Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan's column in last Saturday's Australian was surely the mother-of-all Zionist temper tantrums:
"We are living in a time of infamous lies against the state of Israel and the Jewish people." (Evil & deeply untrue, 1/3/14)
Note the deliberate conflation: Israel = Jews.
"We are witnessing, even in Australia, a recrudescence of some of the oldest types of anti-Semitism."
So Adolf and his hordes have suddenly erupted, zombie fashion, onto the Australian scene?
Er... no, not quite:
"One of the worst recent examples of anti-Israel propaganda that led to anti-Semitic outbursts was the Four Corners episode Stone Cold Justice, purporting to be about treatment of Palestinian children in the West Bank."
So, after watching Four Corners on that fateful Monday night, viewers exchanged their thongs for jackboots, and made for synagogues and Jewish-owned shops with consequences so dire that they didn't even surface in the Murdoch press the next day?
"The program featured as a guest reporter John Lyons, of this newspaper. I have the greatest respect for John. He has produced some outstanding journalism in his time."
However:
"In the aerolite he wrote for this newspaper on February 8..."
FYI, an aerolite is a meteorite. A meteorite FFS! Ground control to Major Greg. Ground control to Major Greg.
"... he made some of the same allegations at best unproved and generally unconvincing."
Unproved and unconvincing? Jeez, John, you got off lightly, but watch your back, OK?
But wait, what's this? The Curse of Zion!
"However, the Four Corners program was a disgrace, a crude piece of anti-Israel propaganda that revived some of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes."
Sweet Jesus, will Lyons ever be the same again?
"In the year 2014, are we really going to allege again, on the basis of the flimsiest non-evidence you could imagine, that Jewish soldiers systematically physically crucify innocent children? Is there a school of anti-Semitism 101 operating out there? Do you not think that before you would air an allegation like that, if you had any real sense of editorial responsibility, you would be 100% sure that it was true; you would track down the people alleged to have done it and get their testimony?"
What is this tosser on about?
This, it seems:
"Fathi Mahfouz: Because I didn't confess, he sent me to a room that has a cross in it and hung me on it. I was standing on the tips of my toes, and all my weight was on the handcuffs and my toes. I was hung and he kept hitting me." (Transcript: Stone Cold Justice)
There you have it! This Palestinian Imp of Satan is talking CRUCIFIXION no less!
Well, only in the mind of our cut-rate Torquemada, because Fathi Mahfouz's testimony is entirely consistent with Israeli practice:
"The interrogee is forced to stand with their back to the wall, knees bent either at 90 or 45 degrees, sometimes while standing on the toes rather than on the feet. In this position, we have reports of the use of blows, slaps and punches." (Threat: Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel (2011), ed. Abeer Baker & Anat Matar, p 119)
Hey, but you wouldn't expect Greg to have that one on his shelf.
Sheridan, of course, goes on to spin the IDF ("My net judgment is Israel's army behaves with as much consideration for human rights as any modern Western army - US, Australian or European - would do in similar circumstances.") and Israeli settlers ("[P]erhaps 1% or less are genuinely extremist and some of them genuinely violent."), but I won't burden you with that.
There is one other thing though. At the conclusion of his tirade, there's a box which reads: "TALKING POINT NEXT WEEK: JOHN LYONS REPLIES."
It doesn't get much more bizarre than that - a newspaper's Middle East correspondent responding to a bagging by its foreign editor.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
The Saturday Paper
Is Melbourne publisher (The Monthly, Quarterly Essay) Morry Schwartz's TSP a brave new venture in fearless, investigative journalism? Or just another exercise in Zionist gatekeeping?
