First the US, Now the UN

Not content with turning the US Congress into a cheer squad for its criminality...

"On Thursday, the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan resolution rebuking the United Nations for criticizing Israeli settlements and declaring unwavering support for Israel. The non-binding resolution insists that the United States reject any future UN actions that are similarly 'one-sided and anti-Israel." (Israel to cut $6m from UN dues in protest over settlements resolution, AP at the UN, The Guardian, 7/1/17)

... Israel now has its sights on the United Nations:

"Israel's UN mission said it would move forward on additional initiatives 'aimed at encouraging structural change within the UN with the ultimate goal of ending anti-Israel activities' after Donald Trump becomes US president on 20 January." (ibid)

Turnbull 'Govt' an Ethical & Moral Black Hole

You'd think that Australia's foreign minister, Julie Bishop, having once said this - "I would like to see which international law has declared [Israeli settlements] illegal" (1/2014) - would at least have the sense to keep her mouth shut now that UNSC resolution 2334 (22/12/16) has ruled definitively that these settlements have "no legal validity" and constitute "a flagrant violation under international law."

But no. Bishop "said in a statement on Thursday that Australia was not a member of the Security Council and was not eligible to vote on the resolution. However, she said, 'in voting at the UN, the Coalition government has consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel'." (Bishop's backing Israel over UN resolution, Peter Martin, Sydney Morning Herald, 30/12/16)

And PM Turnbull?: "Stating that a two-state solution 'can only be negotiated between the parties,' he said, 'It is not assisted by one-sided resolutions made at the councils of the United Nations or anywhere else, and that is why Australia has not, and does not, support one-sided resolutions." (Turnbull slams 'one-sided' UN resolution against Israel, The Australian Jewish News, 30/12/16)

As Mike Carlton commented in a tweet on the subject: "No surprise there. This gutless Turnbull 'government' is an ethical and moral black hole." (30/12/16)

Greg Sheridan: Still Channeling Auntie Poppy After All These Years

The human mind, like God, works in mysterious ways. Be that as it may, one such mind, that of Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian, works (if that is the appropriate word), not so much in mysterious as in downright peculiar ways. An explanation for this may be found in his formative years. In the beginning were the words, and the words were, alas, Auntie Poppy's:

"Auntie Poppy always told me I must never forget that the Jews were God's chosen people... Dad and Auntie Poppy were always pro-Jewish and pro-Israel." When We Were Young & Foolish: A Memoir of My Misguided Youth with Tony Abbott, Bob Carr, Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd & Other Reprobates (2015)*

As though brought down from Mt Sinai, engraved in stone, there was no looking back for the nerdy Catholic nipper. Hence:

"Barack Obama's presidency is ending with a fine contempt for democracy as he exhibits every trait of hubris, arrogance and disregard for the messy business of elections and democratic mandates in his efforts to tie the hands of his successor on contentious policy that Obama was never willing to take to the electorate, or put before congress. On two contentious issues - Israeli settlements and offshore drilling in the Arctic - Obama is taking actions directly against the spirit and practice of democracy by using bureaucratic and legal manoeuvres  to try to put policy decisions beyond democratic revision. Obama chose to wait until after the presidential elections to take these steps.

"Obama, with Hillary Clinton, was always the best advertisement for Donald Trump, even more so now, for Obama, at the extreme end of lame duckery, demonstrates a peerless elite disregard for democratic process and the messy and inconvenient business of electoral results. It is Obama, not Trump, who pioneered American weakness and retreat from leadership.

"Obama has been kind to America's enemies, but he is a dangerous friend. America's allies, in this case Israel, have been his chief victims. By abstaining, Obama allowed a resolution to go through the Security Council that the US had always previously vetoed. It is a non-sided and expansively worded condemnation of all Israeli settlements outside the lines of the state of Israel as it existed before the 1967 war. On its face, the resolution makes no sense as the land the resolution chiefly concerns was never officially Palestinian land but, before 1967, belonged to Jordan. Israel has always accepted that the final status of this land must be worked out in negotiations and has made at least three serious offers to give more than 90% of the land in question to a new Palestinian state. In exchange, the Palestinian leadership must accept that this is an end of claims, must recognise the legitimacy of Israel, and must commit to its future security. The Palestinians have not been able to meet these conditions.

"No one who lives in the real world thinks the Israel-Palestine dispute can be solved in today's environment of a Middle East in flames. Let's be quite clear about this. Obama, with extreme irresponsibility, is licensing a new wave of global anti-Semitism... " (Obama delivers last-minute hit to democracy, The Australian, 27/12/16)

[*See my 3/8/15 post Greg Sheridan: The Making of a Gentile Zionist.]

Netanyahu Threatens War on New Zealand

Clearly, Netanyahu's mask is slipping. As you read the following detailed Israeli account of what went on behind the scenes in the lead up to last Friday's UNSC vote on the illegality of Israel's settlement project in the West Bank, bear in mind:

a) that it is only because of the abject failure of Western governments to stand up to Israel's criminality and bullying decades ago that has led to this;

b) that it was only in September that Obama approved the largest aid package in history for Israel, an unconditional $38 billion over the next 10 years; and

c) that the Turnbull government has issued an invitation for the man who has declared war on NZ to visit these shores early in 2017.

Britain pulled the strings and Netanyahu warned New Zealand it was declaring war: new details on Israel's battle against the UN vote, Barak Ravid, Haaretz, 28/12/16:

"Last Friday, a few hours before the UN Security Council vote on the settlements, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned New Zealand's foreign minister, Murray McCully. New Zealand, together with Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela, was leading a move to resubmit for a vote the resolution from which Egypt had backed down the day before. A few hours earlier, a senior official in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem called New Zealand's ambassador to Israel, Jonathan Curr, and warned that if New Zealand's move came to a vote, Israel might close its embassy in Wellington in protest. Ambassador Curr noted this and reported it to his government, but when dawn came in New York Israel understood that things were still moving ahead. Netanyahu's phone call to McCully was almost his last attempt to prevent the vote, or at least postpone it and buy a little time. Western diplomats say the conversation was harsh and very tense and Netanyahu let loose with sharp threats, perhaps unprecedented in relations between Israel and another Western country. 'This is a scandalous decision. I'm asking that you not support it and not promote it,' Netanyahu told McCully, according to the Western diplomats, who asked to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the matter. 'If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We'll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem.' McCully refused to back down from the vote. 'This resolution conforms to our policy and we will move it forward,' he told Netanyahu.

"Just one month earlier, when McCully visited Israel and met with Netanyahu, he found the latter an entirely different man. Netanyahu was pleasant, friendly and overflowing with warmth. He showed McCully the famous PowerPoint presentation that he had shown in a round of background briefings for the media last summer. Laser pointer in hand, Netanyahu told McCully that Israel was expanding its foreign relations, breaking through in the region and making friends in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The Western diplomats said that McCully, who over the past two years had been consistently pushing the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the UN Security Council, spoke with Netanyahu about the resolution his country wanted to promote. It was a much softer and more moderate version than the motion that passed last Friday. New Zealand's resolution did talk about freezing construction in the settlements, but also about freezing Palestinian steps in the UN and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and called for direct negotiations without preconditions. Netanyahu rejected this outright. If it were up to him, the Palestinian issue would not have come up in the meeting at all. His message to McCully was similar to what he said endlessly in public over the past few weeks. The world doesn't care too much about the Palestinian issue. The automatic majority against Israel in the UN is about to become a thing of the past. 'The vote Friday proved differently and showed that Netanyahu's assessment was wrong,' a Western diplomat said.

