Here We Go Again

We couldn't let Christmas 2010 come and go without a little pressie for our nearest and dearest now, could we? No bloody way!

So, on 24 December, Australia voted in the UN General Assembly, with Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the UK and the US, against the authorisation of a third UN World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) (dubbed Durban III) planned for September 2011.

The vote was 104-22 in favour, with 33 abstaining.

For the sorry saga of Australia's part in undermining last year's WCAR on Israel's behalf, simply click on the 'Durban II' tag below and read, in particular, Australia Dumps on Durban (20/4/09) & ADoD 2 (23/4/09).

Comedy Corner: I thought you might like to know what the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (what about the minor ones?) in the US had to say about the coming Durban III, the prototype of which, according to the CPMJO, was inspired by none other than everyone's favorite caveman, Osama bin Laden:

"The vote of the UNGA... sets the stage for a celebration of the outrageous events that took place during Durban I, which were permeated by manifestations of bigotry and hatred. The event is scheduled to be held shortly after the 10th anniversary commemoration of September 11th. It is hard to imagine a more insensitive action, recalling that the attack on the World Trade Center that killed thousands was carried out by those influenced by the same hateful ideologies that Durban I came to represent." (Durban III: Lines are drawn, virtualjerusalem.com, 29/12/10)

Her Brilliant Career

Take a young opportunist: "A fellow student activist says [Julia] Gillard has always been 'very much on the pragmatic side'. 'She was always that way in student politics. She was more inclined to deal with the Libs, the Zionists and various right-wing groups than she was with the Left'." (She's got it, Stevenson & Banham, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/7/03)

Rambam her: "[Zionist Federation of Australia president] Philip Chester said the fact that he had 'never heard [Gillard] say a word about the Middle East' was no indication of any lack of support for Israel, but added that he was more comfortable with Gillard filling the deputy role having been to Israel, which she visited for the first time last year." (Rudd 'good for the Jews', but Gillard still untested, The Australian Jewish News, 7/12/06) [See my 12/6/08 post Pemulwuy in Palestine]

And she'll sing like a bird: "Israel's air strikes were a response to an act of aggression by Hamas which had broken the ceasefire. We are saying to Hamas that they should cease any further action." (Gillard quoted in A time for fighting, Jason Koutsoukis, SMH 29/12/08) [See my 30/12/08 post Gaza Slaughter: Australia's Response]

But now there's more, heaps more: "The Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will lead a high-level delegation to Israel next month as part of an effort to strengthen political, business and cultural ties between the two countries. The tour, organised by the lobby group the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange (AICE), will include in the 40-strong delegation Liberal MPs Peter Costello, Christopher Pyne, George Brandis, Guy Barnett, Labor MP Mark Dreyfus, QC, Jewish scientists, academics, businessmen and women, and journalists. An equal number of Israelis will attend the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum*, to be held at the historic King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Israel's most prestigious hotel. Leading Israeli politicians from the governing Likud and Labour parties will attend, as well as the opposition party Kadima, led by the former foreign minister Tzipi Livni. It is hoped that the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will attend. As foreign minister in 2002, Mr Netanyahu helped to launch the AICE with the then foreign minister, Alexander Downer. The chairman of the exchange is Albert Dadon, who was an early supporter of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, first bringing him on a trip to Israel in 2002. In 2005 Mr Dadon accompanied Mr Rudd and his now chief-of-staff, Alistair Jordan, on a trip to Israel... A spokesman for the organisers said the tour would include a visit to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet leaders of the Palestinian Authority. However, the purpose of the forum in Jerusalem on June 25-26 was not to engage with different points of view on the Israel-Palestine question but to promote an exchange of ideas and issues common to both countries, such as water, electoral reform and education." (Gillard to head mission to Israel, Jason Koutsoukis, SMH, 26/5/09) [*I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that this forum, according to the AJN (29/5/09), is "part of the G'day Shalom Salaam Israel event."]

What a party it'll be! Check out the guests:

Besides Julia, there'll be Peter Costello, the prime minister who wasn't. Now he's been rambammed so many times his first experience of same is practically lost in the mists of time: "Costello first visited Israel... as a guest of the Australian Union of Jewish Students in 1979. He has since returned to the country a number of times, most recently in 2003." (Costello holds court, AJN, 17/9/07)

In 2003, eh? Back then he was sounding just like Gillard on Gaza: "[Costello's] utterances during his 3-day visit to the Holy Land this week were broadly in line with official Israeli thinking. In particular, he endorsed Israel's position that there can be no further progress on the road map for peace until the Palestinian Authority honours its primary obligation to crack down on militants and halt their terrorism. 'Terrorism breeds a response', Mr Costello told the Herald on the final day of his visit." (Costello toes Mid-East line, Ed O'Loughlin, SMH, 20/9/03) These two might sit on opposite sides of the parliamentary playpen, but when it comes to Israel, they're so close it's indecent.