"[Peter] Craven [editor of Quarterly Essay 2001-04] is on friendly terms with Schwartz but acknowledges the publisher's heart 'will always belong to Robert [Manne*, La Trobe University academic, author and member of QE's editorial board]. He says Schwartz was always keen for robust editorial debates, becoming noticeably 'toey' on discussions of Israel. Everyone says Schwartz responds viscerally to this question. 'Loyalty to the idea of a Jewish homeland is very important to him,' argues Manne. Says Craven: 'He's very one-eyed on these sort of things. I once said to [his wife] Anna I was going to see [the opera] Tristan und Isolde and she said, 'Peter, I won't even buy German goods.' In 1982, Schwartz published Blanche D'Alpuget's biography of Bob Hawke after Penquin and Melbourne University Press turned it down. 'Morry was very influenced by the fact that Bob was a huge supporter of Israel,' D'Alpuget tells me. 'It was really Bob's connection to Israel that he leapt at.' (Schwartz disputes this; he says he sensed the public was hungry for political biography...) Critics wonder how TSP will cover the Middle East. Schwartz says: 'I think Israel is over-tackled. The media are too obsessed with it; but a balanced view, sure.' He imposed upon Craven his preference for Australian-centric content but concedes a newspaper can't ignore world crises..." (Paper tiger: Morry Schwartz's gamble, Kate Legge, The Australian, 14/12/13)
[*For Robert Manne and QE, see my three posts: Who Speaks for Palestine? (2/9/11); The Silence of the Intellectual 1 (6/9/11) and 2 (7/9/11).]
"[Peter] Craven [editor of Quarterly Essay 2001-04] is on friendly terms with Schwartz but acknowledges the publisher's heart 'will always belong to Robert [Manne*, La Trobe University academic, author and member of QE's editorial board]. He says Schwartz was always keen for robust editorial debates, becoming noticeably 'toey' on discussions of Israel. Everyone says Schwartz responds viscerally to this question. 'Loyalty to the idea of a Jewish homeland is very important to him,' argues Manne. Says Craven: 'He's very one-eyed on these sort of things. I once said to [his wife] Anna I was going to see [the opera] Tristan und Isolde and she said, 'Peter, I won't even buy German goods.' In 1982, Schwartz published Blanche D'Alpuget's biography of Bob Hawke after Penquin and Melbourne University Press turned it down. 'Morry was very influenced by the fact that Bob was a huge supporter of Israel,' D'Alpuget tells me. 'It was really Bob's connection to Israel that he leapt at.' (Schwartz disputes this; he says he sensed the public was hungry for political biography...) Critics wonder how TSP will cover the Middle East. Schwartz says: 'I think Israel is over-tackled. The media are too obsessed with it; but a balanced view, sure.' He imposed upon Craven his preference for Australian-centric content but concedes a newspaper can't ignore world crises..." (Paper tiger: Morry Schwartz's gamble, Kate Legge, The Australian, 14/12/13)
[*For Robert Manne and QE, see my three posts: Who Speaks for Palestine? (2/9/11); The Silence of the Intellectual 1 (6/9/11) and 2 (7/9/11).]
Charge of the Light Weight
"I think that every Australian, and people right around the world, will be thinking: hands off the Ukraine. This is not the kind of action of a friend and neighbour and I think Russia should back off... You cannot just cross the border of another country with military force, with aggressive intent." Tony Abbott (Quoted in World leaders rally behind Ukraine, Matthew Knott, Nick O'Malley, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/3/14)
Why not, Tony? We did just that in Iraq, and under your watch too:
"The primary role of the Special Forces Task Group was to secure an area of western Iraq from which it was feared that SCUD missiles could be launched. The SAS successfully entered Iraq by vehicle and US helicopters and secured their area of responsibility after a week of fighting." (Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, wikipedia.org)
And anyway, why are you even commenting on the matter? After all, isn't it your "view that there is nothing to be gained from politicians publicly debating the finer points of international law in this immensely complex area"? (See my 5/9/13 post Election 2013: Pitching for the Zionist Vote.)
Why not, Tony? We did just that in Iraq, and under your watch too:
"The primary role of the Special Forces Task Group was to secure an area of western Iraq from which it was feared that SCUD missiles could be launched. The SAS successfully entered Iraq by vehicle and US helicopters and secured their area of responsibility after a week of fighting." (Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, wikipedia.org)
And anyway, why are you even commenting on the matter? After all, isn't it your "view that there is nothing to be gained from politicians publicly debating the finer points of international law in this immensely complex area"? (See my 5/9/13 post Election 2013: Pitching for the Zionist Vote.)
