so be it. What they do...
Ali Moore: Is it difficult though to, I suppose, have a united party when you have very decisive issues actually dividing the party on state and federal lines in this instance?
Bob Brown: Like every party, and I can tell you who prevails here: the Australian Greens do. I have discussed this with my party room. There's no way that this policy is going to be promoted by us in the Parliament, but we stand strongly by the policy I've just outlined. And...
Ali Moore: But what happens if Lee Rhiannon stands up in the Senate and speaks to that policy and supports it? [The implication being that we can't possibly have free speech in the Australian parliament.]
Bob Brown: Well, should she be prevented from doing as she wishes? I'm not in the business of suppressing people, but I think you will find that Lee will make up her own mind about that, but she - the party room has made a decision that that policy's not going - and the Australian Greens party rejected the policy so - and you know, let me go back again: we know what Australians want us to be dealing with; they want us to be dealing with a budget coming down the line which is going to cut their interest [in...?] to ribbons, which is going to cut thousands of jobs out of the public service, I predict, and which is going to, at the same time, give a massive tax break to the big corporations. That's where we'll be concentrating our effort in trying to get householders and average small businesses in this country a fairer go than the way in which the Labor Party - and backed by the Coalition - is heading as far as economic, what I think is quite unfairness in this country.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage
Greens founder and leader Bob Brown uses the Murdoch press - the Murdoch press for God's sake - to dump on his colleague Lee Rhiannon:
"Senator Brown said the Israel boycott proposal was against his advice and had alienated NSW voters when the party should have been focusing on bread-and-butter issues." (Greens leader Bob Brown slaps down Lee Rhiannon on Israel boycott policy, James Massola & Joe Kelly, The Australian, 1/4/11)
Notice how Brown uses the exact same argument as the Labor opportunist whose wife, Carmel Tebbutt, stood against the Greens' Fiona Byrne for the seat of Marrickville? I speak, of course, of federal Labor minister Anthony Albanese, who weighed in on the subject of Marrickville Council's support for BDS back in January with, "Foreign policy is a fair way outside the parameters of the role of Marrickville Council..." (See my 18/1/11 post A Rising Tide of Pro-Israel Bias at the ABC.) And by so doing, Albanese unmasked himself as a fairweather friend of the Palestinians. (I'm actually at a loss to explain why he was ever considered a friend of the Palestinians in the first place.)
What a sterling example for you to follow, Bob. And what precisely do you mean when you talk about NSW voters? I mean, where's the science here? Fiona Byrne came close to knocking off Albanese's missus, and Jamie Parker looks set to take Balmain from Labor, and all you can do is mutter darkly about supposedly upset NSW voters . Tell us who's been in your ear, Bob.
"He had conveyed his views to Greens senator-elect Ms Rhiannon in a 'robust' phone call this morning. Senator Brown said the federal Greens in no way endorsed the policy', Senator Brown said. 'It was a mistake. I differ from Lee on that, and so do other components of the NSW Greens, who handled so badly that part of the campaign against my advice. I reiterate that the policy she and the NSW Greens had in the run to the NSW election was [the] wrong emphasis. NSW voters wanted to hear about issues affecting them day-to-day, it's one that has been rejected by the Australian Greens'... 'I think that it was damaging to the Greens campaign. They had very good policies on transport, preschool education, renewable energy, and the hate media was able to play this up', he said."
And who have you been talking to, Bob? The hate media, aka the Murdoch press, right? And what's a/the major component of Murdoch press hate, Bob? That's right, lashing out at at anyone who dares to criticise Israel for its crimes against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, its utter contempt for international law, and its central role in destabilising the Middle East, whipping up Islamophobia around the globe and compromising our democratic freedoms and processes. So what are you saying here, Bob? On the face of it: shove the principle, let's just say whatever it takes to win, and zip up on the rest.
Unfortunately, Bob Brown has dismally failed the litmus test for intellectual and moral integrity so eloquently posed by Singaporean scholar Kishore Mahbubani: "The liberal internationalists were at the forefront of calls to hold Sudan and China accountable for the misery in Darfur under the concept of 'responsibility to protect'. Yet, many of these same voices did not bring up the concept of responsibility to protect when collective punishment was imposed on the people of Gaza. There is one point that needs to be emphasised here: there is always a litmus test to assess a person's intellectual and moral courage. In the West, especially in America, this litmus test is provided by the Middle East issue. The intellectual and moral cowardice of Western intellectuals on this issue is stunning. Paradoxically, by censoring their views on Israel they have done great damage to Israel by failing to point out to it the sheer folly of remaining in perpetual conflict with its neighbors. The next time any Western intellectual calls upon the rest of the world to show courage by speaking 'truth to power' he or she should lead the charge by speaking 'truth to power' on the Israel-Palestine dispute."
