A critical look at PM Trumble's pro-Israel propaganda piece in The Australian of 22 February, specifically the first 3 paragraphs, yields much of interest for those of us who still harbour a preference for facts over myths and a respect for the historical record.
Trumble kicks off with this sentence:
"Our friendship is as old as the state of Israel itself."
Now compare that with the opening sentence from the second section of former Labor foreign minister Stephen Smith's Australia & Israel speech, delivered on 19 May, 2009:
"Australia's support for the State of Israel goes right back to its creation."
Now consider the next two sentences in Smith's speech:
"Foreign Minister H.V. Evatt, one of my predecessors, played an important role through his Chairmanship of the United Nations International [sic: Special] Commission on Palestine in 1947. Evatt understood the justice of Israel's right to full international citizenship at a time when many still did not."
As a Liberal, of course, Trumble had no use for those two sentences about a former Labor foreign minister (1945-49), whatever services he may have rendered to the Zionist movement in the late 40s. So the Evatt references ended up on the cutting-room floor.
Trumble's next sentence reads:
"Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution adopted by the General Assembly, which led to the establishment of Israel in 1948."
Now compare that with Smith's next sentence. As you'll see, both sentences are based on the curious idea that Australia, like some over-the-top, competitive schoolkid with his hand up, screaming Sir! Sir! Sir! to a teacher's question, just couldn't wait to give the Zios a leg up in Palestine:
"When a vote was called that year on General Assembly Resolution 181 to establish separate Jewish and Arab states, the Australian delegate was the first to vote. And the first to vote in favour of the proposal."
(Actually, in Trumble's version, the implication seems to be that the Australian delegate somehow, preternaturally knew he was voting for 'Israel', which was still 6 months away from being declared!)
Smith then proceeds to tell us that Evatt "presided over the historic May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the United Nations."
Again, Evatt has been trimmed from Trumble's piece,
Smith continues:
"Following that vote, Israel's distinguished representative Abba Eban acknowledged the contribution that Evatt and the Australian Government had made to the international recognition of Israel, when he said: 'The manner in which you steered to a vote this second historic Resolution... the warmth and eloquence with which you welcomed Israel into the family of nations, have earned for you the undying gratitude of our people'."
Now here's Trumble's near duplicate version:
"Following the vote, Israeli representative Abba Eban acknowledged Australia's contribution. 'The manner in which you steered to a vote this second historic resolution... the warmth and eloquence with which you welcome Israel into the family of nations, have earned for you the undying gratitude of our people'."
Notice that, in Trumble's version, Eban is portrayed as as praising Australia for "steering to a vote" the 1947 partition resolution (181) of November 1947 (as chair of the UN's Ad hoc Committee on Palestine - and after succumbing to the blandishments of Australian Zionists - he favoured partitioning Palestine over seeking an ICJ advisory opinion), whereas, in fact, he was praising Australia's vote with respect to the May 1949 admission of Israel to UN membership (conditional, BTW, on Israel's implementation of UNGA resolution 194, allowing the return of Palestinian refugees displaced by the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948). The reference to "second historic resolution" (the first referring to the 'partition' resolution) confirms this.
IOW, what we have here is nothing more or less than a cheap cut and paste of an earlier Labor speech, itself probably cribbed from some Zionist propaganda document. Obviously the work of one of Turnbull's minders, it's a perfect example of what is known as 'received wisdom', never examined factoids, endlessly recycled as fact by the mainstream media and junk 'scholarship'.
But it's particularly on this one-sentence third paragraph that I wish to dwell. Because nothing could be further from the truth:
"The key role Australia played in ensuring the security and prosperity of the Jewish people should be a source of pride for us all."
One implication here is that Australia (and, presumably, the other countries which voted for partition in November 1947) was thinking primarily about the fate of Holocaust survivors, many of whom were living at the time in Displaced Persons Camps in Europe. And contrariwise, that those countries which voted against the partition of Palestine were one and all Jew haters.
Now consider the following excerpt from the anti-partition speech of Pakistan's representative, Sir Zafrullah Khan, and note, in particular, his sarcastic reference to Australia:
"What has Palestine done? What is its contribution toward the solution of the humanitarian question as it affects Jewish refugees and displaced persons? Since the end of the First World War, Palestine has taken over 400,000 Jewish immigrants. Since the start of the Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany, Palestine has taken almost 300,000 Jewish refugees. This does not include illegal immigrants who could not be counted.