Monday, March 3, 2014
Perpetual Nakba
So that Australian (and American, and British, and...) Zionists can lay back in comfort and fantasise about a supposed genetic connection to a set of mythical Middle Eastern figures known as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph, and even, in a manic moment, act on that fantasy by (LOL) ascending ('making aliyah') to Israel, millions of people, refugees from the former Palestine, must perforce remain in exile from their homeland, condemned to lives of never-ending dispossession and turmoil.
More of UNRWA Commissioner-General Filippo Grandi's moving speech (on the other side of 'the Zionist dream') cited in my previous post:
"Of course, all civilians suffer in Syria. But Palestinians, unlike many Syrians, do not have support networks beyond where they live. They have been buffeted from camp to camp in search of safety. Vastly compounding their plight is the fact that options for external flight are extremely limited. About 53,000 have approached UNRWA in Lebanon, a country hosting also hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, and where the situation of close to 300,000 Palestinians in existing camps is already dire and inhospitable - with limited or no access to jobs, property and services.
"Jordan has an explicit no-entry policy for Palestinians from Syria. Approximately 11,000 have sought assistance from UNRWA there. Throughout the region, in support of Palestinians fleeing Syria, we promote humanitarian principles of non-refoulement and equal treatment of refugees, but to little avail in the case of Jordan. Palestinians are also no longer granted visas to Egypt. Some 5,000 fled the Syria conflict there and are in need of assistance. Making it possible has been a complex exercise in a country undergoing its own, difficult transition.
"Palestinians from Syria are reportedly seeking safety further afield, including in Turkey, in Gaza, even in Asia. Last fall, we saw them board boats by the hundreds towards Europe, and sometimes, tragically, lose their lives at sea. This matches the sad and resigned explanations we are now hearing from Palestinians in Syria and those who have fled to neighboring countries: 'We are not wanted here, we cannot manage any longer. I want my children to have a new life, away from this region, which for us is only trouble.'
"We estimate that at least 70% of the Palestine refugee population in Syria have been displaced, whether inside the country or beyond its borders. It is in fact the largest displacement of Palestinians since 1967, although - one should say - displacement and insecurity have been main characteristics of the Palestinian condition: including the expulsions from Kuwait and Libya, the destruction of camps in the Lebanese civil war and more recently of Nahr el-Bared, and the grave violations of human rights against Palestinians that occurred a few years ago in Iraq.
"And look carefully at pictures of Yarmouk - of the distribution of small parcels of food to thousands of desperate women, men and children coming out of the besieged area. The stark grayness of the people and the rubble remind me of the black-and-white archive pictures from the Palestinian diaspora in 1948: children in tattered clothes and unkempt hair warming themselves by small fires, old people looking into the camera, their lined and leathered faces deep with concern.
"Um Ahmad and many others told me that what is happening to them is as bad as the Nakba of 1948, and in some ways even worse. I first heard this in December 2012, and it has taken me some time to process. How can it be as bad as the seminal story of expulsion and flight from cities and villages, worse than the original forced exile from the homeland? Then, of course, I understood. In 1948, Palestinians fleeing their land were welcomed throughout the region in solidarity. In 2014, there is simply no more welcome. Hence Um Ahmad's question: where do we go? In 1948, they fled with families and neighbours and then set up camps with UNRWA's help that maintained familial and community networks and support systems. Now - in the much more complex patterns of forced displacement that have emerged in the global age - they are often compelled to flee individually, while those networks, built over many years of exile, quickly disintegrate. Economics and logistics dictate that families are separated; young people go alone using the family assets to pay smugglers. Cohesion is lost, solidarity is weakened, hope is threatened. This is a major crisis affecting the scattered Palestinian nation.
"One must understand the special significance that Yarmouk has played in the Palestinian conscience in preserving the precious notions of identity, culture and belonging throughout the exile. Yarmouk was the centre of Palestinian life in Syria, and recognized region-wide as a positive embodiment of diaspora life. An economic and cultural centre, where Palestinian identity was nurtured. It was the example of how Palestinians, though refugees, could thrive on the many opportunities provided by stability, peace, official hospitality and UNRWA services. It was a relative oasis of prosperity in a long and difficult journey. It made the absence of a just solution to the question of Palestine refugees less unbearable. It enabled people to be patient, as they waited for that solution to be found.