Speaking of which, there'll be good old George Brandis, one of the Israel lobby's attack dogs in the House of Unrepresentative Swill. He's currently engaged in some vital post-Durban II mopping up operation: "It's been a while since former Federal Court judge Catherine Branson has found herself under cross-examination. Branson, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, found herself hauled before Senate estimates this week, having to explain the attendance of social justice commissioner Tom Calma and other senior commission officers at the Durban Review Conference on Racism. The conference had been boycotted by the Australian Government on the grounds that in the past it had served as a forum for racist attacks on Israel. Liberal senator George Brandis, formerly a barrister, appeared to take great delight in nailing the former judge, who he accused of evading his questions." (Caught in crosshairs, The Australian, 28/5/09)

Brandis will be flanked by senate colleague, Guy Barnett, who also wanted a piece of Mr Calma. As he said on his website: "The Government's refusal to recall Mr Calma or lack of influence over Mr Calma is inexcusable. It is a pathetic effort. Mr Calma's presence at the conference signals that Australia condones anti-Jewish rhetoric... I will be pursuing Mr Calma, the AHRC and the Government in Senate Estimates." (guybarnett.com, 23/4/09)

And last but not least, there'll be Christopher Pyne, fresh from his labours in the House of Reps ensuring that the "sensibilities of Jewish Australians" are fully protected from any loose talk by Labour riff raff in the chamber. [See my 25/5/09 post The Analogies that Got Away]

Seems Israel just can't get enough of our love, baby.

Join the Dots

"A surge in Israeli high-tech investment and the transfer of world-leading military technology is set to be unleashed next year with the expected sealing of a free trade agreement* between Australia and Israel. The signing of the FTA... will signal an even closer defence relationship between the two countries involving high-end robotic technology, smart missiles and unmanned aerial drones - military areas in which Israel is a world leader... Training exchanges involving Australian Defence Force personnel and its Israeli counterpart are likely to be finalised soon, [Yuval Rotem, Israel's ambassador] told The Australian yesterday. Confidential imports from Israel last year consisting of classified defence technology totalled $14 million - a figure projected for fast future growth." (Israel deal to boost defence, Mark Dodd, The Australian, 26/9/07)

[*On this subject, see my 11/4/09 post The Ambassador Reflects... : "There has been less progress than I expected [on a free-trade agreement]. It's still on the table. I know from the Australian point of view there is a desire to see a comprehensive deal..."]

"Kevin Rudd is set to announce Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II, led by a multi-billion-dollar investment in maritime defence, including 100 new F-35 fighters, a doubling of the submarine fleet and powerful new surface warships. The new defence white paper will outline plans for a fundamental shake-up of Australia's defence organisation to ensure that the nation can meet what the Prime Minister sees as a far more challenging and uncertain security outlook in Asia over the next two decades... Mr Rudd said yesterday the delivery of the white paper was proving 'acutely challenging as we work to defend ourselves from the global economic storm'... he told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce." (Revealed: Rudd's defence plans, Patrick Walters, The Australian, 25/4/09)

Rudd also said: "I further acknowledge the great work of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce in hosting today's [24/4] function and in supporting the relationship between Australia and Israel and enabling me to confirm again publicly before you all what I have said throughout my political career that I am a lifelong friend of the State of Israel... Australia cannot support and will not support a document which reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action. That 2001 declaration singled out Israel*. The inflammatory remarks of President Ahmadinejad of Iran at the conference are unacceptable and underlined the Australian Government's decision not to attend that conference. The Australian Government condemns the continued campaign of anti-Semitism on behalf of the government of Iran."

[* See my 26/4/09 post Controlling the Terminology. So "singling out Israel" is the reason we dumped on Durban II?!!!]

"New data released today [27/4/09] by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reveal a significant rise in arms transfers to the Middle East... The United States remains the world's largest exporter of military equipment, accounting for 31% of global arms exports for the period 2004-2008. During this period, 37% of US deliveries went to the Middle East... There were increasing volumes of transfers... to states involved in armed conflict in 2008, such as Afghanistan, Georgia, Israel, Pakistan, Sri Lanka." (Significant rise in arms deliveries to the Middle East, says SIPRI, defense-aerospace.com, 27/4/09)

Controlling the Terminology

"If you can control the terminology of the debate, you can win the debate." Mark Regev, Israeli prime minister's spokesman for international media, in PM spokesman: Naming Gaza op 'Cast Lead' was a PR mistake, Cnaan Lipshiz, Haaretz, 24/4/09.