"Discussions with Western and Israel diplomats reveal many interesting details about some of what happened behind the scenes at UN headquarters in New York between Thursday afternoon, when Egypt announced it was backing down from the resolution on the settlements, and Friday morning, when New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela announced that they would continue to push for a vote. From the moment Egypt backed down on Thursday, the Western and Israeli diplomats say, New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela were pressured to move ahead anyway. The Palestinians were the first to exert pressure, but they were joined by some of the Gulf States and Britain. The Western diplomats said that the British encouraged New Zealand to continue pushing for a vote even without Egyptian support. The British had become active regarding the resolution a few days earlier. The Israeli diplomats say that from information that reached the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, British legal figures and diplomats had been working directly with the Palestinians on the wording of the resolution even before it was distributed by Egypt the first time on Wednesday evening. According to the Israeli diplomats, the British did this secretly and without informing Israel. The suspicion in Jerusalem is that the British had been working during all those days for the Americans to make sure the resolution was to US President Barack Obama's liking, but without the need to intervene directly in formulating it."

Time to Review Israel's UN Membership

Have you ever wondered how the Zionist entity, which ethnically cleansed 78% of Palestine in 1948, managed to gain admission as a member in the United Nations?

John Quigley's new book, The International Diplomacy of Israel's Founders: Deception at the United Nations in the Quest for Palestine (2016) reminds us, yet again, that in their drive for exclusive control over Palestine, no lie is too big for Israel's rulers, and that, where Israel is concerned, US myopia and delusion know no bounds.

On the subject of UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (Admission of Israel to membership in the UN) of May 11, 1949, Quigley writes as follows:

 "Warren Austin, the US delegate [to the UN], announced as he had in the Ad Hoc Political Committee (AHPC), that the US would vote for Israel's admission. Austen referred to the discussions of Israel's application in the AHPC... 'The long discussion of Israel's application,' Austen said, 'was evidence of the general deep-rooted desire for a just solution of questions relating to Palestine, and especially those of Jerusalem and the Arab refugees'.

"So the US was solid for Israel, even though what Austen was saying about Israel's desire for solutions was directly contrary to what Mark Ethridge [US representative on the Conciliation Commission for Palestine] was reporting to President Truman. The discussion in the General Assembly went well for Israel... While the resolution did what [Abba] Eban [representing Israel's Jewish Agency] asked, by finding Israel to be peace-loving and on that basis admitting it to membership, it also recited Israel's commitments that formed the basis for the General Assembly's decision to admit Israel, as well as the General Assembly's prior resolutions that imposed obligations on Israel. Resolution 273 read:

'Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,

'Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, [...]

'Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it 'unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them... ,

'Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

'The General Assembly... 1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.'

"The General Assembly thus was explaining that its decision to admit Israel was premised on the commitments Eban had made to the AHPC in regard to repatriation and to Jerusalem. The reference to the resolution of '29 November 1947', the partition resolution, was pointed, because that resolution specified that a Jewish state, were it to be formed, must accord equality without reference to ethnicity. The reference to the resolution of '11 December 1948' similarly meant obligations for Israel, in particular the obligation to repatriate the displaced Arabs.

"Resolution 273 was unusual in UN practice. General Assembly resolutions admitting a new member typically recite only that the Security Council has has received membership. They make no mention of dialogue with the applicant state preceding admission, and no mention of commitments the state may have made in order to secure admission. By its reference to commitments made by Israel, the General Assembly was indicating that it would not have decided to admit absent those commitments." (pp 133-35)

Of course, as we've known for decades, Israel was never serious about honouring either commitment. With this in mind, and given its record in violating countless UN resolutions, and general contempt for international law, Israel's continued membership in the UN should be up for review. As it stands, it not only serves to discredit that body in the eyes of the world, but also does irreparable damage to the reputation of the United States, given its self-imposed role as Israel's principal UN fig leaf.

Another Standout Australian Performance at the UN

"Australia was one of only 2 countries out of 54 nations to vote against a motion singling out Israel at the UN Economic and Social council (ECOSOC) late last month. The text of the motion accused Israel of, among other things, 'destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural lands and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as well as in the occupied Syrian Golan', the 'exploitation of natural resources' and of 'the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian territory... and in the occupied Syrian Golan'." (Australia stands up for Israel at the UN, The Australian Jewish News, 7/8/15)

The only other country to vote against the motion was the United States.

"Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop told The AJN Australia voted against the resolution 'because it was unbalanced. It unfairly singled out Israel for criticism and made no mention of Hamas' role in perpetuating the conflict which has done so much to impoverish the Palestinian people', she said."

Yes, Jools, there must be balance!

Hamas simply cannot be allowed to get away with the pretence that it isn't equally involved in the destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural lands and orchards in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Not to mention the dumping of waste materials in the West Bank and the Golan Heights... And in blockading and starving the Gaza Strip... And in shelling and bombing the bejesus out of it every year or so... And in...

Julie Bishop: From Zero to Hero in Just 4 Years

Thus spake Tone's Suppository of all Wisdom, Greg Sheridan, in today's Australian:

"This is a big call. But surely Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has never in her political career, indeed in her life, had a finer public moment than in the short, crisp, devastating speech she made to the UN Security Council rebuking Moscow. The rebuke was delivered for Russia's veto against a resolution to establish an independent tribunal to prosecute those responsible for bringing down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine... With no disrespect to our fine professional diplomats [hers] does not sound like a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade speech." (Julie Bishop's devastating denunciation of Russia over its MH17 veto was her finest hour)

High praise indeed. Yet it seems only yesterday that Greg was writing:

"Julie Bishop... has produced not a single sentence of substance or originality while in the portfolio." (Bishop's errors of judgment compound the Coalition's woes, The Australian, 14/2/11)

Ouch!

So how did Jules do it? How did she manage to go from prose zero to hero in just 4 years? Greg only knows!

But it's not his uncommon praise for she who can't quite see what international law has to do with Israeli colonisation of the West Bank that interests me, it's his concluding aside on Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

"Surely the most magnificent speech ever delivered at the UN came from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He was the US ambassador to the UN in 1975, when the General Assembly passed a resolution saying that Zionism equated to racism. Moynihan began his magnificent and justly celebrated address with these words: 'The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.' This fine speech contributed to the ultimate repeal of that notorious resolution. In the body of the speech, informed throughout by a white flame of moral outrage, Moynihan drew the implications of what the resolution meant for the UN: 'The abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty - and more - to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realisation that now presses upon us - the realisation that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened.' There is a faint echo of this in Bishop's call to the Security Council to persist in prosecuting the case of the killers of MH17 even in the face of Moscow's veto. Bishop's speech is not quite in the Moynihan class, but it is as good, and as important, a speech as any Australian has delivered at the UN for a very long time."