"The unfolding tragedy of Yarmouk is therefore devastating to the psyche of every Palestinian refugee in more ways than the sheer suffering of those directly affected by it. There is a ripple effect of anxiety and fear emanating from the Yarmouk experience. Yarmouk has defined Palestinian solidarity and hope, and it now defines the loss and uncertainty not only for its residents, but also for Palestinians all over Syria, and of the wider community.
"Yarmouk has come to represent all places where - for Palestinians and especially refugees - control over one's life is an illusion, where the safety of decades can disappear overnight, where land is confiscated, homes are demolished, rights are denied, travel is restricted, jobs are lost, resentments and prejudices prevail. Yarmouk is Gaza, the open-air prison. Yarmouk is Nahr al-Bared, destroyed by bombs. Yarmouk is Jenin, it is Sabra & Shatila, it is Tel az-Zaater. Yarmouk is the expulsion from Kuwait, it is 1967, all the way back to the Nakba. It was a beacon of resilience. Unless we act quickly, it risks becoming a symbol of dispossession, and of a history of repeated dispossessions."
More of UNRWA Commissioner-General Filippo Grandi's moving speech (on the other side of 'the Zionist dream') cited in my previous post:
"Of course, all civilians suffer in Syria. But Palestinians, unlike many Syrians, do not have support networks beyond where they live. They have been buffeted from camp to camp in search of safety. Vastly compounding their plight is the fact that options for external flight are extremely limited. About 53,000 have approached UNRWA in Lebanon, a country hosting also hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, and where the situation of close to 300,000 Palestinians in existing camps is already dire and inhospitable - with limited or no access to jobs, property and services.
"Jordan has an explicit no-entry policy for Palestinians from Syria. Approximately 11,000 have sought assistance from UNRWA there. Throughout the region, in support of Palestinians fleeing Syria, we promote humanitarian principles of non-refoulement and equal treatment of refugees, but to little avail in the case of Jordan. Palestinians are also no longer granted visas to Egypt. Some 5,000 fled the Syria conflict there and are in need of assistance. Making it possible has been a complex exercise in a country undergoing its own, difficult transition.
"Palestinians from Syria are reportedly seeking safety further afield, including in Turkey, in Gaza, even in Asia. Last fall, we saw them board boats by the hundreds towards Europe, and sometimes, tragically, lose their lives at sea. This matches the sad and resigned explanations we are now hearing from Palestinians in Syria and those who have fled to neighboring countries: 'We are not wanted here, we cannot manage any longer. I want my children to have a new life, away from this region, which for us is only trouble.'
"We estimate that at least 70% of the Palestine refugee population in Syria have been displaced, whether inside the country or beyond its borders. It is in fact the largest displacement of Palestinians since 1967, although - one should say - displacement and insecurity have been main characteristics of the Palestinian condition: including the expulsions from Kuwait and Libya, the destruction of camps in the Lebanese civil war and more recently of Nahr el-Bared, and the grave violations of human rights against Palestinians that occurred a few years ago in Iraq.
"And look carefully at pictures of Yarmouk - of the distribution of small parcels of food to thousands of desperate women, men and children coming out of the besieged area. The stark grayness of the people and the rubble remind me of the black-and-white archive pictures from the Palestinian diaspora in 1948: children in tattered clothes and unkempt hair warming themselves by small fires, old people looking into the camera, their lined and leathered faces deep with concern.
"Um Ahmad and many others told me that what is happening to them is as bad as the Nakba of 1948, and in some ways even worse. I first heard this in December 2012, and it has taken me some time to process. How can it be as bad as the seminal story of expulsion and flight from cities and villages, worse than the original forced exile from the homeland? Then, of course, I understood. In 1948, Palestinians fleeing their land were welcomed throughout the region in solidarity. In 2014, there is simply no more welcome. Hence Um Ahmad's question: where do we go? In 1948, they fled with families and neighbours and then set up camps with UNRWA's help that maintained familial and community networks and support systems. Now - in the much more complex patterns of forced displacement that have emerged in the global age - they are often compelled to flee individually, while those networks, built over many years of exile, quickly disintegrate. Economics and logistics dictate that families are separated; young people go alone using the family assets to pay smugglers. Cohesion is lost, solidarity is weakened, hope is threatened. This is a major crisis affecting the scattered Palestinian nation.