"One has observed that those who talk of humanitarian principles, and can afford to do most, have done the least at their own expense to alleviate this problem. But they are ready - indeed, they are anxious - to be most generous at the expense of the Arab.
"There have been few periods in history when members of the Jewish race have not been persecuted in one part or another of Europe. When English kings and barons indulged in the pastime of extracting the teeth of Jewish merchants and bankers as a gentle means of persuading them to cooperate in bolstering their feudal economy... Arab Spain provided a shelter, a refuge and a haven for the Jews.
"Today it is said: only the poor persecuted European Jew is without a home. True. And it is further said: why, then, let Arab Palestine provide him, as Arab Spain did, not only with a shelter, a refuge, but also with a State so that he shall rule over the Arab. How generous! How humanitarian!
"The United Nation Special Committee on Palestine, as we know, in recommendation VII, one of the unanimous recommendations, urged that the General Assembly take up this question of refugees and displaced persons immediately, apart from the problem of Palestine, in order to afford relief to the persecuted Jew so that there should be an alleviation of this humanitarian problem and an alleviation of the Palestinian problem.
"What has this great and august body done in that respect? Sub-committee 2 made a recommendation and drew up a draft resolution on that basis (resolution II, document A/AC.14/32). First, let those Jewish refugees and displaced persons who can be repatriated to their own countries be repatriated; secondly, those who cannot be repatriated should be allotted to Member States in accordance with their capacity to receive such refugees; and, thirdly, a committee should be set up to determine quotas for that purpose.
"The resolution is put forward for consideration. Shall they be repatriated to their own countries? Australia says no; Canada says no; the United States says no. This was very encouraging from one point of view. Let these people, after their terrible experiences, even if they are willing to go back, not be asked to go back to their own countries. In this way, one would be more sure that the second proposal would be adopted and that we should all give shelter to these people. Shall they be distributed among the Member States according to the capacity of the latter to receive them? Australia, an overpopulated small country with congested areas, says no, no, no; Canada, equally congested and overpopulated, says no; the United States, a great humanitarian country, a small area, with small resources, says no. That is their contribution to the humanitarian principle. But they state: let them go into Palestine, where there are vast areas, a large economy and no trouble; they can easily be taken in there.
"That is the contribution taken by this august body to the settlement of the humanitarian principle involved." (Sir Zafrullah Khan's speech on the question of Palestine, themuslimtimes.info)
So let us revisit PM Trumble's final paragraph:
"The key role Australia played in ensuring the security and prosperity of the Jewish people should be a source of pride for us all."
If PM Trumble is referring here to Jewish Holocaust survivors in DP camps, most of whom would have gone to the US if given half a chance*, then he's messing with history.
If, on the other hand, he means "the Jewish people" (as in the Balfour Declaration's "a national home for the Jewish people"), that stock standard Zionist ideological construct which supposedly provides the rationale for the Jewish state of Israel, he needs to explain quite why Australians should take "pride" in "ensuring the security and prosperity" of a sectarian, apartheid state founded on the mass dispossession and expulsion of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.
[*See my 4/8/10 post Humanity or Zionism. Just click on the label for Yosef Grodzinsky below.]
Showing posts with label Stephen Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Smith. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2017
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What'd You Say Your Name Was?
Put Cadel back in his box, line the streets, hand out the confetti, and strike up the band:
"More than 8 years after Australian special forces infiltrated the deserts of western Iraq at the start of what was to prove a brutal, bitter and divisive conflict, the very last diggers have withdrawn. That occurred on August 6 with the departure of 17 Aussie troops responsible for providing security at the Australian embassy in Baghdad. The only reason this did not pass entirely without notice was that Defence Minister Stephen Smith mentioned it at a media conference called to outline proposed reforms to the defence organisation." (Last diggers depart Iraq, bigpondnews.com, 9/8/11)
This ending to Australia's inglorious role in the greatest crime of the 21st century to date, involving the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, the creation of almost 5 million refugees, the decapitation of Iraq's professional elite, and the transformation of a once proud and cohesive nation into a collection of hostile sectarian statelets, has gone strangely (predictably?) unremarked by Fairfax and Murdoch pundits.