Er... I hate to break it to you, Greg, but there are two mega problems here.

The first is that Zionism is actually worse than racism - it's apartheid.

And the second is that Moynihan didn't write that silly speech. To see who did, go to my 22/4/14 post The Grooming of Gareth Evans & Pat Moynihan.

Warning: You can expect a few more posts on Sheridan this month, inspired by his just-released autobiography, When We Were Young & Foolish.

Down, Down to the Ground

We Come to Tear Your Wall Down

You have built a wall
So beautiful & tall
A monument to your vanity
And expensive insanity

With dynamite and some hammers
We will destroy your madness
And when we see your sadness
We will be filled with gladness

We come to tear your wall down
We come to tear your wall down
We come to tear your wall down
Down, down to the ground
Down, down to the ground

It has been no creation
A new kind of segregation
Fencing off the population
50 degrees of separation

But nature will not have it
The people who live in those houses
Can't flaunt their pretty tokens
Without some windows broken

We come to tear your wall down
We come to tear your wall down
We come to tear your wall down
Down, down to the ground
Down, down to the ground
(Transglobal Underground)

Herewith an open letter to the Australian Government by the Australian Friends of Palestine Association (AFOPA) and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN):

"This July marks 10 years since the International Court of Justice (the Court) handed down its Advisory Opinion on the legality of the wall constructed by Israel in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Ultimately, the court determined that Israel's construction of the wall was illegal, not because it was not entitled to build a wall for security or any other reason, but because 85% of the wall was being built on the Palestinian side of the Green Line - the armistice line agreed upon in 1948. In reaching its opinion, the Court articulated a number of basic legal principles that appear to have been forgotten by the present Government. Chief among these principles is that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in full; both East Jerusalem and the West Bank are 'occupied' by Israel; and all Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal.

"In reaching these conclusions, the Court referred to a number of legally binding Security Council resolutions, including 237 (1967), 271 (1969), 446 (1979), 681 (1990), 799 (1992) and 904 (1994). In spite of binding authority, Australia's current Foreign minister is reported to have said on a visit to Israel in January that she 'would like to see which international law has declared them [the settlements] illegal' and the Attorney General recently announced that East Jerusalem would no longer be referred to as 'occupied territory' by the Government.

"This apparent lack of understanding of the law by a serving Foreign Minister and Attorney General should be a matter of concern for all Australians as it has ramifications beyond the conflict in the Middle East. Not only do the Geneva Conventions regulate how civilians should be treated during military occupations and declare all settlement activity in occupied territory illegal (Geneva IV), but they also regulate how wounded servicemen and women should be treated (Geneva I & II), and regulate the treatment of prisoners of war (Geneva III). Once we start cherry-picking which obligations we will follow, and who has to follow them, can we really complain if in some future conflict we are denied the protection that these Conventions were intended to provide? For a legal system to work effectively, domestic or international, rights and obligations must be upheld by all, without fear or favour.

"This year marks another anniversary. It is exactly 100 years since the start of World War I. This is relevant because out of the ashes of two World Wars the four Geneva Conventions were born. They are an attempt to prevent one of the worst atrocities that claimed the lives of 80 million from ever occurring again. We, the undersigned, cannot think of a more futile waste of human life than if this generation of Australian leaders turn their backs on the legal obligations the post-war generation undertook. As another peace process collapses it is time to remind our leaders that for there to be peace with justice in the Middle East, negotiations must only take place within a legal framework. Accordingly, we call upon the Australian Government to clearly state and re-affirm our full commitment to upholding the international legal order, including all Security Council resolutions and, in the words of common Article I of the Geneva Conventions, 'to respect and to ensure respect for the present Conventions in all circumstances' both in the State of Palestine and beyond.

"We, the undersigned, urge the Australian Government to uphold a fundamental principle of international law - that the annexation of land by force is always forbidden, regardless of the circumstances.

"Australia must be part of the solution, not the problem."

The Grooming of Gareth Evans & Pat Moynihan

"It took the UN far too long to realize that Zionism is a form of racism, representing a blatant violation of the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the standards of international law. It was only in the wake of the 1967 war and the consequent war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli occupation forces, challenged by the renewed resistance of the Palestinian Arab people led by the PLO, that the UN corrected its record and passed General Assembly Resolution 3379 of November 1975 determining that 'Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination'. And it is, indeed, most regrettable that in the wake of the Middle East Peace Conference convened in Madrid in October 1991, co-sponsored by the USA and the former USSR, the General Assembly muddied its record again by passing Resolution 46/86 of December 1991, revoking Resolution 3379." (Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, 2003, p 3)

Gareth Evans, Australia's foreign minister (ALP) from 1988 to 1996, was a recruit/dupe in the Zionist campaign to have UNGA Resolution 3379 revoked, and is today President of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group. An ally of Bob Carr's in the revelatory events of November 2012, chronicled in Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister, Evans launched the book earlier this month. The following report on that occasion intriguingly harks back to Evans' participation in the 18-year Zionist assault on Resolution 3379:

"Mr Evans, an informal sounding board for Mr Carr during his stint as foreign minister... said lobbyists from the Victorian Jewish community had influenced him to campaign against the 'Zionism as Racism' resolution when he was foreign minister - and he was proud to do so because the cause was just. 'But it also lost me... when it lost its way, as it continues to do to this day, on the larger Palestinian issue'." (Gillard cloth-eared on Israel, says Evans, Brad Norington, The Australian, 15/4/14)

Isn't it amazing, the almost mesmeric sway these Zionist lobbyists seem to exercise over our politicians? Here's the even more opaque Zionist version of Evan's falling under the influence:

"Australia will back an attempt to seek support among Asian-Pacific nations to have the iniquitous United Nations Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism rescinded. Foreign Minister Gareth Evans gave this undertaking to a joint delegation from the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry in Canberra last week." (Australia will back move to rescind 'Zionism - racism', Australian Jewish News, 13/4/90)

You will not, of course, be surprised to know that Mark Leibler (now of AIJAC, then of the ZFA) was as integral to the process of grooming (or influencing if you prefer) Evans in 1990 as he was of grooming Gillard in 2012. Now while we know that Evans' was groomed by Leibler and Co, neither Evans' reference, nor the Zionist report of 1990, sheds any real light on the details.

We do though have details of the grooming of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003), the US Ambassador to the United Nations (1975-76) and the spearhead of USrael's opposition to Resolution 3379 in the UN, by Ziocon Godfather and editor of the influential US magazine Commentary, Norman Podhoretz (1930-).

It is tempting to see in Leibler's grooming of Evans in 1990 a parallel with Podhoretz's grooming of Moynihan in 1975. The following account of the latter comes from Norman Podhoretz: A Biography by Thomas L. Jeffers (2010)

"On July 9, 1975, Barbara M. White cabled the American Mission a euphoric report on the UN-sponsored International Women's Year Conference in Mexico City. Moynihan's initial reaction was happy: the United States could at last get on the side of the LDCs and, under the banner of feminism, pull some of them away from the Soviet lodestone. There were poisoned dregs at the bottom of the cup, however. With Israel and America voting no, the Conference had also called for the 'elimination of... Zionism, apartheid, [and] racial discrimination.' It was what Garment later named 'the thing from 20,000 Leagues Below the Sea.' He and Weaver told Moynihan that 'this is trouble, Zionism as a form of racism.' And Pat, leaning in, said, 'Well, isn't it?' Knowing next to nothing about the origins of Zionism or the subtler permutations of anti-Semitism, Moynihan didn't, Garment remembered, think it 'unreasonable for an ethicist to say that this is a Jewish people just taking the land from Palestinian people and declaring 'you're not going to come here, we're here'.'