"One must understand the special significance that Yarmouk has played in the Palestinian conscience in preserving the precious notions of identity, culture and belonging throughout the exile. Yarmouk was the centre of Palestinian life in Syria, and recognized region-wide as a positive embodiment of diaspora life. An economic and cultural centre, where Palestinian identity was nurtured. It was the example of how Palestinians, though refugees, could thrive on the many opportunities provided by stability, peace, official hospitality and UNRWA services. It was a relative oasis of prosperity in a long and difficult journey. It made the absence of a just solution to the question of Palestine refugees less unbearable. It enabled people to be patient, as they waited for that solution to be found.
"The unfolding tragedy of Yarmouk is therefore devastating to the psyche of every Palestinian refugee in more ways than the sheer suffering of those directly affected by it. There is a ripple effect of anxiety and fear emanating from the Yarmouk experience. Yarmouk has defined Palestinian solidarity and hope, and it now defines the loss and uncertainty not only for its residents, but also for Palestinians all over Syria, and of the wider community.
"Yarmouk has come to represent all places where - for Palestinians and especially refugees - control over one's life is an illusion, where the safety of decades can disappear overnight, where land is confiscated, homes are demolished, rights are denied, travel is restricted, jobs are lost, resentments and prejudices prevail. Yarmouk is Gaza, the open-air prison. Yarmouk is Nahr al-Bared, destroyed by bombs. Yarmouk is Jenin, it is Sabra & Shatila, it is Tel az-Zaater. Yarmouk is the expulsion from Kuwait, it is 1967, all the way back to the Nakba. It was a beacon of resilience. Unless we act quickly, it risks becoming a symbol of dispossession, and of a history of repeated dispossessions."
Whatever Happened to Reading?
Right at the outset, can we all agree on this:
It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Good.
The following profoundly simple-minded letter appeared in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"Your photograph speaks a thousand words ('Picture of misery: the suffering masses in Syria's capital', February 28). Bashar al-Assad has much to answer for." Don Leayr, Albury
The photograph referred to was accompanied by a brief explanation, courtesy of Fairfax's Middle East correspondent, Ruth Pollard. It began thus:
"A tide of people crowds into the space between the devastated buildings of Yarmouk in Syria in the hope they will receive a UN food parcel to stave off death for another week. Many have already starved in Yarmouk, once home to 160,000 Palestinian refugees..."
If Don Leayr had bothered to read that, he'd have seen those two words: Palestinian refugees.
PALESTINIAN REFUGEES, Don!
That is, refugees from Palestine, driven from their homeland by Zionist fire and sword in 1948, and refused the right of return ever since in deference to the seriously weird Zionist myth that Jews - from here, there, anywhere/ black, white, or brindle - constitute a people/nation, and that historic Palestine, rebranded Israel, is their exclusive domain.
If that elementary fact of modern Middle East history had lodged in Leayr's consciousness at some point in his long life on this planet (spring chickens most likely do not read the Herald anymore), would Bashar al-Assad, I wonder, have been the sole, or even primary, focus of his ire?
And even if it hadn't, if only Leayr had gone on to read Pollard's short gloss in its entirety, he would have came across this:
"'The people coming from within Yarmouk appear suddenly near this distribution point. It's like the appearance of ghosts,' said UNRWA Commissioner-General Filippo Grandi..."
Which might - I know I'm stretching it here - have prompted him to google Grandi's account of this appalling event. Had he done so, he would have read the following:
"But it is Yarmouk which has come to symbolize the suffering of Palestine refugees in Syria in the course of the war. Yarmouk was a large, vibrant, urban melting pot of Palestinians and Syrians. It owes its current fate purely to its location: a triangular slice pointing straight into central Damascus, a strategic last piece in the puzzle required to make a strong advance on the capital. Its relative isolation was shattered in mid-December 2012. This is when armed groups came into the camp, the government surrounded the area, and clashes ensued. UNRWA's 28 schools and 3 clinics ceased operation. Armed groups also occupied houses, looted hospitals and stores. Those inside Yarmouk... got caught in a tight stranglehold by the parties to the conflict." (Syrian Arab Republic: Lecture by Filippo Grandi, Commissioner-General of UNRWA at American University of Beirut, 25/2/14)
ARMED GROUPS, Don!
