A glaring running sore of British colonialism has at last received a measure of justice in the form of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict:
"Mauritius has won a case against Britain at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) involving decolonisation of the strategically important island of Diego Garcia, which is home to a US military base. Britain must give Mauritius control of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, the ICJ said on Monday. The court in a majority opinion... said the decolonisation of Mauritius 'was not lawfully complete' when it obtained independence because Britain carved away the Chagos Archipelago from it and retained control over it. The opinion, which is non-binding, handed down by the majority of 13 judges said Britain 'is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible'.
"The sole dissenter was American Judge Joan E. Donoghue. Britain is not represented on the ICJ bench... The court gave the opinion at the request of the United Nations General Assembly made in a 2017 resolution. Vehemently opposed by the US and Britain, the resolution received the vote of 94 countries while 15 voted against it and 65 abstained. Britain opposed the referral to the court saying it was a bilateral matter with Mauritius and indicated it would reject it. There is unlikely to be any challenge to the US Diego Garcia base from Mauritius either... Britain cut off the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 before granting it independence in 1968. The residents of Diego Garcia were forcibly removed by the British colonial administration and it was leased out to the US, which set up its strategic Indian Ocean military base." (ICJ advises Britain to return Diego Garcia to Mauritius, economictimes.indiatimes, 26/2/19)
There are many parallels here with the case of Palestine. Once the Middle East was firmly in Britain's hands after WWI, the entire area should have undergone a natural transition to independence, what US president Woodrow Wilson called at the time, in point 12 of his famous 14 Points, "an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development."
Instead, the Middle East was well and truly denied that "unmolested opportunity of autonomous development" by Britain and France, with the former taking control of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, and the latter Syria. France then set about crushing the first representative Arab government, based in Damascus, in 1920, while the British, in defiance of the wishes of Palestine's indigenous Arab majority, proceeded to open Palestine up to mass Zionist immigration and colonisation. Under the protection of British bayonets, these Zionist immigrants were eventually able to reach a point, in 1948, where they were strong enough to take control of Palestine by force of arms, drive out the bulk of its Arab Palestinian inhabitants, and set up a 'Jewish' state. The rest, of course, is history.
In both cases - the Mauritian and the Middle Eastern - indigenous peoples were cruelly denied "an unmolested opportunity of autonomous development" by racist, imperialist powers. The legacy of that denial remains with us today and screams out for the justice of decolonisation.. We applaud the ICJ verdict on Mauritius, and await a similar one in the case of colonised Palestine.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Israel Gets Down & Dirty in Yemen
"Mention any trouble spot in the Third World over the past ten years, and, inevitably, you will find smiling Israeli officers and shiny Israeli weapons on the news pages. The images have become familiar: the Uzi submachine gun or the Galil assault rifle, with Israeli officers named Uzi and Galil, or Golan, for good measure. We have seen them in South Africa, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Namibia, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Chile, Bolivia, and many other places. From Manila to San Salvador, from Seoul to Tegucigalpa, from Walvis Bay to Guatemala City, from Taipei to Port-au-Prince, Israeli civilians and military men have been helping, in their own words, in 'the defense of the West'." (The Israeli Connection: Who Israel Arms & Why, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, p xii)
Beit-Hallahmi's groundbreaking expose of Israeli military involvement in conflict zones around the world, was published in 1987. Needless to say, nothing has changed:
"'If Iran tries to block the Bab al-Mandab strait, I'm sure it will find itself facing an international coalition determined to prevent it. This coalition will include all Israel's army branches as well,; declared Benjamin Netanyahu in August, following Iran's threat against American sanctions. Such a coalition had already been set up in 2015 by Saudi Arabia, who partnered with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Pakistan. Israel is also an unofficial partner. Israeli cyber companies, gun traders, terror-warfare instructors and even paid hitmen operated by an Israeli-owned company are partners to the war in Yemen.
"In September, London-based Al-Khaleej Online published a long article about Israel's involvement in training Colombian and Nepalese combatants, who were recruited by the UAE for the war in Yemen... The report also says that Israel set up special training bases in the Negev, where the mercenaries were trained by Israeli combatants... The mercenaries later took part in the war on the port town of Hodeidah and other fighting zones in Yemen. The site's sources said Israel also sold bombs and missiles to Saudi Arabia, some of which are banned. Recently it was reported and later denied that Israel also sold Saudi Arabia combat drones and intends to sell it Iron Dome systems as well.