"Bringing Moynihan up to speed, Garment and Weaver called on their 'biggest gun,' Podhoretz, more knowledgeable and more intimate with Moynihan than they were, to conduct dinner-table seminars. Podhoretz himself had learned a great deal about the history of the Zionism-as-racism calumny from the English-born Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis and got Moynihan to read him, too. Garment, 'though Jewish, was only just getting interested' in Israel, Podhoretz recalled: 'What Pat and Len together didn't know could, as the cliche goes, fill an encyclopedia.' But they soon caught on, Moynihan being 'a quick study, as intelligent a person as you could ever meet in higher walks of life, and he rigorously cross-examined me.' He also invited Podhoretz to compose most of the speech, especially the first paragraph, that he would give in the General Assembly when a UN resolution defining and denouncing Zionism as 'a form of racism and racial discrimination' came up for a vote - and passed." (p 182)

How utterly grotesque that a man like Moynihan, who started out with a perfectly accurate understanding of the dynamics of the Zionist project, should go on to became a mere mouthpiece for Podhoretz.

Here, BTW, is the opening paragraph of his aforementioned speech, assumed in his Wikipedia entry to be all his own work. It's Zionist hysteria and bombast at its best? worst?

"The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States representative in the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, 'obscene.' It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism - as this year's Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago - the abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction.. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty - and more to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us - the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened."

It'd be interesting to know whether Gareth Evans' promise to "back an attempt to seek support among Asian-Pacific nations," as the AJN put it, involved him in Australian taxpayer-funded travel to the region on Israel's behalf, and if it did, what exactly his talking points were. Did he too play the anti-Semitism and Holocaust cards I wonder?

In Defence of Rocket Scientists

"The Abbott government has re-calibrated its position on Israel [in the UN] to ensure that only 'balanced' UN resolutions are endorsed as it comes under pressure from the opposition to explain the shift." (Coalition now 'balanced' on UN Middle East votes, Joe Kelly & Brendan Nicholson, The Australian, 26/11/13)

Re-calibrated, eh? So Palestine/Israel really is rocket science?!

Ipso facto, rocket science is best left to rocket scientists, right?

Rocket scientists say awesome things such as:

"An approach which simply denies any possibility of flexibility towards the settlements is a recipe for a complete lack of progress towards a two-state solution." (ibid)

But of course! Why didn't I think of that?

Obviously because I'm not a rocket science.

The above pearl just tripped off the tongue of rocket scientist extraordinaire Peter Jennings, currently executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), and was thankfully recorded for posterity by a pair of adjacent Murdoch journalists, Joe Kelly and Brendan Nicholson.

How fortunate they just happened to be passing by.

Now rocket scientists, being rocket scientists, they have bloody brilliant careers.

Take Peter's for example:

*1980: BA (Honours) in History, University of Tasmania
*1985: Fulbright Fellow, MIT
*1987: Taught politics and international relations at UNSW
*1990: Defence adviser to the Federal Opposition
*1996: Chief of Staff to the Minister for Defence
*1998: Head of the Strategic Policy Branch
*1999: Co-Director of the East Timor Policy Unit
*2000: Sloan Fellow, London School of Economics
*2002: Deputy Director of the Defence Imagery & Geospatial Organisation
*2002-2003: Senior Advisor in the Prime Minister's Office
*2012: ASPI ED

Up up & away, eh?

Now you might think that a rocket scientist like Peter, who gets Israel/Palestine just like that, has read every scholarly book on the subject and then some. But you'd be wrong.

You see, his exalted status as a 'suppository of all wisdom' on all things Middle Eastern (not to mention everything else under the sun) derives not from the work of scholars and historians such as Edward Said, Ilan Pappe, or David Hirst, but from stellar entities beyond our ken (aka ASPI's corporate partners).

Entities such as:

*Lockheed Martin: an American security and aeronautics company which sells Super Hercules airlifters to Israel. (See Israel receives first C-130J Super Hercules: 'Shimshon', lockheedmartin.com.au)

*IBM (International Business Machines): an American multinational which provides IT and business consulting services to the the Israeli army, economy and academic institutions. (See: CJPME, Factsheet, Boycott campaign: IBM)

*EADS (European Aeronautic Defence & Space Company): a French company which works with the Israeli Aircraft Industry (IAI) to develop drone technology. (See: France: Biggest European weapons supplier to Israel, disarmzionism.wordpress.com)

Just think: where would our Middle East policy be without the superior knowledge and fine-tuning of rocket scientists like Peter Jennings?

The Bridge on the River Jordan

So Abbottoir (formerly known as Australia) is now lining up with 8 other countries at the UN, including South Sudan and Papua New Guinea, in abstaining from condemning Israeli settlement expansion.

Just so we know who we're giving the old wink & nudge to here, check out this soundbyte from Mr Tz, Israeli settler:

"Leibowitz* is right. We are Judeo-Nazis, and why not?... Even today I am willing to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg trial and jail me for life. Hang me if you want as a war criminal... What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not yet finished, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948..." (Here & There in Eretz Israel in the Autumn of 1982, Amos Oz, 1982, pp 70-82)

I wish that were all that Abbottoir got up to this month in the UN, but it's not. Apparently, having abstained, along with 5 other countries, on a resolution calling for Israel to comply, as an occupying power, with the Geneva Conventions, we no longer believe that they apply to Israel.

The Geneva Conventions? Now who'd have thought Abbotoir's leader, Tony Abbott, would be on Colonel Saito's side here:

Colonel Nicholson: I must call your attention, Colonel Saito, to Article 27 of the Geneva Convention. (Reading) Belligerents may employ as workers prisoners of war who are physically fit other than officers...
Colonel Saito: Give me the book!
Nicholson: By all means. You read English I take it?
Saito: Do you read Japanese?
Nicholson: Sorry, no, but if it's a matter of precise translation I'm sure that can be arranged. I see the code specifically states that the... (Saito slaps his face and hurls the book to the ground)
Saito: You speak to me of code? What code? The coward's code. What do you know of the soldier's code? Of Bushido? Nothing! (Grabs Nicholson's swagger stick and breaks it) You are unworthy of command!
Nicholson: Since you refuse to abide by the laws of the civilized world, we must consider ourselves absolved from our duty to obey you. My officers will not do manual labor.
Saito: We shall see.
(The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957)

So if Israel wants to deport Palestinians and replace them with Mr Tz and his mates, that's fine by Abbottoir.

You'll also be pleased to know that AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein "emphatically [welcomed] the government's principled leadership in changing these votes, reverting to the Howard/Downer position." (Tony Abbott quietly shifts UN position to support Israeli settlements, upsetting Palestinians, Jonathan Swan, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/11/13)

Alas, Abbottoir's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was unavailable for comment.