But expecting the Leayr's of this world to do a modicum of research before shooting their mouths off in a letter to the editor is apparently a bridge too far these days.
As is expecting letters editors to filter out such rubbish.
It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Good.
The following profoundly simple-minded letter appeared in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"Your photograph speaks a thousand words ('Picture of misery: the suffering masses in Syria's capital', February 28). Bashar al-Assad has much to answer for." Don Leayr, Albury
The photograph referred to was accompanied by a brief explanation, courtesy of Fairfax's Middle East correspondent, Ruth Pollard. It began thus:
"A tide of people crowds into the space between the devastated buildings of Yarmouk in Syria in the hope they will receive a UN food parcel to stave off death for another week. Many have already starved in Yarmouk, once home to 160,000 Palestinian refugees..."
If Don Leayr had bothered to read that, he'd have seen those two words: Palestinian refugees.
PALESTINIAN REFUGEES, Don!
That is, refugees from Palestine, driven from their homeland by Zionist fire and sword in 1948, and refused the right of return ever since in deference to the seriously weird Zionist myth that Jews - from here, there, anywhere/ black, white, or brindle - constitute a people/nation, and that historic Palestine, rebranded Israel, is their exclusive domain.
If that elementary fact of modern Middle East history had lodged in Leayr's consciousness at some point in his long life on this planet (spring chickens most likely do not read the Herald anymore), would Bashar al-Assad, I wonder, have been the sole, or even primary, focus of his ire?
And even if it hadn't, if only Leayr had gone on to read Pollard's short gloss in its entirety, he would have came across this:
"'The people coming from within Yarmouk appear suddenly near this distribution point. It's like the appearance of ghosts,' said UNRWA Commissioner-General Filippo Grandi..."
Which might - I know I'm stretching it here - have prompted him to google Grandi's account of this appalling event. Had he done so, he would have read the following:
"But it is Yarmouk which has come to symbolize the suffering of Palestine refugees in Syria in the course of the war. Yarmouk was a large, vibrant, urban melting pot of Palestinians and Syrians. It owes its current fate purely to its location: a triangular slice pointing straight into central Damascus, a strategic last piece in the puzzle required to make a strong advance on the capital. Its relative isolation was shattered in mid-December 2012. This is when armed groups came into the camp, the government surrounded the area, and clashes ensued. UNRWA's 28 schools and 3 clinics ceased operation. Armed groups also occupied houses, looted hospitals and stores. Those inside Yarmouk... got caught in a tight stranglehold by the parties to the conflict." (Syrian Arab Republic: Lecture by Filippo Grandi, Commissioner-General of UNRWA at American University of Beirut, 25/2/14)
ARMED GROUPS, Don!
But expecting the Leayr's of this world to do a modicum of research before shooting their mouths off in a letter to the editor is apparently a bridge too far these days.
As is expecting letters editors to filter out such rubbish.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
In Pursuit of Whose Interests?
"[F]or the first time, DFAT has been forced to release, via Freedom of Information laws, its behaviour bible for Australian officials overseas... It lays out what people and groups they can and cannot fraternise with... It even advises on how to address envelopes for letters to Palestinian authorities or Taiwanese officials, lest the careless use of a capital letter in the wrong place cause diplomatic offence to Israel or China... 'There are no restrictions on courtesy calls, invitation to and correspondence with the PLO, however, no endorsement should be given to the claim that it represents 'Palestine' or the 'State of Palestine', the guidelines say. 'Any correspondence to Palestinian officials in the West Bank and Gaza should be addressed Palestinian Territories'." (Walking on eggshells, Cameron Stewart, The Australian, 28/2/14)
Absurd, I know, but just look at associate editor, Cameron Stewart's (rambammed 2005) bizarre conclusion:
"But for Australian envoys and officials, it is just another bullet to be dodged in the pursuit of Australia's interests in an increasingly complex world."
