You'll recall the case of World Vision's Gaza director Mohammed El-Halabi, seized by the Israelis in 2016 and falsely accused of diverting Australian aid money to Hamas, despite neither the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade nor World Vision Australia finding any evidence for the accusation. (See my 23/3/17 post The Halabi Affair.) (And incidentally, here it is, June 2018, and, search as I may on the Internet, I can find no reference to what has happened to El-Halabi.)
Now, another Australian aid organisation, the ACTU's Union Aid Abroad - APHEDA, has come under attack by the usual suspects for the heinous crime of helping dispossessed and colonised Palestinians.
'Venomous' doesn't begin to describe Murdoch's Daily Telegraph. "TERROR EXCLUSIVE" shrieked its front page yesterday, "Audit into jihadi links to Aussie aid - GAZA DRIP." (That final shriek, btw, gets my nomination for any 'Lamest MSM Pun of the Year' competition currently in contemplation.)
That was followed by this opener from "national political editor," Sharri Markson:
"An urgent investigation is under way after revelations millions of taxpayer dollars are being funnelled to a Palestinian aid organisation in the Middle East that employed a leader of a terrorist group. The Daily Telegraph can today reveal the money web that sees cash move from the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade through a Sydney-based charity to a Palestinian aid organisation which employed the leader of a vicious jihadi group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP has masterminded plane hijackings and suicide bombings, and is on the official terror lists of the US, the European Union and Canada. In total, $21 million of DFAT funding has been given to a charity set up by the unions, Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA, which has funnelled millions through to the Ma'an Development Centre - whose project co-ordinator in Gaza was the recently killed PFLP leader Ahmed Abdullah Al Adine. He was hailed a martyr at his funeral, which was guarded by at least a dozen PFLP terrorists. Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop last night said a 'full audit of funding' to Union Aid Abroad had been ordered."
Describing the Marxist PFLP* as "a vicious jihadi group" is just the kind of cheap propaganda you'd expect from Markson, once described by former Labor politician, now Murdoch columnist for The Australian, Graham Richardson (in a model of understatement) as someone who can be "irritating and sometimes go too far."
Two things should always be kept in mind whenever Israelis, or their fifth columnists in places like Australia, start banging on about 'Palestinian terrorism'.
The first is that the Palestinians, like all occupied people, have the legal right, in the words of UNGA resolution 37/43 of 1982, to resist occupying forces "by all available means, including armed struggle."
The second is that for Zionists to bleat about 'Palestinian terrorism' is the very height of hypocrisy. Not only did they use terror in their ruthless, armed takeover of British Mandate Palestine, but they have continued using it on a daily basis against defenceless Palestinians and others ever since.
The Israelis have, of course, long been gunning for both APHEDA and World Vision Australia, as this propaganda piece from Jason Edelstein of NGO Monitor, published in Murdoch's Australian in 2012, indicates:
"In a new report, Shurat HaDin (Israel Law Centre) presents 'conclusive evidence' that a Gaza-based organisation supported by two Australian groups is linked to the Popular Front for the liberation of Palestine terror group. The report explains that the Australian Agency for International Development and World Vision Australia are 'providing financial aid and other forms of material support to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, an agency of the proscribed terror organisation the PFLP... As NGO Monitor has shown, APHEDA... engages in activities that fuel the conflict and do not promote humanitarian objectives. APHEDA campaigns for a one-sided and immoral arms embargo that would impair Israeli defence against terror attacks, uses demonising 'apartheid' language, endorses the so-called Palestinian 'right of return' and partners with organisations promoting BDS and 'lawfare' tactics. Its Middle East tours have served as the basis for promoting BDS campaigns in Australia." (No peace in hidden agenda of aid agencies, 30/3/12)
[*For George Habash and the PFLP see my 6/5/18 post Gideon Levy: 'Habash Was Right'.]
Showing posts with label Shurat HaDin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shurat HaDin. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2018
Friday, April 17, 2015
The Trouble With Colonel Kemp
I've just been reading the report Investigation into potential breaches of University Codes of Conduct, posted on Sydney University's website, sydney.edu.au/news. I find it a disturbing document with grave implications for universities once renowned as havens for free speech and dissent.
In it we learn that Sydney University is threatening "disciplinary action" against a group of pro-Palestine student protesters, who disrupted a lecture last month by visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes Colonel Richard Kemp, and pro-Palestine academic Jake Lynch, who sought to challenge the aggressive actions of security staff towards the students whilst fending off the unwanted attentions of a "semi-retired English literature lecturer and sometime stand-up comedienne Diane Barkas, 73," to quote the Australian's description of this enraged, water-hurling, camera-grabbing harpy. (See Woman denies kicking BDS guru in groin, Ean Higgins, 15/4/15).
The threat comes in response to complaints over the incident(s) submitted to the university's vice-chancellor Michael Spence by 386 individuals - only 34 of whom had actually been present at the lecture - as part of an "investigation" into the matter. (See my 18/3/15 post Anatomy of a Beat-Up.)
While we are not party to the names of the 352 "other staff, students and members of the public" who lodged those complaints, or to their content, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are the result of yet another (*sigh*) Israel lobby campaign of confected outrage targeting supporters of Palestine on campus, and, in particular, Professor Lynch, a prominent advocate of boycotting institutional ties between Sydney University and Israeli universities, a brave and principled stance that saw him hauled up before Sydney's Federal Court by the Mossad-connected, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin last year.
It'd be most interesting to know whether some of these 'complaints' contained threats of some kind, along the lines of those described in my 26/8/14 post How Zionists Enforce the Party Line on Israel.
Central to the "investigation" are "potential breaches of University's Codes of Conduct," which "require all staff, students and affiliates to be tolerant, honest, respectful and ethical at all times."
Even to the likes of Kemp, it seems, who must be enjoying the progress of the witch-hunt, sorry investigation, immensely, seeing that "the university will send correspondence to Dr Kemp and other initial complainants present at the lecture providing them with an update."
Far from retiring (after also helping out with NSW's United Israel Appeal) to lick wounds supposedly inflicted by an intolerant, dishonest, disrespectful and unethical "BDS guru" and his student minions, Kemp will be appearing at a Shurat HaDin talkfest in Israel in May, Towards a New Law of War Conference.
Apparently, the glorious Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are finding that the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as presently constituted, are cramping their style and hence in dire need of a makeover.
It seems (I'm quoting the conference blurbs here) that "democratic armies" are pretty pissed that "large portions of the Western public and world media have come to assume that any civilian casualties are unacceptable and unlawful," and that the "Rules of Engagement in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Syria, South Lebanon and Gaza are too restrictive and irrelevant to safeguard military forces pursuing legitimate objectives in a terrorist war." (israellawcenter.org)
My fave sentence from these blurbs is this from Panel 5: "[Targeted killings] is an issue that demonstrates the influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law."
The influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law???!!!
That, my dears, is the nightmare vision to which Kemp would be a party. I wonder what Sydney University's Codes of Conduct, with their call for tolerance, honesty, respect and ethics, have to say about such matters.
In it we learn that Sydney University is threatening "disciplinary action" against a group of pro-Palestine student protesters, who disrupted a lecture last month by visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes Colonel Richard Kemp, and pro-Palestine academic Jake Lynch, who sought to challenge the aggressive actions of security staff towards the students whilst fending off the unwanted attentions of a "semi-retired English literature lecturer and sometime stand-up comedienne Diane Barkas, 73," to quote the Australian's description of this enraged, water-hurling, camera-grabbing harpy. (See Woman denies kicking BDS guru in groin, Ean Higgins, 15/4/15).
The threat comes in response to complaints over the incident(s) submitted to the university's vice-chancellor Michael Spence by 386 individuals - only 34 of whom had actually been present at the lecture - as part of an "investigation" into the matter. (See my 18/3/15 post Anatomy of a Beat-Up.)
While we are not party to the names of the 352 "other staff, students and members of the public" who lodged those complaints, or to their content, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are the result of yet another (*sigh*) Israel lobby campaign of confected outrage targeting supporters of Palestine on campus, and, in particular, Professor Lynch, a prominent advocate of boycotting institutional ties between Sydney University and Israeli universities, a brave and principled stance that saw him hauled up before Sydney's Federal Court by the Mossad-connected, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin last year.
It'd be most interesting to know whether some of these 'complaints' contained threats of some kind, along the lines of those described in my 26/8/14 post How Zionists Enforce the Party Line on Israel.
Central to the "investigation" are "potential breaches of University's Codes of Conduct," which "require all staff, students and affiliates to be tolerant, honest, respectful and ethical at all times."
Even to the likes of Kemp, it seems, who must be enjoying the progress of the witch-hunt, sorry investigation, immensely, seeing that "the university will send correspondence to Dr Kemp and other initial complainants present at the lecture providing them with an update."
Far from retiring (after also helping out with NSW's United Israel Appeal) to lick wounds supposedly inflicted by an intolerant, dishonest, disrespectful and unethical "BDS guru" and his student minions, Kemp will be appearing at a Shurat HaDin talkfest in Israel in May, Towards a New Law of War Conference.
Apparently, the glorious Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are finding that the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as presently constituted, are cramping their style and hence in dire need of a makeover.
It seems (I'm quoting the conference blurbs here) that "democratic armies" are pretty pissed that "large portions of the Western public and world media have come to assume that any civilian casualties are unacceptable and unlawful," and that the "Rules of Engagement in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Syria, South Lebanon and Gaza are too restrictive and irrelevant to safeguard military forces pursuing legitimate objectives in a terrorist war." (israellawcenter.org)
My fave sentence from these blurbs is this from Panel 5: "[Targeted killings] is an issue that demonstrates the influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law."
The influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law???!!!
That, my dears, is the nightmare vision to which Kemp would be a party. I wonder what Sydney University's Codes of Conduct, with their call for tolerance, honesty, respect and ethics, have to say about such matters.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 12: The Black Knight's Last Stand
"The landmark racial discrimination court case brought by Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin against Sydney University's Jake Lynch was yesterday finally brought to a close, when a judge rejected a last-ditch attempt by an Australian lawyer to keep it alive.
