Only in Murdoch's Australian:
"Jewish groups [ie Zionist lobbyists] are furious over 'hatred-inciting' [ie factual] comments accusing Israel of 'genocide' made by the lead organiser of the Greens' campaign in Melbourne's most Jewish electorate."* (Greens face backlash over genocide claim, Elias Visontay, 2/4/19)
Oh dear!
"David Jeffery, a staffer for Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May in the seat of Macnamara [formerly known as Melbourne Ports], said [correctly] deaths in the Gaza Strip were 'genocide', and used the hashtags '#F...kFascism' and '#noPrideInGenocide' in Facebook posts." (ibid)
Howls of outrage from readers of the The Australian: 'Booh! Hiss!' 'Off with his head!' 'To the stake!'
Enter Grand Inquisitor Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Hue and cry subside as he thunderously hurls the charge:
"Mr Jefferey's 'appalling comments represent the lowest form of activism. [They] betray a complete contempt for the sovereign rights of the Jewish people and an ignorance of fact and history - which can serve to incite hatred'." (ibid)
And then, smiling, almost in a whisper:
"[I urge Ms Hodgins-May] to consider whether she wishes to be associated with a person of Mr Jefferey's temperament and intellectual capacity'." (ibid)
Enter a shaken Steph Hodgins-May:
"Ms Hodgins-May told The Australian she would make arrangements for Mr Jeffery to spend time with the Jewish community in the seat 'to better learn why the language was harmful'." (ibid)
The accused is then dragged in to cries of 'Recant! Recant!' from readers.
And then, in a still, small voice:
"Mr Jeffery told The Australian he was 'wrong to use a word like genocide... to describe the actions of the Israeli government, although I strongly oppose its conduct'." (ibid)
[*"The comments from last year, which have been seen by The Australian, have since been deleted." (ibid).]
Showing posts with label The Greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Greens. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
From Raw Deal to Done Deal
NSW is about to undergo an election, and many and varied are the unknown quantities who vie with sitting members for their place in the state's upper and lower houses of parliament.
For instance:
"Elly Howse, Labor's candidate for Balmain at the NSW election, has conceded the controversial WestConnex motorway is a done deal, accusing sitting Greens MP Jamie Parker of being 'disingenuous' in promising to halt its progress." (Motorway to decide how inner west is won, Jessica Cortis, The Australian, 6/3/19)
Except that Elly's not really an unknown quantity to long-time readers of MERC with a retentive memory.
Now this is going to sound somewhat off-topic for a bit, but please bear with me. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but those words "done deal" surely speak volumes about our political class, especially the Labor left component. For too many of them there seems to be a point in their political trajectory where they shrug off raw deals (such as the NSW Liberal government's WestConnex project) as done deals.
To take Elly Howse for example, there was once a time, around 10 years ago, when this 30-year old political aspirant was on fire with a desire for justice in the face of a manifest raw deal. Now here she is, no longer on fire, shrugging off such raw deals as done deals. So what happened? When did that youthful fire first begin to flicker and then die?
If we examine what we know of her career trajectory, I'd say it was in 2010. You'll see what I mean if you click on 'Young Labor' below and read my 1/10/13 post A Transformative Experience.
For instance:
"Elly Howse, Labor's candidate for Balmain at the NSW election, has conceded the controversial WestConnex motorway is a done deal, accusing sitting Greens MP Jamie Parker of being 'disingenuous' in promising to halt its progress." (Motorway to decide how inner west is won, Jessica Cortis, The Australian, 6/3/19)
Except that Elly's not really an unknown quantity to long-time readers of MERC with a retentive memory.
Now this is going to sound somewhat off-topic for a bit, but please bear with me. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but those words "done deal" surely speak volumes about our political class, especially the Labor left component. For too many of them there seems to be a point in their political trajectory where they shrug off raw deals (such as the NSW Liberal government's WestConnex project) as done deals.
To take Elly Howse for example, there was once a time, around 10 years ago, when this 30-year old political aspirant was on fire with a desire for justice in the face of a manifest raw deal. Now here she is, no longer on fire, shrugging off such raw deals as done deals. So what happened? When did that youthful fire first begin to flicker and then die?
If we examine what we know of her career trajectory, I'd say it was in 2010. You'll see what I mean if you click on 'Young Labor' below and read my 1/10/13 post A Transformative Experience.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Look Who's Not Coming to Dinner
Murdoch columnist Janet Albrechtsen has hit on a new form of anti-Semitism - declining to attend "Shabbat dinners" organised by Vic Alhadaff of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (aka "the Jewish community").
Under the rubric of "building tolerance and respect," anyone who's anything in the political arena has apparently flocked to feed. All except one nefarious group that is. But I'll let Planet Janet take it from here:
Under the rubric of "building tolerance and respect," anyone who's anything in the political arena has apparently flocked to feed. All except one nefarious group that is. But I'll let Planet Janet take it from here:
"There was a Shabbat dinner for Liberal Party leaders and members... There was a dinner the year before for Labor politicians, members of Young Labor and union leaders. Another one included many members of the Chinese community and other civic groups. Yet another dinner involved people and groups who help settle new immigrants. You get the picture You would be hard-pressed to find more genuinely inclusive events. These are non-political. Yet still the Greens have, for years, refused to be part of these dinners." (Greens have two faces and one is the ugliest of bigots, The Australian, 13/2/19)
You get the picture.
And this is supposedly because "the Greens have a history of out-and-out organisational bigotry towards the Jewish community," and "that is anti-Semitism." (ibid)
And this is supposedly because "the Greens have a history of out-and-out organisational bigotry towards the Jewish community," and "that is anti-Semitism." (ibid)
Oh dear! But there's one little matter Planet Janet's not letting her readers in on here. While she accuses the NSW Greens of having two faces, she ignores the fact that Vic Alhadeff wears two hats, functioning on the one hand as the representative of a Jewish community organisation in an open, multicultural society, while on the other as an unabashed lobbyist for the apartheid state of Israel.
This obvious conflict of interest came to the fore when the former NSW Liberal premier Barry O'Farrell controversially appointed him Community Relations Commissioner in 2013, an appointment which soon came undone the following year when, at the height of that year's Israeli killing spree in Gaza (aka Operation Protective Edge), Alhadeff sent an incendiary, pro-Israel email to Australia's Jewish community, which, in the understated words of a Sydney Morning Herald editorial at the time, "betrayed the sensitivity of his role as CRC chairman." (See my 28/7/14 post Vic Alhadeff: Multicultural in NSW, Monocultural in Israel.)
Thankfully, the NSW Greens at least, know a soft propaganda exercise when they see one, and have the courage to give it a miss.
This obvious conflict of interest came to the fore when the former NSW Liberal premier Barry O'Farrell controversially appointed him Community Relations Commissioner in 2013, an appointment which soon came undone the following year when, at the height of that year's Israeli killing spree in Gaza (aka Operation Protective Edge), Alhadeff sent an incendiary, pro-Israel email to Australia's Jewish community, which, in the understated words of a Sydney Morning Herald editorial at the time, "betrayed the sensitivity of his role as CRC chairman." (See my 28/7/14 post Vic Alhadeff: Multicultural in NSW, Monocultural in Israel.)
Thankfully, the NSW Greens at least, know a soft propaganda exercise when they see one, and have the courage to give it a miss.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
The Battle for Balmain
Like, O WOW. Just WOW:
"It's been seven long years since NSW Labor surrendered a treasured slice of its historical heartland to the Greens. Destined to be billed as the Battle for Balmain... the state election campaign of 2019 is shaping up as another litmus test for the parties' respective claims to the area as 'heartland' country. Labor invested its hopes in a fresh face, untainted by the scandals of its dying days in power, which saw it removed from government in 2011. Over the next year, Elly Howse - a 29-year-old feminist, inner west local and public health PhD student - will attempt to pull off a feat that has so far proved impossible for even veteran politicians. NSW Labor has never taken back a seat off the Greens once they have lost it." (Battle for Balmain as Labor places faith in young gun candidate, Lisa Visentin, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/5/18)
What's not to like? Go, Elly Howse!
