Zionist Dreaming

What Zionists say among themselves can often be of more interest than what they say to the rest of us.

This observation came to me as I was perusing Yom Ha'atzmaut (Independence Day) 2015, a glossy 24-page supplement that came with the Australian Jewish News of April 24.

One particular item, The state of the State at 120, was of particular interest. It began thus:

"It's Yom Ha'atzmaut 2068. The Israeli sports minister's rocket-boosted El Al flight has just touched down at Ben-Gurion Airport. Nothing remarkable about that. What is remarkable is that only minutes earlier, this regular commercial flight had taken off from Damascus Airport, where the minister was in talks with her Syrian counterpart, making final arrangements for Syrian venues that will be part of the Tel Aviv Olympics... As The AJN celebrates its 120th anniversary, Peter Kohn asks several community members to look into the crystal ball and share their visions of Israel for Yom Ha'atzmaut of 2068, when the Jewish State reaches its 120th birthday."

Well, bully for Israel, I thought, after reading this, but where were the Palestinians in all this navel crystal ball gazing? You know, the ones whose hopes and dreams lie buried under the rubble of dispossession, apartheid and rampant colonisation.

In a word, absent.

Of the 7 contributors, 4 had nothing whatever to say about them. For the record these were Hallely Kimchi (editor of Eton, a newspaper serving Israelis in Australia), Amit Tzur-Tal (executive director and shlichah of the United Israel Appeal Victoria), Richard Balkin (president of the Zionist Council of Australia), and Danny Lamm (president of the Zionist Federation of Australia).

And the remaining 3, those who could at least pay lip service to the 'P' word?

First, there was Ran Porat, who teaches Israel and Middle East Studies at Monash University:

"... the Palestinian issue is solved, thanks to technological developments and perception changes. Both these advances enable Palestinians to prosper in a viable and lively entity, in harmony and cooperation with the economy and culture of the State of Israel."

Technological developments and perception changes?

What, give them laptops and vouchers to see a shrink?

A viable and lively entity?

Entity? Porat can't even bring himself to utter the word 'state'!

And where may this entity be located? In Jordan? On the moon?

Then came Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC):

"Palestine, having emerged after the international community started supporting direct negotiations between the parties, leading to a comprehensive peace agreement, has partnered with Israel in attempts to build a viable economy and democratic institutions. The vast amount of global and Palestinian effort that had been used to demonise Israel, to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine and perpetuate the refugee issue before the agreement, has been redirected into modernising Palestinian society and its economy."

The international community, so-called, has returned to the good old 'peace process' for more interminable jaw jaw (as more and more settlers flood onto what's left of Palestinian land); UNRWA, if not the UN, has been terminated; and the issue of Palestinian refugees and their right of return has disappeared into the dustbin of history. Problem solved.

Finally, there's Sam Tatarka, president of the Zionist Council of Victoria:

"The path to Palestinian statehood began in earnest with the passing of the last of the old guard of Palestinian rejectionists and a realisation that the 'right of return' and other demands made in the seemingly endless peace process begun in the closing years of the last century were never going to succeed. Jerusalem remains the undivided capital of Israel... Palestinian government offices in the city barely raise an eyebrow as residents and visitors alike enjoy the freedom and spirit of this wonderful city... The Jerusalem light-rail extension to Ramallah built in the early 2030s continues to serve as a reminder of the baby steps taken between Israel and the Palestinians as they moved to broad economic cooperation and integration over the past three decades."

Just hang in there until the Palestinians have dropped all of their demands, the right of return, East Jerusalem and the rest. Say around 2030. No mention of the settler hordes, of course. Palestinian hewers of wood and drawers of water will ride the light rail from Ramallah into Israel to do all the shit work.

Delusional. 

The Herald Awakes

The Sydney Morning Herald has finally bestirred itself to report on the subject of the scandalous persecution of Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch.

Mind you, the Zionist 'Get Lynch' campaign has been going on now for at least two years, as this, my forty-first post on the subject, testifies.

In brief, Lynch has been under sustained attack by a baying pack of Israeli and Israel lobby outfits (Shurat HaDin/AUJS/AIJAC), assorted Israel-besotted federal politicians, both 'serving' and former (Danby/Bishop/Baldwin), Murdoch's Zionist mouthpiece, The Australian, and lately by a vice-chancellor cluelessly manoeuvred and/or pressured into mounting a witch-hunt against him in the form of an 'investigation' into his conduct at a protest by student activists against a visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes in March. 

