Picking Off The Greens

Here's a massive generalization that I have no trouble whatever in making: How people approach the Palestine problem tells you everything you really need to know about them.

Do they have the wit to see its underlying colonial dynamic? Do they have the intelligence to see through the reams of propaganda, endlessly generated and carefully crafted to cover this up? Do they have the sense to see the need for just a little homework on the subject, a little reading, before shooting their mouths off? Do they have the morals which mandate always standing with the powerless and the oppressed against their oppressors? And finally, do they have the courage to stand up to the lies and the slurs which emanate from the appalling tribal pathology of those who batten on Palestinian dispossession and suffering?

Call me naive, but if these are not the kind of qualities we expect to see in Greens politicians (as distinct from the hollow, opportunistic and cowardly LibLab variety), then what, I ask, is the point of this parliamentary third force?

Sadly, with the honourable exception of Lee Rhiannon (Senate), John Kaye (NSW) and David Shoebridge (NSW) (& please prod me if I've missed anyone else here), the current crop of Greens politicians are either deafeningly silent on Palestine or, even worse, beginning to sing like canaries for the Zionist lobby. Just to focus on the latter group, here's their record so far:

Christine Milne, the new leader of the party, has told The Australian Jewish News that "BDS is behind us." (See my 21/4/12 post Some Questions for Christine Milne.)

Jeremy Buckingham (NSW) has joined the steering committee of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel. (See my 25/2/12 post Jeremy Buckingham Crosses the Rubicon.)

Cate Faehrmann (NSW) has called the anti-Max Brenner protests anti-Semitic. (See my 16/11/11 post Witches Brew 8.)

Colleen Hartland (Victoria) sucks up to the Peres Centre for Peace. (See my 17/6/11 post Foul Play.)

And it's now the turn of Richard Di Natale (Senate):

"Support for the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement by the NSW Greens was a huge mistake, admitted Senator Richard Di Natale at the Limmud Oz conference last weekend. He said the position, adopted last year by NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon, never was or would be Greens federal policy. 'It was hugely damaging and it was the wrong thing to do. We are a democratic party, it was a state branch that passed it because people didn't understand what it meant,' said Di Natale, who appeared on a panel with MPs Colleen Hartland and Sue Pennicuik and Jewish educator Ittay Flescher*, who probed The Greens on their policy affecting Israel and Australian Jews." (BDS was a huge mistake, admit Greens, The Australian Jewish News, 15/6/12)

The curious thing is that Di Natale is, among other things, the Greens spokesman for West Papua. The following appears on his website:

"The Greens believe that the indigenous people of West Papua should have the opportunity to democratically decide their own future, in accordance with international standards of human rights and the principles of international law. Greens spokesperson for West Papua Richard Di Natale has called on the Australian government to show leadership on the issue of West Papua. There are ongoing concerns about escalating conflict and the oppression of Papuans by the Indonesian military, partly trained and armed by Australia. The Greens have called upon Australia to suspend military ties with Indonesia, so long as such violence and human rights abuses continue. The West Papua region remains very difficult for journalists and human rights monitoring organisations to access. The Greens have also called for open access to journalists and human rights monitors."

Maybe Di Natale's website should now feature the following disclaimer:

"The Greens do not believe that the indigenous people of Palestine should have the opportunity to democratically decide their own future, in accordance with international standards of human rights and the principles of international law. In fact, they don't even believe they are the indigenous people of Palestine. Greens non-spokesman for Palestine Richard Di Natale has not called on the Australian government to show leadership on the issue of Palestine. In fact he has even slammed members of his own party who have shown leadership on this issue! There are ongoing concerns about escalating conflict and the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli military, diplomatically supported by Australia in the UN and other international fora (but frankly, Richard's too busy watching football to really give a stuff). The Greens have not only not called upon Australia to suspend diplomatic ties with, or cut support for, Israel, so long as such violence and human rights abuses continue, they have even condemned citizen-led initiatives such as BDS . The Occupied Palestinian Territories remain very difficult for journalists and human rights monitoring organisations to access, but who gives a toss? The Greens have never called for open access to journalists and human rights monitors. And anyway, they're much too busy schmoozing with Indonesia - sorry, Israel - lobbyists."