Oh, wait a minute...
"Student recipients of the Rambam Fellowship come from Liberal, Labor Right, and Labor Left factions. For members of Labor Left who accept the Fellowship, the matter is particularly complicated as their actions contradict the faction's stance against Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Former USYD SRC President and recipient of the Rambam Fellowship Elly Howse was said to have taken part in a sponsored trip with strong anti-Zionist views, but returned home more sympathetic to Israel. Honi was unable to reach Howse for comment." (NUS Israel trips are no spiritual pilgrimage, Rafi Alam & Xiaoran Shi, Honi Soit, 19/8/13) (See my 1/10/13 post A Transformative Experience.)
"It's been seven long years since NSW Labor surrendered a treasured slice of its historical heartland to the Greens. Destined to be billed as the Battle for Balmain... the state election campaign of 2019 is shaping up as another litmus test for the parties' respective claims to the area as 'heartland' country. Labor invested its hopes in a fresh face, untainted by the scandals of its dying days in power, which saw it removed from government in 2011. Over the next year, Elly Howse - a 29-year-old feminist, inner west local and public health PhD student - will attempt to pull off a feat that has so far proved impossible for even veteran politicians. NSW Labor has never taken back a seat off the Greens once they have lost it." (Battle for Balmain as Labor places faith in young gun candidate, Lisa Visentin, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/5/18)
What's not to like? Go, Elly Howse!
Oh, wait a minute...
"Student recipients of the Rambam Fellowship come from Liberal, Labor Right, and Labor Left factions. For members of Labor Left who accept the Fellowship, the matter is particularly complicated as their actions contradict the faction's stance against Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Former USYD SRC President and recipient of the Rambam Fellowship Elly Howse was said to have taken part in a sponsored trip with strong anti-Zionist views, but returned home more sympathetic to Israel. Honi was unable to reach Howse for comment." (NUS Israel trips are no spiritual pilgrimage, Rafi Alam & Xiaoran Shi, Honi Soit, 19/8/13) (See my 1/10/13 post A Transformative Experience.)
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Please Explain
Former senator for the Australian Greens, Scott Ludlam, has resurfaced as a Guardian Australia columnist... with mixed results. To deconstruct just these two sentences:
"Syria, and Yemen, and Gaza, each in their own way, are terminal signs that our system of global governance is truly broken." (Syria exposes the broken state of global governance. How do we respond? 16/4/18)
Why Gaza, and not Palestine?
"No party to these bruising conflicts can say with a straight face that they are acting in good faith, or with any regard to the 'international rules-based order' in which post-second world war generations have placed their trust."
To focus here just on Gaza/Palestine, by 'party to the conflict,' does Ludlam mean that neither Israel nor the Palestinians are 'acting in good faith,' or adhering to international law? If so, this statement of equivalence between the two suggests that he has no idea of the underlying settler-colonial nature of the problem. In 2018!
"Syria, and Yemen, and Gaza, each in their own way, are terminal signs that our system of global governance is truly broken." (Syria exposes the broken state of global governance. How do we respond? 16/4/18)
Why Gaza, and not Palestine?
"No party to these bruising conflicts can say with a straight face that they are acting in good faith, or with any regard to the 'international rules-based order' in which post-second world war generations have placed their trust."
To focus here just on Gaza/Palestine, by 'party to the conflict,' does Ludlam mean that neither Israel nor the Palestinians are 'acting in good faith,' or adhering to international law? If so, this statement of equivalence between the two suggests that he has no idea of the underlying settler-colonial nature of the problem. In 2018!
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Did Adam Bandt Really Need to Apologise to Jim Molan?
"Liberal senator Jim Molan has refused to accept the apology of the Greens MP who questioned his military record in Iraq, insisting his threat of defamation is still on the table. Melbourne Greens MP Adam Bandt suggested in a TV interview on Wednesday the senator may have committed war crimes during the battle for Fallujah. Senator Molan, a retired major-general who served as the chief of operations of the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, quickly threatened to pursue the Greens MP to the courts for defamation." (Greens MP Adam Bandt has apologised for questioning Liberal senator Jim Molan's military action in Iraq, after been threatened with defamation, sbs.com.au, 9/2/18)
If Adam Bandt had read the following text - IOW, if he'd done his homework - maybe he wouldn't have been intimidated into issuing his apology:
"The siege of Fallujah, carried out by US forces upon a mainly civilian population, contravened 70 individual articles of the Geneva Conventions.
"The US, an original signatory to the Conventions, is in its activities in Iraq currently in breach of nearly every major area of concern identified by them...Those in command have chosen to drive a tank trough a century and a half of delicately crafted regulations on the treatment of those involved in conflict...The Conventions are the basis of international law in times of war, and not a simple formality or series of guidelines; the American actions in Fallujah are therefore grave indeed."(The Siege of Fallujah and the Geneva Conventions, Jonathan Holmes, quoted in Fallujah; Eyewitness testimony from Iraq's besieged city, Jonathan Holmes, 2007, pp 112-13)
If Adam Bandt had read the following text - IOW, if he'd done his homework - maybe he wouldn't have been intimidated into issuing his apology:
"The siege of Fallujah, carried out by US forces upon a mainly civilian population, contravened 70 individual articles of the Geneva Conventions.
"The US, an original signatory to the Conventions, is in its activities in Iraq currently in breach of nearly every major area of concern identified by them...Those in command have chosen to drive a tank trough a century and a half of delicately crafted regulations on the treatment of those involved in conflict...The Conventions are the basis of international law in times of war, and not a simple formality or series of guidelines; the American actions in Fallujah are therefore grave indeed."(The Siege of Fallujah and the Geneva Conventions, Jonathan Holmes, quoted in Fallujah; Eyewitness testimony from Iraq's besieged city, Jonathan Holmes, 2007, pp 112-13)
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Four Corners' Hatchet Job on Lee Rhiannon
It is always worth keeping in mind that, despite the lurid fantasies of the right-wing nut jobs at News Corpse to the effect that the ABC is a bastion of leftist radicalism, the state broadcaster is in fact merely the propaganda arm of the Australian establishment.
Last night's Four Corners program, Inside the Greens: A Party in Turmoil, which featured former Greens leader Bob Brown and others attacking NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, was a case in point.
Cast your mind back to 2010-2011, when Sydney's Marrickville Council, dominated at the time by The Greens, bravely took a stand for Palestine by adopting a pro-BDS policy against the purchase of Israeli products, and when its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne only narrowly failed to snatch the NSW state seat of Marrickville from Labor for her party at the 2011 state election.
Many of Rhiannon's detractors on Four Corners have form going back to that time. Here's a reminder:
Sally Neighbour, the current executive producer of Four Corners, used to write for Murdoch's Australian, and earlier took The Greens to task (Divided we fall) in Morry Schwartz's The Monthly. (See my 3/2/12 post Get Rhiannon! 2)
Richard Di Natale, the current federal leader of the party, once cluelessly agreed to the proposition that the Palestinians should "recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish state," before later backtracking when apprised of the implications of what he'd said. (See my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified.)
Bob Brown, the party's founder, has attacked the NSW Greens in the Murdoch press, claiming NSW Greens' support for BDS was "against his advice" and urging the branch to stick to "bread-and-butter issues." (See Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage, 1/4/11)
Ian Cohen, a former NSW Greens MLC, has condemned his party's support for BDS as "old style" and expressed concern about "Jewish community outrage." (See my 31/3/11 post Kahane Down Under?)
Christine Milne, Di Natale's predecessor, has spoken out against BDS, travelled to Israel (although whether or not at her own expense we do not know), and once spoke in favour of regime change in Libya. (See Some Questions for Christine Milne (21/4/12), Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed? (11/7/14), A Gripe About The Greens (24/3/11))
Jeremy Buckingham, a NSW Greens MLC, joined the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel and signed the so-called London Declaration on Combatting Antisemitism. (See my 27/5/13 post Et tu, Jeremy?)