"Many reports have been written about Israeli companies like the NSO group, which is suspected of selling Saudi Arabia Pegasus spyware accused of helping trace and survey Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, or the AGT company owned by the Israeli businessman Mati Kochavi, which in 2007 won the $6 billion bid to set up surveillance and monitoring systems in Abu Dhabi. But what remains a mystery is to what extent Israeli technology served the fighting forces in Yemen.
"Another company, Spearhead Operations group, which was set up by Israeli Avraham Golan and is registered in the United States, was responsible for assassinating Yemenite clergyman Anssaf Ali Mayo in December 2015. Mayo was one of the leaders of the Yemeni reform party, which is affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter is classified in the UAE as a terror organization... " From Yemen's war is a mercenary heaven. Are Israelis reaping the profits? Zvi Bar'el, outline.com, 15/2/19
Beit-Hallahmi's groundbreaking expose of Israeli military involvement in conflict zones around the world, was published in 1987. Needless to say, nothing has changed:
"'If Iran tries to block the Bab al-Mandab strait, I'm sure it will find itself facing an international coalition determined to prevent it. This coalition will include all Israel's army branches as well,; declared Benjamin Netanyahu in August, following Iran's threat against American sanctions. Such a coalition had already been set up in 2015 by Saudi Arabia, who partnered with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Pakistan. Israel is also an unofficial partner. Israeli cyber companies, gun traders, terror-warfare instructors and even paid hitmen operated by an Israeli-owned company are partners to the war in Yemen.
"In September, London-based Al-Khaleej Online published a long article about Israel's involvement in training Colombian and Nepalese combatants, who were recruited by the UAE for the war in Yemen... The report also says that Israel set up special training bases in the Negev, where the mercenaries were trained by Israeli combatants... The mercenaries later took part in the war on the port town of Hodeidah and other fighting zones in Yemen. The site's sources said Israel also sold bombs and missiles to Saudi Arabia, some of which are banned. Recently it was reported and later denied that Israel also sold Saudi Arabia combat drones and intends to sell it Iron Dome systems as well.
"Many reports have been written about Israeli companies like the NSO group, which is suspected of selling Saudi Arabia Pegasus spyware accused of helping trace and survey Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, or the AGT company owned by the Israeli businessman Mati Kochavi, which in 2007 won the $6 billion bid to set up surveillance and monitoring systems in Abu Dhabi. But what remains a mystery is to what extent Israeli technology served the fighting forces in Yemen.
"Another company, Spearhead Operations group, which was set up by Israeli Avraham Golan and is registered in the United States, was responsible for assassinating Yemenite clergyman Anssaf Ali Mayo in December 2015. Mayo was one of the leaders of the Yemeni reform party, which is affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter is classified in the UAE as a terror organization... " From Yemen's war is a mercenary heaven. Are Israelis reaping the profits? Zvi Bar'el, outline.com, 15/2/19
Monday, February 25, 2019
Plague? What Plague?
Judging by the anti-Corbyn corporate media, you could be forgiven for thinking that those who recently left the UK Labour Party and set up a body known as The Independent Group (TIG) - now 8, having just been joined by Joan Ryan MP (chair of Labour Friends of Israel!) - were motivated first and foremost by the foul contagion of anti-Semitism, spreading like wildfire among party members.
Murdoch's Times, for example, ran a report by Daniel Finkelstein, headed Labour Party plagued by political preachers of hate (The Times/The Australian, 21/2/19)*
And yet, if you go to TIG's website, and click on their statement (of 11 principles), the plague of anti-Semitism supposedly afflicting the party doesn't even rate a mention! (theindependent.group/statement)
And if you go to the Labour Party website, LabourList, you can read that "the party received 673 accusations of antisemitism by Labour members between April 2018 and January 2019," involving just 96 individuals, only 12 of whom "were expelled," following investigations by the party's National Executive Committee (NEC).** (See Jennie Formby provides numbers on Labour antisemitism cases, Sienna Rodgers, labourlist.org, 11/2/19)
The revelation that "[t]hese figures relate to about 0.1% of our membership," according to Labour general secretary Jennie Formby, who released the data so that it could not be "misrepresented or misused for other purposes by the party's political rivals," really says it all. (ibid)
Plague of ant-Semitism? Pull the other...
[*For Daniel Finkelstein, see my 12/2/19 post Games Zionists Play;**I hasten to add here that, absent the details, we really have no idea whether the NEC got it right when it decided to expel the 12.]
