"It wouldn't matter whether it was John Howard or Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott in the prime minister's chair... [the Israelis] know they've got us by the balls... partly because of the strength of the Israel lobby..." (Unnamed "Australian official" in the wake of the 2010 Mossad passport affair. Quoted in Betrayed PM should not be taken for granted by Israel, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 26/2/10)
"A prominent Jewish community leader will seek an urgent meeting with Prime Minister Julia Gillard with the hope Australia will yet oppose a Palestinian seat in the United Nations. Philip Chester, president of the Zionist Federation of Australia, said time was of the essence before the Palestinian bid is put to the vote in New York on Thursday (around 7.30 am Friday). 'We're exploring that right now,' Mr Chester said. 'Our aim is to talk to the Prime Minister at the first instance, others we have to think about.'... Mr Chester was at pains to emphasise his organisation would not make threats..." (Gillard under Jewish pressure over Palestine, Daniel Flitton, The Age, 28/11/12)
Threats? Was at pains to emphasise?
How interesting! Now where did that suggestion come from? Daniel? Philip?
Perish the thought that the Israel lobby would ever actually threaten an Australian Prime Minister.
OK, well, there's always the good old reciprocal cold shoulder:
"Australia had long been one of Israel's 3 most supportive friends, along with the US and Canada. But now there were troubling signs that Rudd had decided to distance Australia from the Jewish state and himself from the Australian Jews he had called friends. It started in February [2010] with the Government's angry reaction to news that assassins with the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had forged 3 Australian passports to enter the United Arab Emirates to kill a Hamas military commander... in his hotel room... It sharpened a week later when Australia switched its vote in the UN to signal a weakening of support for Israel... The concern intensified last month when the government expelled an Israeli diplomat as a punishment for the passports abuse... All through this, the Israeli ambassador to Australia and some members of the Jewish community felt a chill in their dealings with the government Phone calls went unreturned, normal dealings seemed to be suspended. The Jewish community reciprocated. When Labor approached key groups to hold fund-raising events for the coming election, they feigned busyness, but it was deliberate and unmistakeable retaliation. The Jewish community was an important source of Labor funds for the 2007 election. A single lunch in Sydney raised $100,000. A Toorak tennis court for 200, attended by Rudd and Julia Gillard, raised more. But as this year has unfolded, it became increasingly clear such effort would not be repeated." (What am I, chopped liver? How Rudd dived into schmooze mode, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 22/6/10)*
FYI: The Age has just concluded a 7,144 reader poll on the question: How should Australia vote on a bid to give Palestinians UN observer status? The results are as follows:
Yes: 60%; No: 31%; Abstain: 9%
[*For the full story on the night Philip and his mates had dinner with Rudd at The Lodge, see my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy. Just click on the 'Rudd government' label below.]
Showing posts with label Rudd government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudd government. Show all posts
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Great Moments in Sucking Up to Israel
In the latest twist in the unseemly contest between Obamanation and Mitt Romney to see just how low each can go in sucking up to the Israelis, Romney has announced that he would "press for an indictment of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on charges of inciting genocide." (Mitt Romney says he would indict Ahmadinejad for genocide incitement, guardian.co.uk, 29/9/12)
The announcement reportedly came "moments after a phone conversation with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu." (ibid)
What a surprise! Good one, Mitt!
But you're a bit slow, buddy. Our very own Kevin Rudd, once-upon-a-time Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and now not-so-humble backbencher, beat you to the punch years ago, also during an election campaign as it happens, that of 2007 to be precise.
For the curious story of how Krudd conceived (actually had it conceived for him) the risible idea of dragging the Eye-ranian president off to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a charge of inciting genocide but quietly, and much to the chagrin of our local Israel firsters, dropped the idea a year into his prime ministership, scan my posts under the label Rudd government below, beginning with Testing Time for Rudd (21/12/07) and ending with Unleashing the Zionist Settler Within (15/11/08).
And Krudd, remember, is the Great White Hope of the Australian Labor Party today. God help us.
The announcement reportedly came "moments after a phone conversation with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu." (ibid)
What a surprise! Good one, Mitt!
But you're a bit slow, buddy. Our very own Kevin Rudd, once-upon-a-time Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and now not-so-humble backbencher, beat you to the punch years ago, also during an election campaign as it happens, that of 2007 to be precise.
For the curious story of how Krudd conceived (actually had it conceived for him) the risible idea of dragging the Eye-ranian president off to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a charge of inciting genocide but quietly, and much to the chagrin of our local Israel firsters, dropped the idea a year into his prime ministership, scan my posts under the label Rudd government below, beginning with Testing Time for Rudd (21/12/07) and ending with Unleashing the Zionist Settler Within (15/11/08).
And Krudd, remember, is the Great White Hope of the Australian Labor Party today. God help us.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy
In my post of 11/6/10, Those Irresistable Zionist Pheromones Again 2, on the Prime Minister's recent dinner with Israel lobbyists at The Lodge, I concluded by quoting, from a February 2010 report by the SMH's international editor Peter Hartcher, the words of an anonymous "Australian official": "It wouldn't matter whether it was John Howard or Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott in the prime minister's chair... [the Israelis] know they've got us by the balls... partly because of the strength of the Israel lobby... "
Although I've already covered the circumstances of the dinner in the above post (and its predecessor of 9/6), exactly how the Israelis have Rudd by the short & curlies becomes a little clearer in Hartcher's column, What am I, chopped liver? How Rudd dived into schmooze mode, in today's Herald. It's therefore worth quoting in full, keeping in mind, however, Hartcher's obvious lobby source(s) and their motives in speaking to him, his Jewish Board of Deputies-sponsored junket to Israel last year, and his subsequent Israel advocacy on the Herald's opinion page - just click on the tag below. My comments, as always, are in square brackets:
"When Kevin Rudd sat down to dinner in the Lodge with 6 leaders of the Jewish community this month, several remarked at the trouble he'd taken: the PM had ordered kosher food, flown from Melbourne, for the event. It was a nice touch, but not enough.
[The trouble he'd taken? These guys must be VIPs indeed.]
"Rudd convened the dinner as a reconciliation with Australia's Jewry. He was the first prime minister to invite the Jewish leadership to address a crisis in relations since Malcolm Fraser after the outbreak of the first Lebanon war in 1982. But it was going to take a lot more than a kosher dinner to allay the anxiety, anger and frustration around the Lodge dining table.
[Dear, dear, dear... not happy, Kevin!]
"The Jewish community was deeply disturbed by the abrupt change in the government's Israel policy [occasioned by Israeli actions]. And Rudd's treatment of the local Jewish fraternity, too. He had always been strongly pro-Israel. A former chairman of the World Jewish Congress Isi Leibler last year described him as 'a Christian Zionist - he understands and has some sympathy for us'.
"Australia had long been one of Israel's 3 most supportive friends, along with the US and Canada. But now there were troubling signs that Rudd had decided to distance Australia from the Jewish state and himself from the Australian Jews he had called friends.
"It started in February with the government's angry reaction to news that assassins with the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had forged 3 Australian passports to enter the United Arab Emirates to kill a Hamas military commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in his hotel room. 'Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend', said the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith.
"It sharpened a week later when Australia switched its vote in the UN to signal a weakening of support for Israel. The government feigned surprise when asked if this was a rebuke for the abuse of the Australian passports but it was a deliberate and unmistakable retaliation.
[So there you have it: our UN vote on Palestine/Israel isn't determined by a serious and proper consideration of the issue at hand. What a surprise!]
"The concern intensified last month when the government expelled an Israeli diplomat as a punishment for the passports abuse. Britain did the same, as would Ireland, but France and Germany merely rebuked Israel with a public statement. Tony Abbott called the expulsion an overreaction.
"All through this, the Israeli ambassador to Australia and some members of the Jewish community felt a chill in their dealings with the government. Phone calls went unreturned, normal dealings seemed to be suspended.
[Note the ease and degree of access to the government implied here.]
"The Jewish community reciprocated. When Labor approached key groups to hold fund-raising events for the coming election, they feigned busyness, but it was a deliberate and unmistakeable retaliation.
[Note the repetition here of deliberate and unmistakeable retaliation. Hell hath no fury like the Israel lobby scorned.]
"The Jewish community was an important source of Labor funds for the 2007 election. A single lunch in Sydney raised $100,000. A Toorak tennis court party for 200, attended by Rudd and Julia Gillard, raised more.
"But as this year has unfolded, it became increasingly clear such effort would not be repeated. Last month, as Rudd's poll numbers weakened, the activist Jewish Labor MP Michael Danby was surprised to receive a visit from Rudd's chief of staff, Alister Jordan, the first in 3 years.
[The implication here is that lobby funding is crucial to the re-election of the Rudd government.* What a damning state of affairs.]
"Danby told Jordan of Jewish concerns. As a result, he and another Jewish Labor MP, Mark Dreyfus, found themselves in Rudd's office with the PM and his FM. Rudd got the message. He set up the dinner for a week later, June 3.
[The timing here doesn't gel with the chronology of meetings I've described in my 9/6/10 post Those Irresistable Zionist Pheromones Again. Hartcher has Danby meeting with him prior to the Gaza flotilla massacre, not in response to it. If so, Danby's timing, cited in that post, is out.]
"In the meantime, Israeli commandos raided the unarmed flotilla in international waters, killing 9 civilians and shocking the world. Rudd's response seemed to confirm the worst fears of Israel and its advocates. 'When it comes to a blockade against Gaza, preventing the supply of humanitarian aid, such a blockade should be removed', he told reporters. This was widely reported as Rudd calling for an end to the blockade. This would allow Hamas to arm itself for war on Israel.
[Hartcher channeling Danby?]
"Two days later, when Rudd and Smith welcomed the 6 Jewish leaders to the Lodge with a statement of their support for Israel, Rudd got a tough rejoinder from Mark Leibler, chairman of the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council [AIJAC]. He told them he was 'deeply troubled' by Rudd's stand on Israel. He spent 15 to 20 minutes recalling their former dealings, repeating Rudd's pledge of support, then detailing his concerns. Rudd responded point by point.
[Rudd's pledge of support in return for...?]
"He said his remarks on the blockade [what blockade?] were misconstrued. He meant it should be lifted for humanitarian aid and not military supplies. This is what Israel is moving to do.
"Smith added that the government had called for an independent Israeli inquiry into the commando raid on the flotilla and not an international inquiry that might lead to another Goldstone report.
"Rudd denied any 'freezing out' of Israel's ambassador, or of the Jewish community. He pointed out that his foreign policy adviser Phillip Green, also at the dinner - 'he sits in the office next to mine' - had a number of dealings with the ambassador during this period and took calls from Jewish leaders. [But that'd be unacceptable to those used to direct access to Rudd himself.] On the passports affair, Rudd stood his ground. He said he was personally hurt by Israel's abuse of Australian passports, he had a duty of support to passport holders, but said the matter was now in the past.
"It was time for a 'new momentum' in Australia's relationship with Israel. He said Australia would send the Trade Minister, Simon Crean, to Israel, and this would doubtless lead to a reciprocal visit and a new energy.
"He promised new funding for the secure schools program, which provides security to Jewish schools, now the first $20 million was spent. The Jewish leaders left the Lodge shaken by the events of the last months [poor things] but largely satisfied with Rudd's assurances and his promises. Which is just as well, because the food was reportedly terrible. The crisis over, fund-raising events for Labor are expected to resume."
[PS: *"The major parties face a cash crisis as they head to the polls with... low bank balances... Labor [is] carrying $7m in debt... the Liberals $4.2m..." (Parties go cap in hand to unions and business, Christian Kerr, The Australian, 5/7/10)]
Although I've already covered the circumstances of the dinner in the above post (and its predecessor of 9/6), exactly how the Israelis have Rudd by the short & curlies becomes a little clearer in Hartcher's column, What am I, chopped liver? How Rudd dived into schmooze mode, in today's Herald. It's therefore worth quoting in full, keeping in mind, however, Hartcher's obvious lobby source(s) and their motives in speaking to him, his Jewish Board of Deputies-sponsored junket to Israel last year, and his subsequent Israel advocacy on the Herald's opinion page - just click on the tag below. My comments, as always, are in square brackets:
"When Kevin Rudd sat down to dinner in the Lodge with 6 leaders of the Jewish community this month, several remarked at the trouble he'd taken: the PM had ordered kosher food, flown from Melbourne, for the event. It was a nice touch, but not enough.
[The trouble he'd taken? These guys must be VIPs indeed.]
"Rudd convened the dinner as a reconciliation with Australia's Jewry. He was the first prime minister to invite the Jewish leadership to address a crisis in relations since Malcolm Fraser after the outbreak of the first Lebanon war in 1982. But it was going to take a lot more than a kosher dinner to allay the anxiety, anger and frustration around the Lodge dining table.
[Dear, dear, dear... not happy, Kevin!]
"The Jewish community was deeply disturbed by the abrupt change in the government's Israel policy [occasioned by Israeli actions]. And Rudd's treatment of the local Jewish fraternity, too. He had always been strongly pro-Israel. A former chairman of the World Jewish Congress Isi Leibler last year described him as 'a Christian Zionist - he understands and has some sympathy for us'.
"Australia had long been one of Israel's 3 most supportive friends, along with the US and Canada. But now there were troubling signs that Rudd had decided to distance Australia from the Jewish state and himself from the Australian Jews he had called friends.
"It started in February with the government's angry reaction to news that assassins with the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had forged 3 Australian passports to enter the United Arab Emirates to kill a Hamas military commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in his hotel room. 'Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend', said the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith.
"It sharpened a week later when Australia switched its vote in the UN to signal a weakening of support for Israel. The government feigned surprise when asked if this was a rebuke for the abuse of the Australian passports but it was a deliberate and unmistakable retaliation.
[So there you have it: our UN vote on Palestine/Israel isn't determined by a serious and proper consideration of the issue at hand. What a surprise!]
"The concern intensified last month when the government expelled an Israeli diplomat as a punishment for the passports abuse. Britain did the same, as would Ireland, but France and Germany merely rebuked Israel with a public statement. Tony Abbott called the expulsion an overreaction.
"All through this, the Israeli ambassador to Australia and some members of the Jewish community felt a chill in their dealings with the government. Phone calls went unreturned, normal dealings seemed to be suspended.
[Note the ease and degree of access to the government implied here.]
"The Jewish community reciprocated. When Labor approached key groups to hold fund-raising events for the coming election, they feigned busyness, but it was a deliberate and unmistakeable retaliation.
[Note the repetition here of deliberate and unmistakeable retaliation. Hell hath no fury like the Israel lobby scorned.]
"The Jewish community was an important source of Labor funds for the 2007 election. A single lunch in Sydney raised $100,000. A Toorak tennis court party for 200, attended by Rudd and Julia Gillard, raised more.
"But as this year has unfolded, it became increasingly clear such effort would not be repeated. Last month, as Rudd's poll numbers weakened, the activist Jewish Labor MP Michael Danby was surprised to receive a visit from Rudd's chief of staff, Alister Jordan, the first in 3 years.
[The implication here is that lobby funding is crucial to the re-election of the Rudd government.* What a damning state of affairs.]
"Danby told Jordan of Jewish concerns. As a result, he and another Jewish Labor MP, Mark Dreyfus, found themselves in Rudd's office with the PM and his FM. Rudd got the message. He set up the dinner for a week later, June 3.
[The timing here doesn't gel with the chronology of meetings I've described in my 9/6/10 post Those Irresistable Zionist Pheromones Again. Hartcher has Danby meeting with him prior to the Gaza flotilla massacre, not in response to it. If so, Danby's timing, cited in that post, is out.]
"In the meantime, Israeli commandos raided the unarmed flotilla in international waters, killing 9 civilians and shocking the world. Rudd's response seemed to confirm the worst fears of Israel and its advocates. 'When it comes to a blockade against Gaza, preventing the supply of humanitarian aid, such a blockade should be removed', he told reporters. This was widely reported as Rudd calling for an end to the blockade. This would allow Hamas to arm itself for war on Israel.
[Hartcher channeling Danby?]
"Two days later, when Rudd and Smith welcomed the 6 Jewish leaders to the Lodge with a statement of their support for Israel, Rudd got a tough rejoinder from Mark Leibler, chairman of the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council [AIJAC]. He told them he was 'deeply troubled' by Rudd's stand on Israel. He spent 15 to 20 minutes recalling their former dealings, repeating Rudd's pledge of support, then detailing his concerns. Rudd responded point by point.
[Rudd's pledge of support in return for...?]
"He said his remarks on the blockade [what blockade?] were misconstrued. He meant it should be lifted for humanitarian aid and not military supplies. This is what Israel is moving to do.
"Smith added that the government had called for an independent Israeli inquiry into the commando raid on the flotilla and not an international inquiry that might lead to another Goldstone report.