To understand the virulent Zionist campaign directed against the just-concluded Anti-Racism Review Conference (Durban II), it is first necessary to acquaint oneself with the language used in the 'debate' over Palestine/Israel at The World Conference Against Racism (Durban I) of 2001.

The initial text contained 6 paragraphs dealing with "Zionist racist practices," including an appeal for Israel "to revise its legislation based on racial or religious discrimination such as the law of return and all the policies of an occupying power which prevents the Palestinian refugees and displaced persons from returning to their homes and properties," and a suggestion for the need "to bring the foreign occupation of Jerusalem by Israel, together with all its racist practices to an end." Draft documents had referred to the "increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism" and "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority." To sum up, Israel was correctly fingered as a state which practices racism.

However, after an American and Israeli walkout - and the possiblity of same by Canada and EU countries - the final text was rewritten by conference officials to remove the 'offending' language. (A parallel, but separate, NGO Forum, to its credit, did in fact produce a document describing Israel as a "racist, apartheid state.")

This final text (the Durban Declaration & Program of Action (DDPA), with its bland references to the "plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation" and their right to "an independent state," became the focal point for the campaign to boycott Durban II because, despite all references to the Palestine/Israel conflict eventually being dropped from the Durban II draft text, it still reaffirmed the earlier DDPA of Durban I. And so, for no other reason than that of eliminating the DDPA's tokenism, an attempt was made to scuttle the Durban II conference, with Israel (and its overseas lobby groups) orchestrating a boycott by fellow colonial-settler states, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, aided and abetted by former colonial states such as Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. The phony nature of this campaign to control the terminology of the 'debate' was highlighted by Navi Pillay, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her final address to the conference:

"I had to face a widespread and highly organized campaign of disinformation. Many people, including Ministers with whom I spoke, told me that the Durban Declaration & Programme of Action (DDPA), which... was agreed by 189 states at the original World Conference Against Racism in 2001, was anti-Semitic, and it was clear that they had either not bothered to read what it actually said, or they were putting a cast on it that was, to say the least, decidedly exaggerated. Many others have labelled the entire Durban process a 'hate fest'... [T]his is hyperbole... a gross exaggeration. But it is everywhere on the Internet. And, I'm sorry to say, in many mainline newspapers, who, incidentally, declined many op-eds that I sent to them... If people actually read the DDPA, they would have realised that it includes a paragraph which says that 'the Holocaust should never be forgotten'. It includes two paragraphs that denounce 'anti-Semitism and Islamophobia', one paragraph which mentions the suffering of the Palestinians, their right of self-determination and the security of all states, including Israel, and two paragraphs calling for peace. That's all there is on the Middle East. And I could not get these corrections published in some important newspapers, particularly in the US, who used the word 'hate fest' without checking these paragraphs... Because of this campaign that was so determined to kill the conference, some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree on the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday..."

The repeal, in 1991, of General Assembly Resolution 3379 (1975) equating Zionism with racism ("Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"), following a successful number-crunching campaign by the Bush I and Israeli governments, was an important, initial step in Israel's efforts to gain control over the terminology of the 'debate'. Thirty-four years later, it seems that for the UN to so much as hint that Palestinians are living under "foreign occupation" is enough to trigger the kind of "bizarre" spectacle referred to by Navi Pillay.

Australia Dumps on Durban 2

Let's first get 'Adolf' Ahmedinejad's speech at Durban II out of the way. Yesterday's Murdoch fishwrapper predictably called the Iranian president's rather unremarkable speech an "anti-Semitic tirade." (UN Integrity Damaged: Australia was right to have no part of Durban II, The Australian, 22/4/09)

Now, whether you love him or loathe him is irrelevant. Is his speech "anti-Semitic" as alleged? Let's take a look at some of the wording:

"Following World War II, [a number of powerful countries/the UN Security Council] resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

It would be more accurate to say that such powerful countries as Britain and the United States were instrumental in enabling Zionist forces to ethnically cleanse Palestine in 1948, and that the suffering of European Jewry at the hands of the Nazis provided a pretext for same. However, that the ethnic cleansing was motivated by the desire to achieve a Jewish majority in what had been, up to that point, a non-Jewish majority land, and that this makes it an inherently racist endeavour, is incontestable and cannot be smeared as anti-Semitism.

"The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the last 60 years, giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes."

Pointing out that Israel has received disproportionate support from former and current imperial powers is hardly anti-Semitic. Nor can accusing it of genocide* be so described.

[*Article II of the Genocide Convention defines this crime as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" by "(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..."]

"World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face."

