It is always worth keeping in mind that, despite the lurid fantasies of the right-wing nut jobs at News Corpse to the effect that the ABC is a bastion of leftist radicalism, the state broadcaster is in fact merely the propaganda arm of the Australian establishment.
Last night's Four Corners program, Inside the Greens: A Party in Turmoil, which featured former Greens leader Bob Brown and others attacking NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, was a case in point.
Cast your mind back to 2010-2011, when Sydney's Marrickville Council, dominated at the time by The Greens, bravely took a stand for Palestine by adopting a pro-BDS policy against the purchase of Israeli products, and when its Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne only narrowly failed to snatch the NSW state seat of Marrickville from Labor for her party at the 2011 state election.
Many of Rhiannon's detractors on Four Corners have form going back to that time. Here's a reminder:
Sally Neighbour, the current executive producer of Four Corners, used to write for Murdoch's Australian, and earlier took The Greens to task (Divided we fall) in Morry Schwartz's The Monthly. (See my 3/2/12 post Get Rhiannon! 2)
Richard Di Natale, the current federal leader of the party, once cluelessly agreed to the proposition that the Palestinians should "recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish state," before later backtracking when apprised of the implications of what he'd said. (See my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified.)
Bob Brown, the party's founder, has attacked the NSW Greens in the Murdoch press, claiming NSW Greens' support for BDS was "against his advice" and urging the branch to stick to "bread-and-butter issues." (See Bob Brown & A Failure of Courage, 1/4/11)
Ian Cohen, a former NSW Greens MLC, has condemned his party's support for BDS as "old style" and expressed concern about "Jewish community outrage." (See my 31/3/11 post Kahane Down Under?)
Christine Milne, Di Natale's predecessor, has spoken out against BDS, travelled to Israel (although whether or not at her own expense we do not know), and once spoke in favour of regime change in Libya. (See Some Questions for Christine Milne (21/4/12), Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed? (11/7/14), A Gripe About The Greens (24/3/11))
Jeremy Buckingham, a NSW Greens MLC, joined the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel and signed the so-called London Declaration on Combatting Antisemitism. (See my 27/5/13 post Et tu, Jeremy?)
The issue of the NSW Greens' support for Palestine emerged only obliquely in the program. Presenter Louise Milligan's bias against that support, however, was clear at this point:
Milligan: While her leader is travelling the country, trying to hold his party together, Lee Rhiannon has flown to the Middle East and is crossing into Palestine.
Rhiannon: When you see it like that you can see why they call it an apartheid wall. What you see when you arrive in this country is apartheid. From the West Bank to Gaza, people are treated as second class citizens. Their human rights are ignored or abused.
Milligan: And she's still lobbing political grenades at her party: reviving a campaign to boycott Israeli businesses in Australia which has seen a backlash against the Greens in the past.
Rhiannon: There is a value in this campaign, and it's a reminder of why people like ourselves in Australia and around the world... it's time to reassess this form of struggle, because there are very clear examples of the value it brings to solidarity and the results it can achieve.
Milligan: Her leader disagrees.
Di Natale: It's not something that the Australian Greens have ever supported. It's not something that I support.
Milligan: It's these sorts of clashes with the federal party that have prompted the Greens elders to tell Four Corners it's time for Senator Lee Rhiannon to go.
Brown: Oh, well, you know, I've been living with Lee for 30 years, but it's the end of Lee's reign. The end is nigh, and I look toward the future.
Showing posts with label Christine Milne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christine Milne. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Friday, July 11, 2014
Has Christine Milne Been Rambammed?
"Australian Greens leader Senator Christine Milne has argued in Parliament that retaining Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is essential to curb the activities of Holocaust deniers such as Fredrick Toben... In the Senate last week, Milne said... 'I have stood at the Dachau concentration camp. I have been to the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem'... Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Robert Goot said Milne's speech 'movingly articulated the importance of section 18C of the RDA'. He added that her trips to Yad Vashem and Dachau 'demonstrate her desire to understand the darkest chapter in human history'." (Toben 'deeply invested' in repeal of 18C: Milne, The Australian Jewish News, 27/6/14)
Friday, February 15, 2013
Prisoner X 4
Since significant new material has emerged in today's Fairfax press regarding the case of Prisoner X, I'll leave the other two aspects of the case I'd intended writing about to a later post, possibly the next.
