I mean really care:
"We cannot remain indifferent to the tiny coffins that contain the bodies of children." Israeli President Shimon Peres (Call for talks as Syrian toll rises, AFP/The Australian, 11/6/12)
"Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said the Jewish state was ready to provide humanitarian assistance to Syria, despite the fact it is formally at war with Israel." (ibid)
Showing posts with label Danny Ayalon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Danny Ayalon. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Saturday, March 5, 2011
For You, O Israel
Looks like the democratic aspirations of millions throughout the Middle East will just have to be put on hold because a certain entity, which has the Land of the Free and Home of the Not-So-Brave firmly by the balls (see my last post), reckons they simply cannot be trusted to vote the right way:
"After weeks of internal debate [!] on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait. Instead of pushing for immediate regime change as it did in varying degrees [!!] in Egypt and now Libya - the US is urging protesters from Bahrain to Morocco to work with existing rulers toward what some officials and diplomats are now calling 'regime alteration'. The approach has emerged amid furious lobbying of the administration by Arab governments, who were alarmed that President Barack Obama had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and worried that, if the US did the same to the beleaguered king of Bahrain, a chain of revolts could sweep them from power, too, and further upend the region's stability... Israel was also making its voice heard [!!!]. As Mr Mubarak's grip on power slipped away in Egypt, Israeli officials lobbied Washington to move cautiously and reassure Mideast allies that they were not being abandoned. Israeli leaders have made clear that they fear extremist forces could try to exploit new-found freedoms and undercut Israel's security, diplomats said." (US wavers on 'regime change', Entous & Barnes, The Wall Street Journal, 5/3/11)
And don't for a moment think that Egypt, which has already sent its Israel-friendly pharaoh packing, is going to be spared regime alteration:
"A senior Israeli official [Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon] is suggesting the Muslim Brotherhood should be banned from standing in Egyptian elections because it is an extremist organization." (Israel seeks ban on Brotherhood in Egypt, dailytimes.com.pk, 1/3/11)
"After weeks of internal debate [!] on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait. Instead of pushing for immediate regime change as it did in varying degrees [!!] in Egypt and now Libya - the US is urging protesters from Bahrain to Morocco to work with existing rulers toward what some officials and diplomats are now calling 'regime alteration'. The approach has emerged amid furious lobbying of the administration by Arab governments, who were alarmed that President Barack Obama had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and worried that, if the US did the same to the beleaguered king of Bahrain, a chain of revolts could sweep them from power, too, and further upend the region's stability... Israel was also making its voice heard [!!!]. As Mr Mubarak's grip on power slipped away in Egypt, Israeli officials lobbied Washington to move cautiously and reassure Mideast allies that they were not being abandoned. Israeli leaders have made clear that they fear extremist forces could try to exploit new-found freedoms and undercut Israel's security, diplomats said." (US wavers on 'regime change', Entous & Barnes, The Wall Street Journal, 5/3/11)
And don't for a moment think that Egypt, which has already sent its Israel-friendly pharaoh packing, is going to be spared regime alteration:
"A senior Israeli official [Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon] is suggesting the Muslim Brotherhood should be banned from standing in Egyptian elections because it is an extremist organization." (Israel seeks ban on Brotherhood in Egypt, dailytimes.com.pk, 1/3/11)
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Norm & Jason
Just look at the kind of Israel-friendly language used by Sydney Morning Herald Middle East correspondent Jason Koutsoukis in his 19/11/09 report Netanyahu shrugs off world criticism:
"Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem"/"built on land [which] is regarded as an illegal settlement by the United Nations"/"Gilo is home to 40,000 Jewish residents and completes a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods."
Jewish neighbourhoods, not Israeli colonies. Jewish residents, not Israeli colonists. Is regarded as illegal by the UN [presumably just another source of subjective opinion], not 'is illegal under international law'. And the 'o' word, occupied - banished entirely!
Contrast this with the no-nonsense language of another news report in the same issue on Sahrawi activist Aminatou Haidar ('African Gandhi' risks life, Xan Rice): "The Moroccan Government, which considers Western Sahara to be its southern provinces, even though this has no foundation in international law..." Render this into Morocco-friendly language and "no foundation in international law" becomes 'regarded as illegal by the UN'...