"Federal Court judge Alan Robertson issued orders allowing Shurat HaDin to withdraw from the case after it had accepted it had no natural persons left as plaintiffs, leaving it with no legal standing in an Australian court. He made a general order for costs in favour of Professor Lynch...
"The court hearing yesterday had been expected to mark the end of an epic courtroom battle pitting different interpretations of free speech and academic expression against one another..."
Don't you just love the Australian's spin on this?
"But at the hearing, the Australian lawyer who originally represented Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, sought leave to have a six week period in which he would decide whether his electric bicycle company, Green Freedom, would continue the case without Shurat HaDin. Mr Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, told Justice Robertson the court had earlier issued orders that had the effect of taking all plaintiffs except for Shurat HaDin out of the case, and it was absurd for Mr Hamilton to prolong the closure of the matter. 'It's got to stop, your Honour,' Mr Hazan told the court.
"Justice Robertson adjourned the morning hearing saying he would bring down his decision on Mr Hamilton's request after he had re-examined the court transcript. Professor Lynch said at the end of the morning court session, referring to the famous Monty Python skit, that Mr Hamilton's effort to keep the case going was 'like the Black Knight fighting on after King Arthur has chopped off his arms and legs.' Just hours later Justice Robertson issued orders rejecting Mr Hamilton's application for time to consider continuing the case, bringing it to an end for all parties." (BDS case finally brought to a close, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 17/7/14)
This case, unforgivably, was effectively ignored by the Fairfax press and the ABC. It was, however, taken up by Murdoch's Australian, not, I hardly need add, out of any concern for, or interest in "free speech and academic expression," as suggested in the above piece, but as part of the paper's ferocious and relentless campaigning against anyone who calls for the use of the BDS strategy against Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Any full and credible account of this vicious attack on Professor Lynch will reveal how, as Shurat HaDin's case began slowly to unravel, the Australian's once cheerleading, front page treatment became more and more subdued, and its coverage migrated to the inner pages, until finally being consigned to its Higher Education supplement. To see how it was reported at the beginning, check out my 2/11/13 post More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1.
"Federal Court judge Alan Robertson issued orders allowing Shurat HaDin to withdraw from the case after it had accepted it had no natural persons left as plaintiffs, leaving it with no legal standing in an Australian court. He made a general order for costs in favour of Professor Lynch...
"The court hearing yesterday had been expected to mark the end of an epic courtroom battle pitting different interpretations of free speech and academic expression against one another..."
Don't you just love the Australian's spin on this?
"But at the hearing, the Australian lawyer who originally represented Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, sought leave to have a six week period in which he would decide whether his electric bicycle company, Green Freedom, would continue the case without Shurat HaDin. Mr Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, told Justice Robertson the court had earlier issued orders that had the effect of taking all plaintiffs except for Shurat HaDin out of the case, and it was absurd for Mr Hamilton to prolong the closure of the matter. 'It's got to stop, your Honour,' Mr Hazan told the court.
"Justice Robertson adjourned the morning hearing saying he would bring down his decision on Mr Hamilton's request after he had re-examined the court transcript. Professor Lynch said at the end of the morning court session, referring to the famous Monty Python skit, that Mr Hamilton's effort to keep the case going was 'like the Black Knight fighting on after King Arthur has chopped off his arms and legs.' Just hours later Justice Robertson issued orders rejecting Mr Hamilton's application for time to consider continuing the case, bringing it to an end for all parties." (BDS case finally brought to a close, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 17/7/14)
This case, unforgivably, was effectively ignored by the Fairfax press and the ABC. It was, however, taken up by Murdoch's Australian, not, I hardly need add, out of any concern for, or interest in "free speech and academic expression," as suggested in the above piece, but as part of the paper's ferocious and relentless campaigning against anyone who calls for the use of the BDS strategy against Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Any full and credible account of this vicious attack on Professor Lynch will reveal how, as Shurat HaDin's case began slowly to unravel, the Australian's once cheerleading, front page treatment became more and more subdued, and its coverage migrated to the inner pages, until finally being consigned to its Higher Education supplement. To see how it was reported at the beginning, check out my 2/11/13 post More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 11: VICTORY
A message from Jake:
"My lawyer and the lawyer for Shurat HaDin have agreed that the proceeding by Shurat HaDin be dismissed for lack of standing. And they have agreed for the court to make orders that Shurat HaDin pay my costs of the application for dismissal of the case, and my costs of the proceedings that are not otherwise subject to earlier cost orders.
"Judge Alan Robertson will make the orders in the Federal Court in Sydney, on Wednesday July 16th at 9.30am.
"This comprehensive legal victory represents complete vindication for the principled stance I have taken in fighting off a despicable attack on political freedom in Australia.
"It gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.
"Shurat HaDin is a foreign agency, with admitted past links with the Israeli state, which wanted to use the Australian courts to stifle the growing movement of worldwide political activism for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions.
"The case began with the smear that BDS advocates are motivated by racism. That was accepted by many of Australia's leading politicians, to their discredit, when they signed up to the so-called 'London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism'.*
"But the attempt to make it stick in court proved a bridge too far. Legal process requires evidence, and logical argument. Once exposed to that test, a claim that passed muster in the corridors of Canberra immediately began to crumble.
"I have faced claims that I should be held responsible for decisions by performing artists, such as Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg, not to tour Israel. There was never a shred of proof to back up any of these allegations.
"On the narrower issue of the request that I received from Professor Dan Avnon to endorse his application for a Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship, Shurat HaDin managed to persuade neither Avnon himself, nor any other academic, to join their ill-conceived action.
"This week's renewed wave of indiscriminate Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians shows the urgency of taking political action to promote peace with justice. Israel will not change its routine recourse to militarism and lawlessness without coming under pressure.
"The disavowal by the Australian government of the international legal consensus on the occupation of Palestinian territory shows this pressure must come from civil society. That is the rationale for BDS, as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
"This legal victory for me, and thousands of supporters who have stood by me and contributed to my cause, represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Someone has to make a change. If not us, who? If not now, when?
"The case has given rise to the creation of two important groups to take up this cause: Australians for BDS: http://australiansforbds.wordpress.com/ And within the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS: http://sydneystaff4bds.org/
A message (LOL) from the head of Shurat HaDin, Nitsana Darshan-Litigator in yesterday's Australian:
"Professor Lynch was taking 'a cowardly approach' by 'trying to get the case dismissed on a technicality' rather than run 'a fair and public trial on the merits. He is running away from the fight like the Arabs ran from the battlefield in the Six-Day War'." ('No plaintiffs left' in case against Lynch, Ean Higgins, 9/7/14)
And, lest we forget Shurat HaDin accessory,Andrew Akiva Hamilton:
"A solicitor for Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, did not respond to requests for comment." (Israeli legal centre abandons lawsuit against Sydney academic, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 10/7/14)
Roll on BDS!
[*See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]
"My lawyer and the lawyer for Shurat HaDin have agreed that the proceeding by Shurat HaDin be dismissed for lack of standing. And they have agreed for the court to make orders that Shurat HaDin pay my costs of the application for dismissal of the case, and my costs of the proceedings that are not otherwise subject to earlier cost orders.
"Judge Alan Robertson will make the orders in the Federal Court in Sydney, on Wednesday July 16th at 9.30am.
"This comprehensive legal victory represents complete vindication for the principled stance I have taken in fighting off a despicable attack on political freedom in Australia.
"It gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.
"Shurat HaDin is a foreign agency, with admitted past links with the Israeli state, which wanted to use the Australian courts to stifle the growing movement of worldwide political activism for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions.
"The case began with the smear that BDS advocates are motivated by racism. That was accepted by many of Australia's leading politicians, to their discredit, when they signed up to the so-called 'London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism'.*
"But the attempt to make it stick in court proved a bridge too far. Legal process requires evidence, and logical argument. Once exposed to that test, a claim that passed muster in the corridors of Canberra immediately began to crumble.
"I have faced claims that I should be held responsible for decisions by performing artists, such as Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg, not to tour Israel. There was never a shred of proof to back up any of these allegations.
"On the narrower issue of the request that I received from Professor Dan Avnon to endorse his application for a Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship, Shurat HaDin managed to persuade neither Avnon himself, nor any other academic, to join their ill-conceived action.
"This week's renewed wave of indiscriminate Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians shows the urgency of taking political action to promote peace with justice. Israel will not change its routine recourse to militarism and lawlessness without coming under pressure.
"The disavowal by the Australian government of the international legal consensus on the occupation of Palestinian territory shows this pressure must come from civil society. That is the rationale for BDS, as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
"This legal victory for me, and thousands of supporters who have stood by me and contributed to my cause, represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Someone has to make a change. If not us, who? If not now, when?
"The case has given rise to the creation of two important groups to take up this cause: Australians for BDS: http://australiansforbds.wordpress.com/ And within the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS: http://sydneystaff4bds.org/
A message (LOL) from the head of Shurat HaDin, Nitsana Darshan-Litigator in yesterday's Australian:
"Professor Lynch was taking 'a cowardly approach' by 'trying to get the case dismissed on a technicality' rather than run 'a fair and public trial on the merits. He is running away from the fight like the Arabs ran from the battlefield in the Six-Day War'." ('No plaintiffs left' in case against Lynch, Ean Higgins, 9/7/14)
And, lest we forget Shurat HaDin accessory,
"A solicitor for Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, did not respond to requests for comment." (Israeli legal centre abandons lawsuit against Sydney academic, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 10/7/14)
Roll on BDS!
[*See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 9
According to the Murdoch press, the head of the National Tertiary Education Union, Grahame McCulloch "will intervene to try to stop its Sydney University branch from moving towards a boycott of Israel*... In an email to members issued yesterday, he said the branch 'has been caught in a destructive and confusing debate about the Middle East conflict'." (Union bid to end war over BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 31/5/14)
Hello? A member of the Sydney University branch of the NTEU, Professor Jake Lynch, has been dragged before an Australian court by Israeli lawfare** outfit, Shurat HaDin, over his principled opposition to links with Israeli universities, his branch rallies to his defence with a resolution to widen said opposition, and this is deemed "destructive and confusing" by the union's general secretary?