And all Shadow Foreign Minister Tanya (Once Were Warriors) Plibersek could say when asked was: "It's quite extraordinary that [the government] would make such a large change without reporting back to Australians." (Insiders, abc.net.au,  24/11/13)

[*Yeshayahu Leibowitz, 1903-1994]

Games Israelis Play

As part of its crusade against Professor Jake Lynch, Murdoch's Australia has lately gone out of its way to sell its readers on the virtues of Jerusalem's Hebrew University. (Lynch, you'll remember, had the nerve to decline an academic overture from a certain Dan Avnon of the Hebrew University because of his principled opposition to institutional ties between that university and his own, Sydney University.

Needless to say, like 20th century Palestine, the university has an 'interesting' history. Opened in 1925, its main campus, on Mount Scopus, a ridge which dominates Arab East Jerusalem from the north-east, was out of action academically from 1948 to 1967, isolated behind armistice lines in the Jordanian-controlled West Bank, and garrisoned by Israeli troops masquerading as a police force.

But Israel being Israel, as we shall see, it was not out of action militarily at the time.

Israeli propagandists, speaking through their Murdoch mouthpieces, have been at pains lately to pronounce the university kosher:

"Another spokesman, Amir Barkol, denied the campus had expanded on to occupied land. 'I can tell you 100% the campus is all on Israeli territory,' he said. Asked about the claim the university had extensive connections with Israeli weapons manufacturing companies, Mr Barkol said: 'I don't know anything about that. Which companies?'" (Anti-Israeli BDS campaign facing court test, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 31/10/13)

"Late last year, Professor Avnon was seeking Professor Lynch's nomination for a Zelman Cowan fellowship to study curriculums in Australia. Professor Lynch turned him down, citing his centre's pro-BDS policy and claims Hebrew University had links to the occupation of the West Bank." (Inside Jerusalem's university of freedom, John Lyons, The Australian, 1/11/13)

However, when one moves from the Israeli spin to an examination of the historical record, it becomes abundantly clear that, where Israeli officials is concerned, it's always what is done, rather than what is said, that counts.

Here, for example, is the testimony of the British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, Glubb Pasha. (The Arab Legion was the most effective of the Arab forces which intervened in May, 1948, to prevent Zionist forces from overrunning East Jerusalem and the West Bank.) It comes from Glubb's memoir, A Soldier with the Arabs (1957):

"One agreement was, however, concluded which was to result in a considerable problem for Jordan. The massive Jewish building on Mount Scopus. They consisted of the Hadassa Hospital and the Hebrew University, both great mountains of stone, situated on high ground dominating the Arab side of the city and cut off from the Jewish city by the suburb of Shaikh Jarrah. As soon as the Arab Legion had intervened in Jerusalem, Mount Scopus had been isolated. The Jews, however, had left a military garrison in the Hadassa and the University, which continued to fire into the backs of the Arab Legion who were defending Jerusalem. When we retaliated with mortars or, on one occasion, with the 25-pounders, there was an outcry about Arabs shelling hospitals. The Jordan government was informed that both the Hospital and the University had been built with funds voluntarily subscribed in the United States. Any attempt by us to destroy or capture these buildings would, we were told, produce intense indignation in America.

"When, therefore, [UN mediator] Count Bernadotte suggested that the buildings be demilitarised and handed over to the United Nations, the solution seemed to be a reasonable one. The Israeli government agreed to the proposal, but requested permission to leave some Jewish civil service in the buildings to prevent pilfering of the valuable medical equipment and the literary treasures of the University. Count Bernadotte was very explicit in his statement that Mount Scopus would henceforward be solely under the control of the United Nations. He said that it was his intention little by little to replace the Jewish by United Nations police. How this agreement was ultimately carried out after the death of the Count will appear later on in this narrative." (pp 145-146)

(If you know your Palestinian history, you'll know that Bernadotte, for his pains, was gunned down in September of the same year by the Zionist terrorist Stern Gang.)

Glubb returns to the issue of Mount Scopus, later in the book:

"A constant source of irritation throughout the years from 1948-1956 was the Israeli position in in the Hadassa Hospital and the Hebrew University. It will be recollected that the massive buildings which housed these institutions were built on Mount Scopus, a low ridge overlooking the Arab city of Jerusalem from the north-east...

"We soon discovered, from intelligence sources, that the men in Hadassa were not police at all, but a company of infantry. An Israeli prisoner of war, captured in a frontier incident, gave a detailed statement. He told how the infantry company to which he belonged had been brought to police headquarters in Jerusalem, where they had been dressed in police uniforms. They had then been sent as 'civil police' to relieve the garrison of Hadassa. (Reliefs took place once a fortnight on a convoy which passed through our lines.) The 'police' in Hadassah, the prisoner admitted, were always a company of regular infantry. Then one night a platoon of Israeli infantry endeavoured to infiltrate through our lines to the Hadassa. Ten men of this platoon were acting as armed escort, while the remaining 20 were carrying 3-inch and 2-inch mortar ammunition in packs on their backs. The party ran into an Arab Legion patrol, an engagement took place in the dark, and the Israelis retired hurriedly back to their front line, having dropped most of the mortar ammunition. Next day, the United Nations observers were taken to see it.

"The Hadassa was supposed to have been demilitarized - that is, stripped of weapons, except those of the 'police'. If there were no mortars in the buildings, why did the Israeli army want to smuggle in the ammunition? The garrison were alleged to be constructing defences, although they were supposed to be civilian police, whose sole duty was to prevent pilfering. We asked the United Nations Chief of Staff to make a personal inspection of the area, but when he arrived to do so, he was refused admittance. 'This is Israeli territory,' said the commander of the police, 'I cannot admit you without an order from the Israeli government.'

"We and the United Nations held copies of the agreement, signed by the Israeli commander in 1948, admitting that the Hadassa area would be under the sole jurisdiction of the United Nations. This result produced considerable bitterness in Jordan and in the Arab Legion. It would have been comparatively easy to capture the place in 1948. We were tricked into not doing so by the plan to demilitarize the area and hand it over to the sole jurisdiction of UNO. As a result of the weakness of the latter, the position remained a military fortress behind our lines, garrisoned by Israeli infantry, who made little or no attempt at concealment. They frequently fired rifle shots, or bursts of Bren gun, into the Arab city, and were still doing so at intervals when I left Jordan in 1956." (pp 342-343)

Things did not, however, improve following Glubb's departure. Here, for example, is the testimony of the head of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) from 1958-1963, General Carl von Horn.* It comes from his memoir, Soldiering for Peace (1966):

"It blew up around Mount Scopus this time, where the activities of the Jewish 'Police' garrison operating from behind a wire fence around the grounds of buildings of the Old Haddassah Hospital and the Hebrew University were arousing grave concern. Although the whole of the disputed area on these pine-covered slopes was officially under the supervision of the United Nations, the Israelis had always prevented us from carrying out our task. Now the garrison had taken to sending out armed patrols to harry their Arab neighbours in the dusty little village of Issawiya, insulting them and virtually sealing them off behind road blocks as soon as darkness fell. They were penetrating, too, into another area known as Solomon's Gardens, which they claimed was Israeli territory.