"Rudd denied any 'freezing out' of Israel's ambassador, or of the Jewish community. He pointed out that his foreign policy adviser Phillip Green, also at the dinner - 'he sits in the office next to mine' - had a number of dealings with the ambassador during this period and took calls from Jewish leaders. [But that'd be unacceptable to those used to direct access to Rudd himself.] On the passports affair, Rudd stood his ground. He said he was personally hurt by Israel's abuse of Australian passports, he had a duty of support to passport holders, but said the matter was now in the past.
"It was time for a 'new momentum' in Australia's relationship with Israel. He said Australia would send the Trade Minister, Simon Crean, to Israel, and this would doubtless lead to a reciprocal visit and a new energy.
"He promised new funding for the secure schools program, which provides security to Jewish schools, now the first $20 million was spent. The Jewish leaders left the Lodge shaken by the events of the last months [poor things] but largely satisfied with Rudd's assurances and his promises. Which is just as well, because the food was reportedly terrible. The crisis over, fund-raising events for Labor are expected to resume."
[PS: *"The major parties face a cash crisis as they head to the polls with... low bank balances... Labor [is] carrying $7m in debt... the Liberals $4.2m..." (Parties go cap in hand to unions and business, Christian Kerr, The Australian, 5/7/10)]
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Heat Is On
Israel, Australia's foreign policy sacred cow, has been receiving some rare stick from elements in Australia's ms media:
The Age:
"Few nations have been so consistently supportive of Israel in the UN General Assembly and other international forums in which it is short of friends as Australia has, regardless of the party in power. So when Foreign Minister Stephen Smith described the forging of Australian passports by Israel's intelligence service, Mossad, as 'not the action of a friend' he was reminding that country's government that friendship involves reciprocal obligations. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly the reminder was ignored, with an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman commenting that Australia's expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in retaliation for the forgeries was 'not in line with the quality and importance of our relationship'. Israel's friends are apparently expected to behave with equanimity if Mossad decides to steal their citizens' identities." (Editorial: Israel's identity theft could not have been ignored, 26/5/10)
Most rare of all, however, the editorialist dared cross swords with AIJAC boss Colin Rubenstein: "The expulsion was also criticised by other Australians who should know better. The executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, described it as 'an overreaction and unhelpful'. Just what would Mr Rubenstein consider to be an appropriate and helpful reaction? Congratulating Mossad on abusing the trust of members of the Jewish diaspora by allowing its agents to steal their identities, perhaps?"
The Sydney Morning Herald:
Although the Herald focused its criticism on what its editorialist called Deputy Opposition leader Julie Bishop's "extraordinarily inept public comments about Australia's intelligence operations," it concluded that "[t]he Rudd government was right to object strongly to Israel." (Her own worst honeytrap, 27/5/10)
The Australian:
Quite uncharacteristically, not so much as a peep on the subject from its editorialist!!!
The 7.30 Report:
In his interview with foreign minister Stephen Smith (Stephen Smith joins the 7.30 Report, 24/5/10), Kerry O'Brien wondered just how sincere the government was in its reaction:
O'Brien: The British Government expelled the Mossad station head in London. It seems a safe assumption that you followed the British template here, and there are further reports that the person expelled here is definitely a Mossad agent. Why are you being coy about that?
Smith: Well, because I'm following what we regard as the appropriate foreign policy and diplomatic response here. We've asked Israel to remove one of its officers. I've said, publicly, people will draw their own conclusions about that. But I'm not proposing to identify, either by name or by function, the individual concerned. But we haven't slavishly followed here the British approach. Yes, the outcome in terms of requiring a removal is substantively the same, but we have conducted our own investigation, we have acted on our own advice, after careful consideration of our agencies' reports. If all we were doing was mirroring the UK, we would have done it much more quickly. If all we were doing, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asserts... was being political, we wouldn't have taken such time giving it careful consideration.
O'Brien: Is this wink-and-a-nod stuff where you go through the diplomatic dance, but that at an intelligence level our spies say to their spies, 'Fair cop, guys. You've been caught at this. Keep your head down for a while and things will get back to normal fairly soon? See you soon'.
Smith: We have expelled, effectively, a diplomat. There will be, necessarily, a cooling-off period so far as the relationship between our respective international agencies are concerned.
O'Brien: Does that really matter? I mean, what does it actually mean in reality?
Smith: Well, it does. No, no; it is very important, Kerry. Traditionally we have had a very good relationship at that agency or international community level with Israel. We are dealing with very serious national security issues where there are mutual interests or mutual concerns.
O'Brien: OK.
Smith: But we can only put it behind us if Israel conducts itself genuinely as a friend.
Intriquingly, O'Brien went on to raise the issue of Iran's nuclear program, but only by way of trotting out the elephant in the room:
O'Brien: Well you've talked about Iran's nuclear program. You'd be aware of the revelation in the Guardian newspaper today in Britain based on official South African documents that Israel had offered to sell nuclear warheads to apartheid-era South Africa, in fact offered them in three sizes. Does that suggest to you that Israel could be counted on as a responsible nuclear citizen, and do you agree it's embarrassing as Israel's biggest ally, America, pushes hard to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons?
Smith: Well I've seen reference to the article, Kerry; I haven't had the opportunity of having it carefully assessed. But the suggestion that Israel has nuclear weapons is not a novel suggestion. In this matter...
O'Brien: Well, not at all, but the fact that they were trying to flog off nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime of South Africa puts it in another light too.
Smith, of course, evaded the issue:
Smith: Well I'm not in a position to attest to that one way or another. It is a very sensible thing to do, Kerry, when you're dealing with national security matters, to not, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, run off in response to newspaper articles. So, I say advisedly: I haven't had that carefully assessed. We know the suggestion's been made in the past. We know that Israel has a long-standing policy of stated ambiguity so far as possession of nuclear weapons or not is concerned. Our strong policy position, which we put not just to Israel but to others, is that Israel should join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and do that without conditions.
But I dips me lid to Ten News' senior political correspondent, Hugh Riminton, who, at Smith's press conference on 24 May, asked the kind of question that had the minister squirming:
Riminton: If there hasn't been an apology, if there hasn't been a gesture of contrition, who are we to talk about remaining firm friends? Is not a firm friendship, if that's what it is, based on an understanding, an acknowledgement of error and wrong, and if the government is willing to remain firm friends, should the Australian people feel that same firm friendship with a country that doesn't acknowledge a wrong...
Smith (talking over Riminton): I have made, I have made, ah, very firmly from day one, the point that, ah, we do not regard these actions as the actions of a friend. That's the first point. Secondly, I also made the point to the parliament that we now need to embark upon the rebuilding of trust and confidence in our relationship with Israel. Friendship is a two-way street, but I don't think you'll find, ah, in any of, ah, this matter, ah, whether it's with Australian officials or generally, that Israel has been drawn on these matters.
The Age:
"Few nations have been so consistently supportive of Israel in the UN General Assembly and other international forums in which it is short of friends as Australia has, regardless of the party in power. So when Foreign Minister Stephen Smith described the forging of Australian passports by Israel's intelligence service, Mossad, as 'not the action of a friend' he was reminding that country's government that friendship involves reciprocal obligations. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly the reminder was ignored, with an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman commenting that Australia's expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in retaliation for the forgeries was 'not in line with the quality and importance of our relationship'. Israel's friends are apparently expected to behave with equanimity if Mossad decides to steal their citizens' identities." (Editorial: Israel's identity theft could not have been ignored, 26/5/10)
Most rare of all, however, the editorialist dared cross swords with AIJAC boss Colin Rubenstein: "The expulsion was also criticised by other Australians who should know better. The executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, described it as 'an overreaction and unhelpful'. Just what would Mr Rubenstein consider to be an appropriate and helpful reaction? Congratulating Mossad on abusing the trust of members of the Jewish diaspora by allowing its agents to steal their identities, perhaps?"
The Sydney Morning Herald:
Although the Herald focused its criticism on what its editorialist called Deputy Opposition leader Julie Bishop's "extraordinarily inept public comments about Australia's intelligence operations," it concluded that "[t]he Rudd government was right to object strongly to Israel." (Her own worst honeytrap, 27/5/10)
The Australian:
Quite uncharacteristically, not so much as a peep on the subject from its editorialist!!!
The 7.30 Report:
In his interview with foreign minister Stephen Smith (Stephen Smith joins the 7.30 Report, 24/5/10), Kerry O'Brien wondered just how sincere the government was in its reaction:
O'Brien: The British Government expelled the Mossad station head in London. It seems a safe assumption that you followed the British template here, and there are further reports that the person expelled here is definitely a Mossad agent. Why are you being coy about that?
Smith: Well, because I'm following what we regard as the appropriate foreign policy and diplomatic response here. We've asked Israel to remove one of its officers. I've said, publicly, people will draw their own conclusions about that. But I'm not proposing to identify, either by name or by function, the individual concerned. But we haven't slavishly followed here the British approach. Yes, the outcome in terms of requiring a removal is substantively the same, but we have conducted our own investigation, we have acted on our own advice, after careful consideration of our agencies' reports. If all we were doing was mirroring the UK, we would have done it much more quickly. If all we were doing, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asserts... was being political, we wouldn't have taken such time giving it careful consideration.
O'Brien: Is this wink-and-a-nod stuff where you go through the diplomatic dance, but that at an intelligence level our spies say to their spies, 'Fair cop, guys. You've been caught at this. Keep your head down for a while and things will get back to normal fairly soon? See you soon'.
Smith: We have expelled, effectively, a diplomat. There will be, necessarily, a cooling-off period so far as the relationship between our respective international agencies are concerned.
O'Brien: Does that really matter? I mean, what does it actually mean in reality?
Smith: Well, it does. No, no; it is very important, Kerry. Traditionally we have had a very good relationship at that agency or international community level with Israel. We are dealing with very serious national security issues where there are mutual interests or mutual concerns.
O'Brien: OK.
Smith: But we can only put it behind us if Israel conducts itself genuinely as a friend.
Intriquingly, O'Brien went on to raise the issue of Iran's nuclear program, but only by way of trotting out the elephant in the room:
O'Brien: Well you've talked about Iran's nuclear program. You'd be aware of the revelation in the Guardian newspaper today in Britain based on official South African documents that Israel had offered to sell nuclear warheads to apartheid-era South Africa, in fact offered them in three sizes. Does that suggest to you that Israel could be counted on as a responsible nuclear citizen, and do you agree it's embarrassing as Israel's biggest ally, America, pushes hard to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons?
Smith: Well I've seen reference to the article, Kerry; I haven't had the opportunity of having it carefully assessed. But the suggestion that Israel has nuclear weapons is not a novel suggestion. In this matter...
O'Brien: Well, not at all, but the fact that they were trying to flog off nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime of South Africa puts it in another light too.
Smith, of course, evaded the issue:
Smith: Well I'm not in a position to attest to that one way or another. It is a very sensible thing to do, Kerry, when you're dealing with national security matters, to not, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, run off in response to newspaper articles. So, I say advisedly: I haven't had that carefully assessed. We know the suggestion's been made in the past. We know that Israel has a long-standing policy of stated ambiguity so far as possession of nuclear weapons or not is concerned. Our strong policy position, which we put not just to Israel but to others, is that Israel should join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and do that without conditions.
But I dips me lid to Ten News' senior political correspondent, Hugh Riminton, who, at Smith's press conference on 24 May, asked the kind of question that had the minister squirming:
Riminton: If there hasn't been an apology, if there hasn't been a gesture of contrition, who are we to talk about remaining firm friends? Is not a firm friendship, if that's what it is, based on an understanding, an acknowledgement of error and wrong, and if the government is willing to remain firm friends, should the Australian people feel that same firm friendship with a country that doesn't acknowledge a wrong...
Smith (talking over Riminton): I have made, I have made, ah, very firmly from day one, the point that, ah, we do not regard these actions as the actions of a friend. That's the first point. Secondly, I also made the point to the parliament that we now need to embark upon the rebuilding of trust and confidence in our relationship with Israel. Friendship is a two-way street, but I don't think you'll find, ah, in any of, ah, this matter, ah, whether it's with Australian officials or generally, that Israel has been drawn on these matters.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Keystone Journalists
They're a tad confused over at The Australian right now because they can't quite decide who has the more incompetent spooks, Australia or Israel.
Is it Australia? as foreign editor Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan claims:
"The [Rudd] government has mishandled this matter from the start, and the Keystone Kops escapades of the Australian Federal Police in Israel on their fact-finding mission were not the worst of it." (Badly misjudged action will have a political cost, 25/5/10)
Or is it Israel? as defence correspondent Mark Dodd claims:
"What rankles with Smith seems not so much the murder of al-Mabhouh, but a breach of a confidential undertaking given to Australia years earlier during the Howard government. 'The Dubai passports incident also constitutes a clear and direct breach of confidential understandings between Australia and Israel dating back some years', he said. According to former foreign minister Alexander Downer, that involved a promise by Israel its Mossad operatives would not misuse Australian passports after a bungled 2003 attempt to clone Australian and New Zealand identities, an incident more worthy of the Keystone Kops than a crack spy organisation." (No blow to intelligence flow, 26/5/10)
Well, it seems at least one Israeli journalist has made up his mind; in the incompetence stakes, the Israeli spooks win hands down:
"But the [Israeli] media has not been so positive [about the Israeli-Australian relationship]. Writing in Haaretz, columnist Amir Oren says it took 'a special talent' to damage the relationship between Israel and Australia. Lately, there have not been any top-tier Australian politicians who were not supportive of Israel', Oren writes. 'It thus requires special talent to transform Australia into a country that feels obligated to take steps against Israel. Yet one person in Israel has that talent. And this time, it is not Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The person who managed to get Israel in trouble with Australia, Britain and the other embittered countries is the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan. But what does Dagan care about Rudd, Smith, or [David] Irvine? So long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in his pocket, the world can go to hell. And if it does not do so on its own, Dagan will show it how'." (ibid)
Is it Australia? as foreign editor Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan claims:
"The [Rudd] government has mishandled this matter from the start, and the Keystone Kops escapades of the Australian Federal Police in Israel on their fact-finding mission were not the worst of it." (Badly misjudged action will have a political cost, 25/5/10)
Or is it Israel? as defence correspondent Mark Dodd claims:
"What rankles with Smith seems not so much the murder of al-Mabhouh, but a breach of a confidential undertaking given to Australia years earlier during the Howard government. 'The Dubai passports incident also constitutes a clear and direct breach of confidential understandings between Australia and Israel dating back some years', he said. According to former foreign minister Alexander Downer, that involved a promise by Israel its Mossad operatives would not misuse Australian passports after a bungled 2003 attempt to clone Australian and New Zealand identities, an incident more worthy of the Keystone Kops than a crack spy organisation." (No blow to intelligence flow, 26/5/10)
Well, it seems at least one Israeli journalist has made up his mind; in the incompetence stakes, the Israeli spooks win hands down:
"But the [Israeli] media has not been so positive [about the Israeli-Australian relationship]. Writing in Haaretz, columnist Amir Oren says it took 'a special talent' to damage the relationship between Israel and Australia. Lately, there have not been any top-tier Australian politicians who were not supportive of Israel', Oren writes. 'It thus requires special talent to transform Australia into a country that feels obligated to take steps against Israel. Yet one person in Israel has that talent. And this time, it is not Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The person who managed to get Israel in trouble with Australia, Britain and the other embittered countries is the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan. But what does Dagan care about Rudd, Smith, or [David] Irvine? So long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in his pocket, the world can go to hell. And if it does not do so on its own, Dagan will show it how'." (ibid)
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Passports: Finally, Some Action
Nineteen days ago, Australia's genetically-modified Prime Minister Kevin ('Support for Israel is in my DNA') Rudd, miffed by Mossad's use of Australian passports in their dirty deed in Dubai, vowed not to "be silent" and to "get to the bottom" of the matter. He also talked about Israel "treating Australia with contempt" and promised "action" in response. (Aussies caught in Israeli spy hit, The Australian, 26/2/10)
Twelve days ago, despite the usual Israeli finger*, Rudd said, "[t]here is a way to go yet with our friends in Israel to resolving these matters to the satisfaction of the Australian Government... We continue to be in contact with them. We'll continue to work with our friends in Israel through multiple agencies and at the political level as well... I'm a lifelong supporter, defender and friend of the state of Israel. However, when it comes to this particular matter, I have a responsibility as Australian Prime Minister to get to the bottom of it and to establish that Australia's interests are being properly safeguarded in the future and I will do that." (Rudd unhappy with Israeli silence on passports, Phillip Coorey/Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 6/3/10)
[*"... a restrained Kevin Rudd said no more information had been forthcoming since Australia first protested last week."]
