Zionist Lawfare in the UK

The Zionist smear campaign against the pro-Palestinian, socialist leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has reached a whole new level, that of lawfare:

"Britain's equality watchdog has said it believes Labour may have 'unlawfully discriminated against people because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs' as it announced the first step of a statutory inquiry into the party's handling of antisemitism complaints. The party said it would cooperate with the regulator, while its increasingly outspoken deputy leader, Tom Watson, called on party officials to ensure no emails or records were deleted.

"An Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) spokesperson said: 'Having received a number of complaints regarding antisemitism in the Labour party, we believe Labour may have unlawfully discriminated against people because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs. Our concerns are sufficient for us to consider using our statutory enforcement powers. As set out in our enforcement policy, we are now engaging with the Labour party to give them an opportunity to respond.'

"The regulator's announcement followed legal complaints made by Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)* and the Jewish Labour Movement** last year, which have argued that the party was not compliant with equalities law. The move is the first step in an investigatory process by the EHRC, and if the regulator concludes Labour has a case to answer it could go on to open a full inquiry under section 20 of the Equalities Act 2006." (Labour antisemitism equalities watchdog opens investigation, Dan Sabbagh, theguardian.com, 7/3/19)

"May have"?

So why then, on the EHRC's website, do the in-text quotes above appear under the heading "Antisemitism in the Labour Party: our response to complaints"? Shouldn't that be Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party... ?

I mean, if the word alleged isn't automatically used in the EHRC's reference to complaints, what confidence can one have in this body's inquiry into the matter? Where is the presumption of innocence here?

[*The CAA has been described by UK anti-Zionist activist Tony Greenstein as "a British propaganda organization and registered charity that specializes in defaming Palestinian solidarity campaigners." (Antisemitism is a campaign against Palestinians, The Electronic Intifada, 20/3/17);**The JLM has ties to the Israeli embassy.]

The Halabi Affair

Nothing about the following on DFAT's website, FB or twitter. Ditto for Bishop. Nothing in Fairfax. Nothing in Murdoch's Australian, which has been banging this drum for months:

"The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) says an internal review into World Vision funding in Gaza has uncovered nothing to suggest any diversion of government aid funding to Hamas. The review was announced last August after World Vision Gaza employee Mohammed El Halabi was arrested and put on trial accused of channelling millions to the militant group. Israeli officials claimed the humanitarian worker siphoned off government funds and charity donations to build tunnels, buy weapons and pay for the salaries of Hamas militants. The Australian Government has given more than $3 million to World Vision projects in Gaza in the past three years.

"The news DFAT found no evidence of the misuse of World Vision funds comes as Mr Halabi's trial continues in Israel. He has rejected a plea deal offered by Israeli authorities and has pleaded not guilty, claiming he is innocent of all charges. Mr Halabi has accused Israeli authorities of torturing him while in custody. Several witnesses the prosecution has presented to court have also accused Israeli intelligence officers of torturing them during interrogation.

"The NGO has stood beside Mr Halabi, saying he is a trusted employee and that they have also found no evidence yet of the diversion of World Vision funds. World Vision chief advocate Tim Costello said he was very pleased to hear the results of the review. So far, our own ongoing forensic audit has not uncovered any money subverted and to hear DFAT say their investigation hasn't either is consistent and very good news,' Mr Costello told ABC news.

"Despite numerous court hearings in Mr Halabi's trial, Israeli authorities have not yet produced any evidence to back up the explosive claims made against Halabi by Israeli officials... DFAT said Australia's funding to World Vision in the Palestinian territories remained suspended until they considered the outcomes of the court case against Mr Halabi and reviews being undertaken by World Vision." (No evidence of diversion of World Vision funds to Hamas DFAT says, Sophie McNeill, abc.net.au, 21/3/17)

The Trouble With Colonel Kemp

I've just been reading the report Investigation into potential breaches of University Codes of Conduct, posted on Sydney University's website, sydney.edu.au/news. I find it a disturbing document with grave implications for universities once renowned as havens for free speech and dissent.