"At the root of the problem was the old problem of conflicting maps. But it could only be a matter of time before the Jordanian troops who were forced to watch their brother villagers being harried, would take vigorous counter-action. When I pointed this out to the Israelis they showed not the slightest interest. Some time before [UN Secretary-General] Dag [Hammarskjold]'s special representative, Dr Urrutia, had come out especially to try and settle the Scopus issue, but had been turned back by Israeli troops whilst visiting the area in full view of hundreds of watching Arabs. It struck me as unlikely I was going to be able to do much better.

"However, the daily reports of worsening tension from Colonel Flint (the Chairman of our Jordan-Israel M.A.C.) made it imperative I should try." (pp 83-84)

And he did - only to be blocked by those Israeli 'police'.

"Clearly the discomfiture which Dr Urrutia had suffered had been re-enacted for my especial benefit. I have no doubt it was staged deliberately, since the sight of the UN Chief of Staff being turned back in an area where he had every right to be was hardly likely to raise the prestige of the UN with the Arabs. But when I protested officially to Mrs Meir [Israeli PM], her only explanation was the rather inappropriate rejoinder: 'We Jews do not like to be pushed around'."

"Consequently, I had to leave investigations to Colonel Flint and his team of observers... He reported increasingly strong patrol activity, and I had every reason to rely on his considered opinion that unless steps were taken to check the Israeli patrols immediately, there was bound to be fighting."  (pp 84-85)

General Horn paid another visit to Mrs Meir who "pooh-poohed the whole issue. Three days later, an Israeli patrol in Solomon's Gardens was heavily fired on. Two of its soldiers were killed immediately, and the subsequent exchange of fire was both fierce and prolonged. Colonel Flint rushed up in an effort to intervene and rescue the survivors who had gone to ground. In the confused shooting which ensued, two more Israelis were killed, and Colonel Flint was shot dead. It was a senseless, stupid, unnecessary skirmish which could so easily have been prevented.

"The investigation which followed was little more than a farce. Our observers (at long last allowed inside the wire fence) soon discovered, whilst cross-examining the Israeli 'Police' Commandant, that every inconvenient question was followed by his withdrawal to another room to receive guidance and instruction over his radio. Feelings in Israel ran high. There was great bitterness about their dead and, as we might have anticipated, it was now the United Nations who were painted in the blackest colours. Our warnings, all our efforts, were conveniently forgotten, and we were now accused of having precipitated the incident. Mourning poor Flint... we were amazed at the ingenuity of the falsehoods which distorted the true picture. The highly skilled Israeli Information Service and the entire press combined to manufacture a warped, distorted version which was disseminated with professional expertise through every available channel to their own people and their sympathizers and supporters in America and the rest of the world. Never in all my life had I believed the truth could be so cynically, expertly bent." (p 85)

So the next time you come across the claims of Israeli PR people with regard to the Hebrew University, take them with more than a few grains of salt, and remember that whatever is said about the university not expanding onto occupied Palestinian land, every single access road to the place runs through occupied Arab East Jerusalem.

And maybe spare a thought for those martyred soldiers for peace, Count Bernadotte and Colonel Flint back in the days when the UN still stood for something.

[*See my 30/6/12 post Unlovable Rogues.]

The UN Goes to Water

It appears that Israel now has a veto of sorts in the UN.

A devastating, must-read report by The Australian's Middle East correspondent John Lyons:

"It would be difficult to imagine a more bizarre press conference. When UNICEF, the UN children's fund, recently notified journalists in Jerusalem that it was releasing a report on Palestinian children in Israel's military justice system, there was much interest.

"The issue has had a growing international focus, particularly in Britain where it has been the subject of parliamentary debates. Foreign Minister Bob Carr and his predecessor Kevin Rudd have taken up the issue with Israel. But something strange has happened.

"During the past 2 years several groups have been attacked for highlighting Israel's treatment of Palestinian children. Breaking the Silence, a group of 850 serving and former Israeli soldiers campaigning to improve Israel's human rights record, has been attacked for focusing on the issue.

"But not UNICEF. After the new report Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: 'Israel will study the conclusions and will work to implement them through ongoing co-operation with UNICEF, whose work we value and respect. This year Israel has joined the UNICEF board and our working relations and collaboration with the organisation are appreciated by the international community'.

"So why has UNICEF been spared an attack? It was obvious at the Jerusalem press conference that something was askew. The room had 60 chairs for only a handful of journalists. 'We were limited in the number of journalists we could invite', one official admitted. 'You wouldn't believe the pressure we were under to cancel this event', another said.

"Five UNICEF officials took their seats - with name tags and microphones - and television cameras were set up. It looked like a real press conference. Inquirer's photographer had brought a video camera to film for The Australian's website. But UNICEF's Jerusalem chief Jean Gough made an announcement: only the first 5 minutes could be filmed and no officials could be quoted. A press conference where you couldn't film? Or quote officials?

"Gough began speaking. During the first 5 minutes she praised Israel for its dialogue about the system under which Palestinian children from the age of 12 are tried by Israeli soldiers, while Jewish children in neighbouring settlements are tried before civilian courts. 'I want to thank them', she said of the Israelis.

"But once the cameras were off, a totally different story was told - one official said the ill-treatment of Palestinian children was 'widespread, systematic and institutionalised'; another told how Palestinian children were 'beaten, slapped and kicked' by Israeli soldiers. He said children were sometimes told they would be killed or that they or members of their families would be sexually assaulted if they did not confess, usually to stone-throwing. Another said there was 'a systemic pattern of abuse and torture'.

"This was not just media management but a distortion of the truth. The version from the first 5 minutes was highly positive to Israel, but the later version was of a horrific system in which children were taken from their homes - usually at night - by heavily armed soldiers, blindfolded, denied water and toilets, and even placed in solitary confinement for up to a month. And while UNICEF found Israel had engaged in actions that fitted its definition of torture, the report avoided using that word in its findings.

"An investigation by Inquirer suggested that UNICEF had caved in to pressure from Israel or self-censored. The more we questioned, the less UNICEF answered. Gough would not answer certain questions, referring us to UNICEF's New York executive director, Anthony Lake. But Lake would not answer a single question, even though he signed off on the report. In a circle of unaccountability, his office referred us back to Jerusalem because 'it is a report about children there, not a global report'. Lake's office stated: 'So we will close on this from HQ and you will receive your responses from the region'. But the Jerusalem office would not answer several questions - so for one of UNICEF's major reports many questions went unanswered.

"There were general references to torture, but when it came to specific findings the word was omitted. The report even deleted 'torture' when it quoted relevant sections of international law and substituted it with 'duress'. For example, it states: 'In the majority of cases, the principal evidence against the child is the child's own confession, in most cases extracted under duress during the interrogation... although many children reported providing confessions as a result of ill-treatment, few raise this matter before the court for fear that their complaints would lead to harsher sentences, even though international law prohibits the use of evidence obtained under duress by a court'. The report says this is based on article 15 of the Convention Against Torture - which refers to torture, not duress.