Better late than never, you might argue. The trouble is, however, that the Herald's coverage of the affair is confined solely to the university's witch-hunt against Lynch and ignores the vital context of his Federal Court ordeal last year at the hands of the Mossad-linked Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin (motto: 'Bankrupting Terror, One Law Suit at a Time'), a case happily won by Lynch with undisclosed costs awarded in his favour:

"Professor Lynch, a proponent of the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions campaign against Israel, was advised by the university this month that it was not satisfied his conduct 'constituted anti-Semitic behaviour or unlawful harassment on the grounds of an individual's religious belief (or perceived religious belief)'."  (Academic Jake Lynch cleared of anti-Semitism in ugly stoush at Sydney University, Peter Munro, 27/4/15)

It goes without saying that the false allegation of anti-Semitism routinely hurled at defenders of Palestine by Zionist dead-enders (Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist Le Lievre was also a recent victim) should never have been taken seriously in the first place.

Anyone familiar with Lynch's hounding by Shurat HaDin would instantly see that the now notorious 'money-waving incident' had nothing whatever to do with anti-Semitism:

"A separate stoush was sparked in the audience between Professor Lynch and Diane Barkas, a Jewish semi-retired English lecturer and stand-up comedian, after she threw water on a protestor. Professor Lynch threatened to sue Ms Barkas - waving a $5 note in her face and saying 'This is going to cost you a lot of money' - after she allegedly kicked him in the groin, a claim she denies."

And yet, the Herald continues to give oxygen to those with a vested interest in flogging this particular dead horse:

"But Julian Kowal, of the Australian Union of Jewish Students, claimed Professor Lynch had compromised the reputation of Sydney University as a 'safe space for Jewish students' and should be sacked. 'In so far as the money-waving actions in the face of a Jewish woman evoked strong images of historically anti-Semitic stereotypes, his actions were undoubtedly highly inappropriate,' he said."

More generally, the initiation of the witch-hunt by vice-chancellor Michael Spence raises the question of how an individual can rise to such a level (salary: $911,575 pa) but apparently have little or no understanding of the issues which underlie the 'Get Lynch' campaign: such basics, for example, as the underlying dynamics of the Palestine/Israel conflict (occupied/occupier); the elementary difference between Judaism and Zionism (religion/political ideology); and the perennial modus operandi of Zionists, on or off campus, (conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and using the charge to silence legitimate dissent). A simple knowledge of these matters, absent other factors, of course, should enable any vice-chancellor worth his salt to see through the 'Get Lynch' mob and avoid becoming their unwitting accomplice:

"But Prof Lynch... was warned he still faced dismissal or other disciplinary action for possible breaches of the university's code of conduct, under which staff must treat visitors 'with respect, impartiality, courtesy and sensitivity'."

Question is, will Peter Munro's piece be a once-off or will the Herald be returning to this test case for academic freedom and free speech at our universities?

'Kissing Foreign Backsides'

Thank God Australian journalist Alan Ramsey is back, drawing our attention to things that really matter and asking all the right questions:

"Seven months ago, at Washington's request, the Abbott cabinet sent 200 special forces troops, plus 400 military support staff and 6 Australian jet fighters, to Iraq to join a US-led multinational force to 'assist' the Iraqi government in its campaign against Islamic fanatics, whom Abbott prefers to call 'the death-cult.'

"After a 'formal request' from Washington with the 'support of the Prime Minister of Iraq', the Abbott government last month agreed to commit another 340 ground troops, in tandem with 143 New Zealand troops, who will join the Australian 'training' force at a base north of Baghdad next month.

"It was these additional Australian troops Abbott was farewelling in Brisbane this week. What he doesn't seem to realise is that his government's piecemeal decisions on military deployments to Iraq eerily mirror what the Menzies and Holt governments said and did exactly 50 years ago as they persisted with the pretence that they were reacting to appeals from South Vietnam's besieged government rather than colluding with Washington in an escalating Asian civil war that, unlike Australia, Washington's European allies wanted nothing to do with.

"Doesn't anybody in this ridiculous government of ours pay any attention to the mistakes, blunders, lies etc of their predecessors when it comes to forever knuckling under, previously, to London, and now to Washington?

"Don't we have any self-respect in what we do and how we're seen when we persist in kissing foreign backsides?