Some disturbing facts (and a truly mind-blowing question) for the Greens' spokesman for West Papua:

1) West Papua is occupied land. Palestine is occupied land (from the River to the Sea).
2) West Papua has been colonised by Indonesia. Palestine has been colonised by Zionist colons, initially with the backing of British bayonets, and now with American.
3) West Papuans want freedom and independence from Indonesian colonialism. Palestinians want freedom and independence from Israeli colonialism.
4) Would Richard Di Natale embrace a West Papuan-led BDS campaign?

[*A most suitable subject for my very next post.]

Kafka in the Gulf 1

Think Britain handing Palestine to the Zionist movement in 1917, or the so-called Act of Free Choice of 1969 which led to West Papua being delivered to the Indonesians. Both were monstrous acts of injustice with the direst of consequences for the peoples of both lands.

And why cite such appalling cases? Well, I've just read this:

"Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bahrain's capital city of Manama today, condemning King Hamad al-Khalifa for agreeing to enter a formal union with the Saudi royal family. The deal has the island's Shi'ite majority up in arms, interpreting the plan as a thinly veiled attempt by the Saudis to sideline their calls for democratic reforms. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain last year to help crush pro-democracy protests. The exact terms of the union have been nebulous so far, but officials have said it would unify the Saudi and Bahraini states on security, economic and diplomatic policies. Considering how much larger Saudi Arabia is, many have criticized it as a de facto annexation." (Tens of thousands protest in Bahrain against 'Saudi union', Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 18/5/12)

What sort of regime could possibly contemplate, let alone carry out, such a flagrantly anti-democratic move? Obviously, one for whom the will of the people is, and always has been, anathema.

Meet the now 229-year old ruling dynasty of Bahrain, the Al-Khalifas.

One of the best introductions to the nature of this dynastic tyranny and its one-time British 'protectors' is a series of 3 feature articles by one of the UK's top journalists, the late Bernard Levin (1928-2004), published in the then progressive Spectator magazine in the early 1960s. In them Levin tells the story, in his own inimitable, punchy style, of a quite singular Kafkaesque injustice perpetrated on 3 hapless Bahrainis by the island's then ruler, aided and abetted at every turn by a motley crew of truly imbecilic Brits, some at the centre of British political life, some not.

In light of the appalling situation in which the people of Bahrain find themselves today, and the consequent need to background what it is precisely that they are up against. I've decided it'd be useful to resurrect (it's not on the internet) and serialise Levin's 3 articles - The Prisoners of St. Helena (1/7/60), The Prisoners of St.Helena: Part 2 (30/12/60), and The Ex-Prisoners of St. Helena (16/6/61) - under the heading of Kafka in the Gulf.

I'm not sure quite how many posts this will require, nor will they always be in consecutive order - there's simply too much else going on here and in the region - but I advise you to persevere. This surreal story has, in Bernard Levin, found an exceptional voice. Nor are the insights confined to the outrageously medieval politics of Bahrain. Few journalists have served up the politicians of their day on toast as well as Levin. But enough of that. I'll conclude this post with the opening paragraphs of The Prisoners of St. Helena:

On December 22, 1956, there appeared in the island of St. Helena (a British Colony) an Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette containing the following announcement: An urgent request made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was recently received by His Excellency the Governor, as to the possibility of arranging for the detention in St. Helena of five subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, convicted of political offences. After discussing all aspects of this request with the Executive Council, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of his concurrence in the proposed arrangements. It is expected that these persons will be brought to St. Helena in one of Her Majesty's ships in the latter part of January, and that they will be detained at Munden's.

And so indeed they were, and are. But since their trial for 'political offences' did not begin until December 23, the day after the publication in the St. Helena Government Gazette of the announcement that they would shortly be coming there, convicted, it seems to me that the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette was Extraordinary in more than the technical sense, and that the case whose outcome it so prophetically referred before it had started will bear investigation. And, as will be seen, the case becomes more extraordinary, and for that matter more disquieting, as investigation proceeds.

To be continued...