The issue of the NSW Greens' support for Palestine emerged only obliquely in the program. Presenter Louise Milligan's bias against that support, however, was clear at this point:
Milligan: While her leader is travelling the country, trying to hold his party together, Lee Rhiannon has flown to the Middle East and is crossing into Palestine.
Rhiannon: When you see it like that you can see why they call it an apartheid wall. What you see when you arrive in this country is apartheid. From the West Bank to Gaza, people are treated as second class citizens. Their human rights are ignored or abused.
Milligan: And she's still lobbing political grenades at her party: reviving a campaign to boycott Israeli businesses in Australia which has seen a backlash against the Greens in the past.
Rhiannon: There is a value in this campaign, and it's a reminder of why people like ourselves in Australia and around the world... it's time to reassess this form of struggle, because there are very clear examples of the value it brings to solidarity and the results it can achieve.
Milligan: Her leader disagrees.
Di Natale: It's not something that the Australian Greens have ever supported. It's not something that I support.
Milligan: It's these sorts of clashes with the federal party that have prompted the Greens elders to tell Four Corners it's time for Senator Lee Rhiannon to go.
Brown: Oh, well, you know, I've been living with Lee for 30 years, but it's the end of Lee's reign. The end is nigh, and I look toward the future.
Last night's Four Corners program, Inside the Greens: A Party in Turmoil, which featured former Greens leader Bob Brown and others attacking NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, was a case in point.
Cast your mind back to 2010-2011, when Sydney's Marrickville Council, dominated at the time by The Greens, bravely took a stand for Palestine by adopting a pro-BDS policy against the purchase of Israeli products, and when its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne only narrowly failed to snatch the NSW state seat of Marrickville from Labor for her party at the 2011 state election.
Many of Rhiannon's detractors on Four Corners have form going back to that time. Here's a reminder:
Sally Neighbour, the current executive producer of Four Corners, used to write for Murdoch's Australian, and earlier took The Greens to task (Divided we fall) in Morry Schwartz's The Monthly. (See my 3/2/12 post Get Rhiannon! 2)
Richard Di Natale, the current federal leader of the party, once cluelessly agreed to the proposition that the Palestinians should "recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish state," before later backtracking when apprised of the implications of what he'd said. (See my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified.)
Bob Brown, the party's founder, has attacked the NSW Greens in the Murdoch press, claiming NSW Greens' support for BDS was "against his advice" and urging the branch to stick to "bread-and-butter issues." (See Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage, 1/4/11)
Ian Cohen, a former NSW Greens MLC, has condemned his party's support for BDS as "old style" and expressed concern about "Jewish community outrage." (See my 31/3/11 post Kahane Down Under?)
Christine Milne, Di Natale's predecessor, has spoken out against BDS, travelled to Israel (although whether or not at her own expense we do not know), and once spoke in favour of regime change in Libya. (See Some Questions for Christine Milne (21/4/12), Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed? (11/7/14), A Gripe About The Greens (24/3/11))
Jeremy Buckingham, a NSW Greens MLC, joined the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel and signed the so-called London Declaration on Combatting Antisemitism. (See my 27/5/13 post Et tu, Jeremy?)
The issue of the NSW Greens' support for Palestine emerged only obliquely in the program. Presenter Louise Milligan's bias against that support, however, was clear at this point:
Milligan: While her leader is travelling the country, trying to hold his party together, Lee Rhiannon has flown to the Middle East and is crossing into Palestine.
Rhiannon: When you see it like that you can see why they call it an apartheid wall. What you see when you arrive in this country is apartheid. From the West Bank to Gaza, people are treated as second class citizens. Their human rights are ignored or abused.
Milligan: And she's still lobbing political grenades at her party: reviving a campaign to boycott Israeli businesses in Australia which has seen a backlash against the Greens in the past.
Rhiannon: There is a value in this campaign, and it's a reminder of why people like ourselves in Australia and around the world... it's time to reassess this form of struggle, because there are very clear examples of the value it brings to solidarity and the results it can achieve.
Milligan: Her leader disagrees.
Di Natale: It's not something that the Australian Greens have ever supported. It's not something that I support.
Milligan: It's these sorts of clashes with the federal party that have prompted the Greens elders to tell Four Corners it's time for Senator Lee Rhiannon to go.
Brown: Oh, well, you know, I've been living with Lee for 30 years, but it's the end of Lee's reign. The end is nigh, and I look toward the future.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Why Do I Get the Feeling?
OMFG, Jonathan Freedland's Guardian is so bloody depressing.
I've just taken a peek, God help me, at the 1,000+ torrent of (overwhelmingly) garbage and bile, aka comment, on its website following Gabrielle Chan's article, Bob Brown endorses action against Lee Rhiannon as Greens turmoil deepens (26/6/17).
What vile, stagnant swamp, I wonder, breeds these sadsacks and mental defectives? Is it any wonder we've got swamp monsters like Abbott, Trumble, Shorten, Dutton, Hanson and the like plaguing us?
In over a thousand 'comments' only one got why the admirable Senator Lee Rhiannon has come under fire from the know-nothings (di Natale) and has-beens (Brown) in her party:
"Why do I get the feeling that Lee's strong stand on the atrocities happening to the Palestinians is behind the hostility to Lee? The Greens may not accept corporate donations, but that does not mean that there are not forces behind the scene pulling strings."
Whoever you are, you have that feeling because you know what's going on.
Update (28/6/17): "'What is happening here is that someone is anonymously feeding journalists misinformation about me. I know that Greens members and our MPs condemn such behaviour.' The campaign against her was about much more than the Turnbull government's Gonski 2.0 school funding 'con-job', she said. 'It is a vicious attempt to destroy my reputation'." (Rhiannon vows she won't be driven out of Parliament, Adam Gartrell, Sydney Morning Herald)
I've just taken a peek, God help me, at the 1,000+ torrent of (overwhelmingly) garbage and bile, aka comment, on its website following Gabrielle Chan's article, Bob Brown endorses action against Lee Rhiannon as Greens turmoil deepens (26/6/17).
What vile, stagnant swamp, I wonder, breeds these sadsacks and mental defectives? Is it any wonder we've got swamp monsters like Abbott, Trumble, Shorten, Dutton, Hanson and the like plaguing us?
In over a thousand 'comments' only one got why the admirable Senator Lee Rhiannon has come under fire from the know-nothings (di Natale) and has-beens (Brown) in her party:
"Why do I get the feeling that Lee's strong stand on the atrocities happening to the Palestinians is behind the hostility to Lee? The Greens may not accept corporate donations, but that does not mean that there are not forces behind the scene pulling strings."
Whoever you are, you have that feeling because you know what's going on.
Update (28/6/17): "'What is happening here is that someone is anonymously feeding journalists misinformation about me. I know that Greens members and our MPs condemn such behaviour.' The campaign against her was about much more than the Turnbull government's Gonski 2.0 school funding 'con-job', she said. 'It is a vicious attempt to destroy my reputation'." (Rhiannon vows she won't be driven out of Parliament, Adam Gartrell, Sydney Morning Herald)
Friday, October 14, 2016
Games Politicians Play
Classic grandstanding:
"A state Parliament in Australia on Thursday unanimously passed a motion that described US presidential nominee Donald Trump as 'a revolting slug unfit for public office.' Jeremy Buckingham... from the minor Greens party, introduced the motion to the New South Wales Legislative Council, the Parliament's upper house. 'This house... agrees with those who have described Mr Trump as 'a revolting slug' unfit for public office,' the motion said... Had any lawmaker objected to the motion, it would have been struck off the list of parliamentary business. Because there was no objection, the motion was recorded as having been unanimously agreed to by the Sydney-based house. 'It's great that all sides of Australian politics, from conservatives to liberals to Greens, agree that Donald Trump is a 'revolting slug' and completely unfit for public office,' Buckingham said in a statement." (Australian state lawmakers condemn Trump as 'revolting slug', apnews.com, 13/10/16)
So Trump's a slug, a sleazebag and a superfreak? So what? He's already toast. What about those with a far greater track record in awfulness?