The most important piece on the issue has to be Philip Dorling's report, Zygier 'close to spilling on Israel', which offers an eminently plausible explanation for Prisoner X's incarceration and suicide/murder:
"Australian security officials suspect that Ben Zygier, the spy who died in secret in an Israeli prison cell in 2010, may have been about to disclose information about Israeli intelligence operations, including the use of fraudulent Australian passports, either to the Australian government or to the media when he was arrested. '[Zygier] may well have been about to blow the whistle, but he never got the chance,' an Australian security official with knowledge of the case told Fairfax Media yesterday. Sources in Canberra are insistent that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was not informed by its counterparts of the precise nature of the espionage allegations against Mr Zygier. However, it is understood that the former Melbourne law graduate had been in contact with Australian intelligence. He was in contact the day before he died with human rights lawyer Avigdor Feldman, who said last night: 'When I saw him, there was nothing to indicate he was going to commit suicide', adding that he was rational, focused and without self-pity. Mr Feldman said he was surprised 'that a man who was being held in a cell like that, a cell which was being monitored and checked 24-hours a day, could manage to commit suicide by hanging himself. I understood that he was told he was likely to face the longest possible jail term and that he was likely to be ostracised by his family,' he said. Israeli intelligence informed ASIO of Mr Zygier's arrest and detention just 8 days after authorities in Dubai revealed that suspected Israeli agents had used fraudulent Australian passports in the assassination of a Palestinian militant leader. The subsequent crisis in Australian-Israeli intelligence relations provided the context in which the Australian diplomats did not seek access to Mr Zygier, who was regarded by Australian security officials as being a potential whistleblower on Israeli intelligence operations."
Dorling goes on to say that, although ASIO's liaison office in Tel Aviv was notified of Zygier's detention by Israel's domestic intelligence service, Shin Bet, and that it in turn notified DFAT, "as no request for consular assistance was made by Mr Zygier or his family, the matter was left to be dealt with through intelligence channels."
Two matters arise here.
First, if Zygier had wanted to blow the whistle on Mossad's abuse of Australian passports and had contacted Australian intelligence with this in mind, how did he end up in Shin Bet's hands?
Two possible explanations come to mind. The Shin Bet were already onto him and picked him up before he could tell all to his Australian intelligence contact(s), or the latter cold-shouldered him or worse to avoid the kind of falling out with Israel that a full disclosure of the passport abuse by an Australian-Israeli intelligence insider might have precipitated. If so, the question arises as to just how far up the Australian chain of command, security and political, that decision might have been made. Certainly, the suspicion that then PM Rudd and his FM, with their expressions of 'grave concern', their vows to 'take action', their carpeting of the Israeli ambassador, and their expulsion of an Israeli 'diplomat' - but no real severing of intelligence links - were really just taking part in an elaborate charade had crossed the mind of one of our more astute and combative television news presenters/interviewers, Kerry O'Brien. (See my 16/8/10 post Diplomatic Dancing.)
Second, I can't quite get my head around the implications of the assertions that a) "[Zygier] was told... that he was likely to be ostracised by his family"; and b) "no request for consular assistance" was made by Zygier's family. What is going on here?
These assertions are further complicated by Konrad Marshall's report, We want justice for Ben Zygier, family friend says:
"A family friend of Melbourne man Ben Zygier... has called for 'justice' and transparency two years after the 34-year-old's death. Henry Greener... said he could no longer abide by a 'sleeping dogs lie' credo. 'We all knew there was something suspicious and underhanded about Ben's death and nobody wanted to go there because of the suppression order in Israel... But now that the cat's been let out of the bag, we are going to find out a lot more, and in that process I think there should be justice for Ben..."
One is left wondering why, if "we all knew there was something suspicious and underhanded about Ben's death," we're reading references to family ostracism, a failure to seek consular assistance and respect for an Israeli suppression order.