In it we learn that Sydney University is threatening "disciplinary action" against a group of pro-Palestine student protesters, who disrupted a lecture last month by visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes Colonel Richard Kemp, and pro-Palestine academic Jake Lynch, who sought to challenge the aggressive actions of security staff towards the students whilst fending off the unwanted attentions of a "semi-retired English literature lecturer and sometime stand-up comedienne Diane Barkas, 73," to quote the Australian's description of this enraged, water-hurling, camera-grabbing harpy. (See Woman denies kicking BDS guru in groin, Ean Higgins, 15/4/15).

The threat comes in response to complaints over the incident(s) submitted to the university's vice-chancellor Michael Spence by 386 individuals - only 34 of whom had actually been present at the lecture - as part of an "investigation" into the matter. (See my 18/3/15 post Anatomy of a Beat-Up.)

While we are not party to the names of the 352 "other staff, students and members of the public" who lodged those complaints, or to their content, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are the result of yet another (*sigh*) Israel lobby campaign of confected outrage targeting supporters of Palestine on campus, and, in particular, Professor Lynch, a prominent advocate of boycotting institutional ties between Sydney University and Israeli universities, a brave and principled stance that saw him hauled up before Sydney's Federal Court by the Mossad-connected, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin last year.

It'd be most interesting to know whether some of these 'complaints' contained threats of some kind, along the lines of those described in my 26/8/14 post How Zionists Enforce the Party Line on Israel.

Central to the "investigation" are "potential breaches of University's Codes of Conduct," which "require all staff, students and affiliates to be tolerant, honest, respectful and ethical at all times."

Even to the likes of Kemp, it seems, who must be enjoying the progress of the witch-hunt, sorry investigation, immensely, seeing that "the university will send correspondence to Dr Kemp and other initial complainants present at the lecture providing them with an update."

Far from retiring (after also helping out with NSW's United Israel Appeal) to lick wounds supposedly inflicted by an intolerant, dishonest, disrespectful and unethical "BDS guru" and his student minions, Kemp will be appearing at a Shurat HaDin talkfest in Israel in May, Towards a New Law of War Conference.

Apparently, the glorious Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are finding that the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as presently constituted, are cramping their style and hence in dire need of a makeover.

It seems (I'm quoting the conference blurbs here) that "democratic armies" are pretty pissed that "large portions of the Western public and world media have come to assume that any civilian casualties are unacceptable and unlawful," and that the "Rules of Engagement in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Syria, South Lebanon and Gaza are too restrictive and irrelevant to safeguard military forces pursuing legitimate objectives in a terrorist war." (israellawcenter.org)

My fave sentence from these blurbs is this from Panel 5: "[Targeted killings] is an issue that demonstrates the influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law."

The influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law???!!!

That, my dears, is the nightmare vision to which Kemp would be a party. I wonder what Sydney University's Codes of Conduct, with their call for tolerance, honesty, respect and ethics, have to say about such matters.

Jake Lynch Update 8: Damage Control

Unable to credibly paint Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch as some kind of BDS mastermind, Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, has now decided, in an apparent exercise in damage control, to focus its attack solely on his decision to factor in the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel when approached by Israeli academics seeking his endorsement for Sydney University fellowships.

(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)

The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff  by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:

"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.

"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...

"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'

"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?

"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."

[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]

Jake Lynch Update 6

Israeli lawmongers, Shurat HaDin, currently seeking to intimidate Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch in the Federal Court over his support for such fundamental human rights as freedom from military occupation, equality between people regardless of religious affiliation, and the right of refugees to return to the homes and lands from which they were once driven, are now threatening those who stand with him:

"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)

Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!

Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:

"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."

Alleged?

"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."

*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.

**The resolutions read as follows:

1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."

Dr Hammer & Dr Kedar...

... coming to a Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies near you.

