'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)

Let Us Pray for Sussan Ley

The msm can always be relied upon to foreground trivia and ignore matters of substance. Here, for example, is the introduction to an article on Australia's new health minister Sussan Ley:

"But who is Sussan Ley, the rising star of Australian politics many voters may have never heard of? As a high school student in Canberra in the 1970s, Ley walked around with no shoes, black lipstick, spiky purple hair, a dog collar and a nose piercing connected to the razor blade in her ear. Over 30 years later, she still describes herself as a 'recovering punk rocker from a time when it really mattered'." (Sussan Ley: from punk rocker to health minister, Gareth Hutchens, Sydney Morning Herald, 22/12/14)

In a federal parliament swarming with Zionist apologists and dupes, trust a journalist to home in on Ley's punk rocker past.

No, what really distinguishes her from most of her colleagues is that she's neither Zionist apologist nor Zionist dupe. More than that, Sussan Ley actually gets it.

For example, in 2008, the MP for Farrer (in the context of a bizarre bilateral parliamentary celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary) spoke as follows in parliament:

"Israel has many friends in this country and in this Parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause. But it is one I support, in part out of knowledge that the victors of World War II, including Australia, wrote a 'homeland' cheque to cover the sins of the holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, but it was the Palestinians who had to cash it." (Quoted in Blinkers off for the other side of story, Alan Ramsey, Sydney Morning Herald, 15/3/08) (See my 20/3/08 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 5.)

And in 2012, back from a trip to the Israeli-occupied West Bank, she had this to say in parliament:

"The Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem told us the government had cancelled his residency permit in spite of family connections dating back to the British Mandate. I met my World Vision foster child in the village of Nahalin, surrounded by encroaching settlements, and stood in the treeless playground amongst the falling-down classrooms and tired soccer balls, looking just across the gully at the settlement school with its modern buildings and latest equipment. Visiting the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, as I did high on a hill near Jerusalem, inside the West Bank on Palestinian land, the outlook is serene. The Jewish residents travel on Israeli-only roads straight to Tel Aviv and cannot even see the second road network or the villages hidden in the valley below. It is as if the Palestinians have been airbrushed out of existence." (A say for Palestine, sussanley.com, 23/9/12)

In fact, Sussan Ley, got it early in life:

"She is the daughter of a British colonial police officer who served in British-mandated Palestine in the 1930s..." (Ramsey)

Nothing like a first-hand account!

The question is, will she now come under pressure to eat her words, and end up, like Labor's Tanya Plibersek, ignominiously recanting and kissing the ring?

Watch this space...

Krudd : Preferred Poster Boy for Pro-Israel Propagandists?

Kevin Rudd may well be a pontificating ponce, but alas there's more to the man than that. 

Journalist Alan Ramsey once called him a "prissy, precious, prick." Now read the following account of Krudd's latest peregrination and tell me if 'pig ignorant' and 'pernicious' shouldn't be added to that list:

"The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, which supports the boycotts [sic], divestments [sic] and sanctions campaign against Australian businesses with Israeli connections, has 'just got it wrong', Kevin Rudd said yesterday. The former prime minister used a visit to Sydney University, which is home to the centre headed by Jake Lynch, to lash the policy he said was ineffective. 'I think people who engage in that sort of activity around businesses who are associated with the Jewish community frankly have just got it wrong,' he said.... 'Frankly, this is a matter of diplomacy, it's a question of putting proposals on the table which work in bringing about a durable peace settlement as opposed to targeting campaigns against businesses which happen to be owned by members of the Jewish community. I think that's just wrong. We should remember history.'" (Diplomacy better than Israel boycott: Rudd, Rick Morton, The Australian, 17/1/13)

'Pig ignorant' in that he evinces no awareness whatever of the clear difference between Judaism and political Zionism, or between Nazi anti-Semitism in thirties Germany and anti-apartheid BDS activism in 21st century Australia; and 'pernicious' because smearing BDS activists (whether directly or by implication) as Nazis and anti-Semites not only harms those smeared but serves to cheapen the charge of anti-Semitism as well.

Nor is this particular smear a one-off. Krudd was saying the same thing over a hot chocolate with Michael Danby in a Max Brenner outlet back in 2011. (See my 16/7/11 post Wild About Kevin.) Judging by the complete absence in Morton's 'report' of any other reason for his 'visit' to Sydney University, can we not be forgiven for thinking that, in addition to 'pig ignorant' and 'pernicious', 'preferred poster boy for pro-Israel propagandists' should also join that list?

Just a Pussycat?

Remember this from Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton back in June?:

"It is a ferocious beast, the Jewish lobby. Write just one sentence even mildly critical of Israel and it lunges from its lair, fangs bared. 'I rejoice every time a f.....g Palestinian dies, f... them!!!! Israel should flatten Gaza with a nuclear strike and be done with it', said one of hundreds of Jewish emailers this week. 'How dare you insult Israel you overpriviledged [sic] racist white moron, f... you and your stupid article. I wish I could smash your dumb face in'"? (See my 12/6/10 post A Ferocious Beast for Carlton's complete account of his mauling.)

Inevitably, Carlton's comments became the subject of an Australian Press Council (APC) complaint by one, Judy Maynard. The APC, as it turns out, dismissed the complaint and its adjudication appeared in today's Herald.

The following paragraph gives the gist: "In her complaint to the council, Ms Maynard firmly acknowledged that Mr Carlton had the right to express his opinion and that, for example, it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. But, she said, the two items contained 'anti-Semitic elements and bring opprobrium on Jews through the use of racist imagery [and] factually incorrect statements'. She referred in particular to what she called the 'bestial' imagery and the implication that all critics of Mr Carlton must be, in her words, 'tools in an orchestrated campaign' by the Israeli government. She complained about use of the term 'Jewish lobby' as depicting advocates for that cause as being 'sinister'."

So the bared fangs and the orchestrated campaign are really just a figment of Carlton's anti-Semitic imagination, eh?

Unfortunately, no.

Remember the saga of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize, when the Sydney Peace Foundation, led by Professor Stuart Rees, dared bestow that award on Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi? What a brawl that was! Not only were the fangs bared and the claws out, but there was more orchestration than Beethoven's nine symphonies put together.