Finally, my attention was caught by this particular exchange, in a report by David Wroe, 'We failed our duty' to Prisoner X:
"Asked by Greens senator Christine Milne why no embassy official had gone to visit Mr Zygier in jail, [DFAT] secretary Peter Varghese said communications had been between intelligence agencies, not the respective governments... Senator Milne asked: 'My question is just why did the Australian government hand over the welfare of one of our citizens to the spooks? Why?'" (14/2/13)
Could you ever imagine Milne play the terrier over the fate of an Arab-Australian in Israeli hands?
The most important piece on the issue has to be Philip Dorling's report, Zygier 'close to spilling on Israel', which offers an eminently plausible explanation for Prisoner X's incarceration and suicide/murder:
"Australian security officials suspect that Ben Zygier, the spy who died in secret in an Israeli prison cell in 2010, may have been about to disclose information about Israeli intelligence operations, including the use of fraudulent Australian passports, either to the Australian government or to the media when he was arrested. '[Zygier] may well have been about to blow the whistle, but he never got the chance,' an Australian security official with knowledge of the case told Fairfax Media yesterday. Sources in Canberra are insistent that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was not informed by its counterparts of the precise nature of the espionage allegations against Mr Zygier. However, it is understood that the former Melbourne law graduate had been in contact with Australian intelligence. He was in contact the day before he died with human rights lawyer Avigdor Feldman, who said last night: 'When I saw him, there was nothing to indicate he was going to commit suicide', adding that he was rational, focused and without self-pity. Mr Feldman said he was surprised 'that a man who was being held in a cell like that, a cell which was being monitored and checked 24-hours a day, could manage to commit suicide by hanging himself. I understood that he was told he was likely to face the longest possible jail term and that he was likely to be ostracised by his family,' he said. Israeli intelligence informed ASIO of Mr Zygier's arrest and detention just 8 days after authorities in Dubai revealed that suspected Israeli agents had used fraudulent Australian passports in the assassination of a Palestinian militant leader. The subsequent crisis in Australian-Israeli intelligence relations provided the context in which the Australian diplomats did not seek access to Mr Zygier, who was regarded by Australian security officials as being a potential whistleblower on Israeli intelligence operations."
Dorling goes on to say that, although ASIO's liaison office in Tel Aviv was notified of Zygier's detention by Israel's domestic intelligence service, Shin Bet, and that it in turn notified DFAT, "as no request for consular assistance was made by Mr Zygier or his family, the matter was left to be dealt with through intelligence channels."
Two matters arise here.
First, if Zygier had wanted to blow the whistle on Mossad's abuse of Australian passports and had contacted Australian intelligence with this in mind, how did he end up in Shin Bet's hands?
Two possible explanations come to mind. The Shin Bet were already onto him and picked him up before he could tell all to his Australian intelligence contact(s), or the latter cold-shouldered him or worse to avoid the kind of falling out with Israel that a full disclosure of the passport abuse by an Australian-Israeli intelligence insider might have precipitated. If so, the question arises as to just how far up the Australian chain of command, security and political, that decision might have been made. Certainly, the suspicion that then PM Rudd and his FM, with their expressions of 'grave concern', their vows to 'take action', their carpeting of the Israeli ambassador, and their expulsion of an Israeli 'diplomat' - but no real severing of intelligence links - were really just taking part in an elaborate charade had crossed the mind of one of our more astute and combative television news presenters/interviewers, Kerry O'Brien. (See my 16/8/10 post Diplomatic Dancing.)
Second, I can't quite get my head around the implications of the assertions that a) "[Zygier] was told... that he was likely to be ostracised by his family"; and b) "no request for consular assistance" was made by Zygier's family. What is going on here?
These assertions are further complicated by Konrad Marshall's report, We want justice for Ben Zygier, family friend says:
"A family friend of Melbourne man Ben Zygier... has called for 'justice' and transparency two years after the 34-year-old's death. Henry Greener... said he could no longer abide by a 'sleeping dogs lie' credo. 'We all knew there was something suspicious and underhanded about Ben's death and nobody wanted to go there because of the suppression order in Israel... But now that the cat's been let out of the bag, we are going to find out a lot more, and in that process I think there should be justice for Ben..."
One is left wondering why, if "we all knew there was something suspicious and underhanded about Ben's death," we're reading references to family ostracism, a failure to seek consular assistance and respect for an Israeli suppression order.