Israeli propaganda, peddled in the mainstream media by the likes of Koutsoukis, wreaks havoc on the public's understanding of the criminal Israeli colonization underway in occupied Palestine. Look what happened when one of these know-nothing peddler hacks bumped into the formidable Norman Finkelstein on Danish TV (You can enjoy the video on Finkelstein's website):
Norman Finkelstein: Any talks or resolution of the [Israel/Arab] conflict has to be based on international law, and the law is clear: the basic priciple of international law is that it's inadmissable to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war, and therefore, in international law, it has no title to any of the Golan Heights. There has to be a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 4 border. That's a precondition. You can't resolve any conflict unless there are basic principles - and the principles for resolving the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Syrian conflict has to be international law.
Adam Holms: Just a couple of days ago Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon paid a visit to our studios. Just listen to what he says: 'Hamas is the real enemy of peace. Hamas is the enemy of Palestinian interests. By the way, Hamas does not represent Palestinian interests but Iranian interests. They're being helped and supplied and financed and equipped by Iran with the same ideology of sharia - a very radical Islamist entity...' It's pretty clear what he's saying: the onus rests with Hamas. What's your take on this?
Norman Finkelstein: Well it's not as if Hamas has been around since eternity. The Israelis had the option of settling the conflict with the Palestinians before January 2006 when Hamas was elected to office. If Hamas is the obstacle, then why weren't they able to settle the conflict before Hamas was elected into office? Because they refused the terms of the international community. Every year, as it happens, in November, the international community votes on a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly to settle the conflict and every year the vote is the same. The whole world on one side, 161 nations last year, and then there are the US, Israel, Naurau, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and sometimes Australia on the other side. The problem is not Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly said it's willing to settle the conflict in the June 67 border.
Adam Holms: But still they refuse to recognise the state of Israel.
Norman Finkelstein: Well they refuse to recognise what they call the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but under international law they're not obliged to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel. If you go back to 1947, Gandhi said he'd accept the reality of Pakistan but he would never accept the legitimacy of the state of Pakistan. And Hamas is not expected to be held to a higher level of diplomacy than Gandhi. Gandhi said Pakistan is a reality which I'm forced to accept but I don't accept it as legitimate and that's the same as the position of Hamas.
Adam Holms: But this is what makes Jerusalem wary of Hamas because they keep saying how can you have a neighbour that doesn't recognise our legitimacy?
Norman Finkelstein: You see the problem is... listen to your own language. You're just spouting Israeli propaganda. Why are you saying Jerusalem? East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. That was the ruling of the International Criminal Court in 2004, and if you look at the Goldstone Report that just came out... they refer to East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory. But now you've given over Jerusalem to the Israelis. You're just repeating Israeli propaganda. They have no title under international law to East Jerusalem.
Adam Holms (sheepish & defensive): Speaking of what you call my Israeli propaganda, which I refute, but anyway you're on record for saying that Israel is a terrorist state, a lunatic state... Why do you use such stark language about a state which is essentially just defending its own right to exist?
Norman Finkelstein: OK, you accuse me of using stark and provocative language, so let's take the renowned international jurist Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor for the war crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia - he came out a few weeks ago with a report on what Israel did in Gaza approximately a year ago and he said... Israel's purpose was to 'punish, humiliate and terrorise' a civilian population - terrorise a civilian population. So is Mr Goldstone guilty of incendiary language or is he simply accurately reporting on what happened? Terrorism is a fact and refers to the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve a political end, and Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals, so it's terrorism. I can't help it if that's what Israel chooses as its targets...
Adam Holms: Terrorist state or self-defence? It depends on the eye that looks at it.
Norman Finkelstein: No. Let's say for argument's sake that Israel were engaged in a war of self-defence in Gaza - that still means you can engage in terrorism. You can be engaged in a war of self-defence, but if, in the course of the war, you're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure then you're engaged in terrorism. That's the basic distinction in international law between the reason why you went to war and how you're conducting the war.
Adam Holms: What do you think the international community should do about Israel? How should the case of Israel be handled?
Norman Finkelstein: There's a very simple way to handle it. They should enforce the law. That is the easiest and most efficacious way to resolve the conflict.
Adam Holms: So Israel's been granted special treatment you say.