Israel promotes itself as a Jewish state, representing not simply its own citizens, but Jews the world over. It also works assiduously to conflate the faith of Judaism with its Zionist political program. Recognising this is hardly the stuff of anti-Semitism.

Yet another Zionist beat-up from the self-styled Heart of the Nation.

In today's Durban II beat-up, however, we actually get the drum on the toings & froings of our foreign minister, Stephen Smith. (See my 20/4/09 post Australia Dumps on Durban.) Foreign editor Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan begins his usual Zionist tirade by banging on ludicrously about that "vile and hateful anti-Semitic jamboree" Durban I of 2001: "Israel was demonised not just for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories but uniquely as a racist state. The very idea of Zionism - a Jewish state in the Middle East was denounced as racist." (Boycott is a triumph of principle over hate)

For some perspective, here's what Durban I's Declaration & Program of Action (DPA) actually said about the Palestinians: "We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent state" (Article 63); "We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region" (Article 64). The Palestinians were also included on a list of "Victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerence." Even the Holocaust got a mention. OK, so Sheridan gets it wrong yet again - surprise, surprise. But there is some gold in his propaganda dross:

According to Sheridan, when this fearsome anti-Semitic talk was dropped from Durban II's draft declaration, but not that document's reaffirmation of Durban I's DPA, the Dutch and the Australians got going. Over to you Greg: "A Russian, Uri Boychenko, chaired the overall preparatory effort and laboured mightily to clear up the text. He got most offensive things out, except the first paragraph's ringing declaration that Durban II reaffirmed Durban I. Thus, although there were no obnoxious references to Israel in the final text, the reaffirmation of Durban I meant that its positions were re-endorsed. Boychenko could not get this out because the Organisation of the Islamic Conference said it would boycott the conference if it was removed... Meanwhile the Dutch put in a heroic effort to substitute a shorter, better text that did not contain the reaffirmation. On March 12, Smith... said Australia would not be attending unless the text was fundamentally changed and Canberra was convinced the conference would not be misused as an anti-Semitic hate fest in the way the first conference was. In the following few weeks, the Dutch asked Smith to make a final decision until their efforts on the text were exhausted. Having an important group of countries, including Australia, still up for grabs, as it were, gave the Dutch extra leverage in their ultimately unsuccessful efforts to fix the Durban II declaration and make the conference workable. Smith co-ordinated his actions with the Dutch foreign minister, with Clinton, and with a number of his other counterparts. When it was clear the text was irredeemable, a cascade of nations pulled out. First there was Italy, then the US, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany and Poland... as an Australian I am proud of our actions."

How revealing is that? I ask again, why is the Australian foreign minister doing Israel's dirty work?

Australia Dumps On Durban

The arcane saga of Durban II goes on: "Despite changes to the draft text last month to exclude specific references to Israel, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith said on Monday that it was 'unlikely' Australia would attend the Durban Review Conference, aka Durban II, which commences in Geneva on April 20. However, he was holding off on making a final decision to give a UN working group the opportunity to make last-minute changes." (Australia attendance at Durban II 'unlikely', The Australian Jewish News, 17/4/09)

The draft conference declaration has been neutered, with no mention of Israel, occupation, racism or apartheid*, but that's not good enough for Smith. And Smith's failure to jump when the Zionist Lobby says jump is simply not good enough for its movers & shakers: "Smith's postponement, however, just days in from the conference, has frustrated Jewish leaders, who have been lobbying the Government for months [sic: over a year] to boycott the conference... This week, Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Robert Goot said he wrote again to the Foreign Minister urging him to pull out of the conference given that ongoing deliberations of the draft text had gone from 'bad to worse'." (ibid)

So for Goot, the dropping of all references to Israel in the draft means that it has "gone from 'bad to worse'"? Can you, dear reader, figure these guys out?

But the song & dance has finally paid off with Smith announcing: "Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views." (Anti-racism talks hit by Western boycott, AAP, 20/4/09)

Typically, Smith was merely waiting for the US to pull out: "On Friday [20/4], negotiators, including Western and Muslim states, believed they had ironed out the most controversial issues relating to religious discrimination and the Middle East in the draft conference declaration. But the US State Department spokesman Robert Wood said it still reaffirmed unacceptable parts of the 2001 Durban declaration referring to the Middle East conflict and infringed on freedom of speech." (ibid)