This is most puzzling, coming from the leader of a union dedicated to, among other things, "intellectual freedom." (See Policy Advocacy, nteu.org.au)
Even more puzzling is why there is no mention of, let alone expression of support for, Professor Lynch, on the NTEU's website.
[*See my JL Updates 6 & 7; **Shurat HaDin's motto is: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]
Hello? A member of the Sydney University branch of the NTEU, Professor Jake Lynch, has been dragged before an Australian court by Israeli lawfare** outfit, Shurat HaDin, over his principled opposition to links with Israeli universities, his branch rallies to his defence with a resolution to widen said opposition, and this is deemed "destructive and confusing" by the union's general secretary?
This is most puzzling, coming from the leader of a union dedicated to, among other things, "intellectual freedom." (See Policy Advocacy, nteu.org.au)
Even more puzzling is why there is no mention of, let alone expression of support for, Professor Lynch, on the NTEU's website.
[*See my JL Updates 6 & 7; **Shurat HaDin's motto is: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]
Friday, May 30, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 8: Damage Control
Unable to credibly paint Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch as some kind of BDS mastermind, Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, has now decided, in an apparent exercise in damage control, to focus its attack solely on his decision to factor in the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel when approached by Israeli academics seeking his endorsement for Sydney University fellowships.
(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)
The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:
"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.
"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...
"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'
"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?
"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."
[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]
(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)
The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:
"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.
"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...
"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'
"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?
"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."
[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 7
Here's a wonderful letter from yesterday's Australian on the decision by the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union to back Professor Jake Lynch's courageous stand for Palestine and against Israeli bullying and intimidation:
"The threat by Shurat HaDin lawyer Andrew Hamilton that Sydney University staff will be next in the firing line shows that he prefers bullying and intimidation over rational discussion (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, 19/5) Like Shurat HaDin's Federal Court case against Jake Lynch, these tactics are intended to drain critics of resources, and silence other advocates of the peaceful boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. In coming to Lynch's defence, Sydney University's National Tertiary Education Union is upholding members' rights to a working environment free of such harassment, as any union should. Its resolution, moreover, is in line with the university's administration which recognises Lynch's support for BDS as a legitimate exercise of his intellectual freedom. NTEU members have voted to begin a broad discussion on the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in particular the university's links to Israeli institutions. These ties do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Our institution's global conduct is a matter that staff have every right to discuss and take positions on - up to and including support for BDS." David Brophy, history lecturer, Sydney University, NSW
"The threat by Shurat HaDin lawyer Andrew Hamilton that Sydney University staff will be next in the firing line shows that he prefers bullying and intimidation over rational discussion (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, 19/5) Like Shurat HaDin's Federal Court case against Jake Lynch, these tactics are intended to drain critics of resources, and silence other advocates of the peaceful boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. In coming to Lynch's defence, Sydney University's National Tertiary Education Union is upholding members' rights to a working environment free of such harassment, as any union should. Its resolution, moreover, is in line with the university's administration which recognises Lynch's support for BDS as a legitimate exercise of his intellectual freedom. NTEU members have voted to begin a broad discussion on the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in particular the university's links to Israeli institutions. These ties do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Our institution's global conduct is a matter that staff have every right to discuss and take positions on - up to and including support for BDS." David Brophy, history lecturer, Sydney University, NSW
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 6
Israeli lawmongers, Shurat HaDin, currently seeking to intimidate Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch in the Federal Court over his support for such fundamental human rights as freedom from military occupation, equality between people regardless of religious affiliation, and the right of refugees to return to the homes and lands from which they were once driven, are now threatening those who stand with him:
"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)
Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!
Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:
"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."
Alleged?
"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."
*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.
**The resolutions read as follows:
1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."
"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)
Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!
Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:
"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."
Alleged?
"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."
*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.
**The resolutions read as follows:
1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."
Monday, April 28, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 5
An unusual article this, for The Australian:
"A Jewish association has branded the racial discrimination case against University of Sydney's Jake Lynch counter-productive, saying it has only raised the profile of his support for the Boycott, Divestment [&] Sanctions campaign against Israel. Since the Israeli legal activist group Shurat HaDin launched the lawsuit in the Federal Court, Professor Lynch's stand has become a cause celebre in sections of the academic community, claiming the right to freedom of speech and academic expression is under attack... Two new groups have been established to support him and the global BDS movement, including one among university staff. One of the organisers of the Sydney Staff for BDS group, lecturer Nick Riemer, said he and other staff decided to create it 'because of what's happened to Jake'. The groups have helped raise about $20,000 towards Professor Lynch's legal defence, he has been invited to address BDS public meetings around the country, and one recent BDS event in Sydney in his support drew about 200 people. One of the pro-Lynch speakers at the Sydney fundraiser, Jewish Israeli academic Marcelo Svirsky who is a lecturer at the University of Wollongong, says he will walk from Sydney to Canberra later this year to raise awareness of the BDS campaign. Dr Svirsky said he would stop in towns along the way to deliver public addresses and then lodge a submission in parliament calling on the government to back BDS. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said Shurat HaDin's legal action against Professor Lynch was 'the wrong way to oppose BDS. Regardless of the outcome, the Shurat HaDin court case would give a very marginal BDS campaign in Australia undeserved exposure and a shot in the arm,' Mr Wertheim said. 'Our organisation's strategy has been to expose the aims and methods of the BDS campaign in the marketplace of ideas'..."
Regarding that last sentence, the aims of the BDS movement, for those still wondering, are quite simple: to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; grant full equality to the Palestinian minority in Israel itself; and allow Palestinian refugees, expelled from their homeland in 1948 and again in 1967, to return to their homes and lands in Palestine/Israel. BDS is therefore about implementing basic human rights. How one can oppose these is frankly beyond me.
As for "exposing" BDS in the "marketplace of ideas," this has so far manifested itself in mobilising Australian politicians, both state and federal, to smear supporters of BDS as anti-Semites and Nazis, ongoing attacks of like nature in the Murdoch press, the establishment of links with the police (see my 28/10/11 post Israel 101 for Cops), and most significantly, the actual or threatened blocking of funding to academics such as Jake Lynch who support BDS (see my 29/1/13 post The Punishing of Jake Lynch). So much for the "marketplace of ideas."
To continue with the above report:
"Dr Svirsky, a political scientist who grew up in Argentina but moved to Israel after being conscripted during the Falklands War, said 'there is increasing support for Lynch because of this particular court case. For me the BDS is about not just ending the Israeli occupation, but also the rules of apartheid in Israel', he said." (Discrimination case 'raising profile of BDS', Ean Higgins, The Australian, 26/4/14)
All credit to Dr Svirsky.
"A Jewish association has branded the racial discrimination case against University of Sydney's Jake Lynch counter-productive, saying it has only raised the profile of his support for the Boycott, Divestment [&] Sanctions campaign against Israel. Since the Israeli legal activist group Shurat HaDin launched the lawsuit in the Federal Court, Professor Lynch's stand has become a cause celebre in sections of the academic community, claiming the right to freedom of speech and academic expression is under attack... Two new groups have been established to support him and the global BDS movement, including one among university staff. One of the organisers of the Sydney Staff for BDS group, lecturer Nick Riemer, said he and other staff decided to create it 'because of what's happened to Jake'. The groups have helped raise about $20,000 towards Professor Lynch's legal defence, he has been invited to address BDS public meetings around the country, and one recent BDS event in Sydney in his support drew about 200 people. One of the pro-Lynch speakers at the Sydney fundraiser, Jewish Israeli academic Marcelo Svirsky who is a lecturer at the University of Wollongong, says he will walk from Sydney to Canberra later this year to raise awareness of the BDS campaign. Dr Svirsky said he would stop in towns along the way to deliver public addresses and then lodge a submission in parliament calling on the government to back BDS. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said Shurat HaDin's legal action against Professor Lynch was 'the wrong way to oppose BDS. Regardless of the outcome, the Shurat HaDin court case would give a very marginal BDS campaign in Australia undeserved exposure and a shot in the arm,' Mr Wertheim said. 'Our organisation's strategy has been to expose the aims and methods of the BDS campaign in the marketplace of ideas'..."
Regarding that last sentence, the aims of the BDS movement, for those still wondering, are quite simple: to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; grant full equality to the Palestinian minority in Israel itself; and allow Palestinian refugees, expelled from their homeland in 1948 and again in 1967, to return to their homes and lands in Palestine/Israel. BDS is therefore about implementing basic human rights. How one can oppose these is frankly beyond me.
As for "exposing" BDS in the "marketplace of ideas," this has so far manifested itself in mobilising Australian politicians, both state and federal, to smear supporters of BDS as anti-Semites and Nazis, ongoing attacks of like nature in the Murdoch press, the establishment of links with the police (see my 28/10/11 post Israel 101 for Cops), and most significantly, the actual or threatened blocking of funding to academics such as Jake Lynch who support BDS (see my 29/1/13 post The Punishing of Jake Lynch). So much for the "marketplace of ideas."