Murdoch's Times, for example, ran a report by Daniel Finkelstein, headed Labour Party plagued by political preachers of hate (The Times/The Australian, 21/2/19)*
And yet, if you go to TIG's website, and click on their statement (of 11 principles), the plague of anti-Semitism supposedly afflicting the party doesn't even rate a mention! (theindependent.group/statement)
And if you go to the Labour Party website, LabourList, you can read that "the party received 673 accusations of antisemitism by Labour members between April 2018 and January 2019," involving just 96 individuals, only 12 of whom "were expelled," following investigations by the party's National Executive Committee (NEC).** (See Jennie Formby provides numbers on Labour antisemitism cases, Sienna Rodgers, labourlist.org, 11/2/19)
The revelation that "[t]hese figures relate to about 0.1% of our membership," according to Labour general secretary Jennie Formby, who released the data so that it could not be "misrepresented or misused for other purposes by the party's political rivals," really says it all. (ibid)
Plague of ant-Semitism? Pull the other...
[*For Daniel Finkelstein, see my 12/2/19 post Games Zionists Play;**I hasten to add here that, absent the details, we really have no idea whether the NEC got it right when it decided to expel the 12.]
Saturday, February 23, 2019
IHRA's 'Working Definition' of Anti-Semitism
In the propaganda war aimed at UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters in the party by his Blairite enemies, the false allegation of anti-Semitism has pride of place. Which begs the question: what, exactly, do these elements mean when they use the term? What, IOW, is their definition - if they actually have one - of anti-Semitism?
As often as not it will be the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) 'working definition' of anti-Semitism, which widens the scope of the term well beyond its traditional meaning of hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews to include criticism of Israel. The following history of that text, and how it came to be adopted by the British government, comes from a British judge, Stephen Sedley:
"In 2005 a working party of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, an EU institution, produced a forty-word 'working definition': Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
"It was followed by a series of examples, of unknown authorship, which, depending on their context, might constitute acts of anti-Semitism. Of the 11 examples, seven referred to Israel rather than to Jews. But both the definition and the illustrations were rejected by the EUMC, and in 2013 its successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed the entire text from its website as part of a clear-out of non-official documents.
"In May 2016 the same text was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), a Berlin-based association of 31 states, at its meeting in Bucharest. To it were added, in the IHRA's press release, the list of 11 examples [...]
"In December 2016, a press release from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the prime minister's office announced that the UK had 'formally' adopted the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism, setting out the forty-word definition without any of the associated examples. It is not known what 'formal' adoption means in constitutional terms: either a text has to take legislative form, with all that this entails, or it remains simply a policy. On the same day Jeremy Corbyn announced that the Labour Party was adopting the definition.
"In neither of these announcements were the tendentious illustrations included. But central government has cited them as grounds for rejecting the advice of the Home Affairs Committee that the 'definition' should be qualified by spelling out that in the absence of additional evidence of anti-Semitic intent, it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel's government, to hold it to the same standard as other liberal democracies or to take a particular interest in its policies or actions. A number of municipalities, including London, Manchester and Birmingham, have adopted the list wholesale - London, among others, using a version which omits the proviso that the listed examples depend on their context.
"What is at issue is suggested by the prime minister's contemporaneous speech, quoted in the government's press release: 'Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish.' From this it isn't far to the first of the 'examples' of anti-Semitism: 'Manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.' Leaving aside the difference between targeting and criticism, one asks: conceived by whom? The world at large, millions of Jews included, conceives of Israel as a state with the same rights and obligations as any other state, including an obligation not to extend its territory by incremental colonisation or to occupy and administer the land of others under military law. It is hardline Zionism, and hardline jihadism which coincide, as extremes tend to do, in regarding Israel as a 'Jewish collectivity' - jihadism by seeking to identify Israel with all Jews (making every Jew a legitimate terrorist target), Zionism by seeking to identify all Jews with Israel (whence the description of Israel's Jewish critics as 'self-hating').
"None of this is addressed by a definition which sets the bar needlessly high by stipulating hatred rather than simple hostility as the defining characteristic of anti-Semitism, nor by tendentious examples which look to immunise Israel from sharp criticism. Those who seek to make use of such material in the UK should perhaps remember that public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act to give effect to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right of free expression subject only to restrictions prescribed by law - which the IHRA definition is not."