To refresh your memory, here's an extract from an Alan Ramsey column of the time: "[Foundation chairwoman] Kathryn Greiner... was one of the jury of 6 who selected Ashrawi unanimously in September last year [2002] as this year's recipient... [T]wo weeks ago... she phoned Rees to talk frankly about her concerns with an accelerating campaign against Ashrawi. A file note of their conversation reads: KG: 'I have to speak logically. It is either Hanan Ashrawi or the Peace Foundation. That's our choice, Stuart. My distinct impression is that if you persist in having her here, they'll destroy you. Rob Thomas of City Group is in trouble for supporting us. I think he must have had a phone call from New York. And you know Danny Gilbert [partner in the law firm, Gilbert & Tobin] has already been warned off'. SR: 'You must be joking. We've been over this a thousand times. We consulted widely. We agreed the jury's decision, made over a year ago, was not only unanimous but that we would support it, together'. KG: 'But listen, I'm trying to present the logic of this. They'll destroy what you've worked for. They are determined to show we made a bad choice. I think it's Frank Lowy's money. You don't understand just how much opposition there is. We cannot go ahead. If only there was progress in the Middle East, this would not be such a bad time'. SR: 'I won't be subject to bullying and intimidation. We are being threatened by members of a powerful group who think they have an entitlement to tell others what to do. This opposition is orchestrated. The arguments are all the same - that Hanan Ashrawi has not condemned violence sufficiently, that she was highly critical of Israel in her address to the UN's Johannesburg conference on racism, and wilder accusations that do not bear repetition'. KG: 'But you're not listening to the logic. The Commonwealth Bank - I was at a reception last night - is highly critical. We could not approach them for financial help for the Schools Peace Prize. We'll get no support from them. The business world will close ranks. They're saying we are being one-sided, that we've only supported Palestine. SR: 'Kathryn, we need to avoid the trap of even using the language of 'one side'. That's not the issue. We are being bullied and intimidated and you are asking that we give way to it. The letter writers and the phone callers who this group encourage have spent weeks bullying a 25-year-old colleague of mine who handles the foundation's administration. You are asking me to collude with bullying'. KG: 'I'll tell you how serious this is. [NSW Premier] Bob Carr won't come to the dinner. He'll flick the responsibility to [his deputy, Andrew] Refshauge at the last minute. And you won't get the Town Hall. It is more than [Lord Mayor] Lucy [Turnbull's] life is worth. They will desert us as well. SR: 'I've never given way to bullying. Public life is too much characterised by cowardice. If we give way I'd be so ashamed I couldn't face myself. The image of the Peace Foundation would be shameful. Our reputation would count for nothing. KG: 'My friend, I am telling you what the reality is. The foundation will be destroyed. I'd hate to see its work come to nothing over this. Our critics are saying it's an awful choice'. SR: 'These critics are 'they' and 'them', invisible but powerful people. They stay powerful because they are invisible. They bully and intimidate in the same breath they behave as unblemished pillars of the community. Do you mean to say that in cautious, often gutless, Australia we are not going to follow through on this? No. I remain completely committed to our decision'.' (Here's Lucy, caving in, taking flight, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/10/03)

The Toad

"I used toad because I knew I couldn't get away with turd." (Alan Ramsey on why he called Howard The Toad)

"Sycophancy means obsequious flattery; servility. Alternative phrases are often used such as aple-polishing; ass kissing; ass licking; bootlicker; brown nosing; crawler; fawning; flunky; groveling; hanger-on; kowtowing; lackey; lickspittle; sucking up; toady; yes man" (en.wikipedia.org)

"Pandemonium, simply because I called Howard an arselicker in today's Bulletin. If anything, I was restrained - Howard has got his tongue up Bush's clacker that often the poor guy must think he's got an extra haemorrhoid." (26/6/02, The Latham Diaries, Mark Latham, 2005, p 195)

"John Howard was among firm friends on Sunday night at Lincoln of Toorak, delivering the keynote address at a tribute dinner for [former World Jewish Congress senior vice-president] Isi and Naomi Leibler. Acknowledged by Isi as 'the statesman who displayed the greatest support for Israel of the time', the former Liberal prime minister gave some insights. 'It is true that in my time as prime minister I stuck up for Israel... because I thought it was right to do so, because I thought the homeland established for the Jewish people is their right'... Earlier, Isi recalled his trip with the then Australian prime minister to Ramallah in 2000, when the Oslo Agreement still had currency. Isi received an unwelcome embrace from Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, whom he had railed against throughout his years as the PLO's terrorist chieftain. Afterwards, Isi had privately expressed scepticism to Howard about those peace overtures, and was struck by the Australian leader's 'principled approach and friendship'. 'I will never forget John Howard's response', said Isi, quoting the former Australian leader. 'If Arafat reneges on his commitment', he said, 'the people of Israel and the Australian Jewish community should rest assured that I will not let them down'." (Howard's kind words for Leiblers and Israel, The Australian Jewish News, 3/9/10)

Gone to the Dogs

A 10/1/09 postscript from the Sydney Morning Herald's acting letters editor, Harriet Veitch:

"The big subject of the week was Israel and the attacks on the Gaza Strip. A regrettably large number of letters were anti-Semitic and a smaller number anti-Arab. Using the Racial Discrimination Act as a guide we did not publish anything 'reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people'. Even so, we could publish only a small number of the heartfelt letters, otherwise they would have dominated the letters page completely. Nearly as overwhelming were letters about dogs and people, and people and dogs, on leash and off leash."

The question arises: who is Harriet Veitch* and what are her qualifications and criteria for deeming letters on "Israel and the attacks on the Gaza Strip" [Whose attacks on the GS?] "anti-Semitic"?

"[W]e [she?] did not publish anything 'reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people'." She's joking, right? Offend? When is an Israel-firster ever not offended whenever someone so much as looks sideways at his one and only love?

And for that matter, what is the point of writing a letter to the editor if it doesn't offend someone? Why not just close the letters page down? And did a "large number" of Herald letter writers really "insult, humiliate or - God forbid - intimidate"? Blimey, what sort of disagreeable crowd are reading the Herald?

"We could only publish a small number... otherwise they would have dominated the letters page completely." So? On 31/12/04 the Herald published 11 letters on the tsunami, a natural disaster. How much more concerning to anyone with feeling should be the entirely man-made (and hence preventable) disaster now unfolding in Gaza? Oh, I see, there wouldn't have been enough room for all those good folk who wanted to vent on the subject of... dogs. DOGS, for God's sake!

But why do I bother? This latest episode of spinelessness** at the Herald was to be expected. Former Herald letters editor, Miranda Harman, learnt her lesson back in January last year, did she not? (See my 24 & 27/1/08 posts We Remember Warsaw & We Remember Warsaw: The Sequel) I commented at the time: "As a natural born pessimist... I'm betting that no matter what war crimes and outrages Israel perpetrates in the future, Miranda will be wondering if publishing any letters blowing the whistle on same is worth the flack, and will therefore refrain from doing so." It appears that that lesson has been passed on down to her successors.

[* You might be interested in this 2005 profile from the Jane Austen Society of Australia website: "Harriet Veitch trained as a journalist and is now a sub-editor and book reviewer with the Sydney Morning Herald. She is also an amateur Austenite. Her hobbies include Henry Tilney and Fitzwilliam Darcy. She would rather not meet the Bingley sisters or Fanny Dashwood." (jasa.net.au)]

[**See also my 23 & 29/9/08 posts Hurricane Herzl & Hurricane Herzl Fallout.]