"No Australian under 50 today was alive when we went to war in Vietnam in April, 1965. Our London-born Prime Minister was just 3 when his parents migrated here in 1960 and 7 years old that April night Menzies announced we were sending ground troops to Vietnam.

"Is lack of firsthand knowledge, of having lived through those often dramatic and hugely divisive times, political and social, any excuse for repeating the folly of Australia having joined the United States in Washington's war there?

"Or are the lives of 500 dead Australians seen as acceptable in keeping favour with the White House when the United States sorely needed, for political and strategic reasons, other white faces alongside American ones in an otherwise wholly Asian war?" (Knuckling under in other people's wars ignores blunders of the past, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/4/15)

Blair Inc.

Behold Fiona Capp's review of Blair Inc.: The Man Behind the Mask in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:

"Few political leaders have provoked as much controversy after leaving office as Tony Blair. Blair Inc. is a combative investigation of the way Blair has gone about 'making himself seriously rich'. The gravest allegation concerns conflicts of interest between his public role as Middle East special envoy to promote economic growth in Palestine and his private commercial interests. The authors argue that Blair's work as envoy has been compromised by his position as an adviser to the bank JP Morgan - whose clients benefited from the two major deals Blair brokered for the Palestinians - and that the Palestinians regard him as Israel's mouthpiece. Overall, Blair emerges as a secretive, self-serving hollow-man. The hostile tone, however, makes it difficult to assess or entirely trust the claims being made."

OK... so Bush's poodle emerges "as a secretive, self-serving hollow man," but the authors of Blair Inc. should have toned down the hostility.

Sure, he may have been complicit in reducing Iraq to the status of a vile, sectarian hell-hole, sending over 500,000 souls to their doom and creating millions of refugees in the process, but hey, that "hostile tone," that's going way too far, guys!

Jeeesus!

My Problem with Amira Hass

I thought I'd tune in to Phillip Adams' Late Night Live program on 22/4/15 to hear visiting Israeli journalist Amira Hass, "the only Jewish journalist who has lived among the Palestinians, both in Gaza and now full-time in the West Bank." (Amira Hass: An Israeli journalist living in Palestine)

Adams was, of course, his usual blunt self - 'blunt', that is, in the sense that his interviewing style, particularly with Jewish Zionists, totally contradicts the program's claim to be about "razor-sharp analysis of current events [which] puts you firmly in the big picture."

But it's mainly Hass (unexpectedly I might add) that I have the bigger problem with this time around. While sound on the occupation of 1967, I found the following words more than a little problematic:

"In my lectures here in Australia, I'm speaking to you as one settler to another. This institutionalisation of colonial times I see it everywhere here in Australia. Everywhere. And I also say different things to different audiences. So for people who tell me the solution is to dissolve Israel, I say 'Why don't you dissolve Australia?' And just because you got away with most of the indigenous people... and luckily and happily Israel and Zionism did not decimate the Palestinians. So... it's an extension of London. So I see the whites here and your colonialism is still fresh and the thing is how we look at the future and not the past. We cannot undo the past, but the future has to be worked on..."

Now, to take up my razor...

What does she mean by 'dissolve Israel/dissolve Australia'? Typically Adams didn't ask her.

Was this in response to a questioner who had suggested that Israel's apartheid structure be dismantled? That Israel be de-Zionised? That it become a state of its citizens, with equal rights for all, regardless of ethno-religious affiliation, rather than continue to be reserved as the exclusive domain of those Jews who see themselves as belonging to that entity, 'the Jewish people'? That Israel's outrageous, biology-based, apartheid Law of Return be scrapped? That the indigenous people of Palestine, ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967, be allowed to return to their homes and land?

 Was she seriously suggesting that there are no differences between Israel and Australia? Typically, Adams didn't ask her whether she saw Australia as an apartheid state (that is, a state based, like former apartheid South Africa and today's Israel, on a raft of discriminatory legislation), and if so, which discriminatory laws made it so. Nor did he ask her whether indigenous Australians were languishing in exile in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, denied the right of return to Australia.

Why was she using the old Zionist whataboutery: You dare criticise Israel? What about Australia?

And when she said, Israel and Zionism (that is, almost 100 years of Zionist colonisation, dispossession, expulsion and occupation of Palestinians) did not decimate the Palestinians, what the hell was she on about? Typically, there was no response, razor-sharp or otherwise, from Adams.

Finally, in saying that we cannot undo the past, was she implying that Israel was set in concrete in 1948 and must forever remain a Jewish state, and that the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and 1967 must therefore remain in exile?