Norman Finkelstein: The law is not being enforced against it. Richard Goldstone is saying Israel is committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court if those who are guilty of these crimes are not prosecuted. Just enforce the law. These are not radical ideas...
Koutsoukis and his kind need a similar whipping.
"Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem"/"built on land [which] is regarded as an illegal settlement by the United Nations"/"Gilo is home to 40,000 Jewish residents and completes a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods."
Jewish neighbourhoods, not Israeli colonies. Jewish residents, not Israeli colonists. Is regarded as illegal by the UN [presumably just another source of subjective opinion], not 'is illegal under international law'. And the 'o' word, occupied - banished entirely!
Contrast this with the no-nonsense language of another news report in the same issue on Sahrawi activist Aminatou Haidar ('African Gandhi' risks life, Xan Rice): "The Moroccan Government, which considers Western Sahara to be its southern provinces, even though this has no foundation in international law..." Render this into Morocco-friendly language and "no foundation in international law" becomes 'regarded as illegal by the UN'...
Israeli propaganda, peddled in the mainstream media by the likes of Koutsoukis, wreaks havoc on the public's understanding of the criminal Israeli colonization underway in occupied Palestine. Look what happened when one of these know-nothing peddler hacks bumped into the formidable Norman Finkelstein on Danish TV (You can enjoy the video on Finkelstein's website):
Norman Finkelstein: Any talks or resolution of the [Israel/Arab] conflict has to be based on international law, and the law is clear: the basic priciple of international law is that it's inadmissable to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war, and therefore, in international law, it has no title to any of the Golan Heights. There has to be a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 4 border. That's a precondition. You can't resolve any conflict unless there are basic principles - and the principles for resolving the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Syrian conflict has to be international law.
Adam Holms: Just a couple of days ago Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon paid a visit to our studios. Just listen to what he says: 'Hamas is the real enemy of peace. Hamas is the enemy of Palestinian interests. By the way, Hamas does not represent Palestinian interests but Iranian interests. They're being helped and supplied and financed and equipped by Iran with the same ideology of sharia - a very radical Islamist entity...' It's pretty clear what he's saying: the onus rests with Hamas. What's your take on this?
Norman Finkelstein: Well it's not as if Hamas has been around since eternity. The Israelis had the option of settling the conflict with the Palestinians before January 2006 when Hamas was elected to office. If Hamas is the obstacle, then why weren't they able to settle the conflict before Hamas was elected into office? Because they refused the terms of the international community. Every year, as it happens, in November, the international community votes on a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly to settle the conflict and every year the vote is the same. The whole world on one side, 161 nations last year, and then there are the US, Israel, Naurau, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and sometimes Australia on the other side. The problem is not Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly said it's willing to settle the conflict in the June 67 border.
Adam Holms: But still they refuse to recognise the state of Israel.
Norman Finkelstein: Well they refuse to recognise what they call the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but under international law they're not obliged to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel. If you go back to 1947, Gandhi said he'd accept the reality of Pakistan but he would never accept the legitimacy of the state of Pakistan. And Hamas is not expected to be held to a higher level of diplomacy than Gandhi. Gandhi said Pakistan is a reality which I'm forced to accept but I don't accept it as legitimate and that's the same as the position of Hamas.
Adam Holms: But this is what makes Jerusalem wary of Hamas because they keep saying how can you have a neighbour that doesn't recognise our legitimacy?
Norman Finkelstein: You see the problem is... listen to your own language. You're just spouting Israeli propaganda. Why are you saying Jerusalem? East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. That was the ruling of the International Criminal Court in 2004, and if you look at the Goldstone Report that just came out... they refer to East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory. But now you've given over Jerusalem to the Israelis. You're just repeating Israeli propaganda. They have no title under international law to East Jerusalem.
Adam Holms (sheepish & defensive): Speaking of what you call my Israeli propaganda, which I refute, but anyway you're on record for saying that Israel is a terrorist state, a lunatic state... Why do you use such stark language about a state which is essentially just defending its own right to exist?
Norman Finkelstein: OK, you accuse me of using stark and provocative language, so let's take the renowned international jurist Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor for the war crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia - he came out a few weeks ago with a report on what Israel did in Gaza approximately a year ago and he said... Israel's purpose was to 'punish, humiliate and terrorise' a civilian population - terrorise a civilian population. So is Mr Goldstone guilty of incendiary language or is he simply accurately reporting on what happened? Terrorism is a fact and refers to the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve a political end, and Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals, so it's terrorism. I can't help it if that's what Israel chooses as its targets...