Bob?
"Senator Brown said the Israel boycott proposal was against his advice and had alienated NSW voters when the party should have been focusing on bread-and-butter issues." (Greens leader Bob Brown slaps down Lee Rhiannon on Israel boycott policy, James Massola & Joe Kelly, The Australian, 1/4/11)
Notice how Brown uses the exact same argument as the Labor opportunist whose wife, Carmel Tebbutt, stood against the Greens' Fiona Byrne for the seat of Marrickville? I speak, of course, of federal Labor minister Anthony Albanese, who weighed in on the subject of Marrickville Council's support for BDS back in January with, "Foreign policy is a fair way outside the parameters of the role of Marrickville Council..." (See my 18/1/11 post A Rising Tide of Pro-Israel Bias at the ABC.) And by so doing, Albanese unmasked himself as a fairweather friend of the Palestinians. (I'm actually at a loss to explain why he was ever considered a friend of the Palestinians in the first place.)
What a sterling example for you to follow, Bob. And what precisely do you mean when you talk about NSW voters? I mean, where's the science here? Fiona Byrne came close to knocking off Albanese's missus, and Jamie Parker looks set to take Balmain from Labor, and all you can do is mutter darkly about supposedly upset NSW voters . Tell us who's been in your ear, Bob.
"He had conveyed his views to Greens senator-elect Ms Rhiannon in a 'robust' phone call this morning. Senator Brown said the federal Greens in no way endorsed the policy', Senator Brown said. 'It was a mistake. I differ from Lee on that, and so do other components of the NSW Greens, who handled so badly that part of the campaign against my advice. I reiterate that the policy she and the NSW Greens had in the run to the NSW election was [the] wrong emphasis. NSW voters wanted to hear about issues affecting them day-to-day, it's one that has been rejected by the Australian Greens'... 'I think that it was damaging to the Greens campaign. They had very good policies on transport, preschool education, renewable energy, and the hate media was able to play this up', he said."
And who have you been talking to, Bob? The hate media, aka the Murdoch press, right? And what's a/the major component of Murdoch press hate, Bob? That's right, lashing out at at anyone who dares to criticise Israel for its crimes against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, its utter contempt for international law, and its central role in destabilising the Middle East, whipping up Islamophobia around the globe and compromising our democratic freedoms and processes. So what are you saying here, Bob? On the face of it: shove the principle, let's just say whatever it takes to win, and zip up on the rest.
Unfortunately, Bob Brown has dismally failed the litmus test for intellectual and moral integrity so eloquently posed by Singaporean scholar Kishore Mahbubani: "The liberal internationalists were at the forefront of calls to hold Sudan and China accountable for the misery in Darfur under the concept of 'responsibility to protect'. Yet, many of these same voices did not bring up the concept of responsibility to protect when collective punishment was imposed on the people of Gaza. There is one point that needs to be emphasised here: there is always a litmus test to assess a person's intellectual and moral courage. In the West, especially in America, this litmus test is provided by the Middle East issue. The intellectual and moral cowardice of Western intellectuals on this issue is stunning. Paradoxically, by censoring their views on Israel they have done great damage to Israel by failing to point out to it the sheer folly of remaining in perpetual conflict with its neighbors. The next time any Western intellectual calls upon the rest of the world to show courage by speaking 'truth to power' he or she should lead the charge by speaking 'truth to power' on the Israel-Palestine dispute."
Bob?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Dalai Lama & Friends
In the Dalai Lama's speech on the 50th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese occupation (10/3/59), he described the occupation of his homeland as "hell on earth." "These 50 years," he said, "have brought untold suffering and destruction to the land and people of Tibet."
The Dalai Lama's characterisation of Chinese occupation is searingly accurate. There is no such thing as a benign occupation. Never has been, never will be. Understanding this, our hearts go out to the suffering people of Tibet, just as they do to the people of Palestine for whom the Israeli occupation is also hell on earth.
Yet how does one explain the man's woefully inadequate comments back in January as the Israelis mercilessly hammered the Palestinian population of Gaza? "Israelis and Palestinians must stop fighting and start respecting each other," he is reported to have said at an international forum. (Dalai Lama urges Israel & Palestine to stop fighting, tibetsun.com, 18/1/09) It's as though he's commenting on a war between equals and simply cannot see that Israel is to Palestine as China is to Tibet. Considering his international reputation, what does this tell us about the Dalai Lama's capacity for knowledge, understanding, and empathy?