In truth, this diplomatic beating around the bush with respect to Palestine has bugger all to do with Australia's interests, and everything to do with toeing the Israeli line - as the following Israeli report makes abundantly clear:
"The IDF says it has turned away Gazan medical patients seeking treatment outside their territory because referral letters were marked 'State of Palestine', a status Israel does not recognize. The UN General Assembly recognized such a state in late 2012, an upgrade Israel rejected... The Palestinian Authority, a self-rule government, uses 'State of Palestine' on most stationary, but not in correspondence with Israeli authorities." (Israel rejects 'State of Palestine' letterhead, ynetnews.com, 12/2/14)
Not that Australian diplomats' pursuit of Israeli interests comes as any sort of revelation, mind you. After all, as I've amply documented, even our ambassador to Israel is doing stirling work... representing Israel to Australia. (Just click on the Dave Sharma label below and you'll see what I mean.)
Absurd, I know, but just look at associate editor, Cameron Stewart's (rambammed 2005) bizarre conclusion:
"But for Australian envoys and officials, it is just another bullet to be dodged in the pursuit of Australia's interests in an increasingly complex world."
In truth, this diplomatic beating around the bush with respect to Palestine has bugger all to do with Australia's interests, and everything to do with toeing the Israeli line - as the following Israeli report makes abundantly clear:
"The IDF says it has turned away Gazan medical patients seeking treatment outside their territory because referral letters were marked 'State of Palestine', a status Israel does not recognize. The UN General Assembly recognized such a state in late 2012, an upgrade Israel rejected... The Palestinian Authority, a self-rule government, uses 'State of Palestine' on most stationary, but not in correspondence with Israeli authorities." (Israel rejects 'State of Palestine' letterhead, ynetnews.com, 12/2/14)
Not that Australian diplomats' pursuit of Israeli interests comes as any sort of revelation, mind you. After all, as I've amply documented, even our ambassador to Israel is doing stirling work... representing Israel to Australia. (Just click on the Dave Sharma label below and you'll see what I mean.)
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Manichean Madness
OMG:
"If you're searching for the single government in the world that the Abbott government most resembles... turn your gaze to Ottowa. If the Abbott government has a model, it is the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. This week, I met his gregarious and engaging Foreign Minister, John Baird. 'Stephen Harper has a very high regard for Tony Abbott,' he told me, and went on to extol Canada and Australia's shared values... In foreign affairs, the two governments have a very similar world view... One of the biggest changes Abbott and his Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have made from the previous Labor government is to reverse Labor's anti-Israel voting pattern at the UN, and restore the pro-Israel pattern that had prevailed under the Howard government... Why does Canada support Israel? [I asked Baird] 'It's the only liberal democracy in the region. In the great struggle of our generation, against international terrorism, it's often on the frontline.' I ask him if anything Israel is forced to do to defend its security qualifies its status as a liberal democracy. His answer is straightforward: 'No. It lives in a tough neighborhood. If there were 5000 or 10,000 rockets raining down on Canada or Australia there would be enormous pressure on the government to act..." (Our Canadian connection, from the Anglosphere to the Middle East, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 27/2/14)
No, dear God no, not Canada:
"Canada's government is now the most undiluted, fervent supporter of Israel... in the entire world. The Harper government would wear that description as a badge of honour... Why has this government gone beyond all previous Canadian ones in supporting Israel? It is something visceral and personal for Mr Harper. His deep commitment does not spring from personal experience or considerable reading about the Middle East and its history - indeed, while he was leader of the opposition, foreign diplomats in Ottowa who managed to secure a meeting (often difficult) with him were struck by how little interested he was in any international issues. Mr Harper sees the world, like Canadian domestic affairs, in rather Manichean terms, wherein the forces of good and evil are arrayed against each other, with threatening enemies everywhere, prepared to pounce on any weakness. The forces of good are democracies, especially of the Anglo-Saxon variety and a few others, including Israel. The forces of darkness and instability are other kinds of political systems. Mr Harper expressed that Manichean world view when speaking to the Negev [JNF] dinner in Toronto last month. Israel, he said, is 'a light of freedom and democracy in what is otherwise a region of darkness.' That dichotomy - light versus an entire 'region of darkness' - is of course how many Israelis see their country, a democracy surrounded by enmity and instability. Such a world view, applied to the Middle East, leaves no room for nuance, balance or understanding of complexity, just a dualistic clash between good and evil..." (No room for nuance in Harper's mindset, Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe & Mail, 18/1/14)
Or, as our Stephen Harper-lite, Tony Abbott, would put it, between 'goodies and baddies'.