"The report lists practices that amount to 'torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment according to the Committee against Torture'. It says these include: restraining in painful conditions; threats, including death threats; kicking, punching and beating; excessive use of force; incommunicado detention; solitary confinement; sensory deprivation; not providing food and water. The report concludes that Israel has done many of these - but it does not use the word torture.

"Gough gave Inquirer various reasons for this. At first she said that if only one of these things was done it did not constitute torture. 'We don't have enough evidence to say that all of these things have happened to the one child', she said. Gough said UNICEF was not 'a complaints mechanism' and did not have enough staff to investigate individual cases.

"UNICEF says the evidence base for the report included more than 400 documented cases of ill-treatment. About 200 were provided by the Defence for Children International, which also gave UNICEF access to its report Bound, Blindfolded & Convicted. The cases in the DCI report included a boy who had his hands tied behind his back for 19 hours; a boy whose handcuffs were so tight that flesh came off; a boy who said he was hit in his testicles and a boy whose head was slammed against a wall.

"The bizarre Jerusalem press conference followed a year of debate. In March last year word emerged that UNICEF was not going to publish any report. One source said there were 'massive ructions' inside the organisation. The source said some argued that it would be wrong if the report was not published while others suggested the report could be postponed indefinitely, which would delay upsetting Israel. The source said a middle course was decided on - the launch would go ahead but the number of journalists invited would be limited to 'calm everybody down'. It was an extraordinary decision; normally organisations want as much coverage for their report as possible.

"Gough admits that during the draft process 'we took advise from Israeli lawyers'. Did the Israeli lawyers see the final draft? 'Of course', Gough says. 'We had a discussion on it. That is about ensuring we have a dialogue'. Gough, meanwhile, has been promoted to head the Nigeria office, UNICEF's second largest mission. Asked about her new job she says: 'It's a promotion'. But then she quickly adds: 'But not because of the report'." (UN's circle of unaccountability, 13/4/13)

Inevitably, as night follows day, AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein, an habitual defender of the indefensible, weighed in with a letter (17/4/13) accusing Lyons of "attack[ing] UNICEF for co-operating with Israel," and referring to what he called "the tone of moral outrage that has sometimes characterised [his] reporting."

Howling nonsense, of course, but typical of the capacity for Zionist propagandists to project their tactics onto others. You may, for example, recall Philip Mendes' letter in yesterday's post, which projected the typically Zionist 'Nasty Campaign to Boycott & Silence' (TM) onto Sydney University's SRC. Here we have Rubenstein projecting the equally typical Zionist 'Tone of Moral Outrage' (TM) onto Lyons.

Unlovable Rogues

One of the great mysteries of our time has been the collective Western delusion that Zionists are the epitome of normality, whereas Arabs are not. This strange delusion comes in many formulations: Zionists are moderates, Arabs extremists; Zionists are rational, Arabs irrational; Zionists are civilised, Arabs savages; Zionists defend, Arabs attack; Zionists are victims, Arabs perpetrators; Zionists are the good guys (to lapse into contemporary US baby babble), Arabs the bad, etc.

You've heard them all before. Put it down to a well-oiled propaganda machine, the likes of which the world has never before seen, and the classic human default positions of stupidity, credulity and simple  aversion to homework.

In fact, the reverse is generally the case, as the testimony of those who've had to deal directly with both groups attests. What follows is taken from Major General Carl Von Horn's 1966 memoir, Soldiering for Peace. Von Horn was the Swedish commander of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in Palestine from 1958 to 1963:

"Our raison d'etre as peacekeepers was objectivity and impartiality. Yet these very qualities were exactly those which led to hostility. It was understandable; time and time again in the course of frank discussions with Israeli officers and officials, I had heard them openly repudiate the idea of objectivity. Their flat statement, 'You are either for us or against us', explained why - having dared to be entirely objective - I had now been branded as irrevocably 'against'. I had seen it happen many times before from my predecessors down to the ordinary observer on the frontiers who, in the course of his duty, had incurred Arab or Israeli hostility simply because his impartial version had been very different from theirs. Even nastier was an Israeli tendency immediately to brand objectivity as anti-Semitic; a convenient label which could be smeared on to any UN soldier whose impartial report did not weigh down in favour of the Israelis.

"We had from time to time incurred a certain degree of animosity in our dealings with the Arabs, but never in the same implacable and frenetic way. The Arabs could be difficult, intolerant, indeed often impossible, but their code of behaviour was on an infinitely higher and more civilized level. I think that we all came to this conclusion in the UNTSO, which was strange, because there was hardly a man among us who had not originally arrived in the Holy Land without the most positive and sympathetic attitude towards the Israelis and their ambitions for their country. 

"Never in my life have I encountered a nation with such an infinite talent for turning goodwill into disillusion and so often disgust. It seemed as though the state were possessed of some demon with a capacity to turn potential friends into enemies. I am certain that I shall be bitterly attacked for setting down my impressions so frankly, but unfortunately they are the truth. All of us who went to Israel knew very little about the Arabs, but a great deal about the Jews and their appalling sufferings in the Second World War. I have never been - and am not - anti-Semitic; I have always numbered Jews among some of my closest friends since boyhood. I have good friends in Israel, wonderful families who stood by me and welcomed me into their homes during the height of the boycott. Many of our personnel, too, had close friends in the new state long before they came out to Jerusalem, and I would think that seldom before have the members of any organization - and this was a truly international one - started off with such a fund of goodwill towards a state which had emerged at the cost of such dreadful suffering.

"What went wrong? I always had a talk with staff members who were leaving the Mission. Invariably it was the same story. Nearly all of them had arrived with the honest intention to help both parties to the Armistace Agreement, but with a conscious sympathy for the people of 'poor little Israel'. Yet after two or three years in daily contact with officials, soldiers and private individuals on both sides, there had been a remarkable change in their attitude. I found it sad but very significant that when I asked them what their most negative experience had been during their service with UNTSO the reply was almost invariably: 'The consistent cheating and deception of the Israelis'." (pp 304-05)

Here We Go Again

We couldn't let Christmas 2010 come and go without a little pressie for our nearest and dearest now, could we? No bloody way!

So, on 24 December, Australia voted in the UN General Assembly, with Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the UK and the US, against the authorisation of a third UN World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) (dubbed Durban III) planned for September 2011.

The vote was 104-22 in favour, with 33 abstaining.

For the sorry saga of Australia's part in undermining last year's WCAR on Israel's behalf, simply click on the 'Durban II' tag below and read, in particular, Australia Dumps on Durban (20/4/09) & ADoD 2 (23/4/09).

Comedy Corner: I thought you might like to know what the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (what about the minor ones?) in the US had to say about the coming Durban III, the prototype of which, according to the CPMJO, was inspired by none other than everyone's favorite caveman, Osama bin Laden:

"The vote of the UNGA... sets the stage for a celebration of the outrageous events that took place during Durban I, which were permeated by manifestations of bigotry and hatred. The event is scheduled to be held shortly after the 10th anniversary commemoration of September 11th. It is hard to imagine a more insensitive action, recalling that the attack on the World Trade Center that killed thousands was carried out by those influenced by the same hateful ideologies that Durban I came to represent." (Durban III: Lines are drawn, virtualjerusalem.com, 29/12/10)

Call It Quits! Now!