The above history, as well as Sedley's essay Defining Anti-Semitism can be found in the London Review of Books (4/5/17 & 8/2/18 respectively), or in Karl Sabbagh's go-to book on the subject of the campaign against anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party, The Antisemitism Wars: How the British Media Failed their Public (2018).
As often as not it will be the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) 'working definition' of anti-Semitism, which widens the scope of the term well beyond its traditional meaning of hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews to include criticism of Israel. The following history of that text, and how it came to be adopted by the British government, comes from a British judge, Stephen Sedley:
"In 2005 a working party of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, an EU institution, produced a forty-word 'working definition': Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
"It was followed by a series of examples, of unknown authorship, which, depending on their context, might constitute acts of anti-Semitism. Of the 11 examples, seven referred to Israel rather than to Jews. But both the definition and the illustrations were rejected by the EUMC, and in 2013 its successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed the entire text from its website as part of a clear-out of non-official documents.
"In May 2016 the same text was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), a Berlin-based association of 31 states, at its meeting in Bucharest. To it were added, in the IHRA's press release, the list of 11 examples [...]
"In December 2016, a press release from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the prime minister's office announced that the UK had 'formally' adopted the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism, setting out the forty-word definition without any of the associated examples. It is not known what 'formal' adoption means in constitutional terms: either a text has to take legislative form, with all that this entails, or it remains simply a policy. On the same day Jeremy Corbyn announced that the Labour Party was adopting the definition.
"In neither of these announcements were the tendentious illustrations included. But central government has cited them as grounds for rejecting the advice of the Home Affairs Committee that the 'definition' should be qualified by spelling out that in the absence of additional evidence of anti-Semitic intent, it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel's government, to hold it to the same standard as other liberal democracies or to take a particular interest in its policies or actions. A number of municipalities, including London, Manchester and Birmingham, have adopted the list wholesale - London, among others, using a version which omits the proviso that the listed examples depend on their context.
"What is at issue is suggested by the prime minister's contemporaneous speech, quoted in the government's press release: 'Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish.' From this it isn't far to the first of the 'examples' of anti-Semitism: 'Manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.' Leaving aside the difference between targeting and criticism, one asks: conceived by whom? The world at large, millions of Jews included, conceives of Israel as a state with the same rights and obligations as any other state, including an obligation not to extend its territory by incremental colonisation or to occupy and administer the land of others under military law. It is hardline Zionism, and hardline jihadism which coincide, as extremes tend to do, in regarding Israel as a 'Jewish collectivity' - jihadism by seeking to identify Israel with all Jews (making every Jew a legitimate terrorist target), Zionism by seeking to identify all Jews with Israel (whence the description of Israel's Jewish critics as 'self-hating').
"None of this is addressed by a definition which sets the bar needlessly high by stipulating hatred rather than simple hostility as the defining characteristic of anti-Semitism, nor by tendentious examples which look to immunise Israel from sharp criticism. Those who seek to make use of such material in the UK should perhaps remember that public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act to give effect to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right of free expression subject only to restrictions prescribed by law - which the IHRA definition is not."
The above history, as well as Sedley's essay Defining Anti-Semitism can be found in the London Review of Books (4/5/17 & 8/2/18 respectively), or in Karl Sabbagh's go-to book on the subject of the campaign against anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party, The Antisemitism Wars: How the British Media Failed their Public (2018).
Friday, February 22, 2019
Ten Years is an Eternity in Politics
"Australia's Jewish leaders have praised Scott Morrison's attack on the UN's 'anti-Semitic agenda' as the nation celebrates 70 years of diplomatic relations with Israel." (PM praised for UN swipe over Israel, Richard Ferguson, The Australian, 20/2/19)
Did you know that "the nation" (aka Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten) has been singing Happy Birthday to You/Israel in federal parliament?
Think about it! There are 193 nations in the world - but only one that I'm aware of gets a bipartisan birthday bash every 10 years in federal parliament. And that's an apartheid state! Now how crazy is that?
Morrison used the opportunity, predictably, to berate the UNGA, "the place where Israel is bullied and where anti-Semitism is cloaked in language about human rights," while Shorten intoned the usual Labor mantra about Doc Evert being in the delivery room at the birth.