While on the subject of the Herald, check out this mangy dog of an editorial: "What must the Israeli soldier who fired that shell be feeling as the consequences of that action sink in?" [That's easy to answer. As an Israeli, he was of course consumed with guilt. Not at all like those inferior Arab untermenschen!] The Israeli army has killed more than 700 Palestinians and injured some 3,000 in just 2 weeks. Some of the body bags carried from the rubble in Gaza are heart-wrenchingly small. [Especially that little blue plastic bag with the blood dripping out of the hole in the bottom. It goes without saying that his heart is not similarly wrenched when he see the bigger ones.] Harder to photograph, but just as real [Just as real as the hundreds of Palestinian deaths and the thousands of maimed and mangled Palestinians, eh? Sorry, I didn't notice. Wait till I wipe this blood out of my eyes.], is the terror of a million* Israeli civilians living under the constant threat of rocket and mortar attack by the Hamas militant movement. On December 24, 5 days after Hamas had declared the previous ceasefire dead [After the Israelis did what..?], the militants rained at least 60 rockets and 40 mortar shells on Israeli cities, describing it as the 'first message' of a sustained military campaign. Hamas is a very different beast [& what sort of beast is Israel I wonder?] to the old Palestine Liberation Organization headed by Yasser Arafat. The PLO also used violence [but never the Israelis!], but it was supported by mainly secular Ba'athist regimes of the Arab world. [But that didn't cut much ice with the Israelis back then, did it?] Hamas retains some of those links but frames the Palestinian struggle as part of a violent pan-Islamic jihad against Jews [Oh, you mean like al-Qa'ida? Well, why don't you just come right out and say bin Laden's pulling Hamas' strings? And, while you're at it, could we please have a list of Hamas' overseas operations against Jews?], a struggle it says is justified in the Koran. [So, without the Koran, loss of their homeland and an intolerable, never-ending occupation would not suffice for Palestinian resistance?]" (Breaking the cycle of violence needs a different intelligence, 10/1/09)

[* See my 6/1/09 post Go Figure 2]

Finally, and you would not do this to a dog, the Herald's gone and put an ad for a forthcoming book by - wait for it! - former US ambassador (x2) to Israel MartinIndyk where Alan Ramsey used to be!

Colonel Krudd Carries On Up the Khyber

"Kevin Rudd has made a heartfelt tribute to the special forces men serving in Afghanistan during a lightning pre-Christmas trip to Tarin Kowt... 'When you are out there in this godforsaken part of the world, doing your stuff, you need to know back home the nation is behind you', Mr Rudd told the assembled troops... He said the Australians were making progress. 'The fact that you are out there, pushing the enemy back, step by step, mountain ridge by mountain ridge, that's progress', he said." ('The nation's behind you', Patrick Walters, The Australian, 19/12/08)

What a twerp the man is. In referring to Afghanistan as "godforsaken," this "prissy, precious p..ck," as Alan Ramsey has called him*, is voicing a typical colonial conceit: that Afghanistan's condition is a given, and that, along with our imperial master (and fellow mercenaries), we not only bear no responsibility whatever for its godforsaken state, but are really there on some kind of divine civilizing mission, or as retired major general and "counter-insurgency expert" Jim Molan characterises it: a "humanitarian" mission, one of our "responsibilities as a rich citizen." (Turn the tables on the Taliban, SMH, 19/12/08)

Historically, Afghanistan has been cursed by foreign military intervention and meddling. The current US involvement there began with the American jihad* of the 80s, and escalated in the wake of 9/11, when the Bush/Cheney regime chose to misrepresent an act of terrorism as an act of war,** trash international law, and launch an illegal armed aggression against Afghanistan, precipitating its current humanitarian catastrophe. And we, that is to say the former Howard government, ("As miserable a bunch of thumb-sucking sooks, layabouts, boneheads and delusional revisionists as ever you could find. Hopeless. Nobody more pathetic than the Toad," to quote Ramsey again), just couldn't resist joining the conga-line of suckholes which formed to aid and abet this US aggression. Rudd, of course, inherited our place in the Afghan conga-line, but, typically, just can't bring himself to relinquish it - which is why our troops are still doing their bit (or as Rudd calls it, "stuff") to ensure Afghanistan's godforsakenness.

[*Forget policy, the aim is to channel imagery, SMH, 28/4/07; **See my 27/2/08 post Bush's Taxi to the Dark Side]

And forget the bullshit about "pushing the enemy back... mountain ridge by mountain ridge." What kind of "stuff" are we really up to in Afghanistan? A recent Australian Defence Department (ADD) report featured on the ABC's Lateline program (26/11/08) suggests that Australian SAS are operating in Afghanistan essentially as storm-the-house-and-blow-away-anyone-inside death squads, or, as the report puts it euphemistically, "disrupting Taliban leadership or improvised explosive device facilitators." (See Australian SAS Units Function as Death Squads in Afghanistan, James Cogan, 11/12/08, informationclearinghouse.info)

His Master's Voice

"Prepare for war. Last week I met the Boogie Man, the former head of the Israeli Defence [sic] Forces, General Moshe 'Boogie' Ya'alon, who is preparing the political groundwork for a military attack on Iran's key nuclear facilities," writes recently rambammed (see Rambam Alert!, 17/11/08) Sydney Morning Herald columnist Paul Sheehan (Israeli hawks ready to fly on Iran, 24/11/08).

Of course, you wouldn't know about Sheehan's rambamming because there's nothing anywhere in (or near) his propaganda - sorry - opinion piece to indicate that he's just been on a NSW Jewish Board of Deputies/Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs junket to Israel to meet the Boogie Man and other Israeli Strangeloves, or "warrior-scholars" as Sheehan prefers to call them.

Boogie's message is: "There is no way to stabilise the Middle East today without defeating the Iranian regime... We have to consider killing [Ahmadinejad]." So, this swaggering psychopath - sorry - warrior-scholar with the ridiculous moniker, who's aiming for a cabinet post should the right-wing Likud* come to power in next year's Israeli elections, asserts the untrammeled right of the Middle East's No. 1 Destabiliser to 'stabilise' the Middle East by rolling any other nation that dares lift its head and knocking off its leader. And Sheehan's role in all this Israeli sabre-rattling (accompanied by the absurd Mucci cartoon: a mushroom cloud cradling a missile), is to sell Israel's military madness to the Australian public. It is a mark of the Herald's precipitous decline into irrelevance as a source of informed and critical comment that, while the likes of Sheehan are kept on, real journalists such as Mike Carlton and (soon) Alan Ramsey are cut loose.

[*Sheehan has the nerve to refer to the Likud, ideological heir of revisionist Zionism and the pre-state terrorist Irgun, as "conservative."]