To continue with the above report:
"Dr Svirsky, a political scientist who grew up in Argentina but moved to Israel after being conscripted during the Falklands War, said 'there is increasing support for Lynch because of this particular court case. For me the BDS is about not just ending the Israeli occupation, but also the rules of apartheid in Israel', he said." (Discrimination case 'raising profile of BDS', Ean Higgins, The Australian, 26/4/14)
All credit to Dr Svirsky.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 4
"Sydney University professor Jake Lynch has claimed significant early victories in the landmark court case brought against him by Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin for his academic boycott of Israeli universities. In the Federal Court in Sydney yesterday, judge Alan Robertson rejected allegations Professor Lynch was a leader of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in Australia. Justice Robertson also struck out Shurat HaDin's allegation that Professor Lynch called for a boycott of Israeli academic Dan Avnon... Justice Robertson also struck out a paragraph claiming 'a purpose of BDS movement campaigns is to inflict pain on Israeli persons or organisations'. He gave Shurat HaDin 28 days to re-plead the paragraphs he struck out, and also ordered it to pay Professor Lynch's costs. The judge also said he would order Shurat HaDin to put up a bond to cover Professor Lynch's legal costs should it lose the case, unless its lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, agreed to provide advance notice if he intended to sell... his house and other assets." (Professor gets legal boost in BDS case, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 25/4/14)
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 3
"Lawyers for a Sydney University academic who is accused of unlawful discrimination for his boycott of Israel say the case against Jake Lynch is full of 'pumped-up claims' that are 'embarrassing in the legal sense, and embarrassing in the non-legal sense'... In court on Tuesday, Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, said the statement of claim brought against his client was 'completely infected with... general narrative', rather than material facts, and that it failed to explain exactly how Lynch's conduct had breached laws against racial discrimination. As an example, Hazan read from Shurat HaDin's statement that Lynch had allegedly 'refused to sign documents that would have provided Professor Dan Avnon access to a funded fellowship, because of the respondent's support for the BDS movement'. 'What was the respondent's obligation to sign documents?' he asked the court... Shurat HaDin's solicitor Andrew Hamilton, who is also an applicant to the case, is arguing that the statement of claim has been brought under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, not the Racial Discrimination Act, and therefore 'one doesn't have to plead out every element', he said. 'You'll have to do a lot of work to persuade me of the correctness of that position', the judge, Alan Robertson, said. In a day that was otherwise thick with legal technicalities, Hazan prompted laughter in the courtroom, filled largely with Lynch supporters, when he quoted the applicant's claims that the Sydney University academic's support for BDS had contributed to artists such as Santana, Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg choosing to boycott Israel on their tours. 'What are the primary facts that link these artists not performing in Israel with Jake's conduct?' he asked. Robertson told the solicitors that he was aware of the case's high profile and that he wanted it to stick to material facts, and not 'get carried away with labels and slogans'. The case was adjourned until 24 April." (Israeli boycott case: Sydney academic's lawyers say claims are pumped up, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 25/3/14)
Friday, February 21, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 2: Bigger Than Ben Hur
Some of the juicier bits from Suit against Israeli boycott supporter Jake Lynch 'too unwieldy' for court. The rest is just reiteration:
"Justice Alan Robertson told the lawyer for plaintiff Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, to work with Professor Lynch's solicitor... to try to simplify the case to avoid it dragging on... at huge expense. 'This is unlikely to be heard this year on the current rate of progress,' Justice Robertson told the court... 'It seems to me at the moment that the proceedings are remarkably complex,' Justice Robertson told yesterday's directions hearing in Sydney. Justice Robertson asked Mr Hamilton, who participated in the directions hearing by telephone, why this was the case. 'Why so many actions, why a class action, isn't there a simpler way,' Justice Robertson asked. Mr Hamilton responded that it was a 'class action against a group of people discriminated against' who were 'not able to bring their class action themselves.' Mr Hamilton started to say Shurat HaDin argued that Professor Lynch's stand adversely affected not just individuals but whole categories of people* when Justice Robertson cut him off. 'I don't want speeches, I just asked you a question, and the answer is no,' Justice Robertson said. Justice Robertson set down a yet to be decided day in mid-March for an interlocutory hearing of applications by both sides... Mr Hamilton, who informed the court he has a property in the Sydney beachside suburb of Coogee, said he would be happy to provide a statement of his own assets and liabilities, which he said were about $3 million and $1 million respectively." (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 12/2/14)
[*Memo to Andrew - sorry, Akiva - Hamilton. Don't forget to include in your list of claims the crippling transgenerational trauma experienced by the children - even unto the third and fourth generations - of those Israelis brutally robbed by Professor Lynch of the opportunity to attend Pink Floyd and Santana concerts.]
"Justice Alan Robertson told the lawyer for plaintiff Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, to work with Professor Lynch's solicitor... to try to simplify the case to avoid it dragging on... at huge expense. 'This is unlikely to be heard this year on the current rate of progress,' Justice Robertson told the court... 'It seems to me at the moment that the proceedings are remarkably complex,' Justice Robertson told yesterday's directions hearing in Sydney. Justice Robertson asked Mr Hamilton, who participated in the directions hearing by telephone, why this was the case. 'Why so many actions, why a class action, isn't there a simpler way,' Justice Robertson asked. Mr Hamilton responded that it was a 'class action against a group of people discriminated against' who were 'not able to bring their class action themselves.' Mr Hamilton started to say Shurat HaDin argued that Professor Lynch's stand adversely affected not just individuals but whole categories of people* when Justice Robertson cut him off. 'I don't want speeches, I just asked you a question, and the answer is no,' Justice Robertson said. Justice Robertson set down a yet to be decided day in mid-March for an interlocutory hearing of applications by both sides... Mr Hamilton, who informed the court he has a property in the Sydney beachside suburb of Coogee, said he would be happy to provide a statement of his own assets and liabilities, which he said were about $3 million and $1 million respectively." (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 12/2/14)
[*Memo to Andrew - sorry, Akiva - Hamilton. Don't forget to include in your list of claims the crippling transgenerational trauma experienced by the children - even unto the third and fourth generations - of those Israelis brutally robbed by Professor Lynch of the opportunity to attend Pink Floyd and Santana concerts.]
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 1
The latest on the current Israeli offensive against free speech in Australia:
"A landmark court case over whether the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will begin sooner than expected, with the parties to debate potentially decisive orders this week. What was expected to be a routine directions hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday will now see substantive argument, with lawyers for the pro-BDS defendant, academic Jake Lynch, applying to have the case brought against him by an Israeli legal organisation struck out. Professor Lynch will also seek a security of costs order arguing that the plaintiffs are not living in Australia." (BDS legal battle lines drawn, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 10/2/14)
"A landmark court case over whether the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will begin sooner than expected, with the parties to debate potentially decisive orders this week. What was expected to be a routine directions hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday will now see substantive argument, with lawyers for the pro-BDS defendant, academic Jake Lynch, applying to have the case brought against him by an Israeli legal organisation struck out. Professor Lynch will also seek a security of costs order arguing that the plaintiffs are not living in Australia." (BDS legal battle lines drawn, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 10/2/14)
Saturday, January 18, 2014
With My Own Eyes
At last, the case of Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch has made it into the Sydney Morning Herald in the form of an article by Richard Ackland on Attorney-General George Brandis' plan to strip the Racial Discrimination Act of its prohibition on 'offending and insulting' ethnic/racial minorities (section 18C) in the interests of professional offenders such as Murdoch mouthpiece Andrew Bolt. Needless to say, Brandis will be spinning it as a blow for free speech.
Ackland makes the perfectly valid point that:
"What is now a distressing hypocrisy surrounding the campaign to reform or do away with section 18C of the act is that its advocates are generally the same people cheering on the use of the act as the basis of proceedings in the Federal Court against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch. He is being sued under different provisions of the act by Shurat HaDin - the Israel Law centre. The application was filed last October and it alleges that Lynch, from the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, refused to support an application by Israeli academic Dan Avnon for a Zelman Cowan fellowship at the University of Sydney. It is claimed that in an act of racial discrimination, he deprived Avnon of his professional rights. Lynch is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. The Shurat HaDin statement of claim goes further and says that by calling for a boycott of Israel, Lynch adds to a campaign that disadvantages owners of Israeli-related businesses and deprives Israelis of cultural opportunities such as seeing Santana and Pink Floyd. Avnon, of the Hebrew University does not seem to have suffered a setback as a result of Lynch's lack of support. He lists on his resume, among his forthcoming appointments, that he will be the Sir Zelman Cowan visiting scholar at the University of Sydney this year. So, on the one hand the act is evil for affecting the free speech in the narrow provisions that deal with offending and insulting ethnic and racial minorities, but is heroic when its broad provisions are engaged as a basis of proceedings against lefty academics in the BDS movement. The whole thing could land Brandis in a bit of a pickle." (Free speech is a double-edged sword, 17/1/14)
Ackland lists a number of organisations - Aboriginal, Greek, Chinese etc - who have been lobbying Senator Brandis not to ditch 18C. Included in the list is the professionally offended Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
Its involvement in this issue, of course, raises the perennial question of whether Jews, as a purely faith community, should be so involved.
On the other hand, if Jews are seen as an ethnic/racial community, in line with the Zionist 'Jewish people' dogma, which ECAJ subscribes to, one wonders whether Ackland understands that ECAJ, as an organisation that wishes to retain 18C but is part and parcel of the Zionist/Murdoch attack on BDS and its proponents such as Professor Lynch, is also in something of a pickle, its unconvincing attempt to distance itself from Shurat HaDin's litigation by describing it as "inappropriate and counter-productive" notwithstanding.
As Shurat HaDin's Australian operative, Andrew (Akiva) Hamilton, has said:
"There is more than one way to confront BDS and our efforts complement those of the ECAJ." (Shurat HaDin, ECAJ disagree on skinning the BDS cat, j-wire.com.au, 3/11/13)
Took the words right out of my mouth, Akiva! As Irgun leader Menachem Begin might have said in the late 40s: 'There is more than one way to deal with the British and the Arabs, and our efforts complement those of the Haganah nicely, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?'
Still, all credit to Ackland for raising the case of Jake Lynch. I hope he reports on the coming court case in February.