Nor does the Dalai Lama seem to have any qualms about visiting the Israeli occupier, having been there twice, playing to capacity audiences. In fact, he seems to resonate with a certain kind of Israeli: "The buzz that I feel exists around his current visit [2006] leads me to think that... there is a deep yearning for a saviour, a Messiah... The disappearance of our father figure Ariel Sharon and the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections do not add to our inner peace." (israelarabpeace.blogspot.com, 17/2/06).
This sad case of selective concern - seeing hell only in Tibet - even extends to Australia where Tibet's spiritual leader has found an ally in Labor MP for Melbourne Ports and Israel, Michael Danby, chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet group,* which includes Greens' leader Bob Brown (who isn't, to my knowledge, in any way perturbed by the company he keeps).
[*Danby is also secretary of the parliamentary Australia/Israel Friendship Group & deputy chair of the Australia/US Parliamentary Friendship Committee.]
But I suppose we shouln't be too hard on Danby. After all, he's just bravely faced down the Chinese occupation of Tibet in the form of the Chinese ambassador who had the chutzpah to ask him in a letter to "refrain from attending" a "'Tibetan independence' activity" scheduled for March 10 outside federal parliament. This fearless supporter of Israel, the United States, and Tibet (in that order) was in no way dismayed, telling the Sydney Morning Herald, "We are free and independent here. As the Australian people would expect, no self-respecting MP would respond to a letter like this." (China tells MP to avoid Tibet rally, Cynthia Banham, 10/3/09) What a mensch!
Now I'm going to make a prediction here. Danby's prevailing on Rudd, even as I write, to give this meddlesome ambassador... hell. Not that I'm omniscient, of course, but I did read in one of his speeches on his website that "Rudd has persistently and publicly denounced Iran's bellicosity and I have personally witnessed his formal and excruciating dressing down of a senior Iranian [diplomat?], following President Ahmadinejad's first threat to destroy Israel." (Time for change Down Under, 7/10/07) Just remember, you read it first on Middle East Reality Check.
The Dalai Lama's characterisation of Chinese occupation is searingly accurate. There is no such thing as a benign occupation. Never has been, never will be. Understanding this, our hearts go out to the suffering people of Tibet, just as they do to the people of Palestine for whom the Israeli occupation is also hell on earth.
Yet how does one explain the man's woefully inadequate comments back in January as the Israelis mercilessly hammered the Palestinian population of Gaza? "Israelis and Palestinians must stop fighting and start respecting each other," he is reported to have said at an international forum. (Dalai Lama urges Israel & Palestine to stop fighting, tibetsun.com, 18/1/09) It's as though he's commenting on a war between equals and simply cannot see that Israel is to Palestine as China is to Tibet. Considering his international reputation, what does this tell us about the Dalai Lama's capacity for knowledge, understanding, and empathy?
Nor does the Dalai Lama seem to have any qualms about visiting the Israeli occupier, having been there twice, playing to capacity audiences. In fact, he seems to resonate with a certain kind of Israeli: "The buzz that I feel exists around his current visit [2006] leads me to think that... there is a deep yearning for a saviour, a Messiah... The disappearance of our father figure Ariel Sharon and the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections do not add to our inner peace." (israelarabpeace.blogspot.com, 17/2/06).
This sad case of selective concern - seeing hell only in Tibet - even extends to Australia where Tibet's spiritual leader has found an ally in Labor MP for Melbourne Ports and Israel, Michael Danby, chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet group,* which includes Greens' leader Bob Brown (who isn't, to my knowledge, in any way perturbed by the company he keeps).
[*Danby is also secretary of the parliamentary Australia/Israel Friendship Group & deputy chair of the Australia/US Parliamentary Friendship Committee.]
But I suppose we shouln't be too hard on Danby. After all, he's just bravely faced down the Chinese occupation of Tibet in the form of the Chinese ambassador who had the chutzpah to ask him in a letter to "refrain from attending" a "'Tibetan independence' activity" scheduled for March 10 outside federal parliament. This fearless supporter of Israel, the United States, and Tibet (in that order) was in no way dismayed, telling the Sydney Morning Herald, "We are free and independent here. As the Australian people would expect, no self-respecting MP would respond to a letter like this." (China tells MP to avoid Tibet rally, Cynthia Banham, 10/3/09) What a mensch!
Now I'm going to make a prediction here. Danby's prevailing on Rudd, even as I write, to give this meddlesome ambassador... hell. Not that I'm omniscient, of course, but I did read in one of his speeches on his website that "Rudd has persistently and publicly denounced Iran's bellicosity and I have personally witnessed his formal and excruciating dressing down of a senior Iranian [diplomat?], following President Ahmadinejad's first threat to destroy Israel." (Time for change Down Under, 7/10/07) Just remember, you read it first on Middle East Reality Check.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)