For the casual reader of The Heart of Darkness (aka The Australian) it must sometimes look as though Israel is Human Rights Central:

"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics, who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor [Jake] Lynch's policy, even though as yet they have not been the subject of specific actions. Dr Leonard Hammer, of the Hebrew University, a human rights lawyer, and Dr Mordechai Kedar, of Bar Ilan University, an Arabic studies specialist, have regularly lectured overseas, including in Australia, Mr [Andrew] Hamilton told The Australian. 'They both are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Sydney University's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), where Lynch has implemented his boycott,' Mr Hamilton said. 'However, just as a sign on a bar saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed' discriminates against and disadvantages all Jews and blacks, even if they didn't even want to go into the bar, so Jake Lynch's BDS academic boycott discriminates and disadvantages all Israeli academics,' he said." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', Ean Higgins, 28/12/13)

Hm... so both Hammer and Kedar "are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at CPACS."

Gee... the former's "a human rights lawyer" so he must be a good bloke, sort of an Israeli Julian Burnside I imagine, and the latter's into "Arabic studies" so he'd be favourably disposed towards the Palestinians, right? And... and... Shurat HaDin's a fearless fighter for all those Israelis quivering in fear at the prospect the next terrorist outrage just around the corner, yes?

As if!

Whoops! Shurat HaDin's Andrew Hamilton must have forgotten to tell Ean Higgins that Hammer is "the Academic Director to Shurat HaDin." (Leonard Hammer, judaic.arizona.edu)

And here's Kedar waxing scholarly on the subject of a Palestinian state: "A Palestinian state with territorial-terrorist contiguity would be an existential threat to Israel, and therefore Israel should assert its right - it can and must say to Obama and Kerry: No!!!" (Sisi:1, Obama:0, mordechaikedar.blogspot.com.au, 29/12/13)

You can just imagine these two touching down at Sydney Airport:

Australian Customs: Occupation?
Hammer & Kedar: No, just visiting.

More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1

Murdoch's Australian is positively salivating over the latest legal manoeuvre by the Mossad-backed lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, against Associate Professor Jake Lynch, director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), over his courageous stand in defence of Palestinian rights.

Unreported in the Fairfax press or Guardian Australia, Shurat HaDin's pursuit of Professor Lynch is now getting front page treatment in The Australian. The latest spike in its ongoing 'coverage' of the issue began in earnest on October 30 with the kind of drive-by editorial especially reserved by the paper for anyone who refuses to bend the knee and kiss the Israeli ring.

Exploiting last Saturday night's random attack on a group of Jews at Bondi Beach by youths of Islander background (whose knowledge of, or interest in, Middle Eastern affairs would be less than zero), The Australian's  editorialist, hyping the attack as an example of "the vile spectre of anti-Semitism," had no doubt who was to blame:

"It is not altogether surprising given the attitude of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University. Last year, the centre shunned a Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic who developed a civics course to unite Arab and Jewish students. Centre director Jake Lynch backed the oppressive boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. The existence of Israel is accepted in international law and by the UN but some Australian humanities academics think otherwise. In supporting the Palestinian cause, the Left must not allow anti-Semitism to become an article of faith among young people and risk reigniting hatreds that festered across Europe for centuries before 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust." (Dangerous anti-Semitism has no place in Australia: In backing Palestinians, the Left must not demonise Israel)

That outrageous libel was matched by the bizarre front page piece by Ean Higgins and Jared Owens about which I've already posted, To Jewish leaders, incidents prove you can never stop. (See my 30/10/13 post Only in 'The Australian', No. 16,972.) Accompanied by a photograph of a "Holocaust survivor," and opening with a reference to the Bondi Beach attack, it veered from one unrelated matter to another before finally reaching its intended target, Professor Lynch.

The very next day, October 31, again on the front page, we had the headline Anti-Israeli BDS campaign facing court test. The byline? Ean Higgins, naturally. It began:

"The emotive controversy over whether the BDS campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will be tested in the Federal Court after an Israeli organisation launched a landmark legal suit."