What about the arms-dealing Obomber - $38 bn to Israel over the next 10 years/ $115 bn to Saudi Arabia since 2009?
What about Killary - "We came, we saw, he (Gaddafi) died. Hahaha"/ Hey, Putin, put up your nukes!?
If this one-time Parliamentary Friend of Israel really wants to make a splash, if he's really more buck than ham, let him try moving a motion calling on war criminal Benjamin Netanyau, who's been invited by the feds to (dis)grace our shores next year, to stay put.
Pigs will fly.
"A state Parliament in Australia on Thursday unanimously passed a motion that described US presidential nominee Donald Trump as 'a revolting slug unfit for public office.' Jeremy Buckingham... from the minor Greens party, introduced the motion to the New South Wales Legislative Council, the Parliament's upper house. 'This house... agrees with those who have described Mr Trump as 'a revolting slug' unfit for public office,' the motion said... Had any lawmaker objected to the motion, it would have been struck off the list of parliamentary business. Because there was no objection, the motion was recorded as having been unanimously agreed to by the Sydney-based house. 'It's great that all sides of Australian politics, from conservatives to liberals to Greens, agree that Donald Trump is a 'revolting slug' and completely unfit for public office,' Buckingham said in a statement." (Australian state lawmakers condemn Trump as 'revolting slug', apnews.com, 13/10/16)
So Trump's a slug, a sleazebag and a superfreak? So what? He's already toast. What about those with a far greater track record in awfulness?
What about the arms-dealing Obomber - $38 bn to Israel over the next 10 years/ $115 bn to Saudi Arabia since 2009?
What about Killary - "We came, we saw, he (Gaddafi) died. Hahaha"/ Hey, Putin, put up your nukes!?
If this one-time Parliamentary Friend of Israel really wants to make a splash, if he's really more buck than ham, let him try moving a motion calling on war criminal Benjamin Netanyau, who's been invited by the feds to (dis)grace our shores next year, to stay put.
Pigs will fly.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Standing Up for What Matters*
Really, is there anything more annoying than political wannabes waffling on about a subject they clearly know nothing about?
I'm referring, this time around, to the Greens' Steph Hodgins-May, who's been doing just that on the subject of Palestine/Israel.
*Sigh*.
It's not as though Ms Hodgins-May has an excuse, mind you: she's been around now for 30 bloody years!
Moreover:
a) as "a former planning and environment lawyer" she's obviously tertiary-educated;
b) she's reportedly worked for the UN;
c) she's standing as an alternative to the LIBLAB duopoly; and
d) most atonishingly, she's put her hand up to run in the seat of Melbourne Ports against Labor's answer to Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Danby.
Despite all that, this is the best she can come up with in response to a question from a card-carrying Zio as to what her position is on Palestine/Israel:
"Sure, well the Australian Greens policy is that we support a peaceful, negotiated, two-state solution. We condemn all acts of violence and we oppose BDS. So that's the Greens' position and it's consistent with my views on the situation. It's an incredibly complex scenario what's going on in the Middle East and I wish I knew the answer to it, I really do, but what I do know is that... achieving peace there is not going to come down to what we are talking about in this election but please do understand that my view is consistent with the Greens' policy on this and I understand that the Labor Party's policy is also very similar and believes in a peaceful, negotiated, two-state solution in Israel/Palestine and we'll continue to support grass roots organisations that are working towards a peaceful outcome in the Middle East." (Greens candidate talks about her decision not to attend Zionism Victoria co-hosted debate, jwire.com.au, 28/6/16)
Which may be summed up as: meaningless two-state mantra + put the guns & the BDS away, guys + gee whizz, it's all so difficult + anyway, our policy's the same as Danby's so what's your problem? + meaningless two-state mantra again + I don't know what I'm babbling about, but "grass roots organisations working towards peaceful outcomes" should keep this bloke happy.
Jeeesus, is it really too much to expect of a politically active, tertiary-educated, non-LibLab adult - taking on Danby of all people! - that she know something about this near-100 year old, headline-hogging colonial clusterfuck before opening her mouth on the subject in public?
Apparently.
[*Greens slogan]
I'm referring, this time around, to the Greens' Steph Hodgins-May, who's been doing just that on the subject of Palestine/Israel.
*Sigh*.
It's not as though Ms Hodgins-May has an excuse, mind you: she's been around now for 30 bloody years!
Moreover:
a) as "a former planning and environment lawyer" she's obviously tertiary-educated;
b) she's reportedly worked for the UN;
c) she's standing as an alternative to the LIBLAB duopoly; and
d) most atonishingly, she's put her hand up to run in the seat of Melbourne Ports against Labor's answer to Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Danby.
Despite all that, this is the best she can come up with in response to a question from a card-carrying Zio as to what her position is on Palestine/Israel:
"Sure, well the Australian Greens policy is that we support a peaceful, negotiated, two-state solution. We condemn all acts of violence and we oppose BDS. So that's the Greens' position and it's consistent with my views on the situation. It's an incredibly complex scenario what's going on in the Middle East and I wish I knew the answer to it, I really do, but what I do know is that... achieving peace there is not going to come down to what we are talking about in this election but please do understand that my view is consistent with the Greens' policy on this and I understand that the Labor Party's policy is also very similar and believes in a peaceful, negotiated, two-state solution in Israel/Palestine and we'll continue to support grass roots organisations that are working towards a peaceful outcome in the Middle East." (Greens candidate talks about her decision not to attend Zionism Victoria co-hosted debate, jwire.com.au, 28/6/16)
Which may be summed up as: meaningless two-state mantra + put the guns & the BDS away, guys + gee whizz, it's all so difficult + anyway, our policy's the same as Danby's so what's your problem? + meaningless two-state mantra again + I don't know what I'm babbling about, but "grass roots organisations working towards peaceful outcomes" should keep this bloke happy.
Jeeesus, is it really too much to expect of a politically active, tertiary-educated, non-LibLab adult - taking on Danby of all people! - that she know something about this near-100 year old, headline-hogging colonial clusterfuck before opening her mouth on the subject in public?
Apparently.
[*Greens slogan]
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Real Greens
Our Australian Greens should take a leaf out of the United States' Green Party's book. Here is the latter's statement on US foreign policy, Palestine-Israel & BDS. (Their leader and presidential candidate is Dr Jill Stein):
"The Jill Stein campaign calls for ending support for governments committing war crimes and massive human rights violations, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. It supports the BDS movement as a peaceful, nonviolent set of actions organized by civil society across the world aimed to end Israel apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and systematic human rights abuses.
"US foreign policy requires an emergency overhaul, from a program of total global military and economic domination, to a policy of promoting international law, human rights and diplomacy. We must cease and desist from being, in the words of Martin Luther King, the greatest purveyor of violence the world over. Our foreign policy currently serves war profiteers and fossil fuel companies, but not the American people or the cause of global justice, peace and security. Our failed wars of the past 14 years have cost us 5 trillion dollars, left over a million people dead in Iraq alone, and killed or maimed tens of thousands of US service men and women. Yet we - and the Middle East - are far less secure, not more secure.
"In addition to ending our catastrophic and immoral wars for oil and markets, we must stop aiding and abetting the human rights violations and war crimes of our allies who are massively defying international law. This includes the Israeli government and the rulers of Saudi Arabia. With regard to Israel, the United States has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Israeli government as it pursues policies of occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, demolitions, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law. Instead of allying with the courageous proponents of peace and human rights within Palestine and Israel, our government has rewarded consistent abusers of human rights.