Ackland makes the perfectly valid point that:
"What is now a distressing hypocrisy surrounding the campaign to reform or do away with section 18C of the act is that its advocates are generally the same people cheering on the use of the act as the basis of proceedings in the Federal Court against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch. He is being sued under different provisions of the act by Shurat HaDin - the Israel Law centre. The application was filed last October and it alleges that Lynch, from the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, refused to support an application by Israeli academic Dan Avnon for a Zelman Cowan fellowship at the University of Sydney. It is claimed that in an act of racial discrimination, he deprived Avnon of his professional rights. Lynch is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. The Shurat HaDin statement of claim goes further and says that by calling for a boycott of Israel, Lynch adds to a campaign that disadvantages owners of Israeli-related businesses and deprives Israelis of cultural opportunities such as seeing Santana and Pink Floyd. Avnon, of the Hebrew University does not seem to have suffered a setback as a result of Lynch's lack of support. He lists on his resume, among his forthcoming appointments, that he will be the Sir Zelman Cowan visiting scholar at the University of Sydney this year. So, on the one hand the act is evil for affecting the free speech in the narrow provisions that deal with offending and insulting ethnic and racial minorities, but is heroic when its broad provisions are engaged as a basis of proceedings against lefty academics in the BDS movement. The whole thing could land Brandis in a bit of a pickle." (Free speech is a double-edged sword, 17/1/14)
Ackland lists a number of organisations - Aboriginal, Greek, Chinese etc - who have been lobbying Senator Brandis not to ditch 18C. Included in the list is the professionally offended Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
Its involvement in this issue, of course, raises the perennial question of whether Jews, as a purely faith community, should be so involved.
On the other hand, if Jews are seen as an ethnic/racial community, in line with the Zionist 'Jewish people' dogma, which ECAJ subscribes to, one wonders whether Ackland understands that ECAJ, as an organisation that wishes to retain 18C but is part and parcel of the Zionist/Murdoch attack on BDS and its proponents such as Professor Lynch, is also in something of a pickle, its unconvincing attempt to distance itself from Shurat HaDin's litigation by describing it as "inappropriate and counter-productive" notwithstanding.
As Shurat HaDin's Australian operative, Andrew (Akiva) Hamilton, has said:
"There is more than one way to confront BDS and our efforts complement those of the ECAJ." (Shurat HaDin, ECAJ disagree on skinning the BDS cat, j-wire.com.au, 3/11/13)
Took the words right out of my mouth, Akiva! As Irgun leader Menachem Begin might have said in the late 40s: 'There is more than one way to deal with the British and the Arabs, and our efforts complement those of the Haganah nicely, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?'
Still, all credit to Ackland for raising the case of Jake Lynch. I hope he reports on the coming court case in February.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Dr Hammer & Dr Kedar...
... coming to a Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies near you.
For the casual reader of The Heart of Darkness (aka The Australian) it must sometimes look as though Israel is Human Rights Central:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics, who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor [Jake] Lynch's policy, even though as yet they have not been the subject of specific actions. Dr Leonard Hammer, of the Hebrew University, a human rights lawyer, and Dr Mordechai Kedar, of Bar Ilan University, an Arabic studies specialist, have regularly lectured overseas, including in Australia, Mr [Andrew] Hamilton told The Australian. 'They both are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Sydney University's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), where Lynch has implemented his boycott,' Mr Hamilton said. 'However, just as a sign on a bar saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed' discriminates against and disadvantages all Jews and blacks, even if they didn't even want to go into the bar, so Jake Lynch's BDS academic boycott discriminates and disadvantages all Israeli academics,' he said." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', Ean Higgins, 28/12/13)
Hm... so both Hammer and Kedar "are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at CPACS."
Gee... the former's "a human rights lawyer" so he must be a good bloke, sort of an Israeli Julian Burnside I imagine, and the latter's into "Arabic studies" so he'd be favourably disposed towards the Palestinians, right? And... and... Shurat HaDin's a fearless fighter for all those Israelis quivering in fear at the prospect the next terrorist outrage just around the corner, yes?
As if!
Whoops! Shurat HaDin's Andrew Hamilton must have forgotten to tell Ean Higgins that Hammer is "the Academic Director to Shurat HaDin." (Leonard Hammer, judaic.arizona.edu)
And here's Kedar waxing scholarly on the subject of a Palestinian state: "A Palestinian state with territorial-terrorist contiguity would be an existential threat to Israel, and therefore Israel should assert its right - it can and must say to Obama and Kerry: No!!!" (Sisi:1, Obama:0, mordechaikedar.blogspot.com.au, 29/12/13)
You can just imagine these two touching down at Sydney Airport:
Australian Customs: Occupation?
Hammer & Kedar: No, just visiting.
For the casual reader of The Heart of Darkness (aka The Australian) it must sometimes look as though Israel is Human Rights Central:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics, who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor [Jake] Lynch's policy, even though as yet they have not been the subject of specific actions. Dr Leonard Hammer, of the Hebrew University, a human rights lawyer, and Dr Mordechai Kedar, of Bar Ilan University, an Arabic studies specialist, have regularly lectured overseas, including in Australia, Mr [Andrew] Hamilton told The Australian. 'They both are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Sydney University's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), where Lynch has implemented his boycott,' Mr Hamilton said. 'However, just as a sign on a bar saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed' discriminates against and disadvantages all Jews and blacks, even if they didn't even want to go into the bar, so Jake Lynch's BDS academic boycott discriminates and disadvantages all Israeli academics,' he said." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', Ean Higgins, 28/12/13)
Hm... so both Hammer and Kedar "are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at CPACS."
Gee... the former's "a human rights lawyer" so he must be a good bloke, sort of an Israeli Julian Burnside I imagine, and the latter's into "Arabic studies" so he'd be favourably disposed towards the Palestinians, right? And... and... Shurat HaDin's a fearless fighter for all those Israelis quivering in fear at the prospect the next terrorist outrage just around the corner, yes?
As if!
Whoops! Shurat HaDin's Andrew Hamilton must have forgotten to tell Ean Higgins that Hammer is "the Academic Director to Shurat HaDin." (Leonard Hammer, judaic.arizona.edu)
And here's Kedar waxing scholarly on the subject of a Palestinian state: "A Palestinian state with territorial-terrorist contiguity would be an existential threat to Israel, and therefore Israel should assert its right - it can and must say to Obama and Kerry: No!!!" (Sisi:1, Obama:0, mordechaikedar.blogspot.com.au, 29/12/13)
You can just imagine these two touching down at Sydney Airport:
Australian Customs: Occupation?
Hammer & Kedar: No, just visiting.
Monday, December 30, 2013
The Heart of Darkness
The masthead of Murdoch's 'flagship' paper in this country, The Australian, loudly proclaims itself to be The Heart of the Nation.
Now I'd only be inclined to go along with that claim provided that the adjective 'dark' preceded the noun 'heart'. Or, even better (and with apologies to Joseph Conrad), that it was replaced altogether with the words 'The Heart of Darkness', as befits the paper's status as the mouthpiece of the Abbottoir and all that is vile and retrograde in this country.
So what has provoked this little exercise in calling a spade a spade? What else but Ean - with an 'E' - Higgins' latest EXCLUSIVE:
"Sydney academic Jake Lynch's promotion of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] has discriminated against all Israelis in the same fashion as a pub owner hanging out a sign saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed', the lawyer leading a lawsuit against him will argue. Andrew Hamilton, representing the Israel-based legal action group Shurat HaDin, has submitted a sweeping statement of claim to the Federal Court alleging Professor Lynch has directly discriminated against academics, but also helped deprive all Israelis of cultural, educational, and professional opportunities." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', 28/12/13)
OMG! This is news? This is journalism? Seriously?
No, this is advocacy, pure and simple. The Heart of Darkness has donned the mantle of media-advocate for the plaintiff, and is getting in on the act even before the case is underway.
Call me sheltered, but I simply cannot for the life of me remember a media outlet intervening in a legal case in this fashion before. Of the 19 paragraphs that make up this pseudo-report, just one (1) is given over to a statement by the defendant. Extraordinary.
To return to those opening paragraphs. The simple fact of the matter here is that the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign is little more than a reaction to the behaviour of an apartheid state which, having booted out Palestine's non-Jews and stolen their lands and possessions, has put up a sign (known officially as the Law of Return) which reads, in effect, 'No Non-Jews Allowed'.
Needless to say, on Planet Zion, reality is invariably reversed. Strange things happen there. Anti-racists, for example, are labelled racists by the supporters of a state based at its most fundamental level - the level of who gets in and who gets all the perks that come with getting-in, as opposed to those who don't - on biology.
On Planet Earth (how weird that this has to be emphasised time and again), it is Professor Lynch, not Andrew Hamilton (or Akiva as he likes to style himself), who, as a backer of BDS, stands against institutionalised racism, discrimination and exclusion.
As to those poor Israelis deprived by Professor Lynch of "cultural, educational, and professional opportunities," get ready to cry the proverbial river:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics [Dr Leonard Hammer & Dr Mordechai Kedar], who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor Lynch's policy [because]... [t]hey are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Professor Lynch's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies..." (ibid)
"Shurat HaDin's statement... says two of the applicants, David Hans Lange and Jonathan Bose, and their wives were 'deprived of the opportunity to attend the local Israeli public performances of Elvis Costello' because a scheduled performance in 2010 for which they had tickets was cancelled 'due to implementation of boycott calls'." (ibid)
The Heart of Darkness bleeds for these miserable wretches.
Now I'd only be inclined to go along with that claim provided that the adjective 'dark' preceded the noun 'heart'. Or, even better (and with apologies to Joseph Conrad), that it was replaced altogether with the words 'The Heart of Darkness', as befits the paper's status as the mouthpiece of the Abbottoir and all that is vile and retrograde in this country.
So what has provoked this little exercise in calling a spade a spade? What else but Ean - with an 'E' - Higgins' latest EXCLUSIVE:
"Sydney academic Jake Lynch's promotion of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] has discriminated against all Israelis in the same fashion as a pub owner hanging out a sign saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed', the lawyer leading a lawsuit against him will argue. Andrew Hamilton, representing the Israel-based legal action group Shurat HaDin, has submitted a sweeping statement of claim to the Federal Court alleging Professor Lynch has directly discriminated against academics, but also helped deprive all Israelis of cultural, educational, and professional opportunities." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', 28/12/13)
OMG! This is news? This is journalism? Seriously?
No, this is advocacy, pure and simple. The Heart of Darkness has donned the mantle of media-advocate for the plaintiff, and is getting in on the act even before the case is underway.