Nine days ago, Treasurer Wayne Swan, at a United Israel Appeal (UIA) Victoria gala(h) dinner, said, "Our countries and our people share so much, our love of democracy, our preference for peace, our opposition to extremism, and our responsibility to each other as citizens of the world... When it's all said and done, friends always end up on the same side when it really counts - and nothing counts more than the big contest between democracy on the one hand and intolerance on the other, especially between tolerance and anti-Semitism... That's why Australia and Israel will always be great friends - even if questions do arise between us from time to time as they have in recent weeks. What matters is that two great friends can get through such times, with lessons learnt." (Swan: Australia-Israel friendship will survive the passport affair, The Australian Jewish News, 12/3/10)
Well, seems the Israeli finger is still there on prominent display and we're still waiting to get to the bottom of the matter. However, all is not lost. I'm pleased to say the Rudd government has at last come up with some of the action he promised 19 days ago: "Australia has signed a multimillion-dollar deal with an Israeli defence company to develop a next-generation command and communications system for the Australian Defence Force. Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science Greg Combet said Haifa-based Elbit Systems Limited won the $349 million contract after a worldwide open tender. Elbit will develop a command, control and communications capability for elements of the army, Special Operations Command and the Air Force's combat support group." (Israel defence deal, The Age, 16/3/10)
Never let it be said that Rudd doesn't follow through on his promises.
Twelve days ago, despite the usual Israeli finger*, Rudd said, "[t]here is a way to go yet with our friends in Israel to resolving these matters to the satisfaction of the Australian Government... We continue to be in contact with them. We'll continue to work with our friends in Israel through multiple agencies and at the political level as well... I'm a lifelong supporter, defender and friend of the state of Israel. However, when it comes to this particular matter, I have a responsibility as Australian Prime Minister to get to the bottom of it and to establish that Australia's interests are being properly safeguarded in the future and I will do that." (Rudd unhappy with Israeli silence on passports, Phillip Coorey/Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 6/3/10)
[*"... a restrained Kevin Rudd said no more information had been forthcoming since Australia first protested last week."]
Nine days ago, Treasurer Wayne Swan, at a United Israel Appeal (UIA) Victoria gala(h) dinner, said, "Our countries and our people share so much, our love of democracy, our preference for peace, our opposition to extremism, and our responsibility to each other as citizens of the world... When it's all said and done, friends always end up on the same side when it really counts - and nothing counts more than the big contest between democracy on the one hand and intolerance on the other, especially between tolerance and anti-Semitism... That's why Australia and Israel will always be great friends - even if questions do arise between us from time to time as they have in recent weeks. What matters is that two great friends can get through such times, with lessons learnt." (Swan: Australia-Israel friendship will survive the passport affair, The Australian Jewish News, 12/3/10)
Well, seems the Israeli finger is still there on prominent display and we're still waiting to get to the bottom of the matter. However, all is not lost. I'm pleased to say the Rudd government has at last come up with some of the action he promised 19 days ago: "Australia has signed a multimillion-dollar deal with an Israeli defence company to develop a next-generation command and communications system for the Australian Defence Force. Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science Greg Combet said Haifa-based Elbit Systems Limited won the $349 million contract after a worldwide open tender. Elbit will develop a command, control and communications capability for elements of the army, Special Operations Command and the Air Force's combat support group." (Israel defence deal, The Age, 16/3/10)
Never let it be said that Rudd doesn't follow through on his promises.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Call It Quits! Now!
The highs and lows of the Australian government's shameless cavortings with Israel must surely make us a laughing stock at the United Nations: "At a vote in the UN General Assembly - where Australia has been one of Israel's strongest supporters - the government abstained from a resolution demanding that Israel and the Palestinians investigate possible war crimes during the [Israeli] assault on Gaza... in December 2008. Three months ago, Australia voted against a similar resolution which sought to endorse the Goldstone report - a UN-sponsored paper which accused Israel and Hamas of war crimes. The Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, said yesterday that the change was not related to the passport scandal and that Australia abstained because the latest resolution did not specifically endorse the Goldstone report. (Australia abandons Israel in UN vote, Jonathan Pearlman/Jason Koutsoukis, Sydney Morning Herald, 1/3/10)
Butter wouldn't melt in this coquette's mouth: "'Our vote on the resolution was neither determined nor influenced by recent events', he said. The Australian government always considers UN resolutions on a case-by-case basis and on their merits. Australia abstained on this resolution because, unlike previous resolutions, it did not endorse the Goldstone report'." (ibid)
The little minx is fooling herself and playing us all for fools: "One Department of Foreign Affairs source told the Herald there was no doubt the decision to abstain was intended as a sign to Israel not to take Australian support for granted. 'A number of things made it easier for us to switch our vote', the source said. 'Firstly, the Americans helped [helped! helped!!] the Palestinians to soften the wording of this resolution compared to the last one. Secondly, a number of other countries had indicated that they were toughening their own positions on Goldstone*. But there is no question that the debacle surrounding our passports being used in Dubai helped to make up the government's mind to abstain. The final decision was taken late on Friday, Australian time, just a few hours before the vote. Our pattern in the past has been to vote with the US when it comes to Israel, to show as much support for Israel as possible. We were also aware that the UK's decision to vote in favour of the resolution was influenced by the fact that so many of their citizens had been caught up in the Dubai assassination'." (ibid)
[* Mark Latham's "conga line of suckholes" is in disarray at the UN: "Six other countries also changed their votes, including Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Some countries, such as Britain, France and New Zealand, shifted from abstention to support. Others, such as the United States and Canada, voted against both resolutions." (ibid) After its experiences with Israeli passport hunters, NZ's shift is hardly surprising. (See my 27/2/10 post Israel: The Ultimate Identity Fraud) Note too, that after helping the Palestinian Quislings soften the wording of the resolution, the US voted against it! You couldn't make this stuff up.]
The Australian government always considers UN resolutions... on their merits?!!! Did you know that if you stand close enough to Stephen Smith you can actually hear the ocean?
But there's worse. Don't forget that other, even more shameless, tart waiting in the wings. The more Israel slaps her around, the more ardent she gets. One snort of those Israeli pheromones and she's literally legless: "The opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, yesterday accused the government of downgrading its support for Israel as part of its campaign to win a UN Security Council seat. 'I don't understand the government's change of heart... The Coalition's position has been consistent. Having voted against the Goldstone report, we would continue to vote against it... Since coming to office the government has weakened Australia's long-held position of supporting Israel at the UN'." (ibid)
And the object of their misplaced affections? While his two Australian bitches snarl and claw at one another, he's typically above it all: "Privately, Israeli officials expressed little concern at the vote, saying the new UN resolution simply expanded a plan for internal Israeli investigations of the allegations raised by the Goldstone report." (ibid)
Do Australia and Israel deserve each other? It's hard sometimes to resist that unpalatable conclusion. What is to be done? as Lenin put it. Unfortunately, even a commentator as savvy as Amin Saikal, who concluded his perfectly correct prescription in yesterday's Herald - "It is time for the international community, specifically those states friendly to Israel (Australia included) to condemn Israeli state terrorism... and put pressure on it to behave within international norms and laws"* - with the inanity - "And thus stop being a delinquent actor, but one with a claim of being democratic, in world affairs" - can't quite say what has to be said. Delinquency, I'm afraid, is integral to the Zionist project of wiping Palestine off the map, and Israel as an ethnographic, Jewish, state, which has condemned the bulk of its indigenous population to exile or occupation, is inherently and irretrievably undemocratic. [* It is time for Israel's friends to condemn its acts of terrorism]
Two signs of an unhealthy relationship are the feeling that you're being emotionally abused and that you no longer have strong feelings about your partner, but reminisce about the feelings you used to have. Australia's relationship with Israel is displaying those signs. The abuse is only going to continue. It's time to end this deeply sado-masochistic relationship.
Butter wouldn't melt in this coquette's mouth: "'Our vote on the resolution was neither determined nor influenced by recent events', he said. The Australian government always considers UN resolutions on a case-by-case basis and on their merits. Australia abstained on this resolution because, unlike previous resolutions, it did not endorse the Goldstone report'." (ibid)
The little minx is fooling herself and playing us all for fools: "One Department of Foreign Affairs source told the Herald there was no doubt the decision to abstain was intended as a sign to Israel not to take Australian support for granted. 'A number of things made it easier for us to switch our vote', the source said. 'Firstly, the Americans helped [helped! helped!!] the Palestinians to soften the wording of this resolution compared to the last one. Secondly, a number of other countries had indicated that they were toughening their own positions on Goldstone*. But there is no question that the debacle surrounding our passports being used in Dubai helped to make up the government's mind to abstain. The final decision was taken late on Friday, Australian time, just a few hours before the vote. Our pattern in the past has been to vote with the US when it comes to Israel, to show as much support for Israel as possible. We were also aware that the UK's decision to vote in favour of the resolution was influenced by the fact that so many of their citizens had been caught up in the Dubai assassination'." (ibid)
[* Mark Latham's "conga line of suckholes" is in disarray at the UN: "Six other countries also changed their votes, including Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Some countries, such as Britain, France and New Zealand, shifted from abstention to support. Others, such as the United States and Canada, voted against both resolutions." (ibid) After its experiences with Israeli passport hunters, NZ's shift is hardly surprising. (See my 27/2/10 post Israel: The Ultimate Identity Fraud) Note too, that after helping the Palestinian Quislings soften the wording of the resolution, the US voted against it! You couldn't make this stuff up.]
The Australian government always considers UN resolutions... on their merits?!!! Did you know that if you stand close enough to Stephen Smith you can actually hear the ocean?
But there's worse. Don't forget that other, even more shameless, tart waiting in the wings. The more Israel slaps her around, the more ardent she gets. One snort of those Israeli pheromones and she's literally legless: "The opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, yesterday accused the government of downgrading its support for Israel as part of its campaign to win a UN Security Council seat. 'I don't understand the government's change of heart... The Coalition's position has been consistent. Having voted against the Goldstone report, we would continue to vote against it... Since coming to office the government has weakened Australia's long-held position of supporting Israel at the UN'." (ibid)
And the object of their misplaced affections? While his two Australian bitches snarl and claw at one another, he's typically above it all: "Privately, Israeli officials expressed little concern at the vote, saying the new UN resolution simply expanded a plan for internal Israeli investigations of the allegations raised by the Goldstone report." (ibid)
Do Australia and Israel deserve each other? It's hard sometimes to resist that unpalatable conclusion. What is to be done? as Lenin put it. Unfortunately, even a commentator as savvy as Amin Saikal, who concluded his perfectly correct prescription in yesterday's Herald - "It is time for the international community, specifically those states friendly to Israel (Australia included) to condemn Israeli state terrorism... and put pressure on it to behave within international norms and laws"* - with the inanity - "And thus stop being a delinquent actor, but one with a claim of being democratic, in world affairs" - can't quite say what has to be said. Delinquency, I'm afraid, is integral to the Zionist project of wiping Palestine off the map, and Israel as an ethnographic, Jewish, state, which has condemned the bulk of its indigenous population to exile or occupation, is inherently and irretrievably undemocratic. [* It is time for Israel's friends to condemn its acts of terrorism]
Two signs of an unhealthy relationship are the feeling that you're being emotionally abused and that you no longer have strong feelings about your partner, but reminisce about the feelings you used to have. Australia's relationship with Israel is displaying those signs. The abuse is only going to continue. It's time to end this deeply sado-masochistic relationship.
Friday, February 26, 2010
You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling
Now that Australian passport holders have become accomplices (witting or otherwise) in Mossad's latest murder, it's worth asking if the proverbial penny has at last begun to drop for some of our political and media elites that something is indeed rotten in the State of Israel.
Let me tell you there are some pretty pained people out there. Take today's Australian for instance. Now I know that the more scrupulous among you wouldn't even use it to wrap the malodorous remains of your latest fishing expedition in, let alone buy it and read it, but Murdoch's Australian does have a heart - after all, why else would it bill itself as The Heart of the Nation? Yes, I know, I'm full of them - and that organ, while it couldn't really be described as breaking at the moment, is at least suffering unprecedented palpitations over the Loved One's brazen betrayal of his nearest and dearest.
How best to capture the feeling? I think perhaps The Righteous Brothers had it about... well, right. Remember their priceless tearjerker, You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling? - "You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips/ And there's no tenderness like before in your fingertips/ You're trying hard not to show it, baby/ But baby, baby I know it/ You've lost that lovin' feeling/ Whoa, that lovin' feeling/ Now it's gone, gone, gone, wooooooh." Ah, takes you back, doesn't it?
OK, you probably never dreamt you'd be reading the likes of the following cris de coeur in the pages of The Australian, but here they are (along with my own knifework of course) culled from not one, not two, but three pages of coverage:
"Foreign Minister Stephen Smith summoned Israel's ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, early yesterday to express his 'grave concern' about the issue. 'I've made it crystal clear to the ambassador that if the results of (our) investigation cause us to come to the conclusion that the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend', he said. The Prime Minister vowed the government would 'get to the bottom' of the case. 'We will not be silent on this matter', Mr Rudd said. 'Any state that has been complicit in the use or abuse of the Australian passport system, let alone for the conduct of an assassination, is treating Australia with contempt and there will therefore be action by the Australian government in response', he said." (Aussies caught in Israeli spy hit, Cameron Stewart/Paul Maley, The Australian, 26/2/10)
Treating Australia with contempt, eh? Well try this on for size: "Israeli officials conceded nothing and promised nothing in response to Australia's demands." (ibid) And this: "Australian authorities quietly approached the Israeli government in the 1990s to seek assurance that Australian passports would not be abused after it was feared Israeli agents had doctored several New Zealand passports. The Australian has been told that during that meeting with Israeli government officials, the Israelis responded with 'enraged self-righteousness' at the suggestion that they would condone such identity theft." (ibid)
Enraged self-righteousness? How completely out of character! How totally unlike Godzone in the Middle East! Who would have thought yesterday's Godzone would be today's Godzilla? Quick, pass me the smelling salts, I'm feeling faint!
Well hello, Stevie, Kevie? It's a no-brainer, guys. Other than contempt, what else would you expect from a homicidal thug and bully whom you've sucked up to for decades? Like, gratitude?
And I bet you've never seen this before in The Australian: "The normally voluble Jewish lobby group Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIPAC) last night declined to comment on the looming diplomatic spat. An AIJAC spokesman told The Australian its director, Colin Rubenstein, was seeking more details." Normally voluble? Are Cameron and Maley taking the piss or are they what? And that bit about old Rubes seeking more details. OK, Cameron and Maley, you mightn't have actually said it, but I know what was on your minds: he's on the line to spinmeister Regev and can't be disturbed until he's learnt his latest (party) lines by heart, right?
Then there's this headline: Shock for unlikely bunch of killers. Killers! Killers! The Australian is actually calling Israelis - at least those who murdered al-Mabhouh - killers! Well I never!
OK, so the title's ironic, and the report is not about the actual killers, but those 3 Australian passport holders, currently residing in Israel, whose identities were allegedly stolen by Mossad, and who wouldn't kill a fly. Well, if they're Israeli-Australians, that's the ms media presumption. Yet if an Israeli or American had been knocked off, and Arab-Australian passport holders somehow implicated, wouldn't it be a case of guilty until proven innocent at The Australian? And wasn't Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky, author of By Way of Deception, telling ABC Middle East correspondent Anne Barker only this morning on Radio National's AM that Mossad had this quaint custom of asking visiting dual nationals, "if, when you're here in Israel, we may need to use your passport for security purposes, would you allow us to do that? And," he added incredibly, "people would say yes. And there were shelves of real passports just waiting to be used." Now, in light of Ostrovsky's disclosure, are we not entitled to presume that our 3 Israeli-Australians were not in fact the victims of passport theft after all, but willingly surrendered their passports to Israeli security officials? Consider the implications of that one! And on another matter entirely, wasn't one of the report's authors, The Australian's Middle East correspondent, John Lyons, only a short while back, enthusiastically making out that just about every Tom, Dick & Harry in the Arab world had it in for al-Mabhouh and that Mossad was merely one suspect in a veritable queue of assassins? To view the egg on Lyons' face see my 8/2/10 post Disinformation Services.