Adam Holms: Terrorist state or self-defence? It depends on the eye that looks at it.
Norman Finkelstein: No. Let's say for argument's sake that Israel were engaged in a war of self-defence in Gaza - that still means you can engage in terrorism. You can be engaged in a war of self-defence, but if, in the course of the war, you're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure then you're engaged in terrorism. That's the basic distinction in international law between the reason why you went to war and how you're conducting the war.
Adam Holms: What do you think the international community should do about Israel? How should the case of Israel be handled?
Norman Finkelstein: There's a very simple way to handle it. They should enforce the law. That is the easiest and most efficacious way to resolve the conflict.
Adam Holms: So Israel's been granted special treatment you say.
Norman Finkelstein: The law is not being enforced against it. Richard Goldstone is saying Israel is committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court if those who are guilty of these crimes are not prosecuted. Just enforce the law. These are not radical ideas...
Koutsoukis and his kind need a similar whipping.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Our Lady of the Walkleys
According to her profile at womenofaustralia.info, the ABC's Monica Attard is the holder of "five Walkley Awards including a Gold Walkley for Excellence in Journalism." We are also told that she believes that "the journalist should not set out to provoke interviewees, but at times there is a moral obligation to speak out." Since leaving ABC's Media Watch, Attard has been interviewing the movers & shakers on Radio National's Sunday Profile.
Interviewing Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 2/7/09 was evidently not one of those occasions that entailed "a moral obligation to speak out." No, more a time to go with the Zionist PR flow washing over the ABC these days.
Attard's introduction set the tone for the interviews: Israel's inexorable 61-year old colonial project of swallowing the land of Palestine while spitting out its indigenous inhabitants was described as a "dispute." Hamas, not Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestine, was "the sticking point." Its "habit of firing rocket missiles [!!!] into Israel... a practice which caused a dramatic and bloody response from Israel earlier this year," was the main game, with not a peep about Israel's sadistic throttling of the Gaza Ghetto. And then, of course, the obligatory reference to Iran, which "leaves Israel feeling very nervous indeed." How very solicitous. What followed was predictably tame:-
Ayalon's risible statement that "we do not interfere with other countries' domestic issues" passed without comment from Attard. As did his hypocritical references to the Iranian elections: "an issue of freedom and human rights"; "I do hope there's no bloodshed"; Iran should abide by "international norms." Ditto for Ayalon's equally hypocritical reference to Iran's alleged "illegal nuclear activities."
Asked about Gillard's trip to Israel, Ayalon cooed these now familiar sweet nothings: "We see Australia not only as a sister democracy, but as a very good friend and ally which has historic ties here in Israel. There were Australian soldiers... that participated in... liberating the land of Israel from the Ottoman Empire during World War I. [!!!] They were again here in World War II. We have very good trade relations and are really kindred spirits in many, many ways when it comes to the rule of law, democratic values, ethics. You also had come to a barren land and made it bloom, [!!!] so the relations are very good and we were very happy and pleased and delighted to have here the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and the more visits the better, and we also intend to reciprocate with visits in Australia as well." Neither his liberties with history, nor his humbug, elicited so much as a groan from Attard, allegedly "one of Australia's most respected news and current affairs journalists (womenofaustralia.info).
"There are some things we don't have in common," Attard finally piped up, referring merely to Gillard's parroting of Obama's call for a "freeze" on Israeli settlements. The former Israeli Ambassador to Washington was more than a match for her though: "We understand, but friends may agree to disagree." And then, having touched on that Incarnation of Evil and Insuperable Impediment to Lasting Peace in the Middle East, Hamas, came this gobsmackingly gormless question from Our Lady of the Walkleys: "Can you accept Hamas having a role in a Palestinian government in return for more settlements?" Think about it.
"Was there any discussion of military cooperation between us?" Attard asked. The otherwise fluent Israeli pollywaffle sounded lost for words: "No, but... we... you know... as like-minded states in many areas of course... that we will always share everything that we can and we will continue with that." Share what? she neglected to ask. "Was an international peace-keeping force discussed?" she did. "We're not there yet," replied Ayalon. Yet? she didn't ask.