Call me sheltered, but I simply cannot for the life of me remember a media outlet intervening in a legal case in this fashion before. Of the 19 paragraphs that make up this pseudo-report, just one (1) is given over to a statement by the defendant. Extraordinary.
To return to those opening paragraphs. The simple fact of the matter here is that the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign is little more than a reaction to the behaviour of an apartheid state which, having booted out Palestine's non-Jews and stolen their lands and possessions, has put up a sign (known officially as the Law of Return) which reads, in effect, 'No Non-Jews Allowed'.
Needless to say, on Planet Zion, reality is invariably reversed. Strange things happen there. Anti-racists, for example, are labelled racists by the supporters of a state based at its most fundamental level - the level of who gets in and who gets all the perks that come with getting-in, as opposed to those who don't - on biology.
On Planet Earth (how weird that this has to be emphasised time and again), it is Professor Lynch, not Andrew Hamilton (or Akiva as he likes to style himself), who, as a backer of BDS, stands against institutionalised racism, discrimination and exclusion.
As to those poor Israelis deprived by Professor Lynch of "cultural, educational, and professional opportunities," get ready to cry the proverbial river:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics [Dr Leonard Hammer & Dr Mordechai Kedar], who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor Lynch's policy [because]... [t]hey are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Professor Lynch's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies..." (ibid)
"Shurat HaDin's statement... says two of the applicants, David Hans Lange and Jonathan Bose, and their wives were 'deprived of the opportunity to attend the local Israeli public performances of Elvis Costello' because a scheduled performance in 2010 for which they had tickets was cancelled 'due to implementation of boycott calls'." (ibid)
The Heart of Darkness bleeds for these miserable wretches.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1
Murdoch's Australian is positively salivating over the latest legal manoeuvre by the Mossad-backed lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, against Associate Professor Jake Lynch, director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), over his courageous stand in defence of Palestinian rights.
Unreported in the Fairfax press or Guardian Australia, Shurat HaDin's pursuit of Professor Lynch is now getting front page treatment in The Australian. The latest spike in its ongoing 'coverage' of the issue began in earnest on October 30 with the kind of drive-by editorial especially reserved by the paper for anyone who refuses to bend the knee and kiss the Israeli ring.
Exploiting last Saturday night's random attack on a group of Jews at Bondi Beach by youths of Islander background (whose knowledge of, or interest in, Middle Eastern affairs would be less than zero), The Australian's editorialist, hyping the attack as an example of "the vile spectre of anti-Semitism," had no doubt who was to blame:
"It is not altogether surprising given the attitude of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University. Last year, the centre shunned a Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic who developed a civics course to unite Arab and Jewish students. Centre director Jake Lynch backed the oppressive boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. The existence of Israel is accepted in international law and by the UN but some Australian humanities academics think otherwise. In supporting the Palestinian cause, the Left must not allow anti-Semitism to become an article of faith among young people and risk reigniting hatreds that festered across Europe for centuries before 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust." (Dangerous anti-Semitism has no place in Australia: In backing Palestinians, the Left must not demonise Israel)
That outrageous libel was matched by the bizarre front page piece by Ean Higgins and Jared Owens about which I've already posted, To Jewish leaders, incidents prove you can never stop. (See my 30/10/13 post Only in 'The Australian', No. 16,972.) Accompanied by a photograph of a "Holocaust survivor," and opening with a reference to the Bondi Beach attack, it veered from one unrelated matter to another before finally reaching its intended target, Professor Lynch.
The very next day, October 31, again on the front page, we had the headline Anti-Israeli BDS campaign facing court test. The byline? Ean Higgins, naturally. It began:
"The emotive controversy over whether the BDS campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will be tested in the Federal Court after an Israeli organisation launched a landmark legal suit."
After outlining something of the history of the case, Higgins went on, on page 2 now, to detail the substance of Shurat HaDin's complaint:
"Shurat HaDin's case will argue that Professor Lynch's support for BDS amounts to racial discrimination against Israelis and Jews, in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the application filed with the court, Shurat HaDin claims that Professor Lynch's 'inherent purpose in participating [in] and publicly supporting the BDS movement is to do acts involving adverse distinction, exclusion, restriction and adverse preference based on the Jewish race, descent, national and ethnic origin of goods, services, persons and organisations," which, the godawful legalese notwithstanding, sounds more like a description of Israel's treatment of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.
"Shurat HaDin," Higgins continued, " is not seeking financial restitution... but court orders requiring [Professor Lynch] to apologise for his BDS campaign and desist from it. Professor Lynch rejected Shurat HaDin's claims, and said he would vigorously fight the court action. 'The campaign for an academic boycott of institutional links with Israeli universities is a non-violent campaign for peace with justice in respect of militarism and lawlessness,' Professor Lynch, who is in Britain, told The Australian. 'I am confident we will prove, in court if necessary, that it does not amount to any form of discrimination or racism'."
Higgins then introduced the subject of Shurat HaDin's links with Israeli intelligence, quoting its Australian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, as saying that "receiving tip-offs from Mossad... was part of the normal practice of lawyers seeking information and evidence to bolster their cases."
How fascinating. Whereas Australia's new foreign minister is adamant that "we don't comment on intelligence matters," Mossad is apparently more than happy to talk to any old Tom, Dick and Andrew!
Higgins then had Jerusalem's Hebrew University, which is seeking ties with Sydney University opposed by Professor Lynch, confirming that, yes, "it ran two programs for serving and future Israeli soldiers," but claiming that these were also "attended by students who were not connected to the military," a complete nonsense, of course, in a society where all Jewish Israelis, save the ultra-orthodox, are required to serve in the army.
He then quoted another Hebrew University spokesman as saying that the entire Hebrew University campus is "is all on Israeli territory." In fact, it is situated on Mt Scopus, an Israeli enclave in the Jordanian-ruled West Bank from 1948-1967.
Now exactly why the Palestinians should be expected to view Mt Scopus, which is east of the so-called Green Line, as Israeli territory when Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian claim to hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages west of the Green Line is one of life's little mysteries.
But then, even if we ignore the above elephant in the room and concede that Mt Scopus campus is all on Israeli territory, we still have to face the fact that all its access roads run through occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
But there's more! There always is in The Australian. There's also the letters page to insult our intelligence, this time with such gems as:
"There is no other tool than anti-Semitism for criticising Israel and the Jewish people.";
"... anti-Semitism deniers such as Jake Lynch," and his "platoon of supporters happily preferring uggboots to jackboots.";
"... a rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is expressing itself as anti-Semitism..."
Continued next post...
Unreported in the Fairfax press or Guardian Australia, Shurat HaDin's pursuit of Professor Lynch is now getting front page treatment in The Australian. The latest spike in its ongoing 'coverage' of the issue began in earnest on October 30 with the kind of drive-by editorial especially reserved by the paper for anyone who refuses to bend the knee and kiss the Israeli ring.
Exploiting last Saturday night's random attack on a group of Jews at Bondi Beach by youths of Islander background (whose knowledge of, or interest in, Middle Eastern affairs would be less than zero), The Australian's editorialist, hyping the attack as an example of "the vile spectre of anti-Semitism," had no doubt who was to blame:
"It is not altogether surprising given the attitude of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University. Last year, the centre shunned a Hebrew University of Jerusalem academic who developed a civics course to unite Arab and Jewish students. Centre director Jake Lynch backed the oppressive boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. The existence of Israel is accepted in international law and by the UN but some Australian humanities academics think otherwise. In supporting the Palestinian cause, the Left must not allow anti-Semitism to become an article of faith among young people and risk reigniting hatreds that festered across Europe for centuries before 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust." (Dangerous anti-Semitism has no place in Australia: In backing Palestinians, the Left must not demonise Israel)
That outrageous libel was matched by the bizarre front page piece by Ean Higgins and Jared Owens about which I've already posted, To Jewish leaders, incidents prove you can never stop. (See my 30/10/13 post Only in 'The Australian', No. 16,972.) Accompanied by a photograph of a "Holocaust survivor," and opening with a reference to the Bondi Beach attack, it veered from one unrelated matter to another before finally reaching its intended target, Professor Lynch.
The very next day, October 31, again on the front page, we had the headline Anti-Israeli BDS campaign facing court test. The byline? Ean Higgins, naturally. It began:
"The emotive controversy over whether the BDS campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will be tested in the Federal Court after an Israeli organisation launched a landmark legal suit."
After outlining something of the history of the case, Higgins went on, on page 2 now, to detail the substance of Shurat HaDin's complaint:
"Shurat HaDin's case will argue that Professor Lynch's support for BDS amounts to racial discrimination against Israelis and Jews, in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the application filed with the court, Shurat HaDin claims that Professor Lynch's 'inherent purpose in participating [in] and publicly supporting the BDS movement is to do acts involving adverse distinction, exclusion, restriction and adverse preference based on the Jewish race, descent, national and ethnic origin of goods, services, persons and organisations," which, the godawful legalese notwithstanding, sounds more like a description of Israel's treatment of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.
"Shurat HaDin," Higgins continued, " is not seeking financial restitution... but court orders requiring [Professor Lynch] to apologise for his BDS campaign and desist from it. Professor Lynch rejected Shurat HaDin's claims, and said he would vigorously fight the court action. 'The campaign for an academic boycott of institutional links with Israeli universities is a non-violent campaign for peace with justice in respect of militarism and lawlessness,' Professor Lynch, who is in Britain, told The Australian. 'I am confident we will prove, in court if necessary, that it does not amount to any form of discrimination or racism'."
Higgins then introduced the subject of Shurat HaDin's links with Israeli intelligence, quoting its Australian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, as saying that "receiving tip-offs from Mossad... was part of the normal practice of lawyers seeking information and evidence to bolster their cases."
How fascinating. Whereas Australia's new foreign minister is adamant that "we don't comment on intelligence matters," Mossad is apparently more than happy to talk to any old Tom, Dick and Andrew!