And yet Defence Minister Stephen Smith's words at the above media conference are highly revealing as to why we too were more than happy to put the boot into Iraq:
"Australia's war in Iraq cost billions but only a few lives..." (ibid)
Billions? Smith didn't elaborate? Was no one at the conference interested? Lest we forget: "The Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3 trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-60 billion predicted in 2003. Australia also faced a bill much greater than the $2.2 billion in military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices and other indirect costs of the wars." (Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US', Peter Wilson, The Australian, 28/2/08)
Only a few lives? For suckholes like Smith and the rest, Iraqi lives don't count. What a surprise!
"Despite Labor's longstanding opposition, Mr Smith acknowledged that involvement in Iraq had produced some benefits for Australia." (ibid)
How wonderful! Then the Howard government's contribution to the mugging and maiming of an innocent country is vindicated? Do go on, Stephen:
"He said a decade of land war in Iraq and Afghanistan had seen Australia working very closely with the US. 'We have seen a much stronger relationship so far as special forces are concerned and a much stronger relationship so far as intelligence has been concerned', he said. Mr Smith said senior Australian defence personnel had worked closely for a decade at a senior level with US, NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel. 'That has left a singularly good impression', he said." (ibid)
There you have it. Every cloud has a silver lining. We got to snuggle up ever so close to Uncle Sam... and, yes, it was wonderful, as you'd expect... and... and, yes, he still respects us in the morning.
Doesn't he?
"More than 8 years after Australian special forces infiltrated the deserts of western Iraq at the start of what was to prove a brutal, bitter and divisive conflict, the very last diggers have withdrawn. That occurred on August 6 with the departure of 17 Aussie troops responsible for providing security at the Australian embassy in Baghdad. The only reason this did not pass entirely without notice was that Defence Minister Stephen Smith mentioned it at a media conference called to outline proposed reforms to the defence organisation." (Last diggers depart Iraq, bigpondnews.com, 9/8/11)
This ending to Australia's inglorious role in the greatest crime of the 21st century to date, involving the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, the creation of almost 5 million refugees, the decapitation of Iraq's professional elite, and the transformation of a once proud and cohesive nation into a collection of hostile sectarian statelets, has gone strangely (predictably?) unremarked by Fairfax and Murdoch pundits.
And yet Defence Minister Stephen Smith's words at the above media conference are highly revealing as to why we too were more than happy to put the boot into Iraq:
"Australia's war in Iraq cost billions but only a few lives..." (ibid)
Billions? Smith didn't elaborate? Was no one at the conference interested? Lest we forget: "The Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3 trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-60 billion predicted in 2003. Australia also faced a bill much greater than the $2.2 billion in military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices and other indirect costs of the wars." (Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US', Peter Wilson, The Australian, 28/2/08)
Only a few lives? For suckholes like Smith and the rest, Iraqi lives don't count. What a surprise!
"Despite Labor's longstanding opposition, Mr Smith acknowledged that involvement in Iraq had produced some benefits for Australia." (ibid)
How wonderful! Then the Howard government's contribution to the mugging and maiming of an innocent country is vindicated? Do go on, Stephen:
"He said a decade of land war in Iraq and Afghanistan had seen Australia working very closely with the US. 'We have seen a much stronger relationship so far as special forces are concerned and a much stronger relationship so far as intelligence has been concerned', he said. Mr Smith said senior Australian defence personnel had worked closely for a decade at a senior level with US, NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel. 'That has left a singularly good impression', he said." (ibid)
There you have it. Every cloud has a silver lining. We got to snuggle up ever so close to Uncle Sam... and, yes, it was wonderful, as you'd expect... and... and, yes, he still respects us in the morning.
Doesn't he?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Diplomatic Dancing
"All governments are run by liars & nothing they say should be believed." I.F. Stone
It seems only yesterday that this May 24 exchange between Kerry O'Brien and foreign minister Stephen Smith took place on the ABC's 7.30 Report:
O'Brien: Is this [expulsion of an Israeli 'diplomat'] wink-and-a-nod stuff where you... go through the diplomatic dance, but that at an intelligence level our spies say to their spies, 'Fair cop, guys. You've been caught at this. Keep your head down for a while and things will get back to normal fairly soon. See you soon'?
Smith: We have expelled, effectively, a diplomat. There will be necessarily a... cooling-off period so far as the relationship between our respective intelligence agencies is concerned.
O'Brien: Does that really matter? I mean, what does it actually mean in reality?