"Therefore, the Stein campaign calls for ending military and economic support for the Israeli government while it is committing war crimes and defying international law. In addition, the Stein campaign supports actions of nonviolent resistance to the policies of the occupation and of the Israeli apartheid regime, including those of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign, which was endorsed by the Green Party of the United States in 2005 and is supported by thousands of civil society peace activists and organizations.
"Consistency in US policy regarding human rights and international law will begin, but not end, with Palestine and Israel. I will apply this same approach to other nations such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt, among others.
"Finally, we call for the establishment of a Palestine and Israel Truth & Reconciliation Commission as the vehicle for shifting from an era of US support of human rights and international law violations to one based on justice and truth bringing all parties together as equals to seek workable solutions. A dedicated commitment to justice will further the security of all parties, Palestinians, Israelis, and all people in the region, much better than the current policies of politically, economically and militarily supporting the systemic and institutionalized abuse of one side against the other."
"The Jill Stein campaign calls for ending support for governments committing war crimes and massive human rights violations, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. It supports the BDS movement as a peaceful, nonviolent set of actions organized by civil society across the world aimed to end Israel apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and systematic human rights abuses.
"US foreign policy requires an emergency overhaul, from a program of total global military and economic domination, to a policy of promoting international law, human rights and diplomacy. We must cease and desist from being, in the words of Martin Luther King, the greatest purveyor of violence the world over. Our foreign policy currently serves war profiteers and fossil fuel companies, but not the American people or the cause of global justice, peace and security. Our failed wars of the past 14 years have cost us 5 trillion dollars, left over a million people dead in Iraq alone, and killed or maimed tens of thousands of US service men and women. Yet we - and the Middle East - are far less secure, not more secure.
"In addition to ending our catastrophic and immoral wars for oil and markets, we must stop aiding and abetting the human rights violations and war crimes of our allies who are massively defying international law. This includes the Israeli government and the rulers of Saudi Arabia. With regard to Israel, the United States has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Israeli government as it pursues policies of occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, demolitions, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law. Instead of allying with the courageous proponents of peace and human rights within Palestine and Israel, our government has rewarded consistent abusers of human rights.
"Therefore, the Stein campaign calls for ending military and economic support for the Israeli government while it is committing war crimes and defying international law. In addition, the Stein campaign supports actions of nonviolent resistance to the policies of the occupation and of the Israeli apartheid regime, including those of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign, which was endorsed by the Green Party of the United States in 2005 and is supported by thousands of civil society peace activists and organizations.
"Consistency in US policy regarding human rights and international law will begin, but not end, with Palestine and Israel. I will apply this same approach to other nations such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt, among others.
"Finally, we call for the establishment of a Palestine and Israel Truth & Reconciliation Commission as the vehicle for shifting from an era of US support of human rights and international law violations to one based on justice and truth bringing all parties together as equals to seek workable solutions. A dedicated commitment to justice will further the security of all parties, Palestinians, Israelis, and all people in the region, much better than the current policies of politically, economically and militarily supporting the systemic and institutionalized abuse of one side against the other."
Friday, June 10, 2016
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
This smacks of disinformation:
"As Labor's Michael Danby toils in his seat of Melbourne Ports to prevent the Green tide crossing the Yarra, an intense Greens doorknocking campaign is under way. One door knockee wrote to Danby: 'A very nice sounding bloke just knocked on my door canvassing for the Greens. I said I wouldn't be voting Green because of their policy on Israel. The Greens have exactly the same policy on Israel as Michael Danby,' he said. 'I don't think so,' I replied.' The knockee had an idea of Danby's position on Israel, not least because he was a rabbi." (In the know, Strewth, The Australian, 8/6/16)
However inadequate and gutless The Australian Greens' policy is on Palestine/Israel - let me count the ways - the simple, verifiable fact is that it is still substantially better than Labor's.
Here, for example, is what Labor will do "if there is no progress in the next round of the peace process":
"... discuss joining like-minded nations who have already recognised Palestine," and "announce the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state." (See my 28/7/15 post ALP fiddles while Palestine burns.)
The operative word here is discuss.
Now here's The Australian Greens' policy:
"Given the continuing disregard by Israel of calls to halt settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, The Australian Greens: 1. Call upon the Australian government to halt military cooperation and military trade with Israel..." (Israel/Palestine March 2010)
IOW, institute a military boycott of Israel.
"As Labor's Michael Danby toils in his seat of Melbourne Ports to prevent the Green tide crossing the Yarra, an intense Greens doorknocking campaign is under way. One door knockee wrote to Danby: 'A very nice sounding bloke just knocked on my door canvassing for the Greens. I said I wouldn't be voting Green because of their policy on Israel. The Greens have exactly the same policy on Israel as Michael Danby,' he said. 'I don't think so,' I replied.' The knockee had an idea of Danby's position on Israel, not least because he was a rabbi." (In the know, Strewth, The Australian, 8/6/16)
However inadequate and gutless The Australian Greens' policy is on Palestine/Israel - let me count the ways - the simple, verifiable fact is that it is still substantially better than Labor's.
Here, for example, is what Labor will do "if there is no progress in the next round of the peace process":
"... discuss joining like-minded nations who have already recognised Palestine," and "announce the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state." (See my 28/7/15 post ALP fiddles while Palestine burns.)
The operative word here is discuss.
Now here's The Australian Greens' policy:
"Given the continuing disregard by Israel of calls to halt settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, The Australian Greens: 1. Call upon the Australian government to halt military cooperation and military trade with Israel..." (Israel/Palestine March 2010)
IOW, institute a military boycott of Israel.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Vale John Kaye (1955-2016)
The ms media this week lists the many worthy causes championed by the late NSW Greens MLC John Kaye. All except one - Palestine.
You may, for example, read the former Greens' leader, Bob Brown's reference to Kaye as "a friend of the poor and dispossessed," but find yourself wondering to which poor and dispossessed Brown was referring.
You may read the assessment of John Macgowan, the former Liberal Party staffer responsible for shepherding government legislation through the NSW Upper House, in which he describes Kaye as "that rare breed of politician who could always be relied upon to do the right thing, to put common decency first," but find yourself wondering why, if this were so, only Kaye and fellow Green, David Shoebridge, saw fit to defend the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against its detractors in the NSW Upper House in September 2011, an occasion when even the other Greens in the House were found wanting. (See my 16/9/11 post A Cautionary Tale)
Here, in part, is what Kaye had to say at the time:
"I cannot support this motion [moved by the Liberal's David Clarke, and reading in part: '(c) 'notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS camp has descended into anti-Semitism'*] and will be voting against it. This motion is a cheap attempt to smear the BDS movement as anti-Jewish when it is not. It is an attempt to allege that there is anti-Semitism on the side of the BDS debate when there is no evidence of such anti-Semitism.
"There is direct evidence that the anti-BDS side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections - the Australian Protectionist Party - and not just fascist connections, but connections to Holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to explain the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the Holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust, and many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
"Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 [sic: December 2010] the NSW Greens supported the BDS mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there, and if Trevor Khan could find it, surely anybody could find it.
"The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support BDS as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
"The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa - the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era where human rights were no longer determined by the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
"I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose BDS, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The BDS campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it - as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support BDS are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded on fact, not in a fantasy borne of ideology.
"The BDS campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those which called for an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman...
"I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate, and other senators, voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the BDS campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust."
[*See my 17/9/11 post Witches Brew 1.]
You may, for example, read the former Greens' leader, Bob Brown's reference to Kaye as "a friend of the poor and dispossessed," but find yourself wondering to which poor and dispossessed Brown was referring.
You may read the assessment of John Macgowan, the former Liberal Party staffer responsible for shepherding government legislation through the NSW Upper House, in which he describes Kaye as "that rare breed of politician who could always be relied upon to do the right thing, to put common decency first," but find yourself wondering why, if this were so, only Kaye and fellow Green, David Shoebridge, saw fit to defend the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against its detractors in the NSW Upper House in September 2011, an occasion when even the other Greens in the House were found wanting. (See my 16/9/11 post A Cautionary Tale)
Here, in part, is what Kaye had to say at the time:
"I cannot support this motion [moved by the Liberal's David Clarke, and reading in part: '(c) 'notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS camp has descended into anti-Semitism'*] and will be voting against it. This motion is a cheap attempt to smear the BDS movement as anti-Jewish when it is not. It is an attempt to allege that there is anti-Semitism on the side of the BDS debate when there is no evidence of such anti-Semitism.