Finally, my attention was caught by this particular exchange, in a report by David Wroe, 'We failed our duty' to Prisoner X:
"Asked by Greens senator Christine Milne why no embassy official had gone to visit Mr Zygier in jail, [DFAT] secretary Peter Varghese said communications had been between intelligence agencies, not the respective governments... Senator Milne asked: 'My question is just why did the Australian government hand over the welfare of one of our citizens to the spooks? Why?'" (14/2/13)
Could you ever imagine Milne play the terrier over the fate of an Arab-Australian in Israeli hands?
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Christine Milne & A Matter of Principle
The attacks on Greens senator Lee Rhiannon, the only federal Greens politician with the guts to stand up for Palestinian rights, continue:
"The government was yesterday forced into an embarrassing retreat after voting down an opposition motion condemning the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to protect the Greens. Labor joined with the Greens in the Senate to oppose a motion by NSW Liberal Arthur Sinodinos noting comments by NSW Green Lee Rhiannon that her party lost votes in inner-Sydney Marrickville in Saturday's council elections because of its support for the BDS movement*, which equates Israel with apartheid-era South Africa**. The motion noted that Marrickville Greens candidates had continued to offer support for BDS and called on the NSW party to explicitly reject any policy of BDS." (Labor has second thoughts after saving allies in BDS motion, Christian Kerr, 13/9/12)
[*I'm aware of no such comments. **This is an embroidery by Christian Kerr. Sinodinos' motion (based on Imre Salusinszky's attack on the Greens in the Australian of September 7 - See my post of the same date, No Thanks, I'm Choosy Who I Talk To) made no mention of apartheid.]
Sinodinos and his fellow Liberals, of course, get a real kick out of playing games like this. This is because they know they can exploit Greens leader Christine Milne's cowardly failure to put principle first in this matter. Thus we get:
"Greens leader Christine Milne attacked the motion, saying supporting BDS was not NSW nor Australian Greens policy." (ibid)
(Typically, the Australian has omitted the only fighting words in Milne's response: "... for the benefit of Senator Sinodinos and the Australian.")
The question arises: would Sinodinos (or any other of his mob) have bothered to move such a motion if he'd known that Milne would reply confidently and unapologetically thus:
BDS? Yes, as a party of unswerving principle, standing for a just peace in the Middle East, the Greens are committed to it 100%. As you should know, the BDS call is for Israel to 1) end its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands [occupied in 1967] and dismantle the wall; 2) recognise the fundamental rights of the Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3) respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN resolution 194. Principle mandates support for all 3 demands, and BDS is simply a strategy that enables people of conscience outside occupied Palestine to exert pressure on the Israelis to comply.
"The government was yesterday forced into an embarrassing retreat after voting down an opposition motion condemning the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to protect the Greens. Labor joined with the Greens in the Senate to oppose a motion by NSW Liberal Arthur Sinodinos noting comments by NSW Green Lee Rhiannon that her party lost votes in inner-Sydney Marrickville in Saturday's council elections because of its support for the BDS movement*, which equates Israel with apartheid-era South Africa**. The motion noted that Marrickville Greens candidates had continued to offer support for BDS and called on the NSW party to explicitly reject any policy of BDS." (Labor has second thoughts after saving allies in BDS motion, Christian Kerr, 13/9/12)
[*I'm aware of no such comments. **This is an embroidery by Christian Kerr. Sinodinos' motion (based on Imre Salusinszky's attack on the Greens in the Australian of September 7 - See my post of the same date, No Thanks, I'm Choosy Who I Talk To) made no mention of apartheid.]
Sinodinos and his fellow Liberals, of course, get a real kick out of playing games like this. This is because they know they can exploit Greens leader Christine Milne's cowardly failure to put principle first in this matter. Thus we get:
"Greens leader Christine Milne attacked the motion, saying supporting BDS was not NSW nor Australian Greens policy." (ibid)
(Typically, the Australian has omitted the only fighting words in Milne's response: "... for the benefit of Senator Sinodinos and the Australian.")