Smith: Well it does. No, no; it is very important, Kerry.
Now here's Smith, less than 3 months later in The Australian Jewish News saying that we've kissed and made up: "I am very confident that things are now back to business as usual... Often when you have a difficult issue that you've got to manage, your capacity to manage that and then to move reasonably quickly off it reflects the strength of the [Australia-Israel] relationship... I'm very confident now that in terms of agency-to-agency relations, government-to-government, nation-to-nation, it is business as usual'. He added that at no time during the diplomatic impasse did the two countries' intelligence agencies stop cooperating to quash the rogue Iranian regime. 'One area [of the Australia-Israel relationship] we did not want to see disturbed was the ongoing cooperation and exchange of information on Iran', he said." (Smith charts positive course for Australia-Israel relations, 13/8/10)
Those last two sentences are most interesting. Not only do they indicate that the cooling-off was, as O'Brien suspected, a total sham, but, if the AJN's paraphrased sentence is to be believed, Smith seems to be indicating that Australia is actually cooperating with Mossad to bring about regime change in Iran. (If, BTW, you think that's a tad far-fetched, please read my 29/5/10 post All the Way With Mossad?)
It seems only yesterday that this May 24 exchange between Kerry O'Brien and foreign minister Stephen Smith took place on the ABC's 7.30 Report:
O'Brien: Is this [expulsion of an Israeli 'diplomat'] wink-and-a-nod stuff where you... go through the diplomatic dance, but that at an intelligence level our spies say to their spies, 'Fair cop, guys. You've been caught at this. Keep your head down for a while and things will get back to normal fairly soon. See you soon'?
Smith: We have expelled, effectively, a diplomat. There will be necessarily a... cooling-off period so far as the relationship between our respective intelligence agencies is concerned.
O'Brien: Does that really matter? I mean, what does it actually mean in reality?
Smith: Well it does. No, no; it is very important, Kerry.
Now here's Smith, less than 3 months later in The Australian Jewish News saying that we've kissed and made up: "I am very confident that things are now back to business as usual... Often when you have a difficult issue that you've got to manage, your capacity to manage that and then to move reasonably quickly off it reflects the strength of the [Australia-Israel] relationship... I'm very confident now that in terms of agency-to-agency relations, government-to-government, nation-to-nation, it is business as usual'. He added that at no time during the diplomatic impasse did the two countries' intelligence agencies stop cooperating to quash the rogue Iranian regime. 'One area [of the Australia-Israel relationship] we did not want to see disturbed was the ongoing cooperation and exchange of information on Iran', he said." (Smith charts positive course for Australia-Israel relations, 13/8/10)
Those last two sentences are most interesting. Not only do they indicate that the cooling-off was, as O'Brien suspected, a total sham, but, if the AJN's paraphrased sentence is to be believed, Smith seems to be indicating that Australia is actually cooperating with Mossad to bring about regime change in Iran. (If, BTW, you think that's a tad far-fetched, please read my 29/5/10 post All the Way With Mossad?)
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Bishop: 'Israel Could Do Anything'
My God, did Julie Bishop say that? Did she what:
"Labor has hit out at claims that the Coalition will always back Israel in sensitive votes at the United Nations. Seizing on reports that Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop told a Jewish community forum in Melbourne last month an Abbott government would always vote against UN resolutions critical of Israel, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said she had shown 'an immense lack of judgment'. Such a change could see Australia voting against resolutions put to the General Assembly each year calling on Israel to respect the Geneva Conventions governing the rules of war in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Howard government switched Australia's vote to abstain in 2004 after Australia had previously backed the resolution over decades. But Australia has never before voted against the resolution. 'Julie Bishop clearly doesn't understand the serious implications of what she has committed a Coalition government to do', Mr Smith said yesterday. But Ms Bishop has denied the Coalition intends to take a blanket approach to voting on UN resolutions should it win office. 'I said we would return to the voting pattern of the Howard government', she told The Age yesterday. 'I make no apology for my strong support of Israel. I think the Rudd-Gillard government weakened Australia's stance at the UN as they pursued votes for their campaign to the Security Council'. Ms Bishop said the Coalition would oppose what are seen as one-sided resolutions against Israel but her comments at the Jewish forum had been mis-reported. 'Maybe that's what they wanted me to say, but I didn't. I'm very careful about these things', she said. 'Of course I'd never say I'd never ever abstain, there could be all sorts of circumstances that arise in the future. I don't know, Israel could do anything'." (Labor slams Bishop for Israel stance, Daniel Flitton, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/8/10)
Israel-could-do-anything.