After outlining something of the history of the case, Higgins went on, on page 2 now, to detail the substance of Shurat HaDin's complaint:

"Shurat HaDin's case will argue that Professor Lynch's support for BDS amounts to racial discrimination against Israelis and Jews, in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the application filed with the court, Shurat HaDin claims that Professor Lynch's 'inherent purpose in participating [in] and publicly supporting the BDS movement is to do acts involving adverse distinction, exclusion, restriction and adverse preference based on the Jewish race, descent, national and ethnic origin of goods, services, persons and organisations," which, the godawful legalese notwithstanding, sounds more like a description of Israel's treatment of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.

"Shurat HaDin," Higgins continued, " is not seeking financial restitution... but court orders requiring [Professor Lynch] to apologise for his BDS campaign and desist from it. Professor Lynch rejected Shurat HaDin's claims, and said he would vigorously fight the court action. 'The campaign for an academic boycott of institutional links with Israeli universities is a non-violent campaign for peace with justice in respect of militarism and lawlessness,' Professor Lynch, who is in Britain, told The Australian. 'I am confident we will prove, in court if necessary, that it does not amount to any form of discrimination or racism'."

Higgins then introduced the subject of Shurat HaDin's links with Israeli intelligence, quoting its Australian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, as saying that "receiving tip-offs from Mossad... was part of the normal practice of lawyers seeking information and evidence to bolster their cases."

How fascinating. Whereas Australia's new foreign minister is adamant that "we don't comment on intelligence matters," Mossad is apparently more than happy to talk to any old Tom, Dick and Andrew!

Higgins then had Jerusalem's Hebrew University, which is seeking ties with Sydney University opposed by Professor Lynch, confirming that, yes, "it ran two programs for serving and future Israeli soldiers," but claiming that these were also "attended by students who were not connected to the military," a complete nonsense, of course, in a society where all Jewish Israelis, save the ultra-orthodox, are required to serve in the army.

He then quoted another Hebrew University spokesman as saying that the entire Hebrew University campus is "is all on Israeli territory." In fact, it is situated on Mt Scopus, an Israeli enclave in the Jordanian-ruled West Bank from 1948-1967.

Now exactly why the Palestinians should be expected to view Mt Scopus, which is east of the so-called Green Line, as Israeli territory when Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian claim to hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages west of the Green Line is one of life's little mysteries.

But then, even if we ignore the above elephant in the room and concede that Mt Scopus campus is all on Israeli territory, we still have to face the fact that all its access roads run through occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.

But there's more! There always is in The Australian. There's also the letters page to insult our intelligence, this time with such gems as:

"There is no other tool than anti-Semitism for criticising Israel and the Jewish people.";

"... anti-Semitism deniers such as Jake Lynch," and his "platoon of supporters happily preferring uggboots to jackboots.";

"... a rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is expressing itself as anti-Semitism..."

Continued next post...

Mossad & Associates 2

Meir Dagan's Lawfare Programme

"The National Security Council (NSC) appears to be the central node in the Israeli Government's attempts to use deniable civil actions against alleged terrorist financing. According to veteran Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman, this strategy was initiated by Meir Dagan when he headed the NSC in the late 1990s, before becoming chief of the Mossad. In a 2007 article, Melman went on to suggest that Israeli intelligence was connected to a lawsuit brought against the Arab Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East. The law firm which brought the Arab Bank case, Mann Mairone, moved into terrorism litigation around 2001, having previously specialised in taxation and commercial law. In the process, it acquired a roster of researchers and advisors drawn largely from Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence.

"WikiLeaks cables show that the Arab Bank was a frequent subject of discussions between Israeli NSC officials and US diplomats during the case. At one such meeting with US Treasury officials in 2005, ILC contacts Udi Levi and Uzi Shaya were prominent in defending the litigation, although vague as to the justification for it:

Levi said the bank had stopped all transactions to the territories after it was sued in US court. He cautioned, however, that the bank is 'playing with evidence, cleaning the records, and deleting accounts' to cover its tracks. Shaya said that the GOI had unspecified proof that the Arab Bank is still dealing with Hizballah in Lebanon.