The aforementioned "Jewish leaders," by the way, constitute a veritable roll call of Israel lobbyists in Australia:
AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein - "Prime Minister Morrison was entirely correct in his reflections on the lopsided 'bias and unfair targeting' of Israel at the UN. Israel, a thriving 'beacon of democracy in the Middle East' with an independent judiciary, has been subject to overwhelmingly more criticism than any other country." (ibid)
Anti-Defamation Commission's Dvir Abramovich - "The PM... should be saluted for naming and calling out the UN's institutional anti-Israel bias, and for his iron-clad assurance Australia will always stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel against those hostile forces who wish to demonise and defame her."
Executive Council of Australian Jewry's Alex Ryvchin - "We commend the Prime Minister for vowing to stand with Israel at the UN, and for condemning the hypocrisy and double standards in its obsessive and disproportionate focus on criticising Israel."
Zionist Association of Australia's Jeremy Liebler - "Western countries who lay sole blame on Israel for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East bear real responsibility for the continuation of Hamas' terror activities."
Still, Israel's 70th was a pretty low key affair when compared with the lavish party thrown by former Labor PM Kevin Rudd back in March, 2008, for Israel's 60th. (See my 6 posts on the subject, all titled The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament.) Suffice it to recall Rudd's magnificent, gem-encrusted gift to Israel at the time, namely the following parliamentary motion:
"That the House: (1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the State of Israel in the 60 years since its inception; (2) remember with pride and honour the important role which Australia played in the establishment of the State of Israel as both a member state of the UN and as an influential voice in the introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel's statehood, and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation; (3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel; a bond highlighted by our commitment to the rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural diversity; (4) commend the State of Israel's commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and pluralism; (5) reiterates Australia's commitment to Israel's right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue; (6) reiterates Australia's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East; (7) on this, the 60th Anniversary of Independence of the State of Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together."
Simply stunning, eh?
Strange to tell, Rudd neglects any mention of Israel's 60th in his recent memoir, Kevin Rudd: The PM Years. Ditto for his grand tour of Israel in December 2010, during which the late Shimon Peres described Israel as being in love with Australia, and Rudd, speaking in Jerusalem's King David Hotel, joked about Menachem Begin's Irgun terrorists back in 1946 "undertaking some interior redesign" of the hotel. (See my 1-4 posts titled The Kevin Rudd Road Show for the details.)
Truly, ten years is practically an eternity in politics.
Did you know that "the nation" (aka Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten) has been singing Happy Birthday to You/Israel in federal parliament?
Think about it! There are 193 nations in the world - but only one that I'm aware of gets a bipartisan birthday bash every 10 years in federal parliament. And that's an apartheid state! Now how crazy is that?
Morrison used the opportunity, predictably, to berate the UNGA, "the place where Israel is bullied and where anti-Semitism is cloaked in language about human rights," while Shorten intoned the usual Labor mantra about Doc Evert being in the delivery room at the birth.
The aforementioned "Jewish leaders," by the way, constitute a veritable roll call of Israel lobbyists in Australia:
AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein - "Prime Minister Morrison was entirely correct in his reflections on the lopsided 'bias and unfair targeting' of Israel at the UN. Israel, a thriving 'beacon of democracy in the Middle East' with an independent judiciary, has been subject to overwhelmingly more criticism than any other country." (ibid)
Anti-Defamation Commission's Dvir Abramovich - "The PM... should be saluted for naming and calling out the UN's institutional anti-Israel bias, and for his iron-clad assurance Australia will always stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel against those hostile forces who wish to demonise and defame her."
Executive Council of Australian Jewry's Alex Ryvchin - "We commend the Prime Minister for vowing to stand with Israel at the UN, and for condemning the hypocrisy and double standards in its obsessive and disproportionate focus on criticising Israel."
Zionist Association of Australia's Jeremy Liebler - "Western countries who lay sole blame on Israel for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East bear real responsibility for the continuation of Hamas' terror activities."
Still, Israel's 70th was a pretty low key affair when compared with the lavish party thrown by former Labor PM Kevin Rudd back in March, 2008, for Israel's 60th. (See my 6 posts on the subject, all titled The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament.) Suffice it to recall Rudd's magnificent, gem-encrusted gift to Israel at the time, namely the following parliamentary motion:
"That the House: (1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the State of Israel in the 60 years since its inception; (2) remember with pride and honour the important role which Australia played in the establishment of the State of Israel as both a member state of the UN and as an influential voice in the introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel's statehood, and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation; (3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel; a bond highlighted by our commitment to the rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural diversity; (4) commend the State of Israel's commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and pluralism; (5) reiterates Australia's commitment to Israel's right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue; (6) reiterates Australia's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East; (7) on this, the 60th Anniversary of Independence of the State of Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together."