The question arises: would Sinodinos (or any other of his mob) have bothered to move such a motion if he'd known that Milne would reply confidently and unapologetically thus:
BDS? Yes, as a party of unswerving principle, standing for a just peace in the Middle East, the Greens are committed to it 100%. As you should know, the BDS call is for Israel to 1) end its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands [occupied in 1967] and dismantle the wall; 2) recognise the fundamental rights of the Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3) respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN resolution 194. Principle mandates support for all 3 demands, and BDS is simply a strategy that enables people of conscience outside occupied Palestine to exert pressure on the Israelis to comply.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Some Questions for Christine Milne
Seeing The Greens' new leader, Senator Christine Milne, has just unburdened herself to The Australian Jewish News, I've decided that a few comments and questions relating to the AJN 's report on same wouldn't go astray. (Notice of this post will be sent to Christine with the expectation of a response. A failure to respond will be considered as complete agreement with what I've written here):
"New federal Greens leader Senator Christine Milne has given a fresh assurance that her party does not support the global BDS campaign against Israel... In a wide-ranging interview about Israel and the Middle East, Milne made it clear that BDS was not only no longer NSW party policy, but had never been federal policy. 'That issue is behind us, and I think it's a good opportunity to restart the conversation', she said." (New Greens leader: BDS 'is behind us', 20/4/12)
Tell me, Christine, what part of BDS's aims do you not understand?
Is it a) ending Israel's occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in 1967 and dismantling the wall?
Is it b) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality?
Is it c) respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN Resolution 194?
We, the people, need to know.
"'The Greens have always had a position of supporting a two-state solution and that is absolutely my position. We also support peace and non-violence, which is a fundamental principle for The Greens, and we condemn violence against property and people from any quarter'... 'I think peace has to be pursued on all sides, and that's why The Greens have always taken the position that we want to see an internationally negotiated outcome', she said. 'We also have a very strong position on social justice and human rights, and so of course that pertains to everybody who lives in the region'." (ibid)
Yes Christine, but what do you mean by a two state solution, and what do you propose to do to bring it about?
You see, if AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein (below) welcomes your support for a two-state solution, that can only suggest you're on the same wavelength, right?
Presumably that means 'Palestine' will only consist of those bits and pieces of the West Bank left over after the ever-expanding settlement blocs have finished ever-expanding; settler satellites have finished proliferating; after the settler-only roads linking them all with one another and the imperial centre have finally linked every Israeli settler and his dog with every other Israeli settler and his dog, and then in turn with every Israeli and his dog in Israel improper; after the serpentine wall winding its way through the West Bank, neatly separating Palestinian towns and villages from their lands, has finished its separating; and after the Jordan Valley has been unequivocally declared an inseparable part of Israel improper.
Presumably too, like Rubes (and LibLab), you'll ritualistically be mouthing the two-state mantra when required but otherwise do nothing - the only real difference between Rubes and yourself being that, as the Palestinians are squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces, you'll be sitting on your hands while he'll be rubbing his together.
[Oh, and that business about The Greens supporting peace and non-violence (unless carried out by Israel of course), I'm a bit confused here. I mean, didn't you support the NATO bash in Libya? (In case it's slipped your mind, see my 24/3/11 post A Gripe About The Greens.)]
"When asked about her view on incitement against Jews occurring in Palestinian media and schools, Milne said she condemned the incitement of violence 'on any side'. 'I certainly don't support anyone glorifying taking action that involves the physical harm or displacement of any person', she said. '[And] from my point of view, I certainly don't want to see in schools, anything in curricula anywhere, that encourages people to take a view that would lead to religious violence or discrimination of any kind'." (ibid)
Well, you fell for that one, didn't you, Christine? (See my 28/11/08 post Janet's Dream and you'll see what I mean.)
"Milne said she was 'absolutely aware' of Israel's environmental credentials, noting it had been a global leader in water efficiency for some time. She also recalled being impressed by environmental activities she saw while backpacking in Israel in the early 1980s." (ibid)
Do you mean working on kibbutzes while Israel was busy invading, occupying and terrorising Lebanon, Christine?
"Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) executive director Peter Wertheim welcomed Milne's rejection of BDS and said it was 'refreshing' that she acknowledged Israel's environmental credentials. But he said the community was still concerned about The Greens' policies on private school funding, religious freedom, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, the UN and the US alliance. 'We are seeking a meeting with Christine Milne to further develop our relationship with The Greens and clarify issues that especially affect our community', he said." (ibid)
See where your grovel has led, Christine? Give these buggers an inch and they'll take mile! And you thought they'd finished with you?
"Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) executive director Colin Rubenstein also welcomed Milne's stance on BDS and support for a two-state solution. 'We trust The Greens will join the bipartisan Australian and international consensus in encouraging the Palestinians to resume bilateral talks with Israel to that end, will oppose religious extremism which threatens liberal freedoms in Australia and elsewhere, and will always be unequivocal in condemning racism and anti-Semitism', he said." (ibid)
The bipartisan Australian and international consensus, eh? Can't you see where all this is going, Christine? That's right, into the same pocket as LibLab.
Eagerly awaiting your response, Christine.
"New federal Greens leader Senator Christine Milne has given a fresh assurance that her party does not support the global BDS campaign against Israel... In a wide-ranging interview about Israel and the Middle East, Milne made it clear that BDS was not only no longer NSW party policy, but had never been federal policy. 'That issue is behind us, and I think it's a good opportunity to restart the conversation', she said." (New Greens leader: BDS 'is behind us', 20/4/12)
Tell me, Christine, what part of BDS's aims do you not understand?
Is it a) ending Israel's occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in 1967 and dismantling the wall?
Is it b) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality?
Is it c) respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN Resolution 194?
We, the people, need to know.
"'The Greens have always had a position of supporting a two-state solution and that is absolutely my position. We also support peace and non-violence, which is a fundamental principle for The Greens, and we condemn violence against property and people from any quarter'... 'I think peace has to be pursued on all sides, and that's why The Greens have always taken the position that we want to see an internationally negotiated outcome', she said. 'We also have a very strong position on social justice and human rights, and so of course that pertains to everybody who lives in the region'." (ibid)
Yes Christine, but what do you mean by a two state solution, and what do you propose to do to bring it about?
You see, if AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein (below) welcomes your support for a two-state solution, that can only suggest you're on the same wavelength, right?
Presumably that means 'Palestine' will only consist of those bits and pieces of the West Bank left over after the ever-expanding settlement blocs have finished ever-expanding; settler satellites have finished proliferating; after the settler-only roads linking them all with one another and the imperial centre have finally linked every Israeli settler and his dog with every other Israeli settler and his dog, and then in turn with every Israeli and his dog in Israel improper; after the serpentine wall winding its way through the West Bank, neatly separating Palestinian towns and villages from their lands, has finished its separating; and after the Jordan Valley has been unequivocally declared an inseparable part of Israel improper.
Presumably too, like Rubes (and LibLab), you'll ritualistically be mouthing the two-state mantra when required but otherwise do nothing - the only real difference between Rubes and yourself being that, as the Palestinians are squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces, you'll be sitting on your hands while he'll be rubbing his together.
[Oh, and that business about The Greens supporting peace and non-violence (unless carried out by Israel of course), I'm a bit confused here. I mean, didn't you support the NATO bash in Libya? (In case it's slipped your mind, see my 24/3/11 post A Gripe About The Greens.)]
"When asked about her view on incitement against Jews occurring in Palestinian media and schools, Milne said she condemned the incitement of violence 'on any side'. 'I certainly don't support anyone glorifying taking action that involves the physical harm or displacement of any person', she said. '[And] from my point of view, I certainly don't want to see in schools, anything in curricula anywhere, that encourages people to take a view that would lead to religious violence or discrimination of any kind'." (ibid)
Well, you fell for that one, didn't you, Christine? (See my 28/11/08 post Janet's Dream and you'll see what I mean.)
"Milne said she was 'absolutely aware' of Israel's environmental credentials, noting it had been a global leader in water efficiency for some time. She also recalled being impressed by environmental activities she saw while backpacking in Israel in the early 1980s." (ibid)
Do you mean working on kibbutzes while Israel was busy invading, occupying and terrorising Lebanon, Christine?
"Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) executive director Peter Wertheim welcomed Milne's rejection of BDS and said it was 'refreshing' that she acknowledged Israel's environmental credentials. But he said the community was still concerned about The Greens' policies on private school funding, religious freedom, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, the UN and the US alliance. 'We are seeking a meeting with Christine Milne to further develop our relationship with The Greens and clarify issues that especially affect our community', he said." (ibid)
See where your grovel has led, Christine? Give these buggers an inch and they'll take mile! And you thought they'd finished with you?
"Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) executive director Colin Rubenstein also welcomed Milne's stance on BDS and support for a two-state solution. 'We trust The Greens will join the bipartisan Australian and international consensus in encouraging the Palestinians to resume bilateral talks with Israel to that end, will oppose religious extremism which threatens liberal freedoms in Australia and elsewhere, and will always be unequivocal in condemning racism and anti-Semitism', he said." (ibid)
The bipartisan Australian and international consensus, eh? Can't you see where all this is going, Christine? That's right, into the same pocket as LibLab.
Eagerly awaiting your response, Christine.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
A Gripe About The Greens
ABC Television's Q&A on Monday night led with the following question from an audience member:
"The United Nations belated intervention in Libya allowed Gaddafi to continue his brutal attacks on innocent civilians. Now that the no-fly zone is in place lives may be saved but are the Western nations capable of taking on this enormous responsibility in Libya?"
Predictably, the rambammed (2008) Labor Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason ("We all remember where we were on September 11...") Clare, a parliamentary spruiker for Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan, had no reservations whatever:
"... the fact that the UN has moved this resolution means that there are people alive today in Benghazi who would have been slaughtered by Gaddafi if it hadn't passed. This is a person who said that he would ensure there was no mercy for his citizens. His sons said there'd be rivers of blood... Now when you have a situation like that, I think there's a responsibility on the countries of the world to take action to try and stop [it]... "
Nor - surprisingly - did the next panelist, the Deputy Leader of The Australian Greens, Christine Milne:
"Yes, I agree and I think we've all been inspired over the last short while [by] the courage and bravery, particularly of young people, right throughout the Middle East as they pursue their dream of democracy, and it was so heartening to see the UN eventually get its act together and to now see the response of those holding out in Benghazi and to see that the international community has finally come to their assistance for the protection of civilians. So I think this is really important because you cannot leave a million people to the butchery that would have occurred had Gaddafi been allowed to go in there in the way he intended."
She seems to have no comprehension whatever that the UN's role here may simply have been to provide the necessary legal cover for a further expansion of US power in the Middle East. Nor does it occur to her, it seems, to say something about the appalling double standards inherent in the US actively championing freedom-seeking Libyans, while continuing to prop up those regimes which suppress the freedom-seeking peoples of Bahrain, Yemen, and Palestine.
What a sad state of affairs for a party which aspires to become a real third force in Australian politics.
"The United Nations belated intervention in Libya allowed Gaddafi to continue his brutal attacks on innocent civilians. Now that the no-fly zone is in place lives may be saved but are the Western nations capable of taking on this enormous responsibility in Libya?"
Predictably, the rambammed (2008) Labor Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason ("We all remember where we were on September 11...") Clare, a parliamentary spruiker for Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan, had no reservations whatever:
"... the fact that the UN has moved this resolution means that there are people alive today in Benghazi who would have been slaughtered by Gaddafi if it hadn't passed. This is a person who said that he would ensure there was no mercy for his citizens. His sons said there'd be rivers of blood... Now when you have a situation like that, I think there's a responsibility on the countries of the world to take action to try and stop [it]... "
Nor - surprisingly - did the next panelist, the Deputy Leader of The Australian Greens, Christine Milne:
"Yes, I agree and I think we've all been inspired over the last short while [by] the courage and bravery, particularly of young people, right throughout the Middle East as they pursue their dream of democracy, and it was so heartening to see the UN eventually get its act together and to now see the response of those holding out in Benghazi and to see that the international community has finally come to their assistance for the protection of civilians. So I think this is really important because you cannot leave a million people to the butchery that would have occurred had Gaddafi been allowed to go in there in the way he intended."
She seems to have no comprehension whatever that the UN's role here may simply have been to provide the necessary legal cover for a further expansion of US power in the Middle East. Nor does it occur to her, it seems, to say something about the appalling double standards inherent in the US actively championing freedom-seeking Libyans, while continuing to prop up those regimes which suppress the freedom-seeking peoples of Bahrain, Yemen, and Palestine.
What a sad state of affairs for a party which aspires to become a real third force in Australian politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)