So let's draw a few relevant conclusions from all this:
1) Australia, which voted against funding Durban II in the UN in January last year**, has sufficient chutzpah to stuff the UN around since then with its maybe/maybe not routine before finally giving it the finger, but insufficient chutzpah to give same to the Israel Lobby.
2) The KRuddies have just made their own special contribution to Australia's grand foreign policy tradition of 'All-the-way-with LBJ'.
3) It's simply not good enough anymore for the UN to ignore what Israel so transparently is - a racist, genocidal entity - it must knuckle under to USrael and adopt the rhetoric of the Israeli PR machine.
4) The KRuddies have, by implication, ordained that calling the Israeli occupying power an occuping power is anti-Semitic; that calling Israel's racist project and policies racist is anti-Semitic; and that calling apartheid Israel an apartheid state is anti-Semitic.
5) The KRuddies have once again affirmed that support for Israel is in their DNA.
6) Canberra, like Washington, is effectively Israeli-occupied territory.
7) Black is white, wrong is right.
8) Over at Israel Lobby HQ, they're popping champagne corks.

Stop Press: Blimey! I've just seen today's Australian. Cop this: "The Australian understands the Dutch will not be going to the conference and Germany is also considering a boycott after intense lobbying by Mr Smith of his European counterparts..." (Israel slur fear forces boycott, Mark Dodd) There you have it - Smith has been swanning around Europe, at Australian taxpayers' expense, acting as a sock puppet for the Israelis. Could it get any worse?

[* See my 20/3/09 post Australia Bats for Israel in the UN **See my 18/1/08 post Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship]

Australia Bats for Israel in the UN

Israel and its 5th columns in the US, Canada, Australia, and the European Union must be pleased with themselves. Their lengthy smear campaign, labelling the April 20-24 United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Geneva (or Durban II) as a potential anti-Semitic hatefest, has finally paid off, with references in the draft resolution to Israel as an occupying power that carries out racist policies being dropped.

Yours Truly appears to have played a major role - but you wouldn't have read about it in the mainstream Australian press:

"Australia threatened on Thursday [12/3] to withdraw from a UN conference on racism next month unless the wording of a document it considers anti-Semitic is dropped... 'If we form the view that the text is going to lead to nothing more than an anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic harangue... Australia will not be in attendance', Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told parliament." (Australia threatens to quit Durban 2 anti-racism meet, Reuters, Haaretz, 12/3/09)

"The latest draft resolution... omits any reference to the Middle East conflict... Israel and Canada said they would boycott this year's meeting... The US and Italy have also vowed not to attend unless countries commit to a balanced declaration. The European Union and Australia have threatened to follow suit unless Muslim countries backed down." (Criticism of Israel dropped from Durban II draft resolution, AP, Haaretz, 17/3/09)

Presumably, the Ruddies are now officially of the view that calling an occupying power an occupying power and racist policies racist is 'anti-Semitic'. The fraying thread tethering them to some semblance of reality has, it seems, all but snapped.

But we shouldn't be surprised. After all, as Rudd himslf has declared, 'Support for Israel is in my DNA'.

Nor should we be surprised that Israel still isn't satisfied: "A senior Foreign Ministry source said Wednesday that Israel rejects the latest draft of the closing statement for the 'Durban 2' anti-racism conference, despite revisions aimed at dropping direct criticism of Israel. While all direct references to Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict have been removed in an attempt to keep the European Union from boycotting, it still implicitly singles out Israel. 'The first clause in the new document reaffirms the declaration of 'Durban I', which calls Israel a racist state...' " (Israel rejects revised draft of Durban II statement, Barak Ravid, Haaretz, 18/3/09)

In summary, the racist, occupying power which has given the finger to more UN resolutions than any other nation on earth, which had chosen long ago to boycott the conference, and which has been sniping at it from the sidelines ever since, is now insisting on dictating the terms of a draft UN document that doesn't even mention it. And this monumental chutzpah will no doubt continue to have the backing of the Rudd government.

POSTSCRIPT: The Lobby's little helpers in the Senate: Judith Troeth (Lib), David Feeney (Lab), and Steve Fielding (Family First) all spoke out this week in the Senate (prior to the revised draft) calling on the government to boycott Durban II. (Still no Australian decision despite Durban draft change, The Australian Jewish News, 20/3/09)

Who Can It Be?

I think we need a campaign to draft Charles 'Chas' Freeman (see previous post) to replace both United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and ABC Radio National's Tony Eastley, neither of whom seem willing or able to recognise a Zionist lobby when it hits them in the face. You too might agree once you read this exchange between them on yesterday's AM program. Talk about the proverbial elephant in the room...