"Levi went on to suggest further litigation:

Levi called INTERPAL and other European groups that channel funds to Hamas 'a problem we do not know how to solve,' but added that lawsuits similar to the ones filed against the Arab Bank might help. He suggested that another option to restrict funding would be to prevent INTERPAL from clearing dollar donations through New York.

"Interpal, a British charity focused on Palestine, had been a source of friction between the Israeli and British governments for several years. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported in 2004 that Foreign Minister Jack Straw had refused a request from his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom to put an end to Interpal's activities. Significantly, Haaretz noted that even if the Israeli intelligence on Interpal were made public, it would not necessarily meet the threshold for banning a UK charity and that 'it is therefore not at all certain that even if the evidence were to be revealed, it would lead to a curbing of Interpal in Britain.'

"Interpal was also targeted in 2007 by a British think tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, as chronicled in Spinwatch's pamphlet, The Cold War on British Muslims. In their attack, the CSC cited 'allegations made by Israel and the USA,' as well as a 2006 BBC Panorama documentary, which had also relied extensively on evidence provided by current and former Israeli security officials. In 2009, an inquiry by the UK Charity Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to take actions over claims that Interpal beneficiaries were supporting terrorism, because it could not verify 'the provenance or accuracy' of material provided by the Israeli government.

"Udi Levi's comments suggest that such developments are in line with the wider strategy being pursued by the NSC.

Key Questions

"If a firm that has received covert support from the Israeli government is now targeting BDS activists, does this mean that the Israeli government has widened its use of lawfare in a bid to silence its critics? As we have noted, firms like the ILC are prepared to take on the Israeli government over issues like the Bank of China case. Yet that case itself illustrates the extent to which they are nevertheless dependent on a government which is prepared to use and then abandon terror victims for cynical political reasons. The fact that the Israeli Government is prepared to support organisations whose hardline stances are at odds with its own public positions must also create doubts about how sincerely held those positions are. The targeting of the Palestinian Authority in particular, in cases largely dependent on official Israeli sources, is surely inconsistent with any commitment to a genuine peace process."

Mossad & Associates 1

The following investigation into the Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) by the UK organisation, Spinwatch (spinwatch.org), is a must-read. You may remember Shurat HaDin's characterisation in the Murdoch press here as a 'civil rights' organisation. As Spinwatch's research shows there's a little more to it than that. Given its length, I'm posting it in two parts:

BDS campaigner targeted by law firm with links to Israeli intelligence

by Tom Griffin & David Miller (5/10/13)

"A law firm targeting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement has close links to Israeli intelligence, US government cables leaked by Wikileaks show:

"Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission last month against Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University, over Lynch's support for BDS. The ILC, set up in 2003, claims to be 'a fully independent non-profit organization, unaffiliated with any political party or government body.' However, the organisation's director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, has privately admitted to taking direction from the Israeli Government over which causes to pursue and relying on Israeli intelligence contacts for witnesses and evidence.

"Darshan-Leitner made the comments in 2007 to diplomats from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, who reported the conversation in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks four years later. It states:

Leitner said that in many of her cases she receives evidence from GOI [Government of Israel] officials, and added that in its early years ILC took direction from the GOI on which cases to pursue. 'The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do,' claimed Leitner. Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation. Leitner offered a case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as [an] example of ILC's close cooperation with the GOI. After obtaining a judgement against PIJ for NIS 100 million (USD 25 million), ILC requested a lien for that amount against the Abu Akker Trading Company as a third party defendant. At the time, Abu Akker was one of the largest Palestinian importing companies, and Leitner said the Mossad provided her with the intelligence (similar to information provided to USG officials in a classified briefing) to prove that the company was funneling money to PIJ. According to Leitner, the ILC now decides its cases independently, but continues to receive evidence and witnesses from Israeli intelligence.