Finally, we come to Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan and his Comment. The Australian's foreign editor is very much in head teacher mode here, censorious, pissed off, but clearly still smitten by his favourite student. The surly (Greg prefers plucky) young thug has just beaten his victim senseless and left him bleeding in the moonlight, but, alas, has broken one of the school's baseball bats in the process. And there's the rub: "Israel has every right to wage war against those who wage war against it but Israel certainly does not have the right to misuse the passports of innocent Australians. This was a very bad mistake by Jerusalem... Morally, there is no difference in Israel's actions from those of the US when it targets al-Qa'ida and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan for strikes by unmanned drone aircraft... But one glaring question out of this debacle is how did it go so wrong. Israel has conducted numerous operations like this, often enough with the co-operation of one or other Arab intelligence agency. [!!!] The reach, expertise and stealth of Mossad is legendary in the Middle East, and a substantial part of Israel's overall military prestige. But this operation has attracted all the wrong kind of publicity and left behind embarrassing video images and evidence of Mossad agents' behaviour. The misuse of Australian passports is a shocking mistake by Israel... Apart from the US, Israel has no better friend than Australia. Similarly, there could be only a tiny handful of leaders in the world as committed to Israel as Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. A smart nation, and Israel is normally among the smartest, does not ever, under any circumstances, burn friends like that. Canberra has a very close, active and intimate intelligence relationship with Israel. Many of our top intelligence people go there for consultations and even for special short course training. [Now how's that for an admission?] It is astonishing to find a circumstance in which the PM is condemning Israel. To misuse the Australian connection in this way is a very poor show by the Israelis. For God's sake don't do it again." (Theft burned a strong supporter)
Although it may appear on the surface to be merely a case of 'Off you go, lad. I know boys will be boys, but try and show a little more respect for school property in the future', there's much more to it than that. Behind the stern, bespectacled, Jesuitical gaze that peers out from the photograph that graces Greg's opinion pieces, beats today a heavy heart, that of a Righteous Brother: Baby, baby, I'll get down on my knees for you/ If you would only love me like you used to do, yeah/ We had a love, a love, a love you don't find every day/ So don't, don't, don't let it slip away/ Baby, baby, baby, baby/ I beg of you please, please/ I need your love, I need your love/ So bring it on back, so bring it on back/ Bring it on back, so bring it on back/ Bring back that lovin' feeling/ Whoa, that lovin' feeling/ Bring back that lovin' feeling/ 'Cause it's gone, gone, gone/ And I can't go on, no... "
Whooooooh.
Let me tell you there are some pretty pained people out there. Take today's Australian for instance. Now I know that the more scrupulous among you wouldn't even use it to wrap the malodorous remains of your latest fishing expedition in, let alone buy it and read it, but Murdoch's Australian does have a heart - after all, why else would it bill itself as The Heart of the Nation? Yes, I know, I'm full of them - and that organ, while it couldn't really be described as breaking at the moment, is at least suffering unprecedented palpitations over the Loved One's brazen betrayal of his nearest and dearest.
How best to capture the feeling? I think perhaps The Righteous Brothers had it about... well, right. Remember their priceless tearjerker, You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling? - "You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips/ And there's no tenderness like before in your fingertips/ You're trying hard not to show it, baby/ But baby, baby I know it/ You've lost that lovin' feeling/ Whoa, that lovin' feeling/ Now it's gone, gone, gone, wooooooh." Ah, takes you back, doesn't it?
OK, you probably never dreamt you'd be reading the likes of the following cris de coeur in the pages of The Australian, but here they are (along with my own knifework of course) culled from not one, not two, but three pages of coverage:
"Foreign Minister Stephen Smith summoned Israel's ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, early yesterday to express his 'grave concern' about the issue. 'I've made it crystal clear to the ambassador that if the results of (our) investigation cause us to come to the conclusion that the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend', he said. The Prime Minister vowed the government would 'get to the bottom' of the case. 'We will not be silent on this matter', Mr Rudd said. 'Any state that has been complicit in the use or abuse of the Australian passport system, let alone for the conduct of an assassination, is treating Australia with contempt and there will therefore be action by the Australian government in response', he said." (Aussies caught in Israeli spy hit, Cameron Stewart/Paul Maley, The Australian, 26/2/10)
Treating Australia with contempt, eh? Well try this on for size: "Israeli officials conceded nothing and promised nothing in response to Australia's demands." (ibid) And this: "Australian authorities quietly approached the Israeli government in the 1990s to seek assurance that Australian passports would not be abused after it was feared Israeli agents had doctored several New Zealand passports. The Australian has been told that during that meeting with Israeli government officials, the Israelis responded with 'enraged self-righteousness' at the suggestion that they would condone such identity theft." (ibid)
Enraged self-righteousness? How completely out of character! How totally unlike Godzone in the Middle East! Who would have thought yesterday's Godzone would be today's Godzilla? Quick, pass me the smelling salts, I'm feeling faint!
Well hello, Stevie, Kevie? It's a no-brainer, guys. Other than contempt, what else would you expect from a homicidal thug and bully whom you've sucked up to for decades? Like, gratitude?
And I bet you've never seen this before in The Australian: "The normally voluble Jewish lobby group Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIPAC) last night declined to comment on the looming diplomatic spat. An AIJAC spokesman told The Australian its director, Colin Rubenstein, was seeking more details." Normally voluble? Are Cameron and Maley taking the piss or are they what? And that bit about old Rubes seeking more details. OK, Cameron and Maley, you mightn't have actually said it, but I know what was on your minds: he's on the line to spinmeister Regev and can't be disturbed until he's learnt his latest (party) lines by heart, right?
Then there's this headline: Shock for unlikely bunch of killers. Killers! Killers! The Australian is actually calling Israelis - at least those who murdered al-Mabhouh - killers! Well I never!
OK, so the title's ironic, and the report is not about the actual killers, but those 3 Australian passport holders, currently residing in Israel, whose identities were allegedly stolen by Mossad, and who wouldn't kill a fly. Well, if they're Israeli-Australians, that's the ms media presumption. Yet if an Israeli or American had been knocked off, and Arab-Australian passport holders somehow implicated, wouldn't it be a case of guilty until proven innocent at The Australian? And wasn't Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky, author of By Way of Deception, telling ABC Middle East correspondent Anne Barker only this morning on Radio National's AM that Mossad had this quaint custom of asking visiting dual nationals, "if, when you're here in Israel, we may need to use your passport for security purposes, would you allow us to do that? And," he added incredibly, "people would say yes. And there were shelves of real passports just waiting to be used." Now, in light of Ostrovsky's disclosure, are we not entitled to presume that our 3 Israeli-Australians were not in fact the victims of passport theft after all, but willingly surrendered their passports to Israeli security officials? Consider the implications of that one! And on another matter entirely, wasn't one of the report's authors, The Australian's Middle East correspondent, John Lyons, only a short while back, enthusiastically making out that just about every Tom, Dick & Harry in the Arab world had it in for al-Mabhouh and that Mossad was merely one suspect in a veritable queue of assassins? To view the egg on Lyons' face see my 8/2/10 post Disinformation Services.
Finally, we come to Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan and his Comment. The Australian's foreign editor is very much in head teacher mode here, censorious, pissed off, but clearly still smitten by his favourite student. The surly (Greg prefers plucky) young thug has just beaten his victim senseless and left him bleeding in the moonlight, but, alas, has broken one of the school's baseball bats in the process. And there's the rub: "Israel has every right to wage war against those who wage war against it but Israel certainly does not have the right to misuse the passports of innocent Australians. This was a very bad mistake by Jerusalem... Morally, there is no difference in Israel's actions from those of the US when it targets al-Qa'ida and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan for strikes by unmanned drone aircraft... But one glaring question out of this debacle is how did it go so wrong. Israel has conducted numerous operations like this, often enough with the co-operation of one or other Arab intelligence agency. [!!!] The reach, expertise and stealth of Mossad is legendary in the Middle East, and a substantial part of Israel's overall military prestige. But this operation has attracted all the wrong kind of publicity and left behind embarrassing video images and evidence of Mossad agents' behaviour. The misuse of Australian passports is a shocking mistake by Israel... Apart from the US, Israel has no better friend than Australia. Similarly, there could be only a tiny handful of leaders in the world as committed to Israel as Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. A smart nation, and Israel is normally among the smartest, does not ever, under any circumstances, burn friends like that. Canberra has a very close, active and intimate intelligence relationship with Israel. Many of our top intelligence people go there for consultations and even for special short course training. [Now how's that for an admission?] It is astonishing to find a circumstance in which the PM is condemning Israel. To misuse the Australian connection in this way is a very poor show by the Israelis. For God's sake don't do it again." (Theft burned a strong supporter)
Although it may appear on the surface to be merely a case of 'Off you go, lad. I know boys will be boys, but try and show a little more respect for school property in the future', there's much more to it than that. Behind the stern, bespectacled, Jesuitical gaze that peers out from the photograph that graces Greg's opinion pieces, beats today a heavy heart, that of a Righteous Brother: Baby, baby, I'll get down on my knees for you/ If you would only love me like you used to do, yeah/ We had a love, a love, a love you don't find every day/ So don't, don't, don't let it slip away/ Baby, baby, baby, baby/ I beg of you please, please/ I need your love, I need your love/ So bring it on back, so bring it on back/ Bring it on back, so bring it on back/ Bring back that lovin' feeling/ Whoa, that lovin' feeling/ Bring back that lovin' feeling/ 'Cause it's gone, gone, gone/ And I can't go on, no... "
Whooooooh.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
A Job for the Boy
Here's a little strand of the Israel/Gillard affair* that had hitherto escaped my attention: "A former jazz guitarist who is developing a $450 million Melbourne tower has persuaded Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's partner, Tim Mathieson, to give up his hair-care business to sell residential property instead. Albert Dadon hired Mr Mathieson as a contractor to find international buyers for apartments in the 50-storey project that overlooks Flagstaff Gardens. The appointment tightens the links between Mr Dadon and Ms Gillard after her visit to Israel in June as a guest of the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange, which he founded and chairs. Mr Dadon was the artistic director of the Melbourne Jazz Festival for several years but has emerged in recent times as executive chairman of Ubertas Group and a good friend of the Rudd government. He sponsored Kevin Rudd on a visit to Israel in 2002 when the Prime Minister was Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, and did so again in 2005. The two had lunch together shortly before the 2007 federal election, The Age reported earlier this year. Mr Dadon is married to Debbie Besen, daughter of Highpoint Property Group chairman and Sussan clothing store founder Marc Besen. Ms Gillard disclosed her partner's appointment to Ubertas Group in a letter to the registrar of members' interests last Friday, saying the new job had started last month. A spokesman said Ms Gillard did not expect any perceived conflict of interest to arise from the job. 'However, the appropriate steps will be taken to ensure both Ms Gillard and Mr Mathieson discharge their professional duties in an entirely appropriate way,' she said. Any conflicts would be declared in federal cabinet if required, she said. While the federal government is supporting the residential property sector through its social housing programs, its $4 billion RuddBand plan to support commercial projects like residential towers was voted down in the Senate in June. Mr Matheison met Ms Gillard in a hair salon in 2004 and has run a hair-care business in recent years. He is one of the government's men's health ambassadors." (A man of many properties, David Crowe, Australian Financial Review, 23/10/09)
[*See my posts Her Brilliant Career (29/5/09) & Gillard: 'Sychophant' (22/8/09) ]
No perceived conflict of interest??? Pull the other! We have here yet another reason why Gillard, Rudd & Co. simply cannot be trusted with the formulation and conduct of Australian foreign policy on Palestine/Israel.
[*See my posts Her Brilliant Career (29/5/09) & Gillard: 'Sychophant' (22/8/09) ]
No perceived conflict of interest??? Pull the other! We have here yet another reason why Gillard, Rudd & Co. simply cannot be trusted with the formulation and conduct of Australian foreign policy on Palestine/Israel.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Shucks!
Shucks! "Kevin Rudd's bid for a UN Security Council seat has been dealt a blow after a warning from the Arab League that it is less likely to succeed because of Australia's support for Israel. Hashem Youseff, chief of cabinet for Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa, told The Australian Canberra kept 'bad company' at the UN, where it often opposes anti-Israel resolutions in alliance with the US, Canada and small Pacific island states. Australia's support for Israel, he said, was 'one of the elements that will be taken into consideration' by the 22-member Arab League in deciding whether to support Australia's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council for the 2013-14 term. Mr Youseff said the Arab nations would consider how different candidates affected their interests. 'For us, the Arab-Israeli issue is an important part of the consideration'. Canberra has invested huge political, diplomatic and financial resources in its bid for one of 10 non-permanent Security council seats." (Arabs to block UN push by Canberra, Greg Sheridan, 2/2/10)
(Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, being G(JP)S, of course, couldn't resist tainting an otherwise factual news report with the following spin: "It was to avoid blackmail on policy issues like this that the Howard government abandoned its attempt to win a Security Council seat in 1996.")
In addition to the Rudd government's blind support for Israel in the UN General Assembly (with exceptions that could be counted on the fingers of one hand), the Arab League should keep in mind when it votes Australia's unique bipartisan parliamentary celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary; Australia's role in the boycott of the UN's World Conference on Racism (Durban II); Australia's backing for Israel's massacres in Gaza; Australia's no vote against the Goldstone report in the General Assembly; Australia's defence links with Israel, in particular the recent leasing of Israeli drones for use in Afghanistan; and Australia's high level (DPM Gillard) partying with Israeli war criminals, first in Jerusalem, then in Sydney.
(Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, being G(JP)S, of course, couldn't resist tainting an otherwise factual news report with the following spin: "It was to avoid blackmail on policy issues like this that the Howard government abandoned its attempt to win a Security Council seat in 1996.")
In addition to the Rudd government's blind support for Israel in the UN General Assembly (with exceptions that could be counted on the fingers of one hand), the Arab League should keep in mind when it votes Australia's unique bipartisan parliamentary celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary; Australia's role in the boycott of the UN's World Conference on Racism (Durban II); Australia's backing for Israel's massacres in Gaza; Australia's no vote against the Goldstone report in the General Assembly; Australia's defence links with Israel, in particular the recent leasing of Israeli drones for use in Afghanistan; and Australia's high level (DPM Gillard) partying with Israeli war criminals, first in Jerusalem, then in Sydney.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Doctor Who?
No gathering of Zionists and Labor politicians these days is complete without both parties dropping the name of former Australian Minister for External Affairs (1941-1949) Dr Herbert Vere Evatt (1894-1965):
"[O]n 29 January 1949 PM Ben Chifley announced that Australia would become one of the first countries to recognise the new state of Israel, describing it as 'a force of special value in the world community'. As President of the General Assembly, 'Doc' Evatt then presided over the historic May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the UN." (Kevin Rudd, Federal Parliament, 12/3/08) [See my 14/3/09 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3]
"The pivotal role played by Australia - and one Australian in particular - in the establishment of the State of Israel was celebrated at a gala event in Sydney on Sunday night. The Tribute to Doc Evatt dinner, hosted by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia and the Zionist Federation of Australia, was held on the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the partition resolution that led to the creation of the Jewish homeland." (Honouring the Doc, The Australian Jewish News, 4/12/09)
"The work of Australian Labour leader Doc Evatt in 1947 towards the establishment of the State of Israel was acknowledged and Rudd received an ovation when he reminded the audience that 'the first country to vote for the establishment of the State of Israel was the Government of Australia'." (Rudd, Abbott & Shalom talk at Sydney Forum, jwire.com.au)
Get the picture? Doc Evatt's a Labor icon. Why, there's even an Evatt Foundation, at which you can read that: "[Evatt] realised many of the labour movement's highest ideals... His achievements and uncompromising stand for just principles in public life will always be remembered... Dr Evatt initiated Australia's first independent foreign policy and became widely recognised around the world as a supporter of the right of the smaller nations to peaceful development and equality... At the San Francisco Conference [of 1945], Dr Evatt spoke to the Great Powers on behalf of the other nations of the world with a voice that commanded universal respect. After 3 months of diplomatic struggle, the Charter of the United Nations was adopted, a Charter that had become more humane and larger in scope, now containing provisions for the poor, the weak and the oppressed, provisions that had never been envisaged by the Great Powers... In 1948 Dr Evatt was elected President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The only Australian to have ever held the position, he presided over the adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of human rights protection throughout the modern world." (Doc Evatt: A Brilliant & Controversial Character, evatt.labor.net.au)
Very impressive, on the surface, yet how does one reconcile the alleged mover & shaper of the UN Charter with his support for the partition of Palestine?:
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter informs us that one of the purposes of the UN is "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." Thus, partition being against the will of the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1947, their right to self-determination was violated.
Article 80(1) informs us that "nothing in [the charter's chapter on trusteeship] shall be construed in or of itself to alter the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the UN may respectively be parties." Thus, the rights of the Palestinian people under the mandate instrument, including the right of self-determination, are preserved.
And how does one reconcile the alleged mover & shaper of the UDHR, Article 13(2) of which reads, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country," with his evident lack of real concern for Palestinian refugees?:
"Evatt believed that the Palestinian refugees... should be treated as a separate humanitarian issue and that their unresolved status as refugees should not impede Israel's membership [of the UN]." (HV Evatt & the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist, Daniel Mandel, 2004, p 227)
Displaying a decidedly colonialist mindset, Evatt was clearly blinded by the light (unto the nations): "I believe the State of Israel will become a bulwark of Western Civilization in the Middle East." (ibid p 222); "... Israel has come to stay, will carry out the UN's decisions, and will be a powerful force for peace and justice within the UN." (ibid p 229)
Although laughably naive in hindsight, such a misreading of the Zionist project impelled Australia to back Israel's membership in the UN on May 11, 1949.