TE: One of our opposition MPs has called [the UN World Conference on Racism aka Durban II] a 'hate-fest', a term which seems to have caught on amongst those people who want to boycott the conference. What would you say about that sort of description as regards this conference in Geneva?
NP: I'm very unhappy about that description.
TE: How did it catch on so quickly?
NP: It's not 'quickly'. I think that, since the last conference [in 2001], there's been a sustained propaganda campaign against the World Conference...
TE: Who's pushing the campaign?
NP: Who is?
TE: Yes, who's pushing this campaign, this rhetoric if you like.
NP: Well I don't know. I just read very many articles and letters, including in the Australian media, and they all carry the same terminology - 'hate-fest'. They carry the same misrepresentation such as saying that Libya, Cuba and Iran are the vice-chairs when there are 19 vice-chairs and a committee of 20 member states. So I can't tell you exactly who the lobby is. I can just pick out that it seems to be one source putting out this wrong information and labelling this review conference as a 'hate-fest'.

Double, Double Toil & Trouble

Former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman, now in Australia, doesn't want us attending Durban II* (aka the Durban Review Conference) on April 20 (See my 20/2/09 post Danny Boy). [*The first, aka the World Conference Against Racism, was held in Durban in 2001.]

Alan Gold, Zionist apologist, novelist (*sigh*) and Durban I "delegate" (Smith should avoid racist conference, The Australian, 26/2/09) doesn't want us there either.

Gold knows in his bones that Durban II is cursed. After all, "The 120th anniversary of Hitler's birth falls on April 20 which coincidentally is the day nations will gather in Geneva under the banner of the UN to discuss ways of dealing with the growth of racism." "Coincidentally"? Are you sure it's just a coincidence, Alan? Durban I, that "notorious hate-filled gathering that devolved into one of the most racist and prejudiced meetings in the UN's history" also managed to coincide with the anniversary of some other day in Hitler's life (funny that), and "its anti-Semitism and anti-Israel agenda and hysterical crowd of extremists still send shudders of horror through human rights organisations."

Note the familiar conflation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. In translation, Gold's hyper-ventilating prose simply means that some people at Durban I had sufficient gumption to call a spade a spade. For a fuller discussion of Durban I and the Israel lobby's campaign to thwart Australia's involvement in Durban II, see my posts Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship (18/1/08), Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship 2 (9/3/08), and Betraying the UDHR (10/12/08).

OK, so what foaming, spitting witch's brew does the Durban II draft agenda portend? According to Israel's Haaretz, "Draft resolutions for... Durban II... will brand Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies... They refer to 'the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories'... " (Durban II drafts: Israel is racist, occupying state, Shlomo Shamir, 21/2/09) Quelle horreur!

So how's the line-up at the starting gate, Alan? "Canada and Israel are so appalled at the agenda for this hate-fest that they have already announced their intention of boycotting. Officials in a growing number of European nations also have expressed their concern about attendance... The Obama administration* has said it will attend the preparations for the UN's Durban Review, but this must be viewed as a dangerous move." Thanks, Alan. And Australia? "Foreign Minister Stephen Smith hasn't yet announced whether Australia will attend the review... The 2009 agenda... must give Smith cause for concern... [Damn it!] We should play no part in this conference."

What's that, Alan? Another horreur? Merde! The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) are "using the gathering in Geneva to demonise Israel, give official credence to Holocaust denial and legislate against freedom of speech." How so, Alan? "Using the catch-all phrase of Islamophobia, the OIC is attempting to deny nations the right to criticise extremism and violence." You mean, like your mob uses the catch-all phrase of anti-Semitism in order to deny nations the right to criticise Israeli extremism and violence?

[*Alan will be pleased to know that there's been a scratching here. According to The Age of 28/2/09, the United States has decided against taking part after finding out that "the draft document was made even worse after some changes." (US opts out of UN racism conference) What's the guess that Stephen now does a runner?]

Betraying the UDHR

"For 60 years, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] has been treated with contempt by tyrants from Pyongyang to Darfur... [T]he anniversary of its adoption by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, is an occasion to mourn the organization's many failures as much as a licence to celebrate... Sadly... the UN has been an irresponsible and careless steward of those fine ideals." (An ideal betrayed: The UN has failed to protect universal human rights, Editorial, The Australian, 10/12/08)

So, according to The Australian, the UN has betrayed the fine ideals of the UDHR. How? Read on: "In April, the UN Human Rights Council [which "has been hijacked by some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers"] will hold Durban II, its second World Conference against Racism in Geneva. Durban I, held in South Africa 7 years ago, was a festival of anti-Semitism... Durban II* promises more of the same with a draft declaration condemning Israel's Palestinian policy as 'a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide and a serious threat to international peace and security'." (ibid)

[*See my 18/1/08 post Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship.]