"The US cable goes on to comment that:

While the ILC's mission dovetails with GOI objectives of putting financial pressure on Israel's adversaries, the often uncompromising approach of ILC's attorney's seems to overreach official GOI policy goals. ILC's relentless litigation has proven to be an obstacle to the GOI's releasing of all customs revenues previously withheld from the PA [Palestinian Authority].

"ILC has engaged in a wide variety of other actions in the US, Australia, Israel itself and in Egypt as well as targeting Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Palestinian Authority. Amongst its targets have been financial situations including UBS, American Express Bank and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank, President Jimmy Carter, World Vision Australia (a Christian aid agency) and, most notably, the largely successful attempt to stop the second Free Gaza Flotilla. This involved a blizzard of legal threats against insurance companies, port authorities and satellite firms. They were informed they would open themselves to criminal liability for 'aiding and abetting' a 'terrorist' organisation or would become 'legally liable' for any future attacks by Hamas.

The Bank of China Affair

"Further details of the ILC's links with Israeli intelligence have emerged amid fallout from a case brought by the firm against the Bank of China. According to accounts in the Israeli press, officials from the NSC approached Darshan-Leitner, after identifying the bank as a conduit for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Darshan-Leitner found a suitable plaintiff to bring the case in the family of Daniel Wultz, a 16-year-old American citizen killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in 2006. Yediot Ahronot reported: 'In her discussions with the intelligence agents, Darshan-Leitner insisted that she receives massive assistance from the government. She demanded convicting information on the bank's activities, affidavits from authorized people and a commitment to provide for the trial an authorized witness who will say that the Chinese knew about the nature of the accounts and refused to close them. The consent was given - orally. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to the NY Federal Court.'

"This arrangement began to collapse in the face of Chinese Government pressure ahead of a visit to Beijing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. The Wultz family has accused the Israeli Government of sabotaging the case by failing to provide the documents it promised at the outset. The standoff is particularly embarrassing because Daniel Wultz's mother, Sheryl Cantor Wultz, is a cousin of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader in the US Congress.

"Among the key documents at the centre of the case is an affidavit by Uzi Shaya, who may be the same person as 'Uzi Beshaya', the Israeli security official named in the 2007 cable as a contact of both Shurat HaDin and the US Embassy. Another US cable describes Shaya as an officer of Israel's Shin Bet [security] service, working in the Counter Terror Finance Bureau of the Israeli NSC alongside Udi Levi, Darshan-Leitner's other intelligence contact."

To be continued...

The Hounding of Jake Lynch

The bullying and intimidation of Jake Lynch goes on:

"An Israeli civil rights group has launched legal action against Jake Lynch, the head of the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, in the Human Rights Commission, alleging his support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act. Associate Professor Lynch last year refused to assist Dan Avnon, the author of the only joint civics curriculum for Jewish and Arab school students*, to undertake work at the university as a representative of an Israeli institution... The Shurat HaDin complaint is based on Section 9 of the 1975 Race [sic] Discrimination Act. It reads: 'It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life'." (Professor faces legal action on BDS stand, Christian Kerr, The Australian, 2/8/13)

(*Kerr, of course, can't even tell the story straight: it's a civics curriculum for joint Jewish/Arab schools, not the other way round.)

While Mr Avnon was no doubt completely shattered by the experience (as only an Israeli can be?), it should always be kept in mind that when it comes to dishing out "distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour (who knows?), descent or national or ethnic origin," the apartheid, 'Jewish' state of Israel, of which his university is an integral part, is second to none.

Even a simple scan of the blurb for his 2009 book, Plurality & Citizenship in Israel: Moving Beyond the Jewish/Palestinian Divide, reveals that Israel's Palestinian minority experiences "unequal access to citizenship; unequal access to land; discrimination in access to public services; insufficient defence of minority rights in Israel's legal system; unequal obligations; [and] unequal economic opportunities." And while we're at it, name me one other country in the world which bases its immigration policy solely on biology?