A particularly bizarre question arose in the context of Attard's reference to Ayalon's chairmanship of "an organisation dedicated to increasing the number of immigrants to Israel." Referring to Jews who live outside Israel as a "diaspora," Attard asked, "Would you consider helping Australian Jews move to Israel considering that Australia has the highest proportion of Jews outside Israel?" Were they perhaps in some kind of danger that only Attard could divine? Apparently, the distinct possibility that Australia's Jewish community might actually consider Australia their real home seems to have eluded her. Ayalon, of course, didn't miss a beat. "Australia could be a very great place for us to work," he chirped.
At that, it was Gillard's turn. "How did the idea of a settlement freeze go down with the Israeli leadership," Attard asked her: "I don't think that they were surprised by Australia's position. Our foreign minister Stephen Smith had made it well known. Clearly, for the Israeli government... this is a difficult issue. What the prime minister would say is that he does agree with the need to halt the further development of new settlements, but he would seek to continue to have natural growth within current Israeli settlements, whereas the Americans have made it very clear that they're talking about a halt on all settlement activity. The Australian view is that we do need to see a halt if we are going to have a peace process and dialogue in the Middle East that leads to a two-state solution... and it only makes the striking of that agreement more complicated if we continue to see settlement activity..."
Asked about possible "obstacles" in the way of such a scenario, Gillard proceded to tie herself in knots: "I walked away from my conversation with the Israeli prime minister believing there was a real preparedness for a genuine discussion. He genuinely wants to step forward and engage in a discussion about peace. He has obviously made his predispositions as the prime minister of the nation clear, but he's also said he's prepared to participate in a discussion with the Palestinian leadership with no preconditions." This was apparently too hard for Our Lady of the Walkleys to unravel, and so the contradiction inherent in Netanyahu having "predispositions" (no Palestinian army, no Palestinian control over airspace, no sharing of Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees, Palestinian recognition of Israel as an ethnocracy), but "no preconditions," was left dangling.
Past this point, Gillard started sounding like Ayalon himself. When asked if the Australian government could see itself dealing with Hamas, she positively took the words right out of his mouth: Hamas was a "terrorist organization" that needed to "renounce violence." If images of Israeli state terror rose before her eyes, the Walkley Winner remained mum.
She did, however, raise the issue of Amnesty International's recent accusation of Israeli war crimes in Gaza (See Amnesty accuses Israel over Gaza, Jason Koutsoukis, SMH, 3/7/09). Gillard, continuing to channel Ayalon, responded: "We do need to remember this was an Israeli response to continued rocket attacks out of Gaza into Israeli civilian areas." And when asked about Israel's "level of force," Gillard-Ayalon was quick to assert "Israel's need to defend its people," before adding that "we've continued to express concerns about the humanitarian circumstances of the Palestinian people." And to whom in Israel did you express these concerns, and with what result? Attard didn't bother asking.
Interviewing Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 2/7/09 was evidently not one of those occasions that entailed "a moral obligation to speak out." No, more a time to go with the Zionist PR flow washing over the ABC these days.
Attard's introduction set the tone for the interviews: Israel's inexorable 61-year old colonial project of swallowing the land of Palestine while spitting out its indigenous inhabitants was described as a "dispute." Hamas, not Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestine, was "the sticking point." Its "habit of firing rocket missiles [!!!] into Israel... a practice which caused a dramatic and bloody response from Israel earlier this year," was the main game, with not a peep about Israel's sadistic throttling of the Gaza Ghetto. And then, of course, the obligatory reference to Iran, which "leaves Israel feeling very nervous indeed." How very solicitous. What followed was predictably tame:-
Ayalon's risible statement that "we do not interfere with other countries' domestic issues" passed without comment from Attard. As did his hypocritical references to the Iranian elections: "an issue of freedom and human rights"; "I do hope there's no bloodshed"; Iran should abide by "international norms." Ditto for Ayalon's equally hypocritical reference to Iran's alleged "illegal nuclear activities."