"There is direct evidence that the anti-BDS side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections - the Australian Protectionist Party - and not just fascist connections, but connections to Holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to explain the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the Holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust, and many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
"Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 [sic: December 2010] the NSW Greens supported the BDS mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there, and if Trevor Khan could find it, surely anybody could find it.
"The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support BDS as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
"The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa - the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era where human rights were no longer determined by the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
"I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose BDS, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The BDS campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it - as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support BDS are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded on fact, not in a fantasy borne of ideology.
"The BDS campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those which called for an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman...
"I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate, and other senators, voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the BDS campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust."
[*See my 17/9/11 post Witches Brew 1.]
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Magic Mike Does Upstart Nation 2
For sheer self-serving cynicism Mike (Walk on Water) Baird's 4/4/16 Facebook post is hard to beat:
"Today, while visiting a refugee camp in the West Bank, I met a group of young kids the same age as my son. I asked one of the boys what he dreamt of becoming when he was older. 'It's hard to have dreams when you know they can't come true,' he told me. The situation here is nothing short of heartbreaking. I don't know where the cycle of thousands of years of violence ends. But I do know that all kids should be able to dream. That they should have hope of a better future. The team at the Aida refugee camp are doing a great job in a difficult situation. The money donated by the Australian Government - and therefore Australian taxpayers - is doing great work in helping these kids. These kids are funny. They love soccer (Real Madrid, specifically). They love learning at school. And the hope is that they are given a chance to chase their dreams and enjoy the peace that, in NSW, we can take for granted."
The only matter at issue here is whether was it penned by Clare Masters, Baird's senior media advisor/speechwriter, formerly at Murdoch's Daily Telegraph, or by Imre Salusinszky, his media director, formerly at Murdoch's Australian, where he was an integral part of Operation Spread the Word: BDS is Electoral Poison for the Greens.
"Today, while visiting a refugee camp in the West Bank, I met a group of young kids the same age as my son. I asked one of the boys what he dreamt of becoming when he was older. 'It's hard to have dreams when you know they can't come true,' he told me. The situation here is nothing short of heartbreaking. I don't know where the cycle of thousands of years of violence ends. But I do know that all kids should be able to dream. That they should have hope of a better future. The team at the Aida refugee camp are doing a great job in a difficult situation. The money donated by the Australian Government - and therefore Australian taxpayers - is doing great work in helping these kids. These kids are funny. They love soccer (Real Madrid, specifically). They love learning at school. And the hope is that they are given a chance to chase their dreams and enjoy the peace that, in NSW, we can take for granted."
The only matter at issue here is whether was it penned by Clare Masters, Baird's senior media advisor/speechwriter, formerly at Murdoch's Daily Telegraph, or by Imre Salusinszky, his media director, formerly at Murdoch's Australian, where he was an integral part of Operation Spread the Word: BDS is Electoral Poison for the Greens.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Danby's Guide to Australian Politics
The Australian has just discovered Greens leader Richard Di Natale's 'clarification' that, while he supports the existence of Israel as a state - in the context of a two-state solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict - that doesn't necessarily mean he supports its existence as a Jewish state for Jews everywhere. (See my earlier posts on this subject.)
IOW, Di Natale doesn't support the central Zionist thesis that 'Israel' belongs not only to those Jews who happen to live there now but to all Jews, including the usual Zionist zealots quoted by Christian Kerr in his report Di Natale 'caved in' to Israel extortionists (5/6/15).
One of those was Labor's 'Minister for Israel', Michael Danby MP, who was reported as saying that:
"... the episode undermined 'the image of moderation that the Greens... is so desperate to cultivate.' He said other parties would be 'excoriated' over such a reversal."
Just think about that for a moment.
In effect, what Danby is saying is that anyone who seriously believes that he, Michael Danby, is really an Israeli is a political moderate.
But anyone who thinks he's just an Australian, no more, no less, is a howling political extremist and deserves to be "excoriated."
Right...
IOW, Di Natale doesn't support the central Zionist thesis that 'Israel' belongs not only to those Jews who happen to live there now but to all Jews, including the usual Zionist zealots quoted by Christian Kerr in his report Di Natale 'caved in' to Israel extortionists (5/6/15).
One of those was Labor's 'Minister for Israel', Michael Danby MP, who was reported as saying that:
"... the episode undermined 'the image of moderation that the Greens... is so desperate to cultivate.' He said other parties would be 'excoriated' over such a reversal."
Just think about that for a moment.
In effect, what Danby is saying is that anyone who seriously believes that he, Michael Danby, is really an Israeli is a political moderate.
But anyone who thinks he's just an Australian, no more, no less, is a howling political extremist and deserves to be "excoriated."
Right...
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Richard Di Natale: Wet Behind the Ears
"Stop saying that nobody knew how to cultivate oranges in Jaffa until the Jews showed them how. 'Making the desert bloom' makes desert dwellers out of people who were the agricultural superiors of the Crusaders." (Christopher Hitchens)
Thus blurted Richard Di Natale:
"Israelis are at the forefront of innovative technologies around [water saving]. Why wouldn't we be learning from some of the new technologies that the Israelis have developed?" (Di Natale in his own words, The Australian Jewish News, 22/5/15)
Although he's obviously unaware of it, the Greens leader here is mouthing the latest twist on one of the oldest Zionist talking points in the book, the one about Israel 'making the desert bloom'.
Before he spouts any more nonsense of this kind, could some Green or other out there please draw his attention to the following INCREDIBLY INTERESTING piece? Thanks in advance:
"The New York Times invites us to gaze with wonder on the miracles of Israeli technology today, with a page 1 photo and story touting the innovations that have saved the country from drought. Because of wise policies and applied science, we learn, 'there is plenty of water in Israel.'
"The Times never tells us, however, that a significant number of those who reside on the land are seriously deprived of water: Palestinians in some areas of the West Bank are forced to survive on only 20 liters of water a day per person, well below the World Health Organization minimum of 60 liters. In Gaza 90% of the water is unfit to drink.
"Meanwhile, Israelis in West Bank settlements 'generally have access to as much running water as they please,' according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, and Israelis over all use three times as much water as Palestinians. Settlers also confiscate West Bank springs, and Israeli security forces destroy water equipment in Palestinian villages and prevent their residents from building cisterns and wells... Israel steals the water from under the feet of Palestinians, draining West Bank aquifers, allocating 73% of this water to Israel and another 10% to settlers. Palestinians are left with 17%, and many are forced to buy from the Israeli water company at rates up to 3 times as high as the tariffs charged Israelis." (From NY Times applauds while Israel robs Palestine of water, timeswarp.com, 30/5/15)
Related posts: Sir Bob Wows JNFaithful at Galah Dinner (25/11/08); Zionism 101: Making the Desert Bloom (2/11/10); Making Deserts Bloom 1 (5/11/11); The Blooming Desert (24/4/12).
Thus blurted Richard Di Natale:
"Israelis are at the forefront of innovative technologies around [water saving]. Why wouldn't we be learning from some of the new technologies that the Israelis have developed?" (Di Natale in his own words, The Australian Jewish News, 22/5/15)
Although he's obviously unaware of it, the Greens leader here is mouthing the latest twist on one of the oldest Zionist talking points in the book, the one about Israel 'making the desert bloom'.
Before he spouts any more nonsense of this kind, could some Green or other out there please draw his attention to the following INCREDIBLY INTERESTING piece? Thanks in advance:
"The New York Times invites us to gaze with wonder on the miracles of Israeli technology today, with a page 1 photo and story touting the innovations that have saved the country from drought. Because of wise policies and applied science, we learn, 'there is plenty of water in Israel.'