Simply stunning, eh?
Strange to tell, Rudd neglects any mention of Israel's 60th in his recent memoir, Kevin Rudd: The PM Years. Ditto for his grand tour of Israel in December 2010, during which the late Shimon Peres described Israel as being in love with Australia, and Rudd, speaking in Jerusalem's King David Hotel, joked about Menachem Begin's Irgun terrorists back in 1946 "undertaking some interior redesign" of the hotel. (See my 1-4 posts titled The Kevin Rudd Road Show for the details.)
Truly, ten years is practically an eternity in politics.
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Bob Carr on Corbyn & Anti-Semitism
Last night was one of those rare occasions when I watched ABC television's daily news discussion program, The Drum. Among the items for discussion was the contrived anti-Semitism crisis which continues to swirl around Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
One panelist, Andrew West of ABC Radio National's Religion & Ethics Report asserted categorically that UK Labour "certainly has problems in its grass roots and among MPs who've taken their criticism of Israel too far."
Whether or not these "problems" were genuine, or were from cynical Zionist trolls using fake profiles to advance their cause, was of course, never entertained. Nor did West feel obliged to explain what "taking criticism of Israel too far" entailed. And as for explaining the elementary difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, forget it. I seriously doubt that the distinction has ever crossed his mind. No, the UK Labour Party had "problems" with anti-Semitism and that was that.
Never mind, Bob Carr was there to sort all of this out. Well, sort of:
"How [Jeremy Corbyn] allowed the monstrous phenomenon of anti-Semitism to get any acknowledgment from any small corner of the British Labour Party membership, I simply do not understand. It would have taken basic political skills - no more than that - to have made it clear from the very start of these controversies that it is possible to oppose the occupation of the West Bank, the spread of settlements, the cruelty directed at the Palestinian people, without entertaining anything that smacks remotely of anti-Semitism, systemic criticism of Jewish people."
Again, Carr bases his comment on the same assumption as West: the party has real "problems" with anti-Semitism, but only because Corbyn hasn't effectively combated them, not because the British counterparts of the Australian "Zionist Zealots," about whose bullying he complained in his recent memoir, are using the accusation as a weapon solely to prevent a leader sympathetic to Palestinian rights from becoming prime minister.
Asked if Corbyn ever stood up to said anti-Semitism, Carr replied:
"He did it too late. He did it strongly at the Labour conference in September last year and unapologetically laid out his commitment to recognise Palestine and repudiate anti-Semitism, but as leader you've really got a responsibility for seeing that these things get no oxygen at the very start, and I'm ashamed that a fraternal party, a social-democratic party, has even got to take a moment's time to say we're not anti-Semitic."
In fact, Corbyn has denied the smear of anti-Semitism on many occasions. Where he is at fault is in not pointing out that naming and boycotting Israeli apartheid for what it is has nothing whatever to do with hatred Jews as such. As anti-Zionist Jew Tony Greenstein, suspended from the Labour Party in 2016 after allegations that he may have breached party rules, has written in an expose of the matter:
"Corbyn's response to the accusations of antisemitism was to repeat that he wasn't an anti-Semite, which was of course true. What he didn't seem to understand, though, was that when his Zionist opponents used the term 'antisemitism' they were not talking about hatred of Jews but hatred of Zionism. In other words they were talking past each other. If Corbyn had stood up to his accusers from the beginning then he would have shot this fox. To a very large extent Corbyn has been the author of his own misfortunes. All he needed to have done was to say that yes, he condemned antisemitism but he also condemned those who weaponised antisemitism for their own advantage. He could also have noted how supporters of Israel repeatedly accuse opponents of Zionism of 'antisemitism'. It is not as if Corbyn was unaware of this. One of his Jewish anti-Zionist friends, the late Mike Marqusee, had written a book about this, If I Am not For Myself. Jeremy Corbyn of all people should have understood what was happening. He has been involved in Palestine solidarity politics for over 30 years. He cannot be unaware of the fact that the standard go-to accusation of Zionism is to accuse their opponents of antisemitism. There cannot be a Palestine solidarity supporter in the country who hasn't been accused of antisemitism. This is entirely understandable. If you have to defend the theft of land, the demolition of homes, the allocation of 93% of Israeli land to Jews only, coupled with torture, administrative detention and abuse of children, then it is much easier to cry 'antisemitism'." (The story so far... , in The Antisemitism Wars: How the British Media Failed their Public, Karl Sabbagh, 2018, pp 29-30)
One panelist, Andrew West of ABC Radio National's Religion & Ethics Report asserted categorically that UK Labour "certainly has problems in its grass roots and among MPs who've taken their criticism of Israel too far."