The Australian's opinion editor Rebecca Weisser (in need of no rambamming whatsoever when it comes to amplifying the party line), was also there in Jerusalem (Israeli general ups ante on Iran, 24/11/08) channeling the very same threats from Boogie.

I particularly enjoyed this little gem: "General Ya'alon said a two-pronged approach was necessary to defeat jihadism. 'From top down, using a big stick... From bottom up, using education'." You can add that to your file of pithy Zionist sound-bytes.

Even better, however, came in Weisser's potted bio of Boogie - a reference to the great man's "success in quelling the second Palestinian offensive launched in September 2000."  

Offensive? You do remember the Great Palestinian Offensive of 2000, don't you? How the terrifying might of the Palestinian armed forces, with firepower the likes of which the world had never seen before, was unleashed on the hapless, helpless Israelis who were all but driven into the sea?

Until Boogie Boy turned up to give the Palestinians a bit of stick, that is.

The Media is the Message

"[K]ey elements in the lobby strive to influence discourse about Israel in the media, think tanks, and academia, because these institutions are critical to shaping popular opinion. They promote efforts to portray Israel in a positive light and they go to considerable lengths to marginalize anyone who questions Israel's past or present conduct or seeks to cast doubt on the merits of unconditional US backing. Pro-Israel forces are well aware that dominating discussions about the Jewish state is essential to their agenda. These efforts do not always succeed, of course, but are still remarkably effective." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer & Walt, p 168)

As above, so below. In its annual review of the Australian media, The best (& worst) of the year awards (The Australian Jewish News, 3/10/08), the Israel lobby's pointy end, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), tells us who it believes has been singing in (and out) of tune. There are, of course, NO surprises:

SBS TV has won the MOST IMPROVED category. "Its news service has ... shown greater fairness on Middle East issues this year, with reports generally including more of the necessary context and fewer factual errors and omissions, and interviewees evenly reflecting relevant viewpoints. Its documentaries on the Middle East have also been much more balanced." In the black-is-white world of AIJAC, this means that efforts to pressure SBS TV to toe the Israeli line have been largely successful. "There is, however, still enough room for improvement - especially in Dateline - for SBS to again be a contender next year." Which is AIJAC's way of saying, 'Listen up, SBS! We may be giving you a pat on the head now, but don't let it go to your head (if you know what we mean). Here's the dice: If you don't shape up further, we won't even consider you as a contender for next year's MOST IMPROVED award. Now there's a good boy - go and do something about Dateline!

AIJAC's BEST FIRST YEAR PLAYER was "shared by ABC Radio correspondent Ben Knight and Fairfax correspondent Jason Koutsoukis" who "brought to their often problematic outlets a refreshingly objective approach, simply reporting on the news and attempting to give both sides of the story." Worthy recipients indeed! Maybe Ben's riveting, in-depth piece on that room in his newly-rented Jerusalem house for Correspondents Report (14/9/08) was what did it for him: "I've been in this room more times than I can remember... And I was never quite sure what it was supposed to be. There's no window, it's very bare. It's just concrete walls, a strange shelf running along one wall, also made of concrete, tiled floors [sic], and not much else... But I finally worked out what it was; this is the house's safe room." And, while outside in the real world Israel is literally wiping Palestine off the map, Ben gets the drum from a nice young Israeli soldier who initiates him in the use of gas masks, presumably because those Iranian rockets with their chemical payloads are fairly straining at their moorings to wipe Jerusalem off the map. But doesn't that include Palestinians? Don't ask! And Ben doesn't -neither about the supposed threat nor its unlikelihood. Yep, I can see why Ben got the gong.

Ben's undoubted promise was again in evidence on today's AM program (Israeli settler violence on the rise), where, having emerged from his Jerusalem bunker, he ventured into the wild West Bank to do a cameo on rampaging Israeli settlers, fell in with a right charmer by name of Hillel Ben Shlomo who had God on his side and wanted the Palestinians to hit the road faster than you can say pogrom. In fact, so charmed was Ben by Hillel that he lapsed into settlerspeak, referring to "Arabs/Arab villages" 6 times.

And Jason - what's swung it for him? Could it have been the fearless objectivity of his reporting on the decidedly non-vibrant (try "ramshacle and unkempt") Syria (Slow road for Damascus, SMH 27/9/08), a country which "does not recognise Israel's right to exist*," has had "few foreign or domestic policy successes over the past 4 decades**," and is "host of armed and dangerous groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad." Could it have been that penetrating insight into the mysterious Syrian psyche provided by a "mobile phone dealer" who reckons You Don't Mess with the Zohan is "the best film of the year"? Who knows? Fortunately, Jason's most recent despatch from the front lines of the world's most intractable conflict - on hummus (that's right, hummus, not Hamas!) - (Tasty object of worship for Muslims and Jews, 4/10/08) should make him a shoo-in for next year's award.

[* Tres naughty!]
[** No occupied territories to speak of! No stranglehold over the US Congress! Too busy hosting Palestinian and Iraqi refugees I guess.]

BEST & FAIREST - no! - goes to Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, The Australian's foreign editor, for "consistently showing a superior understanding of Israel's situation and the obstacles to Middle East peace." IOW, he's not only with us. Hell, he's practically one of us!

WORST & UNFAIREST - boo! hiss! - goes to Jason's predecessor at Fairfax, Ed O'Loughlin, for "his consistent use of various forms of often subtle but real journalistic malfeasance," including "the use of biased language, factual misrepresentation and half-truths, editorialising in news stories, and one-sided selection of news subjects and interviewees." IOW, try as we might, we couldn't turn him. Oh, and SMH columnist Alan Ramsey gets a "mention" for "his rants about the supposed* power of the Jewish lobby to suppress criticism of Israel." We can't confuse Joe Sixpack & the Hockey Mums with the bleeding obvious, now can we?

[*See my posts Storms Forecast (22/9/08), Hurricane Herzl (23/9/08) & Hurricane Herzl Fallout (25/9/08)]

AND THE WINNER IS... - you guessed it, clever boy! - The Australian for "its consistently good coverage of the Middle East... led by the best and fairest winner, the excellent Greg Sheridan, [and including] many fine editorials showing a keen understanding of Israel's various predicaments, its right to defend itself and the true obstacles to Middle East peace represented by Palestinian recalcitrance and terrorism." IOW, The Australian's Middle East coverage is sooo good we could've written it ourselves.

Keep up the good work, AIJAC.

The Bile Duct of the Nation

Murdoch's The Australian bills itself as The Heart of the Nation. Bile Duct of the Nation would be more appropriate. The Australian oozes petty vindictiveness:-

In its Cut & Paste section on 21/7/08 it excreted the following:-

"Food for thought bites aspiring candidate on the derriere: Rose Jackson, an executive of Young Labor, is overwhelmed by a pavlova on ABC TV's Q&A program last Thursday" A member of the audience asked a question in which he used the term "Pavlovian responses." Compere Tony Jones directed it to panel member Jackson, as a young person "about to enter politics." In her answer Jackson confused Pavlovian with pavlova, explaining, when picked up on it by Jones, that "I just got overwhelmed by the pavlova metaphor."