"The Times never tells us, however, that a significant number of those who reside on the land are seriously deprived of water: Palestinians in some areas of the West Bank are forced to survive on only 20 liters of water a day per person, well below the World Health Organization minimum of 60 liters. In Gaza 90% of the water is unfit to drink.
"Meanwhile, Israelis in West Bank settlements 'generally have access to as much running water as they please,' according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, and Israelis over all use three times as much water as Palestinians. Settlers also confiscate West Bank springs, and Israeli security forces destroy water equipment in Palestinian villages and prevent their residents from building cisterns and wells... Israel steals the water from under the feet of Palestinians, draining West Bank aquifers, allocating 73% of this water to Israel and another 10% to settlers. Palestinians are left with 17%, and many are forced to buy from the Israeli water company at rates up to 3 times as high as the tariffs charged Israelis." (From NY Times applauds while Israel robs Palestine of water, timeswarp.com, 30/5/15)
Related posts: Sir Bob Wows JNFaithful at Galah Dinner (25/11/08); Zionism 101: Making the Desert Bloom (2/11/10); Making Deserts Bloom 1 (5/11/11); The Blooming Desert (24/4/12).
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Richard Di Natale: The Fool Who Rushed In
You can read the full story, New Greens boss Richard Di Natale forced to clarify Israel stance (Max Chalmers, 28/5/15) on the New Matilda website.
Briefly, Di Natale's office has been prompted, obviously by some kind of backlash from rank-and-file Greens, to issue the following clarification of his recent interview with the Australian Jewish News, the subject of my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified: "He had no intention for his comments to be interpreted as support for establishment of a 'Jewish state'. It's not a phrase that he used."
"According to his office," writes Chalmers, "Di Natale simply agreed to a question put to him by [AJN] journalist Gareth Narunsky, apparently missing the distinction being made."
The "distinction" referred to is that between Israel as is, on the one hand, and the Zionist dogma of Israel as the State of Jews wherever they live, on the other.
IOW, the likes of Josh Frydenberg (Lib) and Mark Dreyfus (Lab), simply by demonstrating that their mothers are Jewish, can, if they so choose, take up Israeli citizenship, while millions of Palestinian Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, driven from their homeland in 1948 and 1967 by Zionist terror gangs, are not allowed to return.
The fact that Di Natale was unaware of this elementary distinction between Israel, the state of its citizens, and Israel, the state of its citizens plus every other Jew on the planet, including Frydenberg and Dreyfus, but rushed in regardless with his de facto endorsement of Zionist holy writ, to the delight of the AJN and its ultra-Zionist readers, speaks volumes about his ignorance on the subject of Palestine/Israel.
There is no excuse here. The issue's been on the boil since the late 19th century, yet the man who would be king of a viable third force in Australian politics, cannot pass Israel 101?
The Australian Jewish News, BTW, is standing by its story and has released a tape of this part of its interview with Di Natale. You can listen to it on Chalmers' NM report, but here's the transcript:
Gareth Narunsky: One of the sticking points that the Palestinian Authority... the leadership [is] their refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Do you have a view on whether they should or shouldn't?
Di Natale (rushing in, scoffing): Well, of course. I mean if you have a two-state solution, refusing to acknowledge the right of one state to exist is patently nonsense... it's self-evident that you can't, we're not going to achieve progress until we accept that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist, determine their own futures and that's what a two-state solution means.
Sure, fools rush in. All the time. Especially into Australian parliaments. But if the Greens are ever to break LibLab's stifling monopoly on Australian politics and introduce a genuinely fresh approach to people and planet, they have to be up to speed on this particular issue. That means, in a nutshell, rejecting Zionism and its modus operandi, calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees, embracing the pro-Palestine campaign of boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israeli apartheid, and supporting the creation of a secular democratic state for all of its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, in historical Palestine.
Briefly, Di Natale's office has been prompted, obviously by some kind of backlash from rank-and-file Greens, to issue the following clarification of his recent interview with the Australian Jewish News, the subject of my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified: "He had no intention for his comments to be interpreted as support for establishment of a 'Jewish state'. It's not a phrase that he used."
"According to his office," writes Chalmers, "Di Natale simply agreed to a question put to him by [AJN] journalist Gareth Narunsky, apparently missing the distinction being made."
The "distinction" referred to is that between Israel as is, on the one hand, and the Zionist dogma of Israel as the State of Jews wherever they live, on the other.
IOW, the likes of Josh Frydenberg (Lib) and Mark Dreyfus (Lab), simply by demonstrating that their mothers are Jewish, can, if they so choose, take up Israeli citizenship, while millions of Palestinian Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, driven from their homeland in 1948 and 1967 by Zionist terror gangs, are not allowed to return.
The fact that Di Natale was unaware of this elementary distinction between Israel, the state of its citizens, and Israel, the state of its citizens plus every other Jew on the planet, including Frydenberg and Dreyfus, but rushed in regardless with his de facto endorsement of Zionist holy writ, to the delight of the AJN and its ultra-Zionist readers, speaks volumes about his ignorance on the subject of Palestine/Israel.
There is no excuse here. The issue's been on the boil since the late 19th century, yet the man who would be king of a viable third force in Australian politics, cannot pass Israel 101?
The Australian Jewish News, BTW, is standing by its story and has released a tape of this part of its interview with Di Natale. You can listen to it on Chalmers' NM report, but here's the transcript:
Gareth Narunsky: One of the sticking points that the Palestinian Authority... the leadership [is] their refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Do you have a view on whether they should or shouldn't?
Di Natale (rushing in, scoffing): Well, of course. I mean if you have a two-state solution, refusing to acknowledge the right of one state to exist is patently nonsense... it's self-evident that you can't, we're not going to achieve progress until we accept that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist, determine their own futures and that's what a two-state solution means.
Sure, fools rush in. All the time. Especially into Australian parliaments. But if the Greens are ever to break LibLab's stifling monopoly on Australian politics and introduce a genuinely fresh approach to people and planet, they have to be up to speed on this particular issue. That means, in a nutshell, rejecting Zionism and its modus operandi, calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees, embracing the pro-Palestine campaign of boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israeli apartheid, and supporting the creation of a secular democratic state for all of its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, in historical Palestine.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Richard Di Natale Reclassified
In my May 7 post on Richard Di Natale, The Green's New Limp Lettuce Leader, I jestingly classified him as being at the iceberg lettuce end of the greens spectrum.
Having just read Di Natale in his own words in The Australian Jewish News of May 22, however, I now realise I was wrong. Even an iceberg lettuce would have a more informed, nuanced and ethical perspective than this:
The two-state solution: "Most people who have followed this issue and care about it, would acknowledge that there really isn't any other [sic] alternative."
Hello? Does anyone seriously believe that Di Natale has ever "followed and cared about this issue"? Even for a nanosecond?
There is "no alternative" to two states? Oh, really?
IOW, there's no alternative to:
a) an ethnocratic, apartheid Israeli state on 78% (+ settlements + Jordan Valley + East Jerusalem) of historical Palestine; and
b) an impoverished, de-militarised, non-contiguous series of Palestinianian bantustans (with no control over borders or airspace) on the bits left over.
Although Di Natale lives in a unitary state blind to ethnicity or sectarian affiliation, he doesn't see it as an alternative to the above? Well I'll be buggered!
Scary.
Recognising Israel's existence as a Jewish state: "Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It's patently nonsense."
Let's get this straight. The occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza (many of whom, BTW, are the descendents of refugees from Israel improper) should recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state which excludes the indigenous, non-Jewish Palestinians it turfed out in 1948 by denying them the right of return?
IOW, he expects the West Bankers and Gazans to kiss international law and basic, inalienable human rights goodbye and recognise an apartheid state based on the permanent exile of most Palestinians?