OK, let's explore this. It's clearly shorthand for 'Israel could do any crazy thing,' or 'You never know what fool thing Israel's going to do next'.
But just how crazy does Israel have to get for Bishop to vote against it in the UN?
Maybe if we examine her response to just 2 of the crazy things Israel has done recently, we can get some idea of just how much craziness she can tolerate.
How about Israel purloining Australian passports? Here's what she had to say about that:
"It would be naive to think that Israel is the only country in the world that has used forged passports, including Australian passports, for security operations', she said. She was then asked by the interviewer: 'What, we do?' 'Yes', was her reply. 'I believe that it has occurred, but I wasn't the foreign minister at the time'." (Bishop stokes fake passport storm, sbs.com.au, 25/5/10)
So that's OK then, the Israelis can nick our passports whenever they like.
How about Israel gunning down aid workers on the high seas?
"We should not rush to judgment - at these early stages there are claims and counter-claims. There must be a full inquiry into the matter." (Julie Bishop talks to the Capital Jewish Forum, jwire.com.au, 10/6/10)
No, definitely not crazy enough to move our Jules.
How about Israel nuking Iran?
Watch this space.
"Labor has hit out at claims that the Coalition will always back Israel in sensitive votes at the United Nations. Seizing on reports that Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop told a Jewish community forum in Melbourne last month an Abbott government would always vote against UN resolutions critical of Israel, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said she had shown 'an immense lack of judgment'. Such a change could see Australia voting against resolutions put to the General Assembly each year calling on Israel to respect the Geneva Conventions governing the rules of war in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Howard government switched Australia's vote to abstain in 2004 after Australia had previously backed the resolution over decades. But Australia has never before voted against the resolution. 'Julie Bishop clearly doesn't understand the serious implications of what she has committed a Coalition government to do', Mr Smith said yesterday. But Ms Bishop has denied the Coalition intends to take a blanket approach to voting on UN resolutions should it win office. 'I said we would return to the voting pattern of the Howard government', she told The Age yesterday. 'I make no apology for my strong support of Israel. I think the Rudd-Gillard government weakened Australia's stance at the UN as they pursued votes for their campaign to the Security Council'. Ms Bishop said the Coalition would oppose what are seen as one-sided resolutions against Israel but her comments at the Jewish forum had been mis-reported. 'Maybe that's what they wanted me to say, but I didn't. I'm very careful about these things', she said. 'Of course I'd never say I'd never ever abstain, there could be all sorts of circumstances that arise in the future. I don't know, Israel could do anything'." (Labor slams Bishop for Israel stance, Daniel Flitton, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/8/10)
Israel-could-do-anything.
OK, let's explore this. It's clearly shorthand for 'Israel could do any crazy thing,' or 'You never know what fool thing Israel's going to do next'.
But just how crazy does Israel have to get for Bishop to vote against it in the UN?
Maybe if we examine her response to just 2 of the crazy things Israel has done recently, we can get some idea of just how much craziness she can tolerate.
How about Israel purloining Australian passports? Here's what she had to say about that:
"It would be naive to think that Israel is the only country in the world that has used forged passports, including Australian passports, for security operations', she said. She was then asked by the interviewer: 'What, we do?' 'Yes', was her reply. 'I believe that it has occurred, but I wasn't the foreign minister at the time'." (Bishop stokes fake passport storm, sbs.com.au, 25/5/10)
So that's OK then, the Israelis can nick our passports whenever they like.
How about Israel gunning down aid workers on the high seas?
"We should not rush to judgment - at these early stages there are claims and counter-claims. There must be a full inquiry into the matter." (Julie Bishop talks to the Capital Jewish Forum, jwire.com.au, 10/6/10)
No, definitely not crazy enough to move our Jules.
How about Israel nuking Iran?
Watch this space.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Not Happy, Steve!
There's just no pleasing some people.
The Australian Jewish News goes into campaign mode, urging its readers to call on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to "demand [the] immediate release" of Israeli "hostage" Gilad Shalit.