The BDoN followed that with this:-

"The Australian on November 21, 2007, reports on an earlier Jackson moment: The revelation that (George) Newhouse's* campaign manager, Rose Jackson, has spoken out against the Jewish state has the potential to hurt his chances in the marginal eastern Sydney seat of Wentworth, which has the largest number of Jewish voters of any electorate in Australia. In an email addressed 'Dear activists', Ms Jackson wrote to an internet education discussion forum last year: 'I oppose Zionism because it calls for the creation of a Jewish state, and I think all governments should be secular. No Jewish, Islamic, Christian states anywhere in the world, just good, robust, secular democracies', she said. 'By speaking out on behalf of the Palestinians and Lebanese people, we can give voice to those that some governments and media would wish to silence'. Asked if her views sat uncomfortably next to those of Mr Newhouse, Ms Jackson said, 'I don't know George's position on Israel. I'm just opposed to theocracy. I certainly support the right of Israel to exist, but not as a Jewish state'."

The BDoN was right to raise the question of Jackson's position on Israel vis a vis Newhouse's Zionism, and that "I don't know George's position on Israel" is pretty lame. However, although she may not have known the difference between Pavlov and pavlova, she couldn't have been more on the mark in the above email. Unfortunately, the higher she advances in the Labor Party, the more the pressure will be on her to revise her views on Israel (if she hasn't already done so, that is). Both official Labor and the BDoN, you see, require the following Pavlovian response on that one: Israel is a Vibrant Democracy/ A Beacon of Light in a Sea of Middle Eastern Darkness/ The Ant's Pants/ Sugar & Spice & All Things Nice etc, etc. Still, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If opposition to the idea of a 'Jewish' state is as wrong as confusing Pavlov with pavlova, then the BDoN can hardly cavil at support for the idea of an Islamic state.

In his 28/7/08 column, Strewth, D D McNicoll excreted this:-

"Ramsey cut to size: Alan Ramsey, Fairfax Media's long-serving Canberra political pundit, took a dramatic downgrade in The Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday with his usual two-thirds of a page cut to just two half-columns as Michael Duffy got the prime spot. Scuttlebut in Canberra suggests Ramsey is the latest staffer to run foul of editor Alan Oakley."

Could Ramsey's crime be that when it comes to Israel (see my series of posts on The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament), he doesn't wag his tail and salivate like the BDoN does?

[* See my posts Testing Time for Rudd (21/12/07) & Ahmadinejad: Our Part in His Downfall (29/2/08)]

Rudd Gives Palestine the Brush-Off

The Sydney Morning Herald's Alan Ramsey was alone among our mainstream journalists (so far as I am aware) in reporting on a letter sent by Melbourne's Women for Palestine organization to the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, asking them to give favourable consideration to moving "a parliamentary motion recognising May 15, the actual date of the 60th anniversary of Israel's creation, as a day of 'catastrophe, dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation' for the 700,000 Palestinians who'd lost their homes, their land and, in many cases, their lives in May* 1948." (Little or no time for Palestinians in Parliament, 17/5/08) Neither responded. This request, of course, was an attempt to balance the motion, "celebrating... the achievements of the State of Israel in the 60 years since its inception," moved by the Prime Minister (and seconded by the Opposition Leader) in the House of Representatives on March 12 this year.

[*Actually, from December, 1947 to the ceasefires of January-March, 1949.]

Ramsey also reported that, although each of the Parliament's 226 politicians were emailed on the matter, only one acknowledgement (from Kate Ellis, Rudd's junior minister for Youth and Sport) was received. He concluded his opinion piece with an account of two ill-fated attempts to raise the issue of the Palestinian Nakba in Federal Parliament:

"In the Parliament this week [12/5-16/5], two women MPs tried to prick their colleagues' consciences. The Greens senator Kerry Nettle and Labor's Julia Irwin, both from Sydney, tabled motions in the Senate and the House of Representatives on Wednesday. Irwin was allowed three minutes to speak on Wednesday, not in the house chamber itself but in the auxiliary main committee room. She said, in part: 'Eight years ago, I visited Israel and the occupied territories. The experience changed my views. Today we remember what Palestinians call al-Nakba, the catastrophe. Sixty years ago, Palestinians fled their homes to escape the massacres. Can those of us in Western nations, who have expressed congratulations to Israel on its 60th birthday, not spare a moment to remember the suffering of the Palestinian people 60 years ago, and the daily consequences of their dispossesion, displacement, exile and occupation? Today those 700,000 Palestinian refugees have grown into 7 million. Four million live under illegal occupation. Three million live as non-citizens in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and other countries. Palestine was never a land without people. Today it is a people without a land'.

"Kerry Nettle's motion on Thursday urged, in part: 'That the senate (a) acknowledges and sympathises with the Palestinians whose homes were destroyed or seized and family members killed 60 years ago at the inception of the state of Israel, which the Palestinians call al-Nakba, the catastrophe; (2) remembers with shame the failure of the international community to prevent the bloody events that followed the unilateral declaration of independent statehood by the Israeli leaders; (3) acknowledges the unique relationship between Australia and Palestine, commends the Palestinian Authority's commitment to democracy, reiterates Australia's commitment to Palestine's right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and and on this, the 60th anniversary, pledges frendship and enduring support to the people of Palestine'.

"There was no debate. Nettle did not get to speak in support of what she wanted her collegues to do. What the Senate then did was throw out Nettle's motion by 48 votes to five, with 23 senators declining to vote. The entire exercise - the reading of the motion and the subsequent vote - took nine minutes. Julia Irwin got three minutes.

"Our even-handed Middle East policy."

Almost two weeks after May 15 had come and gone, those who proposed the Nakba motion finally received a response to their letter - not from the Prime Minister, but from Garry Quinlan, Senior Adviser (Foreign Affairs, National Security, Defence & Trade).

It was the quintessential, platitudinous, bureaucratic brush-off. To add insult to injury it hadn't even been vetted for typos.*

Here's the gist: "... Australia has long supported efforts to reach a lasting and comprehensive settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Australian Government greatly values its strong friendship with the Palestinian people and the contributions made by Australia's Palestinian community to our society. In the Parliamentary motion moved by the Prime Minister *to publicly reiterated the Australian Government's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a solution based on the recognition of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state and Israel's right to live in peace within secure borders. The Prime Minister also took the opportunity to re-state Australia's firm belief that the establishment of an independent and economically viable Palestinian state must remain a key objective of the Middle East peace process. The violence and loss of life that have marked the many years of the conflict are tragic and a matter of deep sadness to the Government. The Australian Government does not, however, consider that the Parliamentary motion you propose would contribute to the peace process currently underway between Israel and the Palestinian Authority."