Higgins then had Jerusalem's Hebrew University, which is seeking ties with Sydney University opposed by Professor Lynch, confirming that, yes, "it ran two programs for serving and future Israeli soldiers," but claiming that these were also "attended by students who were not connected to the military," a complete nonsense, of course, in a society where all Jewish Israelis, save the ultra-orthodox, are required to serve in the army.
He then quoted another Hebrew University spokesman as saying that the entire Hebrew University campus is "is all on Israeli territory." In fact, it is situated on Mt Scopus, an Israeli enclave in the Jordanian-ruled West Bank from 1948-1967.
Now exactly why the Palestinians should be expected to view Mt Scopus, which is east of the so-called Green Line, as Israeli territory when Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian claim to hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages west of the Green Line is one of life's little mysteries.
But then, even if we ignore the above elephant in the room and concede that Mt Scopus campus is all on Israeli territory, we still have to face the fact that all its access roads run through occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
But there's more! There always is in The Australian. There's also the letters page to insult our intelligence, this time with such gems as:
"There is no other tool than anti-Semitism for criticising Israel and the Jewish people.";
"... anti-Semitism deniers such as Jake Lynch," and his "platoon of supporters happily preferring uggboots to jackboots.";
"... a rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is expressing itself as anti-Semitism..."
Continued next post...
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Mossad & Associates 2
Meir Dagan's Lawfare Programme
"The National Security Council (NSC) appears to be the central node in the Israeli Government's attempts to use deniable civil actions against alleged terrorist financing. According to veteran Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman, this strategy was initiated by Meir Dagan when he headed the NSC in the late 1990s, before becoming chief of the Mossad. In a 2007 article, Melman went on to suggest that Israeli intelligence was connected to a lawsuit brought against the Arab Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East. The law firm which brought the Arab Bank case, Mann Mairone, moved into terrorism litigation around 2001, having previously specialised in taxation and commercial law. In the process, it acquired a roster of researchers and advisors drawn largely from Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence.
"WikiLeaks cables show that the Arab Bank was a frequent subject of discussions between Israeli NSC officials and US diplomats during the case. At one such meeting with US Treasury officials in 2005, ILC contacts Udi Levi and Uzi Shaya were prominent in defending the litigation, although vague as to the justification for it:
Levi said the bank had stopped all transactions to the territories after it was sued in US court. He cautioned, however, that the bank is 'playing with evidence, cleaning the records, and deleting accounts' to cover its tracks. Shaya said that the GOI had unspecified proof that the Arab Bank is still dealing with Hizballah in Lebanon.
"Levi went on to suggest further litigation:
Levi called INTERPAL and other European groups that channel funds to Hamas 'a problem we do not know how to solve,' but added that lawsuits similar to the ones filed against the Arab Bank might help. He suggested that another option to restrict funding would be to prevent INTERPAL from clearing dollar donations through New York.
"Interpal, a British charity focused on Palestine, had been a source of friction between the Israeli and British governments for several years. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported in 2004 that Foreign Minister Jack Straw had refused a request from his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom to put an end to Interpal's activities. Significantly, Haaretz noted that even if the Israeli intelligence on Interpal were made public, it would not necessarily meet the threshold for banning a UK charity and that 'it is therefore not at all certain that even if the evidence were to be revealed, it would lead to a curbing of Interpal in Britain.'
"Interpal was also targeted in 2007 by a British think tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, as chronicled in Spinwatch's pamphlet, The Cold War on British Muslims. In their attack, the CSC cited 'allegations made by Israel and the USA,' as well as a 2006 BBC Panorama documentary, which had also relied extensively on evidence provided by current and former Israeli security officials. In 2009, an inquiry by the UK Charity Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to take actions over claims that Interpal beneficiaries were supporting terrorism, because it could not verify 'the provenance or accuracy' of material provided by the Israeli government.
"Udi Levi's comments suggest that such developments are in line with the wider strategy being pursued by the NSC.
Key Questions
"If a firm that has received covert support from the Israeli government is now targeting BDS activists, does this mean that the Israeli government has widened its use of lawfare in a bid to silence its critics? As we have noted, firms like the ILC are prepared to take on the Israeli government over issues like the Bank of China case. Yet that case itself illustrates the extent to which they are nevertheless dependent on a government which is prepared to use and then abandon terror victims for cynical political reasons. The fact that the Israeli Government is prepared to support organisations whose hardline stances are at odds with its own public positions must also create doubts about how sincerely held those positions are. The targeting of the Palestinian Authority in particular, in cases largely dependent on official Israeli sources, is surely inconsistent with any commitment to a genuine peace process."
"The National Security Council (NSC) appears to be the central node in the Israeli Government's attempts to use deniable civil actions against alleged terrorist financing. According to veteran Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman, this strategy was initiated by Meir Dagan when he headed the NSC in the late 1990s, before becoming chief of the Mossad. In a 2007 article, Melman went on to suggest that Israeli intelligence was connected to a lawsuit brought against the Arab Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East. The law firm which brought the Arab Bank case, Mann Mairone, moved into terrorism litigation around 2001, having previously specialised in taxation and commercial law. In the process, it acquired a roster of researchers and advisors drawn largely from Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence.
"WikiLeaks cables show that the Arab Bank was a frequent subject of discussions between Israeli NSC officials and US diplomats during the case. At one such meeting with US Treasury officials in 2005, ILC contacts Udi Levi and Uzi Shaya were prominent in defending the litigation, although vague as to the justification for it:
Levi said the bank had stopped all transactions to the territories after it was sued in US court. He cautioned, however, that the bank is 'playing with evidence, cleaning the records, and deleting accounts' to cover its tracks. Shaya said that the GOI had unspecified proof that the Arab Bank is still dealing with Hizballah in Lebanon.
"Levi went on to suggest further litigation:
Levi called INTERPAL and other European groups that channel funds to Hamas 'a problem we do not know how to solve,' but added that lawsuits similar to the ones filed against the Arab Bank might help. He suggested that another option to restrict funding would be to prevent INTERPAL from clearing dollar donations through New York.
"Interpal, a British charity focused on Palestine, had been a source of friction between the Israeli and British governments for several years. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported in 2004 that Foreign Minister Jack Straw had refused a request from his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom to put an end to Interpal's activities. Significantly, Haaretz noted that even if the Israeli intelligence on Interpal were made public, it would not necessarily meet the threshold for banning a UK charity and that 'it is therefore not at all certain that even if the evidence were to be revealed, it would lead to a curbing of Interpal in Britain.'
"Interpal was also targeted in 2007 by a British think tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, as chronicled in Spinwatch's pamphlet, The Cold War on British Muslims. In their attack, the CSC cited 'allegations made by Israel and the USA,' as well as a 2006 BBC Panorama documentary, which had also relied extensively on evidence provided by current and former Israeli security officials. In 2009, an inquiry by the UK Charity Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to take actions over claims that Interpal beneficiaries were supporting terrorism, because it could not verify 'the provenance or accuracy' of material provided by the Israeli government.
"Udi Levi's comments suggest that such developments are in line with the wider strategy being pursued by the NSC.
Key Questions
"If a firm that has received covert support from the Israeli government is now targeting BDS activists, does this mean that the Israeli government has widened its use of lawfare in a bid to silence its critics? As we have noted, firms like the ILC are prepared to take on the Israeli government over issues like the Bank of China case. Yet that case itself illustrates the extent to which they are nevertheless dependent on a government which is prepared to use and then abandon terror victims for cynical political reasons. The fact that the Israeli Government is prepared to support organisations whose hardline stances are at odds with its own public positions must also create doubts about how sincerely held those positions are. The targeting of the Palestinian Authority in particular, in cases largely dependent on official Israeli sources, is surely inconsistent with any commitment to a genuine peace process."
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Mossad & Associates 1
The following investigation into the Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) by the UK organisation, Spinwatch (spinwatch.org), is a must-read. You may remember Shurat HaDin's characterisation in the Murdoch press here as a 'civil rights' organisation. As Spinwatch's research shows there's a little more to it than that. Given its length, I'm posting it in two parts:
BDS campaigner targeted by law firm with links to Israeli intelligence
by Tom Griffin & David Miller (5/10/13)
"A law firm targeting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement has close links to Israeli intelligence, US government cables leaked by Wikileaks show:
"Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission last month against Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University, over Lynch's support for BDS. The ILC, set up in 2003, claims to be 'a fully independent non-profit organization, unaffiliated with any political party or government body.' However, the organisation's director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, has privately admitted to taking direction from the Israeli Government over which causes to pursue and relying on Israeli intelligence contacts for witnesses and evidence.
"Darshan-Leitner made the comments in 2007 to diplomats from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, who reported the conversation in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks four years later. It states:
Leitner said that in many of her cases she receives evidence from GOI [Government of Israel] officials, and added that in its early years ILC took direction from the GOI on which cases to pursue. 'The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do,' claimed Leitner. Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation. Leitner offered a case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as [an] example of ILC's close cooperation with the GOI. After obtaining a judgement against PIJ for NIS 100 million (USD 25 million), ILC requested a lien for that amount against the Abu Akker Trading Company as a third party defendant. At the time, Abu Akker was one of the largest Palestinian importing companies, and Leitner said the Mossad provided her with the intelligence (similar to information provided to USG officials in a classified briefing) to prove that the company was funneling money to PIJ. According to Leitner, the ILC now decides its cases independently, but continues to receive evidence and witnesses from Israeli intelligence.
"The US cable goes on to comment that:
While the ILC's mission dovetails with GOI objectives of putting financial pressure on Israel's adversaries, the often uncompromising approach of ILC's attorney's seems to overreach official GOI policy goals. ILC's relentless litigation has proven to be an obstacle to the GOI's releasing of all customs revenues previously withheld from the PA [Palestinian Authority].
"ILC has engaged in a wide variety of other actions in the US, Australia, Israel itself and in Egypt as well as targeting Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Palestinian Authority. Amongst its targets have been financial situations including UBS, American Express Bank and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank, President Jimmy Carter, World Vision Australia (a Christian aid agency) and, most notably, the largely successful attempt to stop the second Free Gaza Flotilla. This involved a blizzard of legal threats against insurance companies, port authorities and satellite firms. They were informed they would open themselves to criminal liability for 'aiding and abetting' a 'terrorist' organisation or would become 'legally liable' for any future attacks by Hamas.