Whether or not these "problems" were genuine, or were from cynical Zionist trolls using fake profiles to advance their cause, was of course, never entertained. Nor did West feel obliged to explain what "taking criticism of Israel too far" entailed. And as for explaining the elementary difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, forget it. I seriously doubt that the distinction has ever crossed his mind. No, the UK Labour Party had "problems" with anti-Semitism and that was that.
Never mind, Bob Carr was there to sort all of this out. Well, sort of:
"How [Jeremy Corbyn] allowed the monstrous phenomenon of anti-Semitism to get any acknowledgment from any small corner of the British Labour Party membership, I simply do not understand. It would have taken basic political skills - no more than that - to have made it clear from the very start of these controversies that it is possible to oppose the occupation of the West Bank, the spread of settlements, the cruelty directed at the Palestinian people, without entertaining anything that smacks remotely of anti-Semitism, systemic criticism of Jewish people."
Again, Carr bases his comment on the same assumption as West: the party has real "problems" with anti-Semitism, but only because Corbyn hasn't effectively combated them, not because the British counterparts of the Australian "Zionist Zealots," about whose bullying he complained in his recent memoir, are using the accusation as a weapon solely to prevent a leader sympathetic to Palestinian rights from becoming prime minister.
Asked if Corbyn ever stood up to said anti-Semitism, Carr replied:
"He did it too late. He did it strongly at the Labour conference in September last year and unapologetically laid out his commitment to recognise Palestine and repudiate anti-Semitism, but as leader you've really got a responsibility for seeing that these things get no oxygen at the very start, and I'm ashamed that a fraternal party, a social-democratic party, has even got to take a moment's time to say we're not anti-Semitic."
In fact, Corbyn has denied the smear of anti-Semitism on many occasions. Where he is at fault is in not pointing out that naming and boycotting Israeli apartheid for what it is has nothing whatever to do with hatred Jews as such. As anti-Zionist Jew Tony Greenstein, suspended from the Labour Party in 2016 after allegations that he may have breached party rules, has written in an expose of the matter:
"Corbyn's response to the accusations of antisemitism was to repeat that he wasn't an anti-Semite, which was of course true. What he didn't seem to understand, though, was that when his Zionist opponents used the term 'antisemitism' they were not talking about hatred of Jews but hatred of Zionism. In other words they were talking past each other. If Corbyn had stood up to his accusers from the beginning then he would have shot this fox. To a very large extent Corbyn has been the author of his own misfortunes. All he needed to have done was to say that yes, he condemned antisemitism but he also condemned those who weaponised antisemitism for their own advantage. He could also have noted how supporters of Israel repeatedly accuse opponents of Zionism of 'antisemitism'. It is not as if Corbyn was unaware of this. One of his Jewish anti-Zionist friends, the late Mike Marqusee, had written a book about this, If I Am not For Myself. Jeremy Corbyn of all people should have understood what was happening. He has been involved in Palestine solidarity politics for over 30 years. He cannot be unaware of the fact that the standard go-to accusation of Zionism is to accuse their opponents of antisemitism. There cannot be a Palestine solidarity supporter in the country who hasn't been accused of antisemitism. This is entirely understandable. If you have to defend the theft of land, the demolition of homes, the allocation of 93% of Israeli land to Jews only, coupled with torture, administrative detention and abuse of children, then it is much easier to cry 'antisemitism'." (The story so far... , in The Antisemitism Wars: How the British Media Failed their Public, Karl Sabbagh, 2018, pp 29-30)
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Jeremy Corbyn & the 7 Dwarfs
A group of 7 MPs have just announced their resignation from the UK Labour Party, setting up a so-called Independent Group. This has been long expected. (See in particular my 3/8/18 post Lord Balfour Sabotages Britain's Labour Party. )
One of them, Angela Smith, in the course of a BBC television panel discussion of racism in the UK, blurted out all we really need to know about the 7 dwarfs: 'The recent history of the party I've just left suggests [racism] is not just about being black or... a funny tinge... but... the Jewish community equally."