In the Burning Sands of the Middle East

Life can be very confusing and sooo complicated. We're lucky, then, we have Tone around to guide us through its complexities. I mean where would we be without such helpful shortcuts as these?

Climate science=crap
Australia before the White Man=nothing but bush
Australians=Israelis
The war in Syria=baddies vs baddies

What more do you need to know about those 4 issues after that?

Thankfully, Tone's come up with a newie: The Middle East=sand

"In the sands of the Middle East, Australian soldiers fought with skill and determination alongside British troops to capture Jerusalem and Damascus." (Worst of times brought out the best in Anzac troops, Tony Abbott, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22/4/15)

That being the case, the Australian War Memorial's website cannot be allowed to get away with the following any longer:

"Unlike their counterparts in France and Belgium, the Australians in the Middle East fought a mobile war in conditions completely different from the mud and stagnation of the Western Front. The light horsemen and their mounts had to survive extreme heat, harsh terrain, and water shortages." (awm.gov.au)

Hello, where's the bloody sand, AWM? You have until April 25 to fix it, OK? Better get moving!

As for Australian soldiers fighting [up-to-their-undies, or at least knee-deep, through the burning sands of Palestine ie, before Israel made the desert bloom!] alongside British troops to capture Jerusalem,  the following from Roger Ford, author of Eden to Armageddon: World War I in the Middle East (2009) my heretofore trusty guide to boots on the ground in the burning sands of Palestine in World War I, is going to have to revisit this:

"In fact, in keeping with Falkenhayn's instructions, the Turkish defences around Jerusalem were withdrawn during the early hours of 9 December [1917]. The first the British knew of this was a report from two mess cooks of the 2/20th Londons, wandering in search of water, who stumbled into the southern suburbs and upon a party led by the Mayor of Jerusalem, looking for someone to whom he could surrender his city. They declined to accept, and returned to their lines. Next the mayoral party happened upon two sergeants of the 2/19th Londons, on outpost duty, but they likewise declined the honour. Next it came upon two officers from the 60th Division's artillery, who promised to telephone the news to their headquarters but respectfully refused to take a more active part in the proceedings... Finally the mayor made contact with the commander of the 303rd Brigade, RFA, himself out on a reconnaissance mission, and managed to convince him of his bona fides. Lt.-Col. Bayley sent back for additional personnel, and was eventually joined by Brig.-Gen. Watson, the 180th Brigade's commander. Some while later Shea arrived and formally took the surrender in Allenby's name. British troops were henceforth confined to the suburbs, outside the city walls, until the commander-in-chief had made his own entrance. He did so - on foot, with no pomp and little ceremony - on 11 December." (p 359)

Not happy, Roger! Where are our Aussie diggers? And how about a bit of bloody action, mate? I want this passage Toned up, NOW, OK?

As for Australian troops fighting [again through the burning sands]... alongside British troops to capture... Damascus, I refer you to my 13/12/11 post Daley of Damascus, upon the reading of which, I'm sure you'll agree, that that uppity dune-coon George Antonius needs a thorough whipping. 

Jeremy Jones for UN Secretary-General

Jeremy Jones, the author of a recent Murdoch opinion piece, is described in its biographical footnote as "the director of international and community affairs, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council; co-chairman of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism; and former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry."  (Bullies, dissemblers & slanderers: BDS movement is a magnet for prejudice, The Australian, 18/4/15)

Now I know what you're thinking. Sure, there's heaps of BS in it about BDS standing for "bullying, dissembling and slander" and being "a magnet for the malicious and a podium for prejudice," and so forth.

But before you dismiss Jeremy as just another Israel lobby grunt out to defend the indefensible, read this:

"If I thought boycotts and related strategies would contribute in any way to peace and justice in the Middle East, or that this campaign would make evildoers suffer, and prompt them to reform, I would back them. If I believed it assisted Palestinians in the process of state-building or improving their human rights position, I would not oppose this. But with decades of working towards these ideals, I am convinced it does the opposite: it reinforces the worst instincts, it rewards obstinance and it inflames tensions."

OMG!  What a surprise!

Honestly, I had no idea until I read the above that, far from being a good Zionist footsoldier, Jeremy was really a fighter for "peace and justice in the Middle East," a dedicated foe of "evildoers," and a true friend of the Palestinians!

Bugger Kevin Rudd! Jeremy Jones has my vote for next UN Secretary-General.