Apparently so. After all, as far as Di Natale's concerned, anything less is "patently nonsense."
BDS: "It's just not the party position. Some time ago we made a very clear statement that we didn't believe that this was a pathway to peace."
I think what Di Natale really means here is that BDS is not a pathway to peace with the Zionist lobby.
'Israeli' technology: "Israelis are at the forefront of innovative technologies around [water-saving]. Why wouldn't we be learning from some of the new technologies that the Israelis have developed?"
Which simply means that he cannot see past the brand Israel hype to Palestinian water tanks riddled by Israeli bullets and Israeli settler swimming pools brimming with water.
On visiting Israel: "Absolutely."
Iceberg lettuce? This bloke's not even a member of the plant kingdom. Is there a mycologist in the house?
Having just read Di Natale in his own words in The Australian Jewish News of May 22, however, I now realise I was wrong. Even an iceberg lettuce would have a more informed, nuanced and ethical perspective than this:
The two-state solution: "Most people who have followed this issue and care about it, would acknowledge that there really isn't any other [sic] alternative."
Hello? Does anyone seriously believe that Di Natale has ever "followed and cared about this issue"? Even for a nanosecond?
There is "no alternative" to two states? Oh, really?
IOW, there's no alternative to:
a) an ethnocratic, apartheid Israeli state on 78% (+ settlements + Jordan Valley + East Jerusalem) of historical Palestine; and
b) an impoverished, de-militarised, non-contiguous series of Palestinianian bantustans (with no control over borders or airspace) on the bits left over.
Although Di Natale lives in a unitary state blind to ethnicity or sectarian affiliation, he doesn't see it as an alternative to the above? Well I'll be buggered!
Scary.
Recognising Israel's existence as a Jewish state: "Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It's patently nonsense."
Let's get this straight. The occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza (many of whom, BTW, are the descendents of refugees from Israel improper) should recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state which excludes the indigenous, non-Jewish Palestinians it turfed out in 1948 by denying them the right of return?
IOW, he expects the West Bankers and Gazans to kiss international law and basic, inalienable human rights goodbye and recognise an apartheid state based on the permanent exile of most Palestinians?
Apparently so. After all, as far as Di Natale's concerned, anything less is "patently nonsense."
BDS: "It's just not the party position. Some time ago we made a very clear statement that we didn't believe that this was a pathway to peace."
I think what Di Natale really means here is that BDS is not a pathway to peace with the Zionist lobby.
'Israeli' technology: "Israelis are at the forefront of innovative technologies around [water-saving]. Why wouldn't we be learning from some of the new technologies that the Israelis have developed?"
Which simply means that he cannot see past the brand Israel hype to Palestinian water tanks riddled by Israeli bullets and Israeli settler swimming pools brimming with water.
On visiting Israel: "Absolutely."
Iceberg lettuce? This bloke's not even a member of the plant kingdom. Is there a mycologist in the house?
Thursday, May 7, 2015
The Greens' New Limp Lettuce Leader
If you're into leafy greens, you'll know that some are more nutritious than others. A pale green iceberg lettuce, for example, has nowhere near the nutritional content of a deep green spinach. So choosing spinach over iceberg lettuce is a no brainer, right?
Not, apparently, if you're The Australian Greens. Their federal parliamentary wing has just elected an iceberg lettuce, Richard Di Natale, as their new leader.
If you think I'm being a bit too hard on Richard, well, it's not without reason. After all, he's on record as saying that NSW Greens support for BDS was a "huge mistake," and calling for international sanctions against Syria. That's Syria, mind you, not Israel! (See my posts Picking Off The Greens (16/6/12) and Hypocrites Unmasked (2/1/14).)
How limp is that?
Our Greens would be well advised to take a (spinach) leaf out of the UK Green Party's book:
"As Britain prepares to go to the polls in two weeks, the Green Party has stuck by its support for a boycott of Israel, the only mainstream party to take such a position. Speaking to The Jewish Chronicle last Friday, Green Party leader Natalie Bennett emphasised that 'the boycott of Israel is Green Party policy.' She added, 'We need to get the message across to the Israeli state. It needs to comply with international law and human rights.'
"The Green Party manifesto calls for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the framework for a preferential trade deal and other areas of cooperation. Bennett stressed that the 'agreement should be contingent on respecting human rights and international law,' and that 'until Israel is in compliance with international law, I don't think we should have that trade deal.' She also backed an Israel arms embargo and the use of 'diplomatic pressure to push Israel to respect international law and UN resolutions.'
"Meanwhile, the Green Party candidate for Richmond and Twickenham drew the ire of the Board of Deputies of British Jews last week for describing Israel as 'a racist state and an apartheid state' at an Amnesty International-organised hustings. Asked how she would tackle Israel's violations of international law, Tanya Williams, stated that Britain needs 'to stop supporting Israel, whether that's trading arms with them or politically, or treating them like a beacon of democracy in the Middle East which they are not.' Highlighting Israel's destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and violations of the Geneva Convention, Williams compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, saying: 'I think it is time to stand up to the myth that Israel and Palestine are both equal participants in this conflict'." (Ahead of elections, Green Party stands by Israel boycott stance, middleeastmonitor.com, 20/4/15)
Not, apparently, if you're The Australian Greens. Their federal parliamentary wing has just elected an iceberg lettuce, Richard Di Natale, as their new leader.
If you think I'm being a bit too hard on Richard, well, it's not without reason. After all, he's on record as saying that NSW Greens support for BDS was a "huge mistake," and calling for international sanctions against Syria. That's Syria, mind you, not Israel! (See my posts Picking Off The Greens (16/6/12) and Hypocrites Unmasked (2/1/14).)
How limp is that?
Our Greens would be well advised to take a (spinach) leaf out of the UK Green Party's book:
"As Britain prepares to go to the polls in two weeks, the Green Party has stuck by its support for a boycott of Israel, the only mainstream party to take such a position. Speaking to The Jewish Chronicle last Friday, Green Party leader Natalie Bennett emphasised that 'the boycott of Israel is Green Party policy.' She added, 'We need to get the message across to the Israeli state. It needs to comply with international law and human rights.'
"The Green Party manifesto calls for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the framework for a preferential trade deal and other areas of cooperation. Bennett stressed that the 'agreement should be contingent on respecting human rights and international law,' and that 'until Israel is in compliance with international law, I don't think we should have that trade deal.' She also backed an Israel arms embargo and the use of 'diplomatic pressure to push Israel to respect international law and UN resolutions.'
"Meanwhile, the Green Party candidate for Richmond and Twickenham drew the ire of the Board of Deputies of British Jews last week for describing Israel as 'a racist state and an apartheid state' at an Amnesty International-organised hustings. Asked how she would tackle Israel's violations of international law, Tanya Williams, stated that Britain needs 'to stop supporting Israel, whether that's trading arms with them or politically, or treating them like a beacon of democracy in the Middle East which they are not.' Highlighting Israel's destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and violations of the Geneva Convention, Williams compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, saying: 'I think it is time to stand up to the myth that Israel and Palestine are both equal participants in this conflict'." (Ahead of elections, Green Party stands by Israel boycott stance, middleeastmonitor.com, 20/4/15)
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Death of a Zionist Mal-Meme
Hopefully, now that the Greens' Jenny Leong has decisively won the newly created seat of Newtown (encompassing inner Sydney, South Sydney, Petersham/Newtown and Marrickville) in the just-concluded NSW state elections, we can safely consign the malicious, Murdoch press-generated Zionist myth that support for BDS is electoral poison for the Greens to the dustbin of history.
For the story of the rise of this mal-meme, read my posts A Myth is Born 1-4 (29/3/11 - 31/3/11) and Fairfax Peddles the Marrickville Myth (11/11/12).
For the story of the rise of this mal-meme, read my posts A Myth is Born 1-4 (29/3/11 - 31/3/11) and Fairfax Peddles the Marrickville Myth (11/11/12).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)