But maybe there's a chink of light in Abbott's Manichean madness. Could his Catholicism possibly act as a restraining influence of sorts when it comes to going all the way with Israel?
Take the evangelical Harper's recent pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for example. His entourage reportedly included 21 mostly orthodox rabbis (as well as scores of other Jews), and anywhere between 10-15 evangelical pastors, but keeping in mind that Canada has a 40% Catholic population, only one Catholic. (See Why did 10 evangelical leaders fly with Harper to Israel? Douglas Todd, vancouversun.com, 28/1/14)
I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether the 'Judeo-' triumphs over the 'Christianity' in Abbott's professed Judeo-Christianity. For which, see my 16/12/13 post Time to Get Serious, Tony!
"If you're searching for the single government in the world that the Abbott government most resembles... turn your gaze to Ottowa. If the Abbott government has a model, it is the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. This week, I met his gregarious and engaging Foreign Minister, John Baird. 'Stephen Harper has a very high regard for Tony Abbott,' he told me, and went on to extol Canada and Australia's shared values... In foreign affairs, the two governments have a very similar world view... One of the biggest changes Abbott and his Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have made from the previous Labor government is to reverse Labor's anti-Israel voting pattern at the UN, and restore the pro-Israel pattern that had prevailed under the Howard government... Why does Canada support Israel? [I asked Baird] 'It's the only liberal democracy in the region. In the great struggle of our generation, against international terrorism, it's often on the frontline.' I ask him if anything Israel is forced to do to defend its security qualifies its status as a liberal democracy. His answer is straightforward: 'No. It lives in a tough neighborhood. If there were 5000 or 10,000 rockets raining down on Canada or Australia there would be enormous pressure on the government to act..." (Our Canadian connection, from the Anglosphere to the Middle East, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 27/2/14)
No, dear God no, not Canada:
"Canada's government is now the most undiluted, fervent supporter of Israel... in the entire world. The Harper government would wear that description as a badge of honour... Why has this government gone beyond all previous Canadian ones in supporting Israel? It is something visceral and personal for Mr Harper. His deep commitment does not spring from personal experience or considerable reading about the Middle East and its history - indeed, while he was leader of the opposition, foreign diplomats in Ottowa who managed to secure a meeting (often difficult) with him were struck by how little interested he was in any international issues. Mr Harper sees the world, like Canadian domestic affairs, in rather Manichean terms, wherein the forces of good and evil are arrayed against each other, with threatening enemies everywhere, prepared to pounce on any weakness. The forces of good are democracies, especially of the Anglo-Saxon variety and a few others, including Israel. The forces of darkness and instability are other kinds of political systems. Mr Harper expressed that Manichean world view when speaking to the Negev [JNF] dinner in Toronto last month. Israel, he said, is 'a light of freedom and democracy in what is otherwise a region of darkness.' That dichotomy - light versus an entire 'region of darkness' - is of course how many Israelis see their country, a democracy surrounded by enmity and instability. Such a world view, applied to the Middle East, leaves no room for nuance, balance or understanding of complexity, just a dualistic clash between good and evil..." (No room for nuance in Harper's mindset, Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe & Mail, 18/1/14)
Or, as our Stephen Harper-lite, Tony Abbott, would put it, between 'goodies and baddies'.
But maybe there's a chink of light in Abbott's Manichean madness. Could his Catholicism possibly act as a restraining influence of sorts when it comes to going all the way with Israel?
Take the evangelical Harper's recent pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for example. His entourage reportedly included 21 mostly orthodox rabbis (as well as scores of other Jews), and anywhere between 10-15 evangelical pastors, but keeping in mind that Canada has a 40% Catholic population, only one Catholic. (See Why did 10 evangelical leaders fly with Harper to Israel? Douglas Todd, vancouversun.com, 28/1/14)
I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether the 'Judeo-' triumphs over the 'Christianity' in Abbott's professed Judeo-Christianity. For which, see my 16/12/13 post Time to Get Serious, Tony!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)