Speaking of which, here's the most interesting part of that General Assembly resolution (273 (III)): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 [181: partition resolution] and 11 December 1948 [194: Palestinian right of return resolution] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, The General Assembly... 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations."
That's right, to win membership in the UN Israel agreed to implement both Resolution 181 (in its entirety) and Resolution 194 which stated that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." Needless to say, Israel is still a member of the UN and those refugees are still waiting for it to implement their return - 61 years later.
Following Israel's membership in the UN, the question of the status of Jerusalem arose. If Israel were to implement all of the terms of Resolution 181, Jerusalem would come under full international control. Having, as we have seen, agreed to implement 181 as a condition of its UN membership, "peace-loving" Israel (and Jordan btw, which had taken control of East Jerusalem) would tolerate only a limited internationalisation of the Holy Places. This proved too much for Evatt, however. "So far as Australia is concerned," he wrote, "we shall adhere steadfastly to the principle of a UN international regime for the whole of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a corpus separatum." (Mandel, p 260) Australia thus went on to vote for a resolution calling for the internationalisation of Jerusalem.
Consistency surely requires that today's Labor politicians, who can't attend a Zionist gathering without invoking the 'legacy' of 'Doc' Evatt, base their Middle East policy on same. This includes, inter alia, the full implementation of UNGA resolutions 181 and 194, that is a two-state solution based on a 'Jewish' state in only 56% of Palestine (the % alloted to it by Resolution 181), international control of the whole of Jerusalem - East and West - and a return to their homes of all Palestinian refugees and their descendents. Should Israel not agree to this, the Rudd government should immediately begin proceedings to have Israel expelled from the UN.
Alternatively, they could stop dropping Evatt's name.
"[O]n 29 January 1949 PM Ben Chifley announced that Australia would become one of the first countries to recognise the new state of Israel, describing it as 'a force of special value in the world community'. As President of the General Assembly, 'Doc' Evatt then presided over the historic May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the UN." (Kevin Rudd, Federal Parliament, 12/3/08) [See my 14/3/09 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3]
"The pivotal role played by Australia - and one Australian in particular - in the establishment of the State of Israel was celebrated at a gala event in Sydney on Sunday night. The Tribute to Doc Evatt dinner, hosted by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia and the Zionist Federation of Australia, was held on the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the partition resolution that led to the creation of the Jewish homeland." (Honouring the Doc, The Australian Jewish News, 4/12/09)
"The work of Australian Labour leader Doc Evatt in 1947 towards the establishment of the State of Israel was acknowledged and Rudd received an ovation when he reminded the audience that 'the first country to vote for the establishment of the State of Israel was the Government of Australia'." (Rudd, Abbott & Shalom talk at Sydney Forum, jwire.com.au)
Get the picture? Doc Evatt's a Labor icon. Why, there's even an Evatt Foundation, at which you can read that: "[Evatt] realised many of the labour movement's highest ideals... His achievements and uncompromising stand for just principles in public life will always be remembered... Dr Evatt initiated Australia's first independent foreign policy and became widely recognised around the world as a supporter of the right of the smaller nations to peaceful development and equality... At the San Francisco Conference [of 1945], Dr Evatt spoke to the Great Powers on behalf of the other nations of the world with a voice that commanded universal respect. After 3 months of diplomatic struggle, the Charter of the United Nations was adopted, a Charter that had become more humane and larger in scope, now containing provisions for the poor, the weak and the oppressed, provisions that had never been envisaged by the Great Powers... In 1948 Dr Evatt was elected President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The only Australian to have ever held the position, he presided over the adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of human rights protection throughout the modern world." (Doc Evatt: A Brilliant & Controversial Character, evatt.labor.net.au)
Very impressive, on the surface, yet how does one reconcile the alleged mover & shaper of the UN Charter with his support for the partition of Palestine?:
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter informs us that one of the purposes of the UN is "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." Thus, partition being against the will of the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1947, their right to self-determination was violated.
Article 80(1) informs us that "nothing in [the charter's chapter on trusteeship] shall be construed in or of itself to alter the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the UN may respectively be parties." Thus, the rights of the Palestinian people under the mandate instrument, including the right of self-determination, are preserved.
And how does one reconcile the alleged mover & shaper of the UDHR, Article 13(2) of which reads, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country," with his evident lack of real concern for Palestinian refugees?:
"Evatt believed that the Palestinian refugees... should be treated as a separate humanitarian issue and that their unresolved status as refugees should not impede Israel's membership [of the UN]." (HV Evatt & the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist, Daniel Mandel, 2004, p 227)
Displaying a decidedly colonialist mindset, Evatt was clearly blinded by the light (unto the nations): "I believe the State of Israel will become a bulwark of Western Civilization in the Middle East." (ibid p 222); "... Israel has come to stay, will carry out the UN's decisions, and will be a powerful force for peace and justice within the UN." (ibid p 229)
Although laughably naive in hindsight, such a misreading of the Zionist project impelled Australia to back Israel's membership in the UN on May 11, 1949.
Speaking of which, here's the most interesting part of that General Assembly resolution (273 (III)): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 [181: partition resolution] and 11 December 1948 [194: Palestinian right of return resolution] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, The General Assembly... 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations."
That's right, to win membership in the UN Israel agreed to implement both Resolution 181 (in its entirety) and Resolution 194 which stated that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." Needless to say, Israel is still a member of the UN and those refugees are still waiting for it to implement their return - 61 years later.
Following Israel's membership in the UN, the question of the status of Jerusalem arose. If Israel were to implement all of the terms of Resolution 181, Jerusalem would come under full international control. Having, as we have seen, agreed to implement 181 as a condition of its UN membership, "peace-loving" Israel (and Jordan btw, which had taken control of East Jerusalem) would tolerate only a limited internationalisation of the Holy Places. This proved too much for Evatt, however. "So far as Australia is concerned," he wrote, "we shall adhere steadfastly to the principle of a UN international regime for the whole of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a corpus separatum." (Mandel, p 260) Australia thus went on to vote for a resolution calling for the internationalisation of Jerusalem.
Consistency surely requires that today's Labor politicians, who can't attend a Zionist gathering without invoking the 'legacy' of 'Doc' Evatt, base their Middle East policy on same. This includes, inter alia, the full implementation of UNGA resolutions 181 and 194, that is a two-state solution based on a 'Jewish' state in only 56% of Palestine (the % alloted to it by Resolution 181), international control of the whole of Jerusalem - East and West - and a return to their homes of all Palestinian refugees and their descendents. Should Israel not agree to this, the Rudd government should immediately begin proceedings to have Israel expelled from the UN.
Alternatively, they could stop dropping Evatt's name.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Tunnel Vision
A 35-strong pack of Israeli war criminals and their camp followers, including Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom and former Security Minister and Shin Bet supremo from 2000 to 2005, Avi Dichter, lunched with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the latest Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, in Sydney on December 3. This extraordinary gathering (apparently quid pro quo for DPM Gillard's trip to Israel earlier in the year) was inexplicably ignored by the Sydney Morning Herald, and got scant treatment by The Australian, whose reporter, the appropriately named Jodie Minus, really only seemed to have eyes for the Rudd/Abbott handshake and body language: "The Prime Minister didn't waste any time moving in for the congratulatory handshake. But neither man studied at the Mark Latham school of hand manoeuvres and the grip was more passive than aggressive, with Mr Abbott holding on to just 4 of Mr Rudd's limp-looking fingers." (Rivals get hands on, 4/12/09)
In fact, the only reference in Minus' report to the latest Israeli-Australian carry-on came in this sentence: "At the Australia Israel Leadership Forum's gala luncheon... Kevin Rudd and the Opposition leader were asked to the podium to accept a copy of a Jewish picture book, Touching the Stones of Our Heritage."
It wasn't much to go on, but my interest was sufficiently piqued for me to google Stones. At that point the plot began to thicken. Up came this little blurb: "Touching the Stones of Our Heritage: The Western Wall Tunnels by Dan Bahat: Throughout the 2,000 years since the Holy Temple that stood in Jerusalem was destroyed, the Western Wall has stood as the prime symbol of Jewish yearning. Today, more than 50 years since the restoration of Jewish sovereignty, the Wall remains an intense expression of national pride and of the profound affinity between the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem. Through photographs, text and original drawings, this spectacular album takes the reader on a journey of discovery through the Western Wall and its tunnels. Included is a bonus transparency overlay showing how it was, and what it looks like now... Features of this book:... Includes a full color insert of the Temple Mount with overlays showing how it looked in ancient and modern times... THE WONDER OF THE WORLD THAT WAS (AND IS) MISSED." (judaism.com)
Well, well, well - instead of handing Rudd and Abbott a book containing merely glossies of 'Israeli' landmarks, Shalom had handed them one which represents the third holiest shrine in Islam, the Haram ash-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), containing the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, as, in effect, squatting on the foundations of a structure of far greater importance - an ancient Jewish temple, the subject of much contemporary Jewish "yearning". Not that the Arabic term Haram ash-Sharif even appears in Bahat's book, the term of choice being The Temple Mount.
Now given that a copy of Stones hasn't yet found its way into my hot little hands, I can't be 100% certain, but are we not entering Hint, hint, do you get my drift? territory here? One thing's for sure though, Rudd and Abbott are not going to learn in Stones that the Haram ash-Sharif (not to mention the rest of East Jerusalem) is, under international law, occupied territory to which the Israelis have absolutely no legal claim whatever.
And the book's author, 'archaeologist' Dan Bahat? Here's a revealing snapshot: "According to the man warmly referred to as Israel's Indiana Jones, an ongoing crime continues to be perpetrated against world Jewry. 'The Jewish people around the world are disconnected from The Temple Mount today. The Arabs claim that it has nothing to do with the Jews, but we know better', says Professor Dan Bahat, one of Israel's most famous, respected and colourful archaeologists. 'At every entrance to The Temple Mount today, there are guards there who ask if you are Jewish. If you answer 'yes', they tell you that you cannot go inside. It's a crime forever'... The Temple Mount is the holiest location in Jewish life. According to religious tradition it's where the world originated and where the biblical sacrifice of Isaac took place. It's also where King Solomon built the first Jewish Temple. The Roman King Herod... rebuilt the temple. With Jews kept off the hilltop by Muslim restrictions and both government and rabbinic bans, The Kotel - a retaining wall of the second Temple - is the holiest place at which Jews can pray. 'What concerns me is a political problem connected to The Temple Mount', says Bahat. 'I believe the Chief Rabbinate made a terrible mistake in 1967 by installing signs reading that no Jew should go onto The Temple Mount (until the Temple is rebuilt)'. Asked about Ariel Sharon's famous visit to The Temple Mount in 2000, Bahat left no doubt as to his feelings. 'I am still angry over this', he says. 'Everyone blames Sharon for going to The Temple Mount and starting this Intifada more than 2 years ago. Of course this is not true, but what really makes me mad is that there was such an uproar because a Jew went to The Temple Mount in the first place. This should not be'." (Israel's 'Indiana Jones' addresses Toronto's Jewish community, toronto.ujcfedweb.org) Some disinterested scholar!
What was that line from the 60s? You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Well here's the wind from templemount.org: "Unfortunately, the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archaeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive [sic] to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam. Who knows what events developing in the history of Jerusalem will one day change the staus quo, allowing scientific investigation of the entire Temple Mount, below ground as well as above? Then, according to the hopes and dreams of devout Jews for centuries, a Third Temple can be built on the foundations of the First and Second Temples and temple worship according to the Torah restored." Notice how "archaeological studies" and "scientific investigation" morph seamlessly into a rebuilding of a third temple? And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque? Now you see them, now you don't. Hell, you can feel that plot thickening now, can't you? Why, if Dan (Indiana Jones) Bahat had had his way back in 1967, when the site was - ahem - acquired, the Third Temple would be packing them in right now!
Touching the Stones of Our Heritage - some "Jewish picture book," Ms Minus!
But there's more. I mentioned Avi Dichter at the beginning of this post. Although The Australian gave him an opportunity to beat the drum on Iran (Ex-Israeli spy chief warns about Iran, 4/12/09), it was left to an Australian Zionist blogger, present at the luncheon, to remind us that Dichter too has a keen interest in stones. The Ozi Zion Blog informs us that the former Shin Bet head and now Kadima MK concluded his speech "with a powerful story of how he added a 3rd stone (from Jerusalem) to the 2 stone collection of a friend - (from Aushwitz [sic] and Massada [sic]). Jerusalem is the heart of Israel and will remain so." (szcnsw.auton.telligence.net.au) In fact, Dichter has real archaeological form: "Police have prevented Muslim burial at the foot of the Temple Mount for several months, as Public Security Minister Avi Dichter responded to pleas to reserve the area as a significant archaeological site." (Dichter rules area near Temple Mount off-limits to Muslim burial, Nadav Shragai, Haaretz, 29/5/07)
And more. With former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert also in town we've got Israeli war criminals coming out of our ears. His visit was described in The Australian Jewish News (4/12/09) as "a precursor to an influx of senior Israeli politicians and other influential figures in the coming week for the second Australia Israel Leadership Forum." Now I don't know whether Olmert put in an appearance at the Forum's galah luncheon, but I do know that, among his other crimes, he's got form in messing with Jerusalem: "As mayor of Jerusalem in the 1990s, Olmert oppressed the Palestinian inhabitants of the city and intensified the process of de-Arabisation. He pressed for opening the 'archaeological tunnel' near the Muslim shrines and encouraged American Jewish right-wing millionaires to build Jewish settlements in the middle of unilaterally annexed Arab districts and pushed for the building of the Apartheid Wall that cuts up Arab neighbourhoods." (The Bible & Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology & Post-Colonialism in Israel-Palestine, Nur Masalha, 2007, p 181) Oh, and he and Indiana go back some years with Olmert penning a forward to another of Indiana's books, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem.
What's really been going on in little old Sydney then? Given Australia's tendency to cosy up to Israel at various UN and other fora (and Shalom's hugs and kisses for our cold-shouldering of Goldstone and Durban II*), I can't help wondering if this hopelessly laid-back land isn't being subjected to the hard word - along the lines of Cut the teasing, bitch. If you really love me, you'll move your embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Dear oh dear, would the world still respect us in the morning? And then what? Shalom, Dichter, Olmert et al take up archaeology in earnest? Watch this space...
[*Australia a 'leader of the free world', Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 4/12/09]
[The following 2 posts of mine are highly relevant to this subject: Who Did What? (28/9/09); Mosque Busters (27/11/09)]
In fact, the only reference in Minus' report to the latest Israeli-Australian carry-on came in this sentence: "At the Australia Israel Leadership Forum's gala luncheon... Kevin Rudd and the Opposition leader were asked to the podium to accept a copy of a Jewish picture book, Touching the Stones of Our Heritage."
It wasn't much to go on, but my interest was sufficiently piqued for me to google Stones. At that point the plot began to thicken. Up came this little blurb: "Touching the Stones of Our Heritage: The Western Wall Tunnels by Dan Bahat: Throughout the 2,000 years since the Holy Temple that stood in Jerusalem was destroyed, the Western Wall has stood as the prime symbol of Jewish yearning. Today, more than 50 years since the restoration of Jewish sovereignty, the Wall remains an intense expression of national pride and of the profound affinity between the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem. Through photographs, text and original drawings, this spectacular album takes the reader on a journey of discovery through the Western Wall and its tunnels. Included is a bonus transparency overlay showing how it was, and what it looks like now... Features of this book:... Includes a full color insert of the Temple Mount with overlays showing how it looked in ancient and modern times... THE WONDER OF THE WORLD THAT WAS (AND IS) MISSED." (judaism.com)
Well, well, well - instead of handing Rudd and Abbott a book containing merely glossies of 'Israeli' landmarks, Shalom had handed them one which represents the third holiest shrine in Islam, the Haram ash-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), containing the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, as, in effect, squatting on the foundations of a structure of far greater importance - an ancient Jewish temple, the subject of much contemporary Jewish "yearning". Not that the Arabic term Haram ash-Sharif even appears in Bahat's book, the term of choice being The Temple Mount.
Now given that a copy of Stones hasn't yet found its way into my hot little hands, I can't be 100% certain, but are we not entering Hint, hint, do you get my drift? territory here? One thing's for sure though, Rudd and Abbott are not going to learn in Stones that the Haram ash-Sharif (not to mention the rest of East Jerusalem) is, under international law, occupied territory to which the Israelis have absolutely no legal claim whatever.