Just what you'd expect from a prime minister who has declared that support for Israel is "in my DNA."

Some Zhengyou are More Equal Than Other Zhengyou

"Unfazed by the growing diplomatic unrest, [Australian Prime Minister] Kevin Rudd has told the Chinese in their own language there are 'significant human rights problems in Tibet'... Mr Rudd told the university students he came as a 'true friend' - zhengyou - not a critic..." (I'm saying it in plain Mandarin: fix Tibet, Phillip Coorey, SMH, 10/4/08

Judging by letters to the establishment press, Rudd's stocks as a statesman and supposed speaker of 'truth to power' have soared. There were, however, a handful of dissenters:-

"How dare Kevin Rudd tell the Chinese that there have been human rights violations in Tibet. Would he do the same and tell the Israelis that there are gross human rights violations in Palestine? On the contrary, at a recent dinner organised by an Australian Jewish organization, he went to great lengths to say that Australians and Israelis are the same type of people." Letter, Simon Chan, The Age, 11/4/08

"If Kevin Rudd thinks that his manufactured 'dispute' with China will convince Australians that he is anything other than a pro-Chinese apologist, then he should think again. To describe the events in Tibet as 'human rights problems' is a gross insult to the Tibetan people. Equally, why didn't he once mention democracy or freedom of speech in China? The silence was equally deafening about Hu Jia and Yang Chunlin, two dissidents recently jailed for 3 and 5 years respectively. Their 'crimes' were to criticise the Communist Party of China and 'incite subversion of state power'. It's obvious that the Prime minister's statements in China are designed for a domestic audience, not to actually effect change..." Letter, Jeremy C Browne, The Age, 11/4/08

"Kevin Rudd does not need to learn Hebrew to call on Israel to end its gross violations of Palestinian human rights. He can say it in plain English." Letter, Ali Kazak, The Australian, 12/4/08

Among the pundits, veteran SMH journalist Alan Ramsey, who only last month had castigated Rudd for kowtowing to the Israelis in federal parliament (See my posts, The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 1 & 5), was having second thoughts about the man: "To publicly stand up to the Chinese, in their own capital, in their own language, on an issue so sensitive to the planet's last great totalitarian state - and, since May last year, Australia's biggest (in dollars) trading partner - is something no visiting head of government, of any kind, has ever done, let alone one from this country. To say it took courage and no little risk only parrots the obvious. What it took was leadership of the most dramatic kind. In recent years, we have been force-fed national leadership, wrapped in the flag, that gloried in sticking its head up the backside of Washington and its dependent satellite in the Middle East. To have an Australian prime minister behave as Rudd has done in Beijing is to think that maybe he is different after all and not just another political control freak with a brain as big as his smile. The bloke is worth watching." (12/4/08)

Ramsey's otherwise polar opposite over at The Australian, Foreign Editor Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, was even more impressed, gushing : "...Kevin Rudd this week has produced his own cultural revolution... For Rudd has shown the world that it is possible to be a good friend of China and still speak to the Chinese leadership frankly and in public about its appalling human rights practices. This is a profound revolution.... it is a radical departure from the practice of John Howard, who preferred to concentrate on what he and the Chinese had in common... No Western leader, with the partial exception of US presidents, does what Rudd did this week: criticise the Chinese over human rights abuses in Tibet before he arrives, in fact in a joint press conference with US President George W Bush. Repeat the criticism in London. Absorb furious official Chinese protests in Beijing and Canberra, then go to China and repeat the offence in public, in front of a Chinese audience." (12/4/08)

Our pundits, it seems, are easily pleased - the dissenting letters are closer to the mark. If our supposedly fearless Australian Helmsman is really concerned about the human rights of downtrodden people, how is one to explain why, as a zhengyou of both China and Israel, he can say boo to the former about Tibetan human rights, but remain mum about Palestinian rights? And, not only not say boo, but host a parliamentary party for the buggers to boot! A partial answer must surely lie in the fact that the parliamentary wing of the Labor Party has not only not been captured by the China lobby, but that the latter, in so far as it even exists, has nowhere near the clout of the Israel lobby.

Author and Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation Michael Lind's comparison of ethnic lobbies in the US may perhaps have some relevance here: "Most ethnic lobbies...have based their power on votes, not money... The influence of these lobbies has usually been confined to the cities and states in which particular ethnic groups have been concentrated... The Israel lobby, however, is not primarily a traditional ethnic voter machine; it is an ethnic donor machine. Unique among ethno-political machines in the US, the Israel lobby has emulated the techniques of national lobbies based on economic interests (both industry groups and unions) or social issues (the National Rifle Association, pro- and anti-abortion groups) . The lobby uses nationwide campaign donations, often funnelled through local 'astroturf' (phony grassroots) organizations... to influence members of Congress in areas where there are few Jewish voters. Stephen Steinlight [former director of national affairs at the American Jewish Committee], in an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies, describes how the Israel lobby uses donations to influence elected officials: 'Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete...the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel'. Steinlight adds: 'For perhaps another generation... the Jewish community is thus in a position to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas'." Distorting US Foreign Policy: The Israel Lobby & American Power, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 5/02

For Rudd to really be a zhengyou to the wretched of the earth, he'd need to be equally critical of China and the US (throw in Russia and a host of other international bovver boys here), with an understanding that both, in their own way, have essentially embraced the worldview of the Israeli right - what US author/activist Naomi Klein calls the Likud doctrine: "Common wisdom has it that after 9/11 a new era of geopolitics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11, 2001, is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful country on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11. On September 11 George Bush went looking for a political philosophy to guide him in his role as 'war president'. He found that philosophy in the Likud doctrine, handed to him ready-made by the ardent Likudniks ensconced in the White House. In the 3 years since [now 7], the Bush White House has applied this logic with chilling consistency to its global war on terror - complete with the pathologising of the 'Muslim mind'. It was the guiding philosophy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may well extend to Iran and Syria. Bush has cast the US in the same role in which Israel casts itself, facing the same threat. In this narrative the US is fighting a never-ending battle for its survival against irrational forces that seek its total extermination."(Beware the Likud doctrine, Guardian, 10/9/04)

It is the Likud doctrine, which allows every manifestation of resistance by the oppressed to be labelled terrorism by their oppressors, that has provided the rhetoric for China's crackdown on the Tibetans: "Far from heeding international calls for dialogue with the Dalai Lama, China has accused Tibet's exiled god-king of colluding with Muslim terrorists to destabilise the country before the Olympic Games... The People's Daily said that the Dalai Lama had never abandoned violence after fleeing China in 1959 after a failed revolt against Beijing. 'The Dalai Lama is scheming to take the Beijing Olympics hostage to force the Chinese Government to make concessions to Tibetan independence'. It also accused Tibet's spiritual leader of planning attacks with the aid of violent Uighur separatist groups seeking an independent East Turkestan for their largely Muslim people in the northwestern Xinjiang region of China. It said: 'The Dalai clique has also strengthened collusion with East Turkestan terror organizations and planned terror activities in Tibet'. " (China accuses Dalai Lama of being a terrorist, The Times, 24/3/08)