Australia's soft touch Foreign Minister Stephen Smith duly obliges with:
"This week marks the fourth anniversary of the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit was captured in a cross-border raid into Israel by the armed wing of Hamas and has been held in captivity in the Gaza Strip by Hamas since that time. Australia joins other members of the international community in calling for his immediate release. Australia firmly believes that ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not in the interest of either party, the Middle East region or the international community. Australia has consistently made clear our view that a long-term solution must be a just and enduring peace in the Middle East, where both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace in their own states. In support of the peace process, Australia has substantially increased humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and is contributing to the development of institutions necessary for statehood. Australia recently welcomed the Israeli Government's announcement of a significant easing of restrictions on the entry of civilian goods into Gaza, which should ease the humanitarian situation and help ensure Israel's security." (Last word for Gilad, jwire.com.au, 25/6/10)
But, for at least one of the usual suspects, it's a case of Not happy, Steve!
"I refer to the statement concerning Gilad Shalit, issued by you on 25 June 2010, the fourth anniversary of his capture and detention by Hamas. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) welcomes your announcement that 'Australia joins other members of the international community in calling for his immediate release' and thanks the government for making that call. The remainder of the announcement, however, was disconcertingly lacking in substance and tepid in its tone. To say, as you did, that Gilad Shalit 'has been held in captivity in the Gaza strip by Hamas' is to gloss over the most heinous aspect of his captivity - the fact that he has been held incommunicado for 4 long years. Gilad Shalit, as you would know, was abducted from Israeli soil by Hamas, after Israel had evacuated its troops and citizens from Gaza. His treatment by Hamas is in clear violation of the rules of customary international law which proscribe the taking or detaining of a hostage in order to compel a State to do or abstain from doing any act, and which require prisoners of war to be allowed contact with their families and access to the Red Cross. Gilad Shalit's captors even deny him letters from his family. As a parent, I cannot begin to imagine the anguish and heartbreak that he, his parents and family continue to suffer. You may be interested to know that at the time of your statement, your colleague, Franco Frattini, the Foreign minister of Italy, is reported as stating 'that the conditions of Gilad's captivity breached all international rules and showed the terrorist nature of Hamas'. Meanwhile, Rome's City council made Gilad Shalit an honorary citizen of the eternal City. I also draw your attention to the statement issued by the New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch, an organization which could never be accused of being a partisan supporter of Israel. It said that 'Hamas authorities are violating the laws of war by refusing to allow Shalit to correspond with his family', and concluded that Shalit's prolonged incommunicado detention 'may amount to torture'. Unlike your own announcement, the statement by Human Rights Watch concluded: 'Regardless of Hamas' grievances against Israel, there are no grounds to cut Shalit off completely from his family'. The eloquent articulation of similar arguments in Parliament by both Mark Dreyfus MP and Christopher Pyne MP, strongly suggests that there is a bipartisan consensus in support of the relevant humanitarian principles and the way those principles apply in the case of Gilad Shalit. There can be no justification at all for the ongoing inhumane treatment of Gilad Shalit or his continued captivity. His is a burning humanitarian issue which must be considered in its own right and divorced from the issues in contention between Israel and Hamas. It is regrettable that your announcement omitted to make this distinction. It is an omission that is especially troubling to Australian Jewry, in light of the general tenor and positive outcome of our recent discussions at The Lodge. Whilst my community is grateful to the Government for calling for Gillad Shalit's release, we cannot help feeling let down by the inexplicable failure of your announcement to make the clear statement of principle, and send the strong message of support, which the occasion required." (Robert Goot, Not enough, Minister, jwire.com.au, 28/6/10)
To which a spokesman for the minister can only respond with the following disconcertingly insubstantial and tepid excuse:
"Australia was one of only a handful of countries to make a formal statement urging Shalit's release, reflecting the strength and sincerity of Australia's views. Sadly, many others have remained silent in the face of his deplorable detention." (Smith's Shalit statement slated, Australian Jewish News, 2/7/10)
Pray for the soul of Stephen Smith.
The Australian Jewish News goes into campaign mode, urging its readers to call on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to "demand [the] immediate release" of Israeli "hostage" Gilad Shalit.