Asked about Gillard's trip to Israel, Ayalon cooed these now familiar sweet nothings: "We see Australia not only as a sister democracy, but as a very good friend and ally which has historic ties here in Israel. There were Australian soldiers... that participated in... liberating the land of Israel from the Ottoman Empire during World War I. [!!!] They were again here in World War II. We have very good trade relations and are really kindred spirits in many, many ways when it comes to the rule of law, democratic values, ethics. You also had come to a barren land and made it bloom, [!!!] so the relations are very good and we were very happy and pleased and delighted to have here the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and the more visits the better, and we also intend to reciprocate with visits in Australia as well." Neither his liberties with history, nor his humbug, elicited so much as a groan from Attard, allegedly "one of Australia's most respected news and current affairs journalists (womenofaustralia.info).
"There are some things we don't have in common," Attard finally piped up, referring merely to Gillard's parroting of Obama's call for a "freeze" on Israeli settlements. The former Israeli Ambassador to Washington was more than a match for her though: "We understand, but friends may agree to disagree." And then, having touched on that Incarnation of Evil and Insuperable Impediment to Lasting Peace in the Middle East, Hamas, came this gobsmackingly gormless question from Our Lady of the Walkleys: "Can you accept Hamas having a role in a Palestinian government in return for more settlements?" Think about it.
"Was there any discussion of military cooperation between us?" Attard asked. The otherwise fluent Israeli pollywaffle sounded lost for words: "No, but... we... you know... as like-minded states in many areas of course... that we will always share everything that we can and we will continue with that." Share what? she neglected to ask. "Was an international peace-keeping force discussed?" she did. "We're not there yet," replied Ayalon. Yet? she didn't ask.
A particularly bizarre question arose in the context of Attard's reference to Ayalon's chairmanship of "an organisation dedicated to increasing the number of immigrants to Israel." Referring to Jews who live outside Israel as a "diaspora," Attard asked, "Would you consider helping Australian Jews move to Israel considering that Australia has the highest proportion of Jews outside Israel?" Were they perhaps in some kind of danger that only Attard could divine? Apparently, the distinct possibility that Australia's Jewish community might actually consider Australia their real home seems to have eluded her. Ayalon, of course, didn't miss a beat. "Australia could be a very great place for us to work," he chirped.
At that, it was Gillard's turn. "How did the idea of a settlement freeze go down with the Israeli leadership," Attard asked her: "I don't think that they were surprised by Australia's position. Our foreign minister Stephen Smith had made it well known. Clearly, for the Israeli government... this is a difficult issue. What the prime minister would say is that he does agree with the need to halt the further development of new settlements, but he would seek to continue to have natural growth within current Israeli settlements, whereas the Americans have made it very clear that they're talking about a halt on all settlement activity. The Australian view is that we do need to see a halt if we are going to have a peace process and dialogue in the Middle East that leads to a two-state solution... and it only makes the striking of that agreement more complicated if we continue to see settlement activity..."
Asked about possible "obstacles" in the way of such a scenario, Gillard proceded to tie herself in knots: "I walked away from my conversation with the Israeli prime minister believing there was a real preparedness for a genuine discussion. He genuinely wants to step forward and engage in a discussion about peace. He has obviously made his predispositions as the prime minister of the nation clear, but he's also said he's prepared to participate in a discussion with the Palestinian leadership with no preconditions." This was apparently too hard for Our Lady of the Walkleys to unravel, and so the contradiction inherent in Netanyahu having "predispositions" (no Palestinian army, no Palestinian control over airspace, no sharing of Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees, Palestinian recognition of Israel as an ethnocracy), but "no preconditions," was left dangling.
Past this point, Gillard started sounding like Ayalon himself. When asked if the Australian government could see itself dealing with Hamas, she positively took the words right out of his mouth: Hamas was a "terrorist organization" that needed to "renounce violence." If images of Israeli state terror rose before her eyes, the Walkley Winner remained mum.
She did, however, raise the issue of Amnesty International's recent accusation of Israeli war crimes in Gaza (See Amnesty accuses Israel over Gaza, Jason Koutsoukis, SMH, 3/7/09). Gillard, continuing to channel Ayalon, responded: "We do need to remember this was an Israeli response to continued rocket attacks out of Gaza into Israeli civilian areas." And when asked about Israel's "level of force," Gillard-Ayalon was quick to assert "Israel's need to defend its people," before adding that "we've continued to express concerns about the humanitarian circumstances of the Palestinian people." And to whom in Israel did you express these concerns, and with what result? Attard didn't bother asking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)