References to the UDHR and all points east and west notwithstanding, for The Australian it's always about Israel. Were it not for the UN Human Rights Council's true and accurate characterisation of the Jewish state, quoted above (and misconstrued as anti-Semitism), the 60th anniversary of the UDHR would most likely have gone unremarked in the paper's editorial column. In fact, the UDHR anniversary constitutes just another opportunity for the editorialist to smear the UN as it goes about its perfectly legitimate and necessary business of calling a spade a spade in preparation for Durban II. Zionist chutzpah at The Australian being what it is, the editorialist would have the reader believe, absent the knowledge that Zionist Israel "is an abomination in terms of the UDHR and a crime under the standards of international law" (Apartheid Israel, Uri Davis, 2003, p5), that the UDHR and Israel, like love and marriage, go together like the proverbial horse and carriage. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth, as any objective analysis of the role of the UDHR in informing Palestinian rights will tell us:-

"The displaced [Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948] and their descendants claim a right to return to their home areas [in Israel]... Israel denies that a state in its situation is obliged to repatriate. In its view the displaced left voluntarily and thereby forfeited their rights. Moreover, Israel disputes that any right of repatriation for wartime displaced persons can be found in customary international law, in particular when a new state comes into being in the territory. Palestine argues for a right of repatriation for the wartime displaced, a right it finds in customary international law, applicable to the displaced Palestinians regardless of their reason for departing, although the voluntariness of their departure is denied. Israel's appearance as a new state does not in the Palestinian view negate a right of repatriation...

"The Palestinian view starts from the generally accepted proposition that a state may not exclude nationals who are, for whatever reason, resident abroad but who seek to return. Other states are under no obligation to accept a non-national permanently... Additionally, the displaced person has a claim for repatriation, as a matter of personal rights. 'Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own', proclaims the UDHR, 'and to return to his country'. When a treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was drafted to implement the UDHR, comparable language was used: 'no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country'.

"Israel defined Israeli nationality in a way that excluded the Palestinians displaced in 1948. An Israeli lawyer has argued that since Israel doesn't recognize the nationality of these persons, they have no right to return; 'the right [of repatriation] probably belongs only to nationals of the State, and at most to permanent residents. The Palestinian Arab refugees have never been nationals or permanent residents of Israel'. The UDHR and International Covenant, however, both use the term 'country' rather than 'state of nationality' to make clear that the right of entry does not depend on whether the state holding the territory recognises the person as a national. Anyone who was a national or habitually resident before a change in sovereignty is entitled to the nationality of the successor state. A country's 'population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality'." (The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, John Quigley, 1990, pp 230-231)

The editorialist's gripe is really that Palestinian rights have not yet completely dropped off the UN's agenda.

Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship 2

"Judaism is not Zionism. Judaism, as a confessional preference, should be strictly an individual matter, and, generally speaking, like other individual preferences (such as musical, culinary or sexual preferences), should not be the concern of the law. Zionism, as a political programme, is a matter of public debate...the political Zionist school of thought and practice is committed to the normative statement that it is a good idea to establish and consolidate in the country of Palestine a sovereign state, a Jewish state, that attempts to guarantee in law and in practice a demographic majority of the Jewish tribes in the territories under its control. Such individual bodies as are, for instance, committed to the values of open society, democracy and the separation of religion from the state; who, therefore, disagree with the political aims of this particular political programme, are anti-Zionist in the same sense that those who for many decades opposed the political programme of apartheid in South Africa (which ended in 1994) were, and it is to be hoped remain, anti-apartheid." Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel, 2003, pp 11-12

I reported in a January 18 post, Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship, that the Rudd Government had voted in the UN against funding for the 2009 World Conference against Racism (or Durban II). The forthcoming WCAR has been a pet peeve of the Israel lobby ever since the 2001 WCAR correctly* equated Zionism with racism, and the associated WCAR NGO Forum even more correctly* declared Israel a "racist, apartheid state" which should be subject to the imposition of sanctions.

In January, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) reportedly met with "representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)" and was hoping to meet Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, to "ask about ways to prevent anti-Semitism [sic: anti-Zionism]" at the 2009 WCAR and "work out the mechanics of our relationship in the future."

Update: Under the header, Uniting to stop Durban repeat (15/2/08), The Australian Jewish News informs us that a joint ECAJ and Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) delegation have met Israeli Ambassador, Yuval Rotem, and Smith, "who flagged his intention to visit Israel later this year [But of course!]."

The report continues: "The community leaders presented Smith with a submission outlining their concerns about next year's conference [eg that the UN allegedly promotes anti-Semitism "by condoning the distinction between anti-Semitism and Israel-phobia."], including their ambivalence over recent reports indicating the Rudd government intended to work more closely with the UN...[God forbid that Australia should be "work[ing] more closely with the UN"!]...[Phillip] Chester (ZFA) said that while Smith was not ready to commit one way or another to Australia's participation at Durban II [OMG, he's got the wobbles!], he did ask that the community leaders keep in touch with him. 'The minister is maintaining a wait-and-see approach', Chester said, adding that he feels the Australian Government will eventually support the position of the Jewish community...[The Israeli] ambassador [said] that, while [he] has not made a formal submission to the Australian Government to ask it not to attend Durban II, he has encouraged community leaders to lobby hard."