The Bank of China Affair
"Further details of the ILC's links with Israeli intelligence have emerged amid fallout from a case brought by the firm against the Bank of China. According to accounts in the Israeli press, officials from the NSC approached Darshan-Leitner, after identifying the bank as a conduit for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Darshan-Leitner found a suitable plaintiff to bring the case in the family of Daniel Wultz, a 16-year-old American citizen killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in 2006. Yediot Ahronot reported: 'In her discussions with the intelligence agents, Darshan-Leitner insisted that she receives massive assistance from the government. She demanded convicting information on the bank's activities, affidavits from authorized people and a commitment to provide for the trial an authorized witness who will say that the Chinese knew about the nature of the accounts and refused to close them. The consent was given - orally. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to the NY Federal Court.'
"This arrangement began to collapse in the face of Chinese Government pressure ahead of a visit to Beijing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. The Wultz family has accused the Israeli Government of sabotaging the case by failing to provide the documents it promised at the outset. The standoff is particularly embarrassing because Daniel Wultz's mother, Sheryl Cantor Wultz, is a cousin of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader in the US Congress.
"Among the key documents at the centre of the case is an affidavit by Uzi Shaya, who may be the same person as 'Uzi Beshaya', the Israeli security official named in the 2007 cable as a contact of both Shurat HaDin and the US Embassy. Another US cable describes Shaya as an officer of Israel's Shin Bet [security] service, working in the Counter Terror Finance Bureau of the Israeli NSC alongside Udi Levi, Darshan-Leitner's other intelligence contact."
To be continued...
BDS campaigner targeted by law firm with links to Israeli intelligence
by Tom Griffin & David Miller (5/10/13)
"A law firm targeting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement has close links to Israeli intelligence, US government cables leaked by Wikileaks show:
"Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Centre (ILC) made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission last month against Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies at Sydney University, over Lynch's support for BDS. The ILC, set up in 2003, claims to be 'a fully independent non-profit organization, unaffiliated with any political party or government body.' However, the organisation's director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, has privately admitted to taking direction from the Israeli Government over which causes to pursue and relying on Israeli intelligence contacts for witnesses and evidence.
"Darshan-Leitner made the comments in 2007 to diplomats from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, who reported the conversation in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks four years later. It states:
Leitner said that in many of her cases she receives evidence from GOI [Government of Israel] officials, and added that in its early years ILC took direction from the GOI on which cases to pursue. 'The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do,' claimed Leitner. Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation. Leitner offered a case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as [an] example of ILC's close cooperation with the GOI. After obtaining a judgement against PIJ for NIS 100 million (USD 25 million), ILC requested a lien for that amount against the Abu Akker Trading Company as a third party defendant. At the time, Abu Akker was one of the largest Palestinian importing companies, and Leitner said the Mossad provided her with the intelligence (similar to information provided to USG officials in a classified briefing) to prove that the company was funneling money to PIJ. According to Leitner, the ILC now decides its cases independently, but continues to receive evidence and witnesses from Israeli intelligence.
"The US cable goes on to comment that:
While the ILC's mission dovetails with GOI objectives of putting financial pressure on Israel's adversaries, the often uncompromising approach of ILC's attorney's seems to overreach official GOI policy goals. ILC's relentless litigation has proven to be an obstacle to the GOI's releasing of all customs revenues previously withheld from the PA [Palestinian Authority].
"ILC has engaged in a wide variety of other actions in the US, Australia, Israel itself and in Egypt as well as targeting Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Palestinian Authority. Amongst its targets have been financial situations including UBS, American Express Bank and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank, President Jimmy Carter, World Vision Australia (a Christian aid agency) and, most notably, the largely successful attempt to stop the second Free Gaza Flotilla. This involved a blizzard of legal threats against insurance companies, port authorities and satellite firms. They were informed they would open themselves to criminal liability for 'aiding and abetting' a 'terrorist' organisation or would become 'legally liable' for any future attacks by Hamas.
The Bank of China Affair
"Further details of the ILC's links with Israeli intelligence have emerged amid fallout from a case brought by the firm against the Bank of China. According to accounts in the Israeli press, officials from the NSC approached Darshan-Leitner, after identifying the bank as a conduit for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Darshan-Leitner found a suitable plaintiff to bring the case in the family of Daniel Wultz, a 16-year-old American citizen killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in 2006. Yediot Ahronot reported: 'In her discussions with the intelligence agents, Darshan-Leitner insisted that she receives massive assistance from the government. She demanded convicting information on the bank's activities, affidavits from authorized people and a commitment to provide for the trial an authorized witness who will say that the Chinese knew about the nature of the accounts and refused to close them. The consent was given - orally. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to the NY Federal Court.'
"This arrangement began to collapse in the face of Chinese Government pressure ahead of a visit to Beijing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. The Wultz family has accused the Israeli Government of sabotaging the case by failing to provide the documents it promised at the outset. The standoff is particularly embarrassing because Daniel Wultz's mother, Sheryl Cantor Wultz, is a cousin of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader in the US Congress.
"Among the key documents at the centre of the case is an affidavit by Uzi Shaya, who may be the same person as 'Uzi Beshaya', the Israeli security official named in the 2007 cable as a contact of both Shurat HaDin and the US Embassy. Another US cable describes Shaya as an officer of Israel's Shin Bet [security] service, working in the Counter Terror Finance Bureau of the Israeli NSC alongside Udi Levi, Darshan-Leitner's other intelligence contact."
To be continued...
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Behind the Sacking of AusAID
Tony Abbott's Suppository of All Wisdom, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, is a happy man at last:
"The Abbott government is determined to reform Australia's overseas aid program - and it is in urgent need of reform. The move to scrap AusAID as an independent statutory agency and to make it part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a huge and welcome step on the road... The government intends to keep the focus on sorting out waste and poor priorities in aid. Partly to this end, Teresa Gambaro... will be the chair of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade. Ms Gambaro was a tough-minded critic of the aid program when she was parliamentary secretary..." (AusAID shake-up good for diplomacy, The Australian, 19/9/13)
And you can see why when you recall last year's frustration with these AusAID vipers:
"Australian taxpayers should not be forced to fund organisations with links to terrorists. This is the case with aid to at least one Palestinian group. It's not against the law, but it's wrong. It's morally and politically objectionable. It ought to stop. The Australian government aid agency, AusAID, gives millions of dollars, through the private charity World Vision, to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, which works in the Gaza Strip. The problem is the UAWC and its personnel have deep links with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the relevant UN list, Australian legislation and the legislation of numerous other countries. It is one of the central progenitors of modern terrorism." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
After all, hadn't these reptiles been exposed by none other than Andrew>Akiva Hamilton's doughty crusaders for human rights, Shurat HaDin?
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
A point not lost on then opposition development assistance spokeswoman Ms Gambaro (rambammed 2006/2012):
"It would appear that AusAID is providing funds to World Vision to fund an organisation that has links to a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
For the full story, read my 6/5/12 post Greg Sheridan On His Hind Legs.
PS: "Then there are the millions of dollars Australian taxpayers have generously stumped up for the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Works Committees. A number of the board members and office-holders of this group are intimately associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the key progenitors of terrorism against Western targets, pioneering especially attacks on passenger aeroplanes." (Rational approach to aid long overdue, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 21/9/13)
Now compare that dogmatic, guilty-as-charged assertion with last year's more measured approach:
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation. I think that overstates the legal case but I think the moral and political case against funding the UAWC is overwhelming. In the Palestinian territories, it can be difficult to work effectively on the ground and not rub shoulders with people who have terrorist connections." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
"The Abbott government is determined to reform Australia's overseas aid program - and it is in urgent need of reform. The move to scrap AusAID as an independent statutory agency and to make it part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a huge and welcome step on the road... The government intends to keep the focus on sorting out waste and poor priorities in aid. Partly to this end, Teresa Gambaro... will be the chair of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade. Ms Gambaro was a tough-minded critic of the aid program when she was parliamentary secretary..." (AusAID shake-up good for diplomacy, The Australian, 19/9/13)
And you can see why when you recall last year's frustration with these AusAID vipers:
"Australian taxpayers should not be forced to fund organisations with links to terrorists. This is the case with aid to at least one Palestinian group. It's not against the law, but it's wrong. It's morally and politically objectionable. It ought to stop. The Australian government aid agency, AusAID, gives millions of dollars, through the private charity World Vision, to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, which works in the Gaza Strip. The problem is the UAWC and its personnel have deep links with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the relevant UN list, Australian legislation and the legislation of numerous other countries. It is one of the central progenitors of modern terrorism." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
After all, hadn't these reptiles been exposed by none other than Andrew>Akiva Hamilton's doughty crusaders for human rights, Shurat HaDin?
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
A point not lost on then opposition development assistance spokeswoman Ms Gambaro (rambammed 2006/2012):
"It would appear that AusAID is providing funds to World Vision to fund an organisation that has links to a terrorist organisation." (ibid)
For the full story, read my 6/5/12 post Greg Sheridan On His Hind Legs.
PS: "Then there are the millions of dollars Australian taxpayers have generously stumped up for the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Works Committees. A number of the board members and office-holders of this group are intimately associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the key progenitors of terrorism against Western targets, pioneering especially attacks on passenger aeroplanes." (Rational approach to aid long overdue, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 21/9/13)
Now compare that dogmatic, guilty-as-charged assertion with last year's more measured approach:
"[A] group of Israeli lawyers, Shurat HaDin sent a complaint to AusAID and World Vision charging that these bodies would be in breach of the law because support for UAWC could be construed as indirect support for a terrorist organisation. I think that overstates the legal case but I think the moral and political case against funding the UAWC is overwhelming. In the Palestinian territories, it can be difficult to work effectively on the ground and not rub shoulders with people who have terrorist connections." (Don't give aid to groups with terrorist connections, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 3/5/12)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)