This talk of collusion with China's equally colonized, oppressed (and conveniently) Muslim Uighur population to the north of Tibet in East Turkestan (Xinjiang), is hardly coincidental, the whole point being that, post 9/11, once discreet movements of national resistance to colonial oppression, can now be lumped together and smeared, Israeli fashion, as generic Islamist terrorists bent on an irrational course of Dalek-like extermination of all we (and supposedly 'the Middle East's only democracy') hold dear. Simply slap on the convenient and durable Made-in-Israel 'War on Terror' label and all is forgiven, whether in the occupied Palestinian territories, Tibet, East Turkestan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Chechnya.

In being "passionately pro-Israel;"* in describing the US as an "overwhelming force for good in the world;"** and in swallowing the Likud doctrine all the way to Afghanistan and Iraq, Rudd is actually doing his bit to bury the hopes and aspirations of millions of Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Uighers and Tibetans.

* Rudd outlines foreign policy vision, AM, Radio National, http://www.abc.net.au/, 27/3/08
** Kevin Rudd on the ALP and Israel, The Religion Report, Radio National, 3/11/04

The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 5

"The pro-Israel lobby in this country is a powerful, influential and intimidating group. Backbenchers such as Julia Irwin and Leo McLeay get left way behind, along with the interests of the Palestinians." Alan Ramsey, Lost, even with a map, 30/8/03

Meanwhile, over at Fairfax...

In my first post in the series, The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament, I cited Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey's brave foray into the matter of The Motion, Don't mention the war as Israel lauded (8/3/08). His was a lone voice in the Fairfax press that week.

There were, of course, the inevitable outraged responses on the letters page (10/3/08): Ramsey's reference to "Jewish financial support of party coffers" drew satirical scorn ("Curse those Zionist paymasters!") and assertions that "[t]here is no evidence that Jewish organizations per se have ever donated to Australian political parties." One letter writer dismissed his opinion piece as a "finger-pointing rant."

And they, apparently, were just the tip of the iceberg: according to Letters co-editor, Mike Ticher, in his Postscript comment on 15/3/08, "That [letters on 'white flight'] was just a polite exchange compared with the vitriol inspired by Alan Ramsey's opinion piece on Israel last Saturday and the various responses to it."

Another letter attacking Ramsey, Friendships with Israel are more enduring than hate-filled rhetoric, by Robert Goot and David Knoll, presidents respectively of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was published on the day of Rudd's motion (12/3/08). They charged him with a) "indulging one of his passions - hatred of Israel"; b) "crossing the line from robust debate to racial vilification"; c) " denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination"; d) "applying double standards by requiring Israel to adhere to standards not demanded of any other democratic nation"; e) "using images associated with classic anti-semitism"; and f) "reverting to classic anti-semitic canards about Jews and money."

To its credit the SMH printed 3 rebuttals of Goot and Knoll the following day (13/3/08). To touch briefly on each of these accusations:-

a) For Zionists, reasoned criticism of Israel is invariably misconstrued as "hatred for Israel."

b) This is a groundless assertion not in any way borne out by reference to what Ramsey actually says.

c) Notice that Goot and Knoll want self-determination, not for Israel's citizens as such, 20% of whom are non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs, but for "the Jewish people," including presumably Goot and Knoll.

d) This begs the questions: What kind of democracy discriminates in law against part of its citizenry, exiles and renders stateless millions more potential citizens, and occupies the land of another people? And since the passing of apartheid South Africa, are there any other such "democratic nations?"

e) Another groundless assertion not borne out by reference to what Ramsey actually says.

f) Perhaps Goot and Knoll should first take this matter up with the editor of The Australian Jewish News. In its issue of 9/2/07, the AJN journalist, Melissa Singer, writes, under the headline, Jewish political donations nudge $1m, that "Jewish-owned businesses and individuals continued their support for the 2 major political parties in 2005-06, according to an Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) report released last week. While the overall number of Jewish donors was down on 2004-05, it is anticipated that 2006-07 will be stronger, with an election less than 10 months away." Singer goes on to list Frank Lowy's Westfield Group, Harry Triguboff's Meriton Premier Apartments, Phil Green's investment firm Babcock & Brown, David Goldberger & David Wieland, Smorgan Steel, Richard Pratt and his Visy Group, Harry Segal, Gandel Group, Sherman Group, Ivany Investment group, law firm Arnold Bloch Liebler, and the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce. [As Jack Lang told the young Paul Keating: "Always put your money on self-interest, son, it's the only horse that always tries."]

Thankfully, Ramsey was not bullied into silence. Quite the contrary, the whole of his regular Saturday column of 15/3/08, Blinkers off for the other side of the story, was devoted to the bizarre spectacle which had taken place just 3 days earlier in the House of Representatives.

While The Australian had given the false impression of near wall-to-wall support for the motion, Ramsey tells a different story: "...one half of the Australian Parliament 'celebrated' the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel. More than a third of that one-half was absent, whatever their reasons. A number of MPs deliberately excluded themselves." Apart from Rudd and Nelson, "[n]obody else spoke. The whole affair, carefully orchestrated, carefully bipartisan, lasted just 15 minutes. The press gallery was almost empty. So, too, were the 2 public galleries. About 100 invited guests...filled the first 3 rows of the Speaker's gallery...These were the people who, after Rudd's...motion had been 'put and passed' without a vote, applauded enthusiastically. The only other person who spoke - or attempted to - was a middle-aged woman [who] held up a T-shirt, exclaiming, 'What about UN resolution 242?' " She was evicted.

Ramsey goes on to tell the story of how, on the same night, a lone Liberal MP, Susan Ley, "did an extremely courageous thing...speak for the Palestinian people. She was the only MP [out of 150] who did...When Rudd and Nelson had spoken at midday I counted 53 Government MPs present, including 6 ministers, and 39 Coalition MPs. When Ley got the call 7 1/2 hours later...to speak on the adjournment, there were 5 people in the public gallery, 4 Labor MPs and 2 Coalition MPs in the chamber, and one journalist in the press gallery." Ramsey gives an edited version of Sussan Ley's speech, from which I quote the following:-

"Israel has many friends in this country and in the Parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause. But it is one I support, in part out of knowledge that the victors of WW II, including Australia, wrote a 'homeland' cheque to cover the sins of the holocaust and centuries of anti-semitism in Europe, but it was the Palestinians who had to cash it."