Australia's soft touch Foreign Minister Stephen Smith duly obliges with:
"This week marks the fourth anniversary of the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit was captured in a cross-border raid into Israel by the armed wing of Hamas and has been held in captivity in the Gaza Strip by Hamas since that time. Australia joins other members of the international community in calling for his immediate release. Australia firmly believes that ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not in the interest of either party, the Middle East region or the international community. Australia has consistently made clear our view that a long-term solution must be a just and enduring peace in the Middle East, where both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace in their own states. In support of the peace process, Australia has substantially increased humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and is contributing to the development of institutions necessary for statehood. Australia recently welcomed the Israeli Government's announcement of a significant easing of restrictions on the entry of civilian goods into Gaza, which should ease the humanitarian situation and help ensure Israel's security." (Last word for Gilad, jwire.com.au, 25/6/10)
But, for at least one of the usual suspects, it's a case of Not happy, Steve!
"I refer to the statement concerning Gilad Shalit, issued by you on 25 June 2010, the fourth anniversary of his capture and detention by Hamas. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) welcomes your announcement that 'Australia joins other members of the international community in calling for his immediate release' and thanks the government for making that call. The remainder of the announcement, however, was disconcertingly lacking in substance and tepid in its tone. To say, as you did, that Gilad Shalit 'has been held in captivity in the Gaza strip by Hamas' is to gloss over the most heinous aspect of his captivity - the fact that he has been held incommunicado for 4 long years. Gilad Shalit, as you would know, was abducted from Israeli soil by Hamas, after Israel had evacuated its troops and citizens from Gaza. His treatment by Hamas is in clear violation of the rules of customary international law which proscribe the taking or detaining of a hostage in order to compel a State to do or abstain from doing any act, and which require prisoners of war to be allowed contact with their families and access to the Red Cross. Gilad Shalit's captors even deny him letters from his family. As a parent, I cannot begin to imagine the anguish and heartbreak that he, his parents and family continue to suffer. You may be interested to know that at the time of your statement, your colleague, Franco Frattini, the Foreign minister of Italy, is reported as stating 'that the conditions of Gilad's captivity breached all international rules and showed the terrorist nature of Hamas'. Meanwhile, Rome's City council made Gilad Shalit an honorary citizen of the eternal City. I also draw your attention to the statement issued by the New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch, an organization which could never be accused of being a partisan supporter of Israel. It said that 'Hamas authorities are violating the laws of war by refusing to allow Shalit to correspond with his family', and concluded that Shalit's prolonged incommunicado detention 'may amount to torture'. Unlike your own announcement, the statement by Human Rights Watch concluded: 'Regardless of Hamas' grievances against Israel, there are no grounds to cut Shalit off completely from his family'. The eloquent articulation of similar arguments in Parliament by both Mark Dreyfus MP and Christopher Pyne MP, strongly suggests that there is a bipartisan consensus in support of the relevant humanitarian principles and the way those principles apply in the case of Gilad Shalit. There can be no justification at all for the ongoing inhumane treatment of Gilad Shalit or his continued captivity. His is a burning humanitarian issue which must be considered in its own right and divorced from the issues in contention between Israel and Hamas. It is regrettable that your announcement omitted to make this distinction. It is an omission that is especially troubling to Australian Jewry, in light of the general tenor and positive outcome of our recent discussions at The Lodge. Whilst my community is grateful to the Government for calling for Gillad Shalit's release, we cannot help feeling let down by the inexplicable failure of your announcement to make the clear statement of principle, and send the strong message of support, which the occasion required." (Robert Goot, Not enough, Minister, jwire.com.au, 28/6/10)
To which a spokesman for the minister can only respond with the following disconcertingly insubstantial and tepid excuse:
"Australia was one of only a handful of countries to make a formal statement urging Shalit's release, reflecting the strength and sincerity of Australia's views. Sadly, many others have remained silent in the face of his deplorable detention." (Smith's Shalit statement slated, Australian Jewish News, 2/7/10)
Pray for the soul of Stephen Smith.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Be Still My Bleeding Heart!
I'm a bleeding heart. It's just the way I am. Not a day goes by when my heart isn't bleeding for this poor bugger or that. Today my heart bleeds for this man:
"The Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, said that the Australian government was regularly criticised for being either too close to Israel, or for not being close enough." (Gillard stands by partner over Israel job link, Kirsty Needham, Sydney Morning Herald, 30/6/10)
"The Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, said that the Australian government was regularly criticised for being either too close to Israel, or for not being close enough." (Gillard stands by partner over Israel job link, Kirsty Needham, Sydney Morning Herald, 30/6/10)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)