There you have it: now that the lobby has succeeded in persuading the government to deny funding to the 2009 WCAR, the push is on to have it implement Israel's anti-UN agenda and (like Canada) boycott the conference entirely. Will Smith cave in? Watch this space...

But there's more: "[Robert] Goot (ECAJ) told the AJN they also discussed the pattern of voting in the UN...Labor's pre-election posturing to legally pursue Iranian President Ahmadinejad [See my post, Ahmadinejad: Our Part in His Downfall]; and the unsolved kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers over a year ago...We were entirely satisfied with the minister's response on all those topics." Indeed!

It is always interesting to learn just who gets access to the minister's ear (and comes away "entirely satisfied with the minister's responses") and who gets knocked back. In February, 60-year old Rebiya Kadeer, exiled spokeswoman for the brutally oppressed Uighur people of China's Xinjiang region arrived in Australia to communicate her people's plight. Ms Kadeer, however, couldn't get within cooee of the foreign minister's ear and had to be content with DFAT officials. (See Exiled voice wants Games to cast light on repression, Hamish McDonald, SMH 21/2/08) Australia's Israel lobbyists, on the other hand, advocates for another specialist in screwing the wretched of the earth, have no such trouble.

*See my earlier post, Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship for a discussion of these matters.

Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship

The Israel lobby in Australia has chalked up its first victory with the Rudd Government. In The Australian Jewish News (AJN) of 7/12/07, Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), was reported to have "spoken with representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade and hopes to meet [Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen] Smith as soon as possible. Goot said he would like to ask Smith about ways to prevent anti-Semitism at the World Conference Against Racism [WCAR] in Durban in 2009, and 'to work out the mechanics of our relationship in the future'."

In the AJN of 18/1/08, we read that "The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) has praised the Rudd Government and its UN ambassador for voting against funding for the so-called UN Durban Review Conference, or 'Durban II'." AIJAC's Dr Colin Rubenstein griped that the WCAR held in 2001 "was hijacked and turned into a caricature of the very forces it was supposed to combat, even reviving the old canard that Zionism equals racism." He "commended" the Rudd Government for what he called its "principled stance."

41 (to 93) states, all European (apart from the US, Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea & Turkey - Israel does not vote on Shabbat) voted against funding Durban II. The US ambassador to the UN, Mark Wallace, even went on to vote "alone against the UN 2008-09 regular budget because money for hatemongering had been included." [www.eyeontheun.org Amusingly, Wallace is described on this neocon Hudson Institute website as "US Representative for United Nations Management & Reform."]

Let's get back to basics here. As Uri Davis, Israeli anti-Zionist activist and author, points out in his seminal 2003 work, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, political Zionism is a political programme committed to the notion that it is a good idea to establish and consolidate in the country of Palestine a sovereign, Jewish state that attempts to guarantee in law (eg Absentees Property Law 1950) and in practice (via the mass expulsion of its indigenous Palestinian Arab people in 1948) a demographic majority of the Jewish tribes in the territories under its control, in other words a form of apartheid. Because, unlike western democratic political programmes, Zionism is not predicated on the principle of the separation of religion and tribalism from the state and violates the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the standards of international law, it is a form of racism. The Israel lobby, of course, seeks always to blur the fundamental distinction between Judaism (a confessional statement belonging to the private realm of the individual) and Zionism (a political programme), and routinely smears anti-Zionism by linking it with anti-Semitism.

The Rudd Government's vote on Durban II cannot, therefore, be described as "principled," since Israel, as a Jewish state, is incompatible with the principles enshrined in the UDHR. Australia's vote is, in fact, a vote for racism and apartheid.

At the 2001 WCAR, most participants (but not Australia) supported a resolution equating Zionism with racism, prompting a walkout by Israel and the US. The final text of the resolution, while recognising the Palestinians' right to self-determination and expressing concern at their plight under foreign occupation, drops all criticism of Israel. The parallel WCAR NGO Forum, however, stuck with the original resolution, declaring Israel a "racist, apartheid state," and calling for the imposition of "a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state as in the case of South Africa, which means the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel." [http://www.badil.org/e-library/NGO-excerpts.htm]

You can now see why the Israel lobby in Australia is busy "working out the mechanics of [its] relationship" with the Rudd Government.