One wonders, therefore, why such a "civil rights group" as Shurat HaDin, modelled, so Kerr tells us, "on the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Centre, that has successfully used US courts to target the Ku Klux Klan," needs to come all the way to Australia to bother one of this country's most ethical academics. Could there possibly be some other reason? Just asking. 

But back to the matter of difference, exclusion or preference based on national/ethnic origin and the Israeli apartheid state. Whilst pottering around on the internet recently, this particularly egregious example, of which I was hitherto completely unaware, really had me sitting up and taking notice:

"In May of 1948, the State of Israel was established as the modern nation-state of the Jewish people. That November, a state agency, the 'Central Bureau of Statistics' (CBS), conducted the first population census, at the height of the War of Independence [sic: ethnic cleansing of Palestine]. Under a curfew of 7 hours, military and security personnel proceeded to canvass every Israeli household and register all its citizens. An order was given specifying that those absent from their homes would not be registered as citizens and that their ownership of goods, property and land was not to be recognized. Though the order was formulated in universalistic terms, applying to all inhabitants, its sanctions were in effect applied only to the Palestinian Arab population, for it was only members of this group who were not at home. Hundreds of thousands had fled and had been driven from their homes during the fighting [sic: ethnic cleansing]. While the census was ostensibly an enumeration of all residents, it in fact created the population that it was counting. Those who were not counted were thereby excluded from the target population, their rights forfeited. This included not only the refugees who had left the territory under Israel's control, but internal refugees as well. Of those absent during the census, many were internal refugees, remaining within the territory that eventually became Israel's... Though this group was given Israeli citizenship, their property rights were never restored, and they became the statistical category of 'present-absentees'." (The Uncounted: Citizenship & Exclusion in the Israeli Census of 1948, Anat Leibler & Daniel Breslau, sts-biu.org)

Only in Israel.

His Brilliant Career

The Australian's war of attrition against Australians involved in local initiatives of the global pro-Palestinian BDS movement, and support for Palestine more generally, flared up again on June 18 with the first of a series of Christian Kerr 'exclusives'. Headed Israelis may sue boycott activists, Kerr reported that Israeli lawfare* outfit, Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Centre has written to the head of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, Jake Lynch, the Sydney Peace Foundation's director Stuart Rees, and "other figures in the local BDS movement, warning them they may be subject to civil, administrative and criminal legal action." The threats come from a "former NSW solicitor Andrew Hamilton, now working with Shurat HaDin."

[*Motto: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]

So just who is Andrew Hamilton?

Well, for one thing, he's the kind of guy that blows the Zionist conceit that Jews have the kind of special (and exclusive) connection to Palestine that trumps all other claims, particularly the claims of those who were living there before the Z-people began arriving after 1917, right out of the proverbial water. And that's because young Andrew, or 'Akiva' as he now styles himself, was actually born to a Catholic family in Sydney.

So without that incredibly useful Jewish mother to ensure red carpet treatment under Israel's apartheid Law of Return, the question arises how did young Andrew/Akiva make it as a presumably welcome addition to the 'Jewish' state?

Well, it's an interesting but quite depressing tale because it highlights the fact that even with 13 years of primary and secondary education, and another 3-5 years of tertiary education under one's belt, there is no guarantee whatever that one will emerge with an open and informed mind, or a capacity for critical thinking.

(Please note that the observations and inferences which follow are based solely on what Andrew has himself placed on the public record, namely 1) A chat with Akiva (Andrew) Hamilton, The Australian Jewish News, 8/6/12; and b) Arrivals: Articulate advocate, Gloria Deutsch, Jerusalem Post, 13/12/12.)

As Andrew puts it: "I went to a posh private school in Sydney and until the age of 14 I was a practicing Catholic." So far, so good. And then? "Through debating I met a lot of Jewish people, and later had many Jewish friends at university. I was an intellectual type and Jews tended to be the same."