Ley referred to Israel's 'achievements' (though mistakenly describing the Jewish ethnocratic state as a "democracy"), its "40-year occupation of the Palestinain territories, its continued expansion of [illegal Israeli] settlements [on Palestinian land] and its refusal to allow the return of expelled refugees." She also asserted that "The current blockade of Gaza, confiscation of Palestinian land, and the expansion of settlements must be mentioned in the context of today's motion."

"We are the leaders of our generation. We are accountable for results. If the principal protagonists and the rest of the world community hand Palestine on to the next generation as a twisted mess of grievance, hatred and retribution, then we have failed. The last 2 generations of leaders have failed to produce peace. Let us renew our efforts."

Ramsey reflected: "Unlike earlier in the day, nobody applauded - though I wished I could have. Many Australians, too, had they been present, surely would have wanted to acknowledge such a speech of such honesty and sensibility...Ley put the grovelling Rudd and Nelson to shame. The truth is there is no real debate in this country about the travesty of what is happening in the Middle East, and there are those in the community who, with their money and influence, do all they can to ensure no such open debate occurs, either in the national Parliament, in the media or anywhere else. So why was the Rudd Government, in its first 4 months in office, doing what no Australian government or parliament had done, to acknowledge any of the decades of Israeli statehood since the Six-Day War in 1967 saw the Israeli military occupy the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza and ignore 40 years of mutual violence and barbarity as well as 40 years of UN resolutions to withdraw? The Howard government did not 'honour' Israel's 50th anniversary...nor the Hawke government the 40th...nor the Fraser government the 30th...Why the 60th in 2008 the instant a Labor Government comes to power?"

Ramsey's question demands an answer. At least one Labor MP was trying to prise one out of the PM: "When the Labor caucus met on Tuesday...Sydney's Julia Irwin asked Rudd this very question. Why? Irwin never takes a backward step in her defence of Palestinian rights, but all she got from Rudd this time was waffle. He did not explicitly respond as to why 60 might be different from earlier decades when the Parliament had done nothing and neither had earlier governments. And no Labor MP supported Irwin in pushing it. She was a lone voice in the Labor caucus as Susan Ley was in the Parliament. How's that for political ticker?"

Unfortunately, like Ley and Irwin in federal politics, Alan Ramsey is a lone voice in Australian journalism. What have we come to? Where are we going?

The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 1

"Australian politicians of all stripes, together with a broad range of community leaders, will celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut [Israeli Independence Day] in style in Canberra. It is understood Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will deliver a parliamentary motion in the House of Representatives on March 12, followed by a reception at Parliament House. The PM's...motion is expected to congratulate Israel on reaching the milestone and will be immediately seconded by Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson. The Israeli embassy and the Zionist Federation of Australia will then host a celebration in Parliament House's Mural Hall...Both the PM and OL are expected to attend, along with Israeli Ambassador...Yuval Rotem...The celebration...acknowledges the close relationship between Israel and Australia - a relationship that transcends political and religious boundaries. It is believed Australia's political leaders will feature prominently at other Yom Ha'atzmaut events planned in Australia later in the year." (PM to lead Israel motion, The Australian Jewish News, 22/2/08)

The rambamming [See my post Rambammed, 22/2/08] of Australian politics is paying off handsomely. As I write, Mark Latham's spot-on "conga line of suckholes" is being lined up for the occasion. Their participation in the proceedings of March 12 will be as good a guide as any to the degree of influence currently wielded by Israel and its lobby in this country. It behoves the rest of us to know just what it is exactly that this sinister little rave is all about:-

The suckholes will actually be celebrating the 60th anniversary of what the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine call an-Nakba (The Catastrophe). They'll be popping champagne corks over the ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of 85% of the Palestinian population resident in those parts of Palestine overrun by Zionist forces in the war of 1948 (ie 78% of Palestine, what is ironically referred to today as Israel 'proper'). They'll be raising their glasses to the wholesale destruction and theft of the Palestinian refugees' vast rural and urban real estate; their cities, towns, villages, homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure; their businesses, their shops, their bank accounts, and so on and on. They'll be toasting the merciless, periodic pounding of these refugees in their wretched camps scattered in neighbouring Arab countries. They'll be drinking to the national limbo - 60 years of enforced statelessness - into which these people have been cast by the state of Israel, backed by criminal collusion and reinforced by shameful indifference. Finally, they'll be belching over the ruthless 40-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with its ongoing dispossession, expanding settlements, walled cantons, checkpoints, closures, curfews, murders, imprisonment, torture, starvation, brutalization and humiliation.

So below-the-radar of media scrutiny and public consciousness is the subject of Israel's domination and management of Australia's public discourse and political practice regarding the conflict in the Middle East, that the brief report in the AJN above is the only notice we've had of federal parliament's impending descent into the moral depths. Until today, that is. The Sydney Morning Herald's veteran political commentator, Alan Ramsey, has courageously dared to blow the whistle on it in a column headed Don't mention the war as Israel lauded (8/3/08).

Ramsey reminds readers of what happened when Labor MP Julia Irwin bravely tried to raise the subject of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories in the same forum in 2002. "Despite thuggish efforts to shut Irwin up," he writes, "the Howard government allowed her 4-point motion to go ahead in the House of Representatives 6 weeks later but restricted debate to 6 MPs, each given only 5' speaking time. As a 'debate' of the core malignancy convulsing the Middle East ever since the UN partition of Palestine in 1948 [sic:1947], it was a travesty. It was also one of those extremely rare ocassions that the easily intimidated Australian Parliament, ever mindful of Jewish financial support of party coffers, has debated the Middle East at all. Kevin Rudd...apparently intends to change that...So what is our Kevin doing? His office says yes, Rudd does propose introducing a motion...concerning the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel (which is not actually due until May 14). And yes, he proposes doing this next Wednesday. But what it will say is still being worked on. And no, Brendan Nelson has not, as yet, been consulted, although he will be. What might it say about the Palestinians?" (You can read the lot at http://www.smh.com.au/)

Ramsey might have asked just who is working on it? Maybe the AJN has a partial answer. Its issue for 29/2/08 contained the transcript of a video speech by Rudd to The Yeshiva Centre's annual Gala Dinner on February 19. His speech concluded with these words: "As you all know I am a strong supporter of the Jewish community. Like the Labor Prime Ministers before me, stretching back to the time of Ben Chifley, a time which saw the creation of the modern state of Israel, you can be assured of my consistent and strong support, both for Israel and for the Jewish community of Australia. I will conclude with the same words that I concluded my address last year, 'Am Yisrael Chai' [The People of Israel Live]. In this country, the success of the Jewish people has always been to the benefit of the whole of Australia. Am Yisrael Chai!" Commented 'Ben' on the News' letters pages: "A really great speech. I wonder which Jewish adviser wrote it for him."

Stay tuned.