And the book's author, 'archaeologist' Dan Bahat? Here's a revealing snapshot: "According to the man warmly referred to as Israel's Indiana Jones, an ongoing crime continues to be perpetrated against world Jewry. 'The Jewish people around the world are disconnected from The Temple Mount today. The Arabs claim that it has nothing to do with the Jews, but we know better', says Professor Dan Bahat, one of Israel's most famous, respected and colourful archaeologists. 'At every entrance to The Temple Mount today, there are guards there who ask if you are Jewish. If you answer 'yes', they tell you that you cannot go inside. It's a crime forever'... The Temple Mount is the holiest location in Jewish life. According to religious tradition it's where the world originated and where the biblical sacrifice of Isaac took place. It's also where King Solomon built the first Jewish Temple. The Roman King Herod... rebuilt the temple. With Jews kept off the hilltop by Muslim restrictions and both government and rabbinic bans, The Kotel - a retaining wall of the second Temple - is the holiest place at which Jews can pray. 'What concerns me is a political problem connected to The Temple Mount', says Bahat. 'I believe the Chief Rabbinate made a terrible mistake in 1967 by installing signs reading that no Jew should go onto The Temple Mount (until the Temple is rebuilt)'. Asked about Ariel Sharon's famous visit to The Temple Mount in 2000, Bahat left no doubt as to his feelings. 'I am still angry over this', he says. 'Everyone blames Sharon for going to The Temple Mount and starting this Intifada more than 2 years ago. Of course this is not true, but what really makes me mad is that there was such an uproar because a Jew went to The Temple Mount in the first place. This should not be'." (Israel's 'Indiana Jones' addresses Toronto's Jewish community, toronto.ujcfedweb.org) Some disinterested scholar!
What was that line from the 60s? You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Well here's the wind from templemount.org: "Unfortunately, the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archaeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive [sic] to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam. Who knows what events developing in the history of Jerusalem will one day change the staus quo, allowing scientific investigation of the entire Temple Mount, below ground as well as above? Then, according to the hopes and dreams of devout Jews for centuries, a Third Temple can be built on the foundations of the First and Second Temples and temple worship according to the Torah restored." Notice how "archaeological studies" and "scientific investigation" morph seamlessly into a rebuilding of a third temple? And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque? Now you see them, now you don't. Hell, you can feel that plot thickening now, can't you? Why, if Dan (Indiana Jones) Bahat had had his way back in 1967, when the site was - ahem - acquired, the Third Temple would be packing them in right now!
Touching the Stones of Our Heritage - some "Jewish picture book," Ms Minus!
But there's more. I mentioned Avi Dichter at the beginning of this post. Although The Australian gave him an opportunity to beat the drum on Iran (Ex-Israeli spy chief warns about Iran, 4/12/09), it was left to an Australian Zionist blogger, present at the luncheon, to remind us that Dichter too has a keen interest in stones. The Ozi Zion Blog informs us that the former Shin Bet head and now Kadima MK concluded his speech "with a powerful story of how he added a 3rd stone (from Jerusalem) to the 2 stone collection of a friend - (from Aushwitz [sic] and Massada [sic]). Jerusalem is the heart of Israel and will remain so." (szcnsw.auton.telligence.net.au) In fact, Dichter has real archaeological form: "Police have prevented Muslim burial at the foot of the Temple Mount for several months, as Public Security Minister Avi Dichter responded to pleas to reserve the area as a significant archaeological site." (Dichter rules area near Temple Mount off-limits to Muslim burial, Nadav Shragai, Haaretz, 29/5/07)
And more. With former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert also in town we've got Israeli war criminals coming out of our ears. His visit was described in The Australian Jewish News (4/12/09) as "a precursor to an influx of senior Israeli politicians and other influential figures in the coming week for the second Australia Israel Leadership Forum." Now I don't know whether Olmert put in an appearance at the Forum's galah luncheon, but I do know that, among his other crimes, he's got form in messing with Jerusalem: "As mayor of Jerusalem in the 1990s, Olmert oppressed the Palestinian inhabitants of the city and intensified the process of de-Arabisation. He pressed for opening the 'archaeological tunnel' near the Muslim shrines and encouraged American Jewish right-wing millionaires to build Jewish settlements in the middle of unilaterally annexed Arab districts and pushed for the building of the Apartheid Wall that cuts up Arab neighbourhoods." (The Bible & Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology & Post-Colonialism in Israel-Palestine, Nur Masalha, 2007, p 181) Oh, and he and Indiana go back some years with Olmert penning a forward to another of Indiana's books, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem.
What's really been going on in little old Sydney then? Given Australia's tendency to cosy up to Israel at various UN and other fora (and Shalom's hugs and kisses for our cold-shouldering of Goldstone and Durban II*), I can't help wondering if this hopelessly laid-back land isn't being subjected to the hard word - along the lines of Cut the teasing, bitch. If you really love me, you'll move your embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Dear oh dear, would the world still respect us in the morning? And then what? Shalom, Dichter, Olmert et al take up archaeology in earnest? Watch this space...
[*Australia a 'leader of the free world', Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 4/12/09]
[The following 2 posts of mine are highly relevant to this subject: Who Did What? (28/9/09); Mosque Busters (27/11/09)]
Friday, November 20, 2009
A Moment of Sheer Bipartisan Magic
While you were all toiling at the coalface yesterday, you'll be pleased to know that your 'leaders', in the padded depths of their parliamentary playpen, were sweating over a matter of vital importance to the welfare of this great nation:-
The Speaker - I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to properly manage Australia's foreign relations.
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - One of the most important roles of the person who holds the office of Prime Minister of Australia is to manage our foreign relations in a way that benefits the natural interest... I think it is instructive... to look at some of the statements of this Prime Minister when in opposition... yadda, yadda, yadda... It is... deeply regrettable that the Labor government is overturning Australia's longstanding bipartisan policy of refusing to support one-sided resolutions against Israel in the United Nations General Assembly. The coalition has always recognised the aspirations of the Palestinian people to self-determination. But any prospect for a lasting peace in the Middle East also requires that the Palestinian people and Israel's neighbours recognise the right of the state of Israel to live within secure borders. This must be the crucial foundation for any durable two-state solution. Resolutions at the UNGA that speak only of Palestinian rights to a homeland yet make no reference to the right of the state of Israel to exist are inflammatory and counterproductive. This is especially so when key backers of these resolutions such as Iran speak openly of seeking the destruction of the state of Israel. Late last year we saw a shift in Australia's voting patterns for UNGA resolutions on the conflict in the Middle East. It is disappointing that the Australian government has again voted in support for such a resolution.* We in the opposition again express our hope that the Labor government is not trading on fundamental questions of principle in order to attract support at the UN for the Prime Minister's personal campaign to win a seat on the UN Security Council. More than 60 years ago the Australian government was one of the first countries to vote in support of the creation of the state of Israel at the UN. It has not been the traditional practice of Australian governments to adopt or endorse some of the one-sided resolutions against Israel that now come before the UN. This government has now voted in favour of 3 of these resolutions. Why? Why have they done this? We can only assume it has to do with the Prime Minister's efforts to garner votes for his personal crusade to secure a seat on the UNSC. Australia should never get into the business of trading on principle or on our support of Israel simply to gather votes for the campaign for the SC. If some principles are compromised, where will this government stop?... yadda, yadda, yadda.
Mr Stephen Smith (Perth - Minister for Foreign Affairs) - yadda, yadda, yadda.
Ms Julie Bishop - What about Israel?
Mr Stephen Smith - I will deal with all of them; do not worry... yadda, yadda, yadda... Let me deal with the Middle East. The government has changed 3 votes before the GA -
Ms Julie Bishop - Why?
The Deputy Speaker - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had her turn earlier.
Mr Stephen Smith - They were on settlements, reflecting precisely the same view as the United States administration; on the Geneva Conventions applying to the occupied territories - and how would Australia have looked in the terrible Gaza conflict last December and January if we had not adhered to the application of the Geneva Conventions?; and, thirdly, on the right of self-determination of the Palestinians -
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting -
The Deputy Speaker - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had her turn. She is abusing the standing orders.
Mr Stephen Smith - When you look at who votes in those matters, at the strong stand that Australia takes defending Israel's interests on the Goldstone report and at the strong stand that Australia took in the Durban II review, we are in very good company because our approach to these matters is a two-nation-state solution and to support the peace process. (Time expired)
Mr Johnson (Ryan) - yadda, yadda, yadda.
Mr Dreyfus (Isaacs) - yadda, yadda, yadda... But I also wanted to mention just how absurd are some of the nitpicking propositions that were advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition... in relation to Australia's long-standing and continuing support for Israel... yadda, yadda, yadda... In relation to Israel, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that there has been any lessening in the strength of Australia's support for the state of Israel. She omitted to mention - and this is the selective approach she took to almost all of the topics she mentioned - the support Australia gave to Israel during the Gaza conflict at the start of this year; the vote that Australia made at, and Australia's position in withdrawing from, the Durban review conference and its assistance to ensure that other countries did the same; the Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Israel as part of the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum in June this year; and Australia's position on the Goldstone report. (Time expired)
Mr Laming (Bowman) - yadda, yadda, yadda.
Ms Parke (Fremantle) - yadda, yadda, yadda. (pp 57-67, Hansard, 19/11/09)
And then, guess what? Magic happened! A hush fell over the House. You could hear the proverbial pin drop. Stephen's eyes met Julie's across a crowded chamber. As if in a trance they moved, nay glided, towards one another. Then, hand-in-hand, in the most extraordinary display of bipartisanship the House had seen since the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition sang Happy Birthday to Israel on March 14 last year, they announced that they'd like to dedicate another song to Israel in confirmation of the Lucky Country's undying love for the Plucky Country. And then, as the assembled members grew misty-eyed and broke out in goose bumps, Stephen and Julie proceeded to belt out Helen Reddy's immortal classic You're My World:
You're my world, you're every breath I take
You're my world, you're every move I make
Other eyes see the stars [of David] up in the sky
But for me they shine within your eyes
As the trees reach for the sun above
So my arms reach out to you for love
With your hand resting in mine
I feel a power so divine
You're my world, you are my night & day
You're my world, you're every prayer I pray
If our love ceases to be
That is the end of my world for me
With your hand resting in mine
I feel a power so divine
You're my world, you are my night & day
You're my world, you're every prayer I pray
If our love ceases to be
That is the end of my world for me
End of my world
End of my world
End of my world for me...
[*It's curious how the Australian corporate media simply doesn't bother reporting how we vote in the UNGA. Apparently, the resolution referred to by Bishop - a re-affirmation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination - was voted on earlier this month.]
The Speaker - I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to properly manage Australia's foreign relations.
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - One of the most important roles of the person who holds the office of Prime Minister of Australia is to manage our foreign relations in a way that benefits the natural interest... I think it is instructive... to look at some of the statements of this Prime Minister when in opposition... yadda, yadda, yadda... It is... deeply regrettable that the Labor government is overturning Australia's longstanding bipartisan policy of refusing to support one-sided resolutions against Israel in the United Nations General Assembly. The coalition has always recognised the aspirations of the Palestinian people to self-determination. But any prospect for a lasting peace in the Middle East also requires that the Palestinian people and Israel's neighbours recognise the right of the state of Israel to live within secure borders. This must be the crucial foundation for any durable two-state solution. Resolutions at the UNGA that speak only of Palestinian rights to a homeland yet make no reference to the right of the state of Israel to exist are inflammatory and counterproductive. This is especially so when key backers of these resolutions such as Iran speak openly of seeking the destruction of the state of Israel. Late last year we saw a shift in Australia's voting patterns for UNGA resolutions on the conflict in the Middle East. It is disappointing that the Australian government has again voted in support for such a resolution.* We in the opposition again express our hope that the Labor government is not trading on fundamental questions of principle in order to attract support at the UN for the Prime Minister's personal campaign to win a seat on the UN Security Council. More than 60 years ago the Australian government was one of the first countries to vote in support of the creation of the state of Israel at the UN. It has not been the traditional practice of Australian governments to adopt or endorse some of the one-sided resolutions against Israel that now come before the UN. This government has now voted in favour of 3 of these resolutions. Why? Why have they done this? We can only assume it has to do with the Prime Minister's efforts to garner votes for his personal crusade to secure a seat on the UNSC. Australia should never get into the business of trading on principle or on our support of Israel simply to gather votes for the campaign for the SC. If some principles are compromised, where will this government stop?... yadda, yadda, yadda.
Mr Stephen Smith (Perth - Minister for Foreign Affairs) - yadda, yadda, yadda.
Ms Julie Bishop - What about Israel?
Mr Stephen Smith - I will deal with all of them; do not worry... yadda, yadda, yadda... Let me deal with the Middle East. The government has changed 3 votes before the GA -
Ms Julie Bishop - Why?
The Deputy Speaker - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had her turn earlier.
Mr Stephen Smith - They were on settlements, reflecting precisely the same view as the United States administration; on the Geneva Conventions applying to the occupied territories - and how would Australia have looked in the terrible Gaza conflict last December and January if we had not adhered to the application of the Geneva Conventions?; and, thirdly, on the right of self-determination of the Palestinians -
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting -
The Deputy Speaker - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had her turn. She is abusing the standing orders.
Mr Stephen Smith - When you look at who votes in those matters, at the strong stand that Australia takes defending Israel's interests on the Goldstone report and at the strong stand that Australia took in the Durban II review, we are in very good company because our approach to these matters is a two-nation-state solution and to support the peace process. (Time expired)
Mr Johnson (Ryan) - yadda, yadda, yadda.
Mr Dreyfus (Isaacs) - yadda, yadda, yadda... But I also wanted to mention just how absurd are some of the nitpicking propositions that were advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition... in relation to Australia's long-standing and continuing support for Israel... yadda, yadda, yadda... In relation to Israel, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that there has been any lessening in the strength of Australia's support for the state of Israel. She omitted to mention - and this is the selective approach she took to almost all of the topics she mentioned - the support Australia gave to Israel during the Gaza conflict at the start of this year; the vote that Australia made at, and Australia's position in withdrawing from, the Durban review conference and its assistance to ensure that other countries did the same; the Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Israel as part of the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum in June this year; and Australia's position on the Goldstone report. (Time expired)
Mr Laming (Bowman) - yadda, yadda, yadda.
Ms Parke (Fremantle) - yadda, yadda, yadda. (pp 57-67, Hansard, 19/11/09)
And then, guess what? Magic happened! A hush fell over the House. You could hear the proverbial pin drop. Stephen's eyes met Julie's across a crowded chamber. As if in a trance they moved, nay glided, towards one another. Then, hand-in-hand, in the most extraordinary display of bipartisanship the House had seen since the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition sang Happy Birthday to Israel on March 14 last year, they announced that they'd like to dedicate another song to Israel in confirmation of the Lucky Country's undying love for the Plucky Country. And then, as the assembled members grew misty-eyed and broke out in goose bumps, Stephen and Julie proceeded to belt out Helen Reddy's immortal classic You're My World:
You're my world, you're every breath I take
You're my world, you're every move I make
Other eyes see the stars [of David] up in the sky
But for me they shine within your eyes
As the trees reach for the sun above
So my arms reach out to you for love
With your hand resting in mine
I feel a power so divine
You're my world, you are my night & day
You're my world, you're every prayer I pray
If our love ceases to be
That is the end of my world for me
With your hand resting in mine
I feel a power so divine
You're my world, you are my night & day
You're my world, you're every prayer I pray
If our love ceases to be
That is the end of my world for me
End of my world
End of my world
End of my world for me...
[*It's curious how the Australian corporate media simply doesn't bother reporting how we vote in the UNGA. Apparently, the resolution referred to by Bishop - a re-affirmation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination - was voted on earlier this month.]
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Billabong Flats
Australia's descent into military madness as a support act for US imperialism is gaining pace under the Rudd Government. Read this (& weep):
"Don't tell anyone but the Federal Government is spending $87.5 million on a new Middle East military base. Not that it's using the word 'base'. Instead, budget papers state the money is being spent on 'command and control enhancements' in the Middle East. Under a diplomatic agreement with the host country, the location cannot be revealed. The Government cannot give the location of the old bases the new one is replacing. A Defence Force spokesman said he could not say where the bases are because of security considerations and 'host national sensitivities'. But given that the locations are widely known, the coyness has less to do with security and more to do with 'sensitivities'. Instead, it's imposed by the Arab hosts, who do not want to advertise they are accommodating foreign troops and their hardware. The secrecy leads to a curious absurdity: the details and images of most of the bases are on the internet, in the Middle East press and on Defence Force websites. Australian ambassadors have openly said where they are and they have been mentioned in Hansard. The Sun-Herald is a party to the subterfuge. On an ADF-escorted trip to the Middle East and Afghanistan, it signed an undertaking not to reveal 'operationally sensitive information' - including 'the country in which ADF support bases are located outside of Iraq and Afghanistan'. Without breaching that undertaking, we can reveal - drawing on what spies call open sources, and readers call Google - where these bases are. One of them has a big sign out the front, adorned with red kangaroos and the words 'Billabong Flats'. We can reveal bases have been or are being closed in Kuwait and Qatar. The new one is at Al Minhad Airbase in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. Australian troops going to Afghanistan acclimatise in Kuwait, at a compound attached to a US base called Camp Victory. The base is alongside Kuwait's Ali Al Salem Air Base. You can find more about the base at globalsecurity.org. Liberal senator David Bushby visited the base and told the Senate all about it on June 18." ($87.5m for not so secret army base, Tom Hyland, 8/11/09)
Sorry Tom, the Sydney Morning Herald's Peter Hartcher let the cat out of the bag in March of this year. You can read all about it - and more - at my 2/4/09 post Say It Isn't So.