Uh-huh. I find the reference to debating interesting. You see, while it may be useful for honing one's speaking skills, the general aim of this highly-stylized activity, often as not, is merely to best your 'opponents' irrespective of the merits or otherwise of your arguments. To state the obvious, it is not about examining an issue from all sides in a scholarly fashion and coming to a considered conclusion.

There is, moreover, little in Andrew's reference to his university years to suggest a free exchange of ideas based on wide reading and intellectual inquiry, a process critical to a rounded understanding of any political or social issue, let alone the Palestine/Israel question. No, it smacks rather more of Andrew uncritically soaking up the Zionist groupthink of his Jewish mates. Says he at one point, "Obviously Israel is absolutely integral to Judaism." Obviously?!

And isn't the following an odd comment from one who describes himself as "an intellectual type":

"His long spiritual search led him to Orthodox Judaism, and within 10 months he had completed his conversion."

"Long spiritual search"? Sounds more like a troubled youth than a budding intellectual.

But really, I don't think all this kind of talk should be taken too seriously for, as he admits, he "only converted to Judaism shortly before marrying his first wife, who was Jewish."

Ah, women...

OK, so let's get to the bottom of this: what came first, the spiritual quest or the Jewish girl(s)?

For all Andrew's talk about finding Christianity "intellectually inconsistent," and having Jewish friends throughout his education, the following frank admission tells us where he's really coming from:

"I was attracted to Jewish women and became more interested in Judaism from that, and so that was my path to Judaism."

Men, really...

Now add to all that "quite a lot of work with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council" (AIJAC), and a move to Israel with the wife and kids in 2008, and you're in real tunnel vision territory.

Alas, Andrew's marriage broke down when his wife "wanted to go back to Australia with their two children." The result is that today, Andrew "travels back and forth to see them and usually combines his visits with talking about his work for Shurat HaDin."

All of which brings me to another point about Andrew. How favoured is he, and those like him, who now have not one but two homes to flit between - while millions whose ancestral land Palestine was 65 years ago are denied the right of return.

Be that as it may, Andrew is becoming more Akiva by the day:

"I fit in very well in Israel. I'm culturally very Israeli."

And what better way to fit in than by tapping into Israel's paranoid, fortress mentality, where countless existential threats are always just a whisker away from putting the whole bloody shebang out of business and have to be fought tooth and nail? More fun even than those high school debates of blessed memory!

And this is where Shurat HaDin comes in. What a ballsy, bolshie outfit:

"Shurat HaDin has won judgments against Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Arab Bank, [and] a range of organisations, and has actually collected about $120 billion for terror victims from those judgements."

Hm... terrorists? You betcha. You never know where they're going to turn up next. Boasts Akiva:

"Shurat HaDin was also very involved in stopping the second flotilla. Shurat HaDin wrote to the insurance companies that were insuring the various ships of the flotilla, pointing out that they would be in breach of US anti-terror law. So the insurance companies pulled the insurance. They did the same to the satellite communications companies, and they pulled the satellite comms from the ships so the ships couldn't sail. Then for good measure they contacted the Greek authorities, and thus the flotilla wasn't able to sail. And without any blood being spilled or any international controversy against Israel, the second flotilla was literally dead in the water."

It must've been a near-run thing that one. If only Shurat HaDin had been around to pull the plug on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor! How did we ever get this far without them?

And thanks to Akiva we now know what a seething hotbed of terror funding and coddling Australia really is: AusAID, World Vision Australia, APHEDA, Actionaid Australia, CARE Australia, Jake Lynch, Stuart Rees...

But not for too much longer - Akiva's on their case!

Oh, I almost forgot. In the spirit of 'behind every great man there stands a woman': "He introduced me to Yael, to whom I've just become engaged. She is an accountant, half English, and the wedding is fixed for January. Hamilton is looking forward to spending the rest of his life in Israel and is passionate about what a wonderful country it is." (Arrivals: Articulate advocate, Gloria Deutsch, The Jerusalem Post, 13/12/12)