No surprise then that 5 of its members, including Smith, are "supporters" of Israeli embassy front group, Labour Friends of Israel. Palestinians, presumably, in addition to the crime of not buckling to the Zionist project in their ancestral homeland, could also be marginalised as "funny tinged."
This mix of racism and Zionism, of course, will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Zionist movement, and, in particular, those notorious words of its founder, Theodor Herzl: "The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends."
And just look at how the congenitally Zionist Guardian (to focus on just one establishment media outlet) leapt on the 7 dwarfs' bandwagon, leveling yet more false smears of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn and his party. This, for example, is from today's editorial:
"It is no secret that many, probably most, Labour MPs wish someone other than Jeremy Corbyn was leader. Many Labour MPs wish that Mr Corbyn would make the case for Britain in Europe, and that he did not equivocate about antisemitism in the party."
And this is from an opinion piece by Labour peer, Andrew (Lord) Adonis:
"Corbyn must treat antisemitism as an evil to be ruthlessly defeated. No one who expresses prejudice against Jewish people or the existence of Israel - including those who try to hide behind semantics when we all know exactly what they are talking about - has any place in our party. Corbyn has too many supporters and allies who are antisemitic. They must leave the party and Corbyn should require them to do so. Corbyn must give a speech deploring not just 'all forms of racism' but the particular horror of hatred of Jews." (If Corbyn doesn't want the Labour split to worsen, he has to listen, Andrew Adonis, 19/2/19)
But then what would you expect from the Guardian?
It should never be forgotten that the renowned editor of the Manchester Guardian (as it was known in 1917), C.P. Scott, editorialised, on the occasion of the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, that "the Jews... have succeeded in establishing the beginnings of a real civilisation [in Palestine]," and were "making the waste places blossom as the rose," while "the existing Arab population... is small and at a low stage of civilisation... " (See my 2/7/17 post The Balfour Declaration Centenary: 4 Months to Go.)
Scratch the 7 dwarfs - or 5 of them at least - and you'll get racism and/or Zionism. Scratch the liberal Guardian and you'll invariably get a Zionist perspective on Palestine.
One of them, Angela Smith, in the course of a BBC television panel discussion of racism in the UK, blurted out all we really need to know about the 7 dwarfs: 'The recent history of the party I've just left suggests [racism] is not just about being black or... a funny tinge... but... the Jewish community equally."
No surprise then that 5 of its members, including Smith, are "supporters" of Israeli embassy front group, Labour Friends of Israel. Palestinians, presumably, in addition to the crime of not buckling to the Zionist project in their ancestral homeland, could also be marginalised as "funny tinged."
This mix of racism and Zionism, of course, will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Zionist movement, and, in particular, those notorious words of its founder, Theodor Herzl: "The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends."
And just look at how the congenitally Zionist Guardian (to focus on just one establishment media outlet) leapt on the 7 dwarfs' bandwagon, leveling yet more false smears of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn and his party. This, for example, is from today's editorial:
"It is no secret that many, probably most, Labour MPs wish someone other than Jeremy Corbyn was leader. Many Labour MPs wish that Mr Corbyn would make the case for Britain in Europe, and that he did not equivocate about antisemitism in the party."
And this is from an opinion piece by Labour peer, Andrew (Lord) Adonis:
"Corbyn must treat antisemitism as an evil to be ruthlessly defeated. No one who expresses prejudice against Jewish people or the existence of Israel - including those who try to hide behind semantics when we all know exactly what they are talking about - has any place in our party. Corbyn has too many supporters and allies who are antisemitic. They must leave the party and Corbyn should require them to do so. Corbyn must give a speech deploring not just 'all forms of racism' but the particular horror of hatred of Jews." (If Corbyn doesn't want the Labour split to worsen, he has to listen, Andrew Adonis, 19/2/19)
But then what would you expect from the Guardian?
It should never be forgotten that the renowned editor of the Manchester Guardian (as it was known in 1917), C.P. Scott, editorialised, on the occasion of the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, that "the Jews... have succeeded in establishing the beginnings of a real civilisation [in Palestine]," and were "making the waste places blossom as the rose," while "the existing Arab population... is small and at a low stage of civilisation... " (See my 2/7/17 post The Balfour Declaration Centenary: 4 Months to Go.)
Scratch the 7 dwarfs - or 5 of them at least - and you'll get racism and/or Zionism. Scratch the liberal Guardian and you'll invariably get a Zionist perspective on Palestine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)