"Don't tell anyone but the Federal Government is spending $87.5 million on a new Middle East military base. Not that it's using the word 'base'. Instead, budget papers state the money is being spent on 'command and control enhancements' in the Middle East. Under a diplomatic agreement with the host country, the location cannot be revealed. The Government cannot give the location of the old bases the new one is replacing. A Defence Force spokesman said he could not say where the bases are because of security considerations and 'host national sensitivities'. But given that the locations are widely known, the coyness has less to do with security and more to do with 'sensitivities'. Instead, it's imposed by the Arab hosts, who do not want to advertise they are accommodating foreign troops and their hardware. The secrecy leads to a curious absurdity: the details and images of most of the bases are on the internet, in the Middle East press and on Defence Force websites. Australian ambassadors have openly said where they are and they have been mentioned in Hansard. The Sun-Herald is a party to the subterfuge. On an ADF-escorted trip to the Middle East and Afghanistan, it signed an undertaking not to reveal 'operationally sensitive information' - including 'the country in which ADF support bases are located outside of Iraq and Afghanistan'. Without breaching that undertaking, we can reveal - drawing on what spies call open sources, and readers call Google - where these bases are. One of them has a big sign out the front, adorned with red kangaroos and the words 'Billabong Flats'. We can reveal bases have been or are being closed in Kuwait and Qatar. The new one is at Al Minhad Airbase in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. Australian troops going to Afghanistan acclimatise in Kuwait, at a compound attached to a US base called Camp Victory. The base is alongside Kuwait's Ali Al Salem Air Base. You can find more about the base at globalsecurity.org. Liberal senator David Bushby visited the base and told the Senate all about it on June 18." ($87.5m for not so secret army base, Tom Hyland, 8/11/09)
Sorry Tom, the Sydney Morning Herald's Peter Hartcher let the cat out of the bag in March of this year. You can read all about it - and more - at my 2/4/09 post Say It Isn't So.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Israel's Pacific Solution
On 5 November, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed (GA/10883) the report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (aka Goldstone Report), which concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed possible war crimes. The vote was 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44 abstentions and 16 absences.
Australia, of course, voted against. The UN website reported as follows on its whys and wherefores:
"Australia's representative said his delegation had been deeply saddened by the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel and that it regretted how efforts to address the situation since had stalled. Australia had voted against the resolution on the Goldstone Report because of its flawed content. However, that did not undermine the humanitarian welfare of of the Palestinian people before, during and after that crisis, which remained unacceptable. Australia did support a proper investigation of any breach of humanitarian rights and laws. It was crucial for such a serious matter to be dealt with properly. He called on both parties to investigate them and to inform the Member States of their results."
To amplify on this:
a) Australia's representative was so deeply saddened he had to have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
b) For Australia's representative, Israel's brutal hammering of Gaza was in reality more of a border dispute, involving Gaza and Southern Israel in equal measure. He was, in fact, so burdened with sadness and regret that he was quite oblivious to the mutterings of 114 other representatives to the effect that, if they'd had to choose, they'd sooner have seen out the conflict on the Israeli side of the border, thankyou very much.
c) Yes, for Australia's representative, the Goldstone Report was hopelessly flawed. It existed. Perhaps if it'd been a Regev Report...
d) Oh yes, the humanitarian welfare of the Palestinian people... Of course, the poor buggers were up Shit Creek minus the proverbial paddle before, during and after that crisis, weren't they? Australia's representative finds that unacceptable. But not unacceptable enough, apparently, to provide them with said paddle.
e) Crisis? Yeah, like when you can't find a corkscrew to access the chardonnay.
f) And the Australian representative's idea of a proper investigation? A proper investigation is strictly in-house, know what I mean?
Mind you, Australia wasn't alone in voting Goldstone down. So too did Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel (naturally!), Italy, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States. And, of course, it was joined by its mini-mates in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Now when it comes to lining up in the General Assembly with Israel, the United States, and Australia, these Pacific minnows, need I say, have real form. To take but one example, when the UN General Assembly passed resolution GA/10534 on 17/11/06, condemning an earlier Israeli hammerings of the Gaza Strip, only 7 countries voted against: Israel, the US, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. What's going on here?
A little googling casts some light on this bizarre alignment. Take Palau (pop:20,000), for example, a cluster of 300 islands administered by the US until 1994 when it became 'independent'. Palau's UN 'ambassador' (2004-), Stuart Beck, an American-Jewish television company executive married to a Palauan, is described on palauun.org as a man who "champions Israel." And how did Beck become Palau's ambassador? Simple: "I said to them, 'Look, you don't produce anything, you don't manufacture anything, nobody's after your labor pool, you don't have anything that anyone wants... so the only thing of value you have is your UN vote... So they said to me, 'Why don't you do it?'"
Then there's Narau: The New Zealand Herald (12/4/04) provides this thumbnail sketch: "The tiny Pacific nation of Nauru came under scrutiny during the 90s when it acted as a money-launderer for the Russian mafia. The tax haven filtered an estimated $107 billion through 400 off-shore banks, all registered to a single Nauru government mailbox. It also sold its passports to non-citizens... The 21 sq km nation of just 12,000 people is now paid by the Australian government to house asylum-seekers in detention centres. It has been on the verge of bankruptcy after nearly a century of phosphate strip mining left it a nation of bleached coral pinnacles."
Israeli historian, Tom Segev, tells the amusing story (Nauru on our side, Haaretz, 11/12/06) of how he tried to place a call to Nauru's UN 'ambassador', Marlene Moses, "to thank her for her country having stood by my country in its time of difficulty" and "ask her how they decide there in Nauru to support, for example, Israel's refusal to return East Jerusalem to the Palestinians": "'Yes, it's a country', I insisted to the operator... She had been working there for years and no one had ever asked her to connect them with Nauru. 'It's a country?' 'Yes, a small one. And it supports Israel'. 'You're kidding', the young woman said. 'It supports Israel?' 'Yes, though it's even smaller than Sderot'. 'That doesn't matter', said the operator, 'as long as it supports us'. The telephone connection to Nauru is out of order. The operator promises to make a special effort, perhaps via Australia. It didn't work. Later, I read on the Foreign Ministry website that there are no phones in Nauru." On finding out that both water and electricity on the island are strictly rationed, and recalling the Australian TV series 'Embassy', set in East Timor, Segev was prompted to entertain "a thoroughly arrogant colonialist sort of idea: 'Was it possible', I wondered, 'that Nauru automatically votes as Australia does?'" So he rang Jonathon Chew, first secretary in the Australian Embassy. Mr Chew "gently but firmly" set him straight. "'Nauru is an independent nation', he explained to me. He could assure me that Australia does not dictate to independent nations how to vote in the UN. Australia opposed the draft resolution [calling on Israel to dismantle its West Bank settlements] this time, too, as it has before, because it felt that it was not sufficiently balanced and therefore would do nothing to promote peace, and Australia, of course, supports efforts to promote peace." Segev was left to reflect: "Evidently this is also the view of the United States, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Nauru. At least half the people of Israel support the main points of the UN resolution, as does the vast majority of the people on the planet, but it's nice to know that we have friends and that we're not alone." Oh, and he never did get through to Marlene Moses.
Australia, of course, voted against. The UN website reported as follows on its whys and wherefores:
"Australia's representative said his delegation had been deeply saddened by the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel and that it regretted how efforts to address the situation since had stalled. Australia had voted against the resolution on the Goldstone Report because of its flawed content. However, that did not undermine the humanitarian welfare of of the Palestinian people before, during and after that crisis, which remained unacceptable. Australia did support a proper investigation of any breach of humanitarian rights and laws. It was crucial for such a serious matter to be dealt with properly. He called on both parties to investigate them and to inform the Member States of their results."
To amplify on this:
a) Australia's representative was so deeply saddened he had to have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
b) For Australia's representative, Israel's brutal hammering of Gaza was in reality more of a border dispute, involving Gaza and Southern Israel in equal measure. He was, in fact, so burdened with sadness and regret that he was quite oblivious to the mutterings of 114 other representatives to the effect that, if they'd had to choose, they'd sooner have seen out the conflict on the Israeli side of the border, thankyou very much.
c) Yes, for Australia's representative, the Goldstone Report was hopelessly flawed. It existed. Perhaps if it'd been a Regev Report...
d) Oh yes, the humanitarian welfare of the Palestinian people... Of course, the poor buggers were up Shit Creek minus the proverbial paddle before, during and after that crisis, weren't they? Australia's representative finds that unacceptable. But not unacceptable enough, apparently, to provide them with said paddle.
e) Crisis? Yeah, like when you can't find a corkscrew to access the chardonnay.
f) And the Australian representative's idea of a proper investigation? A proper investigation is strictly in-house, know what I mean?
Mind you, Australia wasn't alone in voting Goldstone down. So too did Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel (naturally!), Italy, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States. And, of course, it was joined by its mini-mates in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Now when it comes to lining up in the General Assembly with Israel, the United States, and Australia, these Pacific minnows, need I say, have real form. To take but one example, when the UN General Assembly passed resolution GA/10534 on 17/11/06, condemning an earlier Israeli hammerings of the Gaza Strip, only 7 countries voted against: Israel, the US, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. What's going on here?
A little googling casts some light on this bizarre alignment. Take Palau (pop:20,000), for example, a cluster of 300 islands administered by the US until 1994 when it became 'independent'. Palau's UN 'ambassador' (2004-), Stuart Beck, an American-Jewish television company executive married to a Palauan, is described on palauun.org as a man who "champions Israel." And how did Beck become Palau's ambassador? Simple: "I said to them, 'Look, you don't produce anything, you don't manufacture anything, nobody's after your labor pool, you don't have anything that anyone wants... so the only thing of value you have is your UN vote... So they said to me, 'Why don't you do it?'"
Then there's Narau: The New Zealand Herald (12/4/04) provides this thumbnail sketch: "The tiny Pacific nation of Nauru came under scrutiny during the 90s when it acted as a money-launderer for the Russian mafia. The tax haven filtered an estimated $107 billion through 400 off-shore banks, all registered to a single Nauru government mailbox. It also sold its passports to non-citizens... The 21 sq km nation of just 12,000 people is now paid by the Australian government to house asylum-seekers in detention centres. It has been on the verge of bankruptcy after nearly a century of phosphate strip mining left it a nation of bleached coral pinnacles."
Israeli historian, Tom Segev, tells the amusing story (Nauru on our side, Haaretz, 11/12/06) of how he tried to place a call to Nauru's UN 'ambassador', Marlene Moses, "to thank her for her country having stood by my country in its time of difficulty" and "ask her how they decide there in Nauru to support, for example, Israel's refusal to return East Jerusalem to the Palestinians": "'Yes, it's a country', I insisted to the operator... She had been working there for years and no one had ever asked her to connect them with Nauru. 'It's a country?' 'Yes, a small one. And it supports Israel'. 'You're kidding', the young woman said. 'It supports Israel?' 'Yes, though it's even smaller than Sderot'. 'That doesn't matter', said the operator, 'as long as it supports us'. The telephone connection to Nauru is out of order. The operator promises to make a special effort, perhaps via Australia. It didn't work. Later, I read on the Foreign Ministry website that there are no phones in Nauru." On finding out that both water and electricity on the island are strictly rationed, and recalling the Australian TV series 'Embassy', set in East Timor, Segev was prompted to entertain "a thoroughly arrogant colonialist sort of idea: 'Was it possible', I wondered, 'that Nauru automatically votes as Australia does?'" So he rang Jonathon Chew, first secretary in the Australian Embassy. Mr Chew "gently but firmly" set him straight. "'Nauru is an independent nation', he explained to me. He could assure me that Australia does not dictate to independent nations how to vote in the UN. Australia opposed the draft resolution [calling on Israel to dismantle its West Bank settlements] this time, too, as it has before, because it felt that it was not sufficiently balanced and therefore would do nothing to promote peace, and Australia, of course, supports efforts to promote peace." Segev was left to reflect: "Evidently this is also the view of the United States, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Nauru. At least half the people of Israel support the main points of the UN resolution, as does the vast majority of the people on the planet, but it's nice to know that we have friends and that we're not alone." Oh, and he never did get through to Marlene Moses.
Friday, November 6, 2009
An Excruciating Moment
"It was one of those excruciating moments in Australian politics." (Honours even as Faulkner soldiers on, Brad Norington, The Australian, 5/11/09)
Oh, you mean like celebrating Israel's 60th birthday in federal parliament last year?
"Defence Minister John Faulkner last night gave US General David Petraeus one of Australia's highest honours, the Order of Australia, for his distinguished service against terrorism in the Iraq war. Only 6 years ago, Senator Faulkner had opposed the war and challenged claims that Iraq posed a terrorist threat. During a censure motion in parliament against the Howard government, he decribed the decision to send 2000 troops as 'unilateral adventurism' and a 'confidence trick'... The nomination for general Petraeus to receive an honorary Order of Australia... came from the Chief of Australia's Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. But it is understood it had the imprimatur of Kevin Rudd, who opposed the Iraq war as opposition foreign affairs spokesman. John Howard bestowed the same award to General Petraeus' predecessor, General John Abizaid, in March 2007." (ibid)
As Basil Fawlty might say, 'This is typical. Absolutely typical...'
Oh, you mean like celebrating Israel's 60th birthday in federal parliament last year?
"Defence Minister John Faulkner last night gave US General David Petraeus one of Australia's highest honours, the Order of Australia, for his distinguished service against terrorism in the Iraq war. Only 6 years ago, Senator Faulkner had opposed the war and challenged claims that Iraq posed a terrorist threat. During a censure motion in parliament against the Howard government, he decribed the decision to send 2000 troops as 'unilateral adventurism' and a 'confidence trick'... The nomination for general Petraeus to receive an honorary Order of Australia... came from the Chief of Australia's Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. But it is understood it had the imprimatur of Kevin Rudd, who opposed the Iraq war as opposition foreign affairs spokesman. John Howard bestowed the same award to General Petraeus' predecessor, General John Abizaid, in March 2007." (ibid)
As Basil Fawlty might say, 'This is typical. Absolutely typical...'
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Me Tarzan, Rudd Jane
"Speaking to The Australian Jewish News this week, Victorian Senator Julian McGauran called on the Australian Government to support military action against Iran if it fails to back down on its nuclear weapons [sic] program. 'This takes top priority', he said. 'I believe it is the highest, most critical issue today. Instead of pansying around on climate change, this ought to take central [sic] stage'. Senator McGauran, who said he had always had 'uncompromisingly strong' support for Israel, called the federal government 'lazy' in its attitude to Iran. 'It is easy to waltz around taking care of soft issues', he said... 'Australia must join its allies and become more aggressive towards Iran. We must not only be willing to join any further international sanctions imposed, but to endorse military action as the last resort'." (Senator: Rudd Government 'lazy' on Iran, 9/10/09)
Hm, maybe Julian has a point here. Check out this lilly-livered, limp-wristed, lisping response from the prime minister: "When Mr Rudd was asked on CNN whether he would commit more troops to the war [in Afghanistan], he said: 'We believe that our current commitment's about right...'" (Failure looms in Afghanistan war, Anne Davies, The Age, 22/9/09)
Ah, if only the old man of steel were back at the helm, eh Julian?: "Australia and its allies must send more troops to Afghanistan or face defeat by the Taliban, says former prime minister John Howard." (Howard calls for troops boost, Brendan Nicholson, The Age, 7/10/09)
Hm, maybe Julian has a point here. Check out this lilly-livered, limp-wristed, lisping response from the prime minister: "When Mr Rudd was asked on CNN whether he would commit more troops to the war [in Afghanistan], he said: 'We believe that our current commitment's about right...'" (Failure looms in Afghanistan war, Anne Davies, The Age, 22/9/09)
Ah, if only the old man of steel were back at the helm, eh Julian?: "Australia and its allies must send more troops to Afghanistan or face defeat by the Taliban, says former prime minister John Howard." (Howard calls for troops boost, Brendan Nicholson, The Age, 7/10/09)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Now Honestly...
What follows is an update of my 29/5/09 post (Her Brilliant Career) on Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposed visit to Israel:-
After a detour to the United States, Gillard arrived in Israel to address the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum on 24/6/09 and reaffirm her government's claimed genetic ties to Israel. "Erev Tov Haverim (Good evening friends), Shalom, Salaam, G'Day!," she greeted the assembled faithful (who must have winced at the token Salaam) in her familiar nasal twang. "Our Forum is part of a wider celebration of Israeli and Australian culture," she droned on, echoing Rudd's parliamentary motion of 14/3/08: "That the House: (1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the state of Israel in the 60 years since its inception..." Yep, for the Ruddies, it seems, if not for the rest of the world (or the Australian people for that matter), Israel's always a cause for celebration.
Meanwhile, as Gillard & Co were busy celebrating the sheer festive magic that is Israel, out in the real world of the Israeli-Occupied Territories (OPT) it was business as usual: In the period 18-24 June, 5 Palestinian civilians, including a journalist, and an international human rights defender were wounded; the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) conducted 19 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank; the IOF arrested 22 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children in the West Bank; the IOF continued to impose a total siege on the OPT and isolate the Gaza Strip from the outside world; IOF troops positioned at military checkpoints continued to harass Palestinian civilians; the IOF continued measures aimed at establishing a Jewish majority in occupied east Jerusalem; the IOF forced 2 Palestinian civilians to demolish their homes, and issued demolition orders against others; Israeli settlements continued to expand in the West Bank and Israeli settlers continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property; Israeli settlers set fire to Palestinian farmers' tents, injuring 3; Israeli settlers uprooted at least 150 trees and razed dozens of dunums of agricultural land. (Weekly report on Israeli human rights violations in the OPTs, 18-24/6/09, reliefweb.int)
Central to Gillard's spiel was the invocation of the recently coined myth that Australia was somehow metaphysically present at key junctures in the history of the Zionist project, enabling, through its interventions, both the implementation of Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN partition resolution (181) of 29 November 1947. The myth's creators would have us believe that Australian troops, in action against the Turks at Beersheba in 1917, weren't so much doing their bit for King & Country as paving the way, via the Balfour Declaration, for the British Mandate over Palestine, from within whose womb the state of Israel emerged (See my 1/5/08 post Myth In-formation). As Gillard put it: "Yesterday the delegation visited the Park of the Australian Soldier at Beersheva. It is a wonderful reminder of our shared history and one more part of the legacy of the late Richard Pratt. It will serve as a place of pilgrimage for Australians and a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy today were hard-won."
The other aspect of our alleged "shared history" - former Labor Minister for External Affairs Dr HV Evatt's 1947 chairmanship of the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which proposed the partition of that country into a Jewish and an Arab state, was alluded to by Rudd in his abovementioned parliamentary motion "celebrating & commending" Israel's 60th anniversary: "Australia is proud to have played a significant part in the international process that led to the foundation of the state of Israel. Australia's then Minister for External Affairs, Dr Evatt... was chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on the Palestinian Question that proposed the partition of Palestine." (See my 14/3/08 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3) In Gillard's speech, we get this truncated version: "When a vote was called in 1947 on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, to establish separate Jewish and Arab States, the Australian delegate was the first to vote. The first vote in favour of Israel's right to full independent nationhood and its right to live securely within defined borders. Our support has continued strongly ever since..."
The very first vote, eh? Had Gillard visited one too many classrooms prior to her pilgrimage? Can't you just see the Australian delegate crying out 'Sir! Sir! Sir!' as he waves his hand furiously to catch the teacher's attention and beat all the other kids to the nod in response to the invitation: 'Right, now who wants to be first to vote for Israel?' That aside, Gillard's implication is that a vote in favour of UNGA Resolution 181 was something every little Goody Two-Shoes in the UNGA classroom back then automatically aspired to. In reality, of course, it was bully boy tactics in the schoolyard that secured the passage of the resolution.
Take, for example, the case of the head of the Philippino delegation: "Speaking to the General Assembly, Mr Romulo, on the morning of 26 November 1947, said: 'My delegation takes part in this final stage in the consideration of the Palestinian problem with profound misgivings. With interest, we have followed the course of the debate since the special session of the General Assembly last April. We have carefully studied the Report of the Special Committee on Palestine and pondered the various proposals that have been submitted. As a result of these studies, the Philippines Government has come to the conclusion that it cannot give its support to any proposal for the political disunion and the territorial dismemberment of Palestine... We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which, not being mandatory under any specific provision of the Charter nor in accordance with its fundamental principles, is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government believes that the United Nations ought not to accept any such responsibility'. On the orders of his government, Romulo was on the Queen Elizabeth bound for Europe within hours of delivering his fiery speech against partition. [The Philippines] Ambassador [to the US] Elizalde had spoken by telephone to President Roxas and told him of the many pressures to which Romulo and the delegation had been subjected. While the ambassador believed that partition was not wise, he felt that it would be foolish to vote against a policy so ardently desired by the US Administration at a time when 7 bills important to the Islands were pending in the US Congress. The Ambassador and President Roxas agreed that support could be gained easily by voting properly on Palestine. In Manila, as political adviser to the President of the Philippines, was Julius CC Edelstein, a confidant of Zionist Herbert H Lehman." (The Palestine Diary, Vol 2, 1945-1948, Robert John & Sami Hadawi, 1970, p 250)
Do I need to add that on 29 November the Philippines' delegate voted for partition?
I've already posted on the Machiavellian politics of partitioning Palestine (The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3, 14/3/08; Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution, 11/11/08), and suggested that Australia's role, such as it was, is hardly something to be proud of (Evatt's Legacy, 5/12/08). However, by invoking the myth of Australian troops as closet Zionists and Evatt as some latter-day Lord Balfour, Gillard was able to avoid reference to the only genuine historical link between Australia and Israel - our common origins as colonial-settler states created at the expense of pre-existing indigenous populations. The closest she got was this: "Both [nations] have been established and built in difficult, sometimes hostile, physical conditions."
Another near-brush with reality came with her talk of a "world where exclusion and humiliation breed despair and hatred" - surely a reference to Israel and its 61-year exclusion of Palestinian refugees and 42-year occupation of the Palestinian territories? Err, no. Iran was what she touched on next, though how such words apply there is beyond me. Yet, if she were really serious about the "despair and hatred" of the wretched of the earth - which she clearly isn't - she need look no further than Israel's cruel experiment in Gaza.
Take, for example, the case of 20-year old trainee teacher Yahya Abu Saif, a resident of the Gaza Strip. Back in January, when the Israelis were raining fire and brimstone on Gaza, Yahya was in a mosque targeted by an Israeli missile. His right leg was amputated and the shrapnel which pierced his skull, paralysing his left side. Weekdays he's in Gaza's only rehabilitation hospital, a shattered building with perforated walls and a disabled hydrotherapy pool. Neither the hospital nor its pool can be repaired because Israel won't allow any building materials into Gaza. Yahya needs a special right-hand controlled wheelchair, but the Israelis won't allow them in either. He comes home on weekends to a 5-room house with 13 occupants, only 2 of whom have work. The toilet, a hole in the floor, is at the bottom of 6 steep, concrete steps. A local organization wants to build him an accessible toilet, but you guessed it, the Israelis won't allow any building materials into Gaza. Yahya needs an artificial leg, but the Israelis will only allow a drip-feed of prosthetic equipment and medical supplies into Gaza. (See Recovery battle for Gaza war injured, Heather Sharp, BBC News, 24/6/09)
Gaza, of course, isn't on Gillard's itinerary. In fact, it's as remote from her mind as the moon. She hasn't a flicker of interest in how Israel (or any other terror state for that matter) sadistically keeps an entire subject people in various states of "despair and hatred." She's simply too busy being stroked by the Israelis: "In front of an elite audience of Israeli politicians, academics and cultural figures at a dinner at the landmark King David Hotel, senior Israeli minister Isaac Herzog paid a warm tribute to Ms Gillard for her support for Israel during the Gaza conflict in January. 'You stood almost alone on the world stage in support of Israel's right to defend itself', enthused Mr Herzog, an act of courage he said would never be forgotten by the people of Israel... Mr Herzog, a personal friend of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and chairman of the Israel-Australia parliamentary association, also thanked federal parliamentarians for passing a motion last year in support of Israel's 60th anniversary." (Israel to Gillard: thanks for standing by us, Jason Koutsoukis, The Age, 24/6/09)
"We should be honest about the difficulty of achieving a just and lasting settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she droned on.
Now honestly...
Gillard's vapid and platitude-ridden speech fairly reeks of dishonesty and ignorance. She's definitely prime minister material. Have a nice day.
After a detour to the United States, Gillard arrived in Israel to address the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum on 24/6/09 and reaffirm her government's claimed genetic ties to Israel. "Erev Tov Haverim (Good evening friends), Shalom, Salaam, G'Day!," she greeted the assembled faithful (who must have winced at the token Salaam) in her familiar nasal twang. "Our Forum is part of a wider celebration of Israeli and Australian culture," she droned on, echoing Rudd's parliamentary motion of 14/3/08: "That the House: (1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the state of Israel in the 60 years since its inception..." Yep, for the Ruddies, it seems, if not for the rest of the world (or the Australian people for that matter), Israel's always a cause for celebration.
Meanwhile, as Gillard & Co were busy celebrating the sheer festive magic that is Israel, out in the real world of the Israeli-Occupied Territories (OPT) it was business as usual: In the period 18-24 June, 5 Palestinian civilians, including a journalist, and an international human rights defender were wounded; the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) conducted 19 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank; the IOF arrested 22 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children in the West Bank; the IOF continued to impose a total siege on the OPT and isolate the Gaza Strip from the outside world; IOF troops positioned at military checkpoints continued to harass Palestinian civilians; the IOF continued measures aimed at establishing a Jewish majority in occupied east Jerusalem; the IOF forced 2 Palestinian civilians to demolish their homes, and issued demolition orders against others; Israeli settlements continued to expand in the West Bank and Israeli settlers continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property; Israeli settlers set fire to Palestinian farmers' tents, injuring 3; Israeli settlers uprooted at least 150 trees and razed dozens of dunums of agricultural land. (Weekly report on Israeli human rights violations in the OPTs, 18-24/6/09, reliefweb.int)
Central to Gillard's spiel was the invocation of the recently coined myth that Australia was somehow metaphysically present at key junctures in the history of the Zionist project, enabling, through its interventions, both the implementation of Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN partition resolution (181) of 29 November 1947. The myth's creators would have us believe that Australian troops, in action against the Turks at Beersheba in 1917, weren't so much doing their bit for King & Country as paving the way, via the Balfour Declaration, for the British Mandate over Palestine, from within whose womb the state of Israel emerged (See my 1/5/08 post Myth In-formation). As Gillard put it: "Yesterday the delegation visited the Park of the Australian Soldier at Beersheva. It is a wonderful reminder of our shared history and one more part of the legacy of the late Richard Pratt. It will serve as a place of pilgrimage for Australians and a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy today were hard-won."
The other aspect of our alleged "shared history" - former Labor Minister for External Affairs Dr HV Evatt's 1947 chairmanship of the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which proposed the partition of that country into a Jewish and an Arab state, was alluded to by Rudd in his abovementioned parliamentary motion "celebrating & commending" Israel's 60th anniversary: "Australia is proud to have played a significant part in the international process that led to the foundation of the state of Israel. Australia's then Minister for External Affairs, Dr Evatt... was chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on the Palestinian Question that proposed the partition of Palestine." (See my 14/3/08 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3) In Gillard's speech, we get this truncated version: "When a vote was called in 1947 on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, to establish separate Jewish and Arab States, the Australian delegate was the first to vote. The first vote in favour of Israel's right to full independent nationhood and its right to live securely within defined borders. Our support has continued strongly ever since..."
The very first vote, eh? Had Gillard visited one too many classrooms prior to her pilgrimage? Can't you just see the Australian delegate crying out 'Sir! Sir! Sir!' as he waves his hand furiously to catch the teacher's attention and beat all the other kids to the nod in response to the invitation: 'Right, now who wants to be first to vote for Israel?' That aside, Gillard's implication is that a vote in favour of UNGA Resolution 181 was something every little Goody Two-Shoes in the UNGA classroom back then automatically aspired to. In reality, of course, it was bully boy tactics in the schoolyard that secured the passage of the resolution.
Take, for example, the case of the head of the Philippino delegation: "Speaking to the General Assembly, Mr Romulo, on the morning of 26 November 1947, said: 'My delegation takes part in this final stage in the consideration of the Palestinian problem with profound misgivings. With interest, we have followed the course of the debate since the special session of the General Assembly last April. We have carefully studied the Report of the Special Committee on Palestine and pondered the various proposals that have been submitted. As a result of these studies, the Philippines Government has come to the conclusion that it cannot give its support to any proposal for the political disunion and the territorial dismemberment of Palestine... We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which, not being mandatory under any specific provision of the Charter nor in accordance with its fundamental principles, is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government believes that the United Nations ought not to accept any such responsibility'. On the orders of his government, Romulo was on the Queen Elizabeth bound for Europe within hours of delivering his fiery speech against partition. [The Philippines] Ambassador [to the US] Elizalde had spoken by telephone to President Roxas and told him of the many pressures to which Romulo and the delegation had been subjected. While the ambassador believed that partition was not wise, he felt that it would be foolish to vote against a policy so ardently desired by the US Administration at a time when 7 bills important to the Islands were pending in the US Congress. The Ambassador and President Roxas agreed that support could be gained easily by voting properly on Palestine. In Manila, as political adviser to the President of the Philippines, was Julius CC Edelstein, a confidant of Zionist Herbert H Lehman." (The Palestine Diary, Vol 2, 1945-1948, Robert John & Sami Hadawi, 1970, p 250)
Do I need to add that on 29 November the Philippines' delegate voted for partition?
I've already posted on the Machiavellian politics of partitioning Palestine (The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3, 14/3/08; Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution, 11/11/08), and suggested that Australia's role, such as it was, is hardly something to be proud of (Evatt's Legacy, 5/12/08). However, by invoking the myth of Australian troops as closet Zionists and Evatt as some latter-day Lord Balfour, Gillard was able to avoid reference to the only genuine historical link between Australia and Israel - our common origins as colonial-settler states created at the expense of pre-existing indigenous populations. The closest she got was this: "Both [nations] have been established and built in difficult, sometimes hostile, physical conditions."
Another near-brush with reality came with her talk of a "world where exclusion and humiliation breed despair and hatred" - surely a reference to Israel and its 61-year exclusion of Palestinian refugees and 42-year occupation of the Palestinian territories? Err, no. Iran was what she touched on next, though how such words apply there is beyond me. Yet, if she were really serious about the "despair and hatred" of the wretched of the earth - which she clearly isn't - she need look no further than Israel's cruel experiment in Gaza.
Take, for example, the case of 20-year old trainee teacher Yahya Abu Saif, a resident of the Gaza Strip. Back in January, when the Israelis were raining fire and brimstone on Gaza, Yahya was in a mosque targeted by an Israeli missile. His right leg was amputated and the shrapnel which pierced his skull, paralysing his left side. Weekdays he's in Gaza's only rehabilitation hospital, a shattered building with perforated walls and a disabled hydrotherapy pool. Neither the hospital nor its pool can be repaired because Israel won't allow any building materials into Gaza. Yahya needs a special right-hand controlled wheelchair, but the Israelis won't allow them in either. He comes home on weekends to a 5-room house with 13 occupants, only 2 of whom have work. The toilet, a hole in the floor, is at the bottom of 6 steep, concrete steps. A local organization wants to build him an accessible toilet, but you guessed it, the Israelis won't allow any building materials into Gaza. Yahya needs an artificial leg, but the Israelis will only allow a drip-feed of prosthetic equipment and medical supplies into Gaza. (See Recovery battle for Gaza war injured, Heather Sharp, BBC News, 24/6/09)
Gaza, of course, isn't on Gillard's itinerary. In fact, it's as remote from her mind as the moon. She hasn't a flicker of interest in how Israel (or any other terror state for that matter) sadistically keeps an entire subject people in various states of "despair and hatred." She's simply too busy being stroked by the Israelis: "In front of an elite audience of Israeli politicians, academics and cultural figures at a dinner at the landmark King David Hotel, senior Israeli minister Isaac Herzog paid a warm tribute to Ms Gillard for her support for Israel during the Gaza conflict in January. 'You stood almost alone on the world stage in support of Israel's right to defend itself', enthused Mr Herzog, an act of courage he said would never be forgotten by the people of Israel... Mr Herzog, a personal friend of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and chairman of the Israel-Australia parliamentary association, also thanked federal parliamentarians for passing a motion last year in support of Israel's 60th anniversary." (Israel to Gillard: thanks for standing by us, Jason Koutsoukis, The Age, 24/6/09)
"We should be honest about the difficulty of achieving a just and lasting settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she droned on.
Now honestly...
Gillard's vapid and platitude-ridden speech fairly reeks of dishonesty and ignorance. She's definitely prime minister material. Have a nice day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)