The highs and lows of the Australian government's shameless cavortings with Israel must surely make us a laughing stock at the United Nations: "At a vote in the UN General Assembly - where Australia has been one of Israel's strongest supporters - the government abstained from a resolution demanding that Israel and the Palestinians investigate possible war crimes during the [Israeli] assault on Gaza... in December 2008. Three months ago, Australia voted against a similar resolution which sought to endorse the Goldstone report - a UN-sponsored paper which accused Israel and Hamas of war crimes. The Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, said yesterday that the change was not related to the passport scandal and that Australia abstained because the latest resolution did not specifically endorse the Goldstone report. (Australia abandons Israel in UN vote, Jonathan Pearlman/Jason Koutsoukis, Sydney Morning Herald, 1/3/10)

Butter wouldn't melt in this coquette's mouth: "'Our vote on the resolution was neither determined nor influenced by recent events', he said. The Australian government always considers UN resolutions on a case-by-case basis and on their merits. Australia abstained on this resolution because, unlike previous resolutions, it did not endorse the Goldstone report'." (ibid)

The little minx is fooling herself and playing us all for fools: "One Department of Foreign Affairs source told the Herald there was no doubt the decision to abstain was intended as a sign to Israel not to take Australian support for granted. 'A number of things made it easier for us to switch our vote', the source said. 'Firstly, the Americans helped [helped! helped!!] the Palestinians to soften the wording of this resolution compared to the last one. Secondly, a number of other countries had indicated that they were toughening their own positions on Goldstone*. But there is no question that the debacle surrounding our passports being used in Dubai helped to make up the government's mind to abstain. The final decision was taken late on Friday, Australian time, just a few hours before the vote. Our pattern in the past has been to vote with the US when it comes to Israel, to show as much support for Israel as possible. We were also aware that the UK's decision to vote in favour of the resolution was influenced by the fact that so many of their citizens had been caught up in the Dubai assassination'." (ibid)

[* Mark Latham's "conga line of suckholes" is in disarray at the UN: "Six other countries also changed their votes, including Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Some countries, such as Britain, France and New Zealand, shifted from abstention to support. Others, such as the United States and Canada, voted against both resolutions." (ibid) After its experiences with Israeli passport hunters, NZ's shift is hardly surprising. (See my 27/2/10 post Israel: The Ultimate Identity Fraud) Note too, that after helping the Palestinian Quislings soften the wording of the resolution, the US voted against it! You couldn't make this stuff up.]

The Australian government always considers UN resolutions... on their merits?!!! Did you know that if you stand close enough to Stephen Smith you can actually hear the ocean?

But there's worse. Don't forget that other, even more shameless, tart waiting in the wings. The more Israel slaps her around, the more ardent she gets. One snort of those Israeli pheromones and she's literally legless: "The opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, yesterday accused the government of downgrading its support for Israel as part of its campaign to win a UN Security Council seat. 'I don't understand the government's change of heart... The Coalition's position has been consistent. Having voted against the Goldstone report, we would continue to vote against it... Since coming to office the government has weakened Australia's long-held position of supporting Israel at the UN'." (ibid)

And the object of their misplaced affections? While his two Australian bitches snarl and claw at one another, he's typically above it all: "Privately, Israeli officials expressed little concern at the vote, saying the new UN resolution simply expanded a plan for internal Israeli investigations of the allegations raised by the Goldstone report." (ibid)

Do Australia and Israel deserve each other? It's hard sometimes to resist that unpalatable conclusion. What is to be done? as Lenin put it. Unfortunately, even a commentator as savvy as Amin Saikal, who concluded his perfectly correct prescription in yesterday's Herald - "It is time for the international community, specifically those states friendly to Israel (Australia included) to condemn Israeli state terrorism... and put pressure on it to behave within international norms and laws"* - with the inanity - "And thus stop being a delinquent actor, but one with a claim of being democratic, in world affairs" - can't quite say what has to be said. Delinquency, I'm afraid, is integral to the Zionist project of wiping Palestine off the map, and Israel as an ethnographic, Jewish, state, which has condemned the bulk of its indigenous population to exile or occupation, is inherently and irretrievably undemocratic. [* It is time for Israel's friends to condemn its acts of terrorism]

Two signs of an unhealthy relationship are the feeling that you're being emotionally abused and that you no longer have strong feelings about your partner, but reminisce about the feelings you used to have. Australia's relationship with Israel is displaying those signs. The abuse is only going to continue. It's time to end this deeply sado-masochistic relationship.

Israel's Errand Boy

United Nations members are divided into 5 regional groupings - African Group, Asian Group, Latin American Group, Eastern European Group, Western European & Others Group (WEOG). These groups nominate and vote for member states to join UN bodies such as the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. The WEOG also includes a subgroup of non-European (and two non-EU European) states, consisting of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Norway, and Switzerland. This subgroup is known by its acronym, JUSCANZ.

Plucky widdle Israel, the one with (bad) attitude and distinctive (dead) body odour, has, until now, been on the outside of the UN, pissing in as they say - the Arab and Islamic states in the Asian Group being understandably wary of the rogue's complete lack of respect for the territory of others and his habit of scent marking same and going straight for the jugular of anyone who comes near (although he has apparently had permanent membership in WEOG for UN activities in New York since 2004).

No longer, it seems. The lout is now inside, with his feet up, all bristles and barked orders, and will no doubt be pissing just about everyone off before too long, and - you guessed it - it's apparently all Australia's doing: "Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council's Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein said, 'Australia should be congratulated for its role in facilitating Israel's membership in [JUSCANZ]." Crossing his fingers, Rubes added, "'I hope this means Israel will finally be allowed to take part in all UN activities. For too long, Israel has been denied equal treatment at the UN. This is a small, albeit much delayed, step toward an end to the anti-Israel ground rules and hostile sentiment that has long prevailed in the halls of the UN'." (AIJAC congratulates Australia for its role in helping Israel achieve membership of UN subgroup, aijac.org.au, 1/2/10)

Apparently, the bugger's world record of 79 fingers* to 79 Security Council resolutions so far is neither here nor there.

[*Rogue state: Israeli violations of UN Security Council resolutions, Jeremy Hammond, Dissident Voice, 27/1/10]

Doctor Who?

No gathering of Zionists and Labor politicians these days is complete without both parties dropping the name of former Australian Minister for External Affairs (1941-1949) Dr Herbert Vere Evatt (1894-1965):

"[O]n 29 January 1949 PM Ben Chifley announced that Australia would become one of the first countries to recognise the new state of Israel, describing it as 'a force of special value in the world community'. As President of the General Assembly, 'Doc' Evatt then presided over the historic May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the UN." (Kevin Rudd, Federal Parliament, 12/3/08) [See my 14/3/09 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3]

"The pivotal role played by Australia - and one Australian in particular - in the establishment of the State of Israel was celebrated at a gala event in Sydney on Sunday night. The Tribute to Doc Evatt dinner, hosted by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia and the Zionist Federation of Australia, was held on the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the partition resolution that led to the creation of the Jewish homeland." (Honouring the Doc, The Australian Jewish News, 4/12/09)

"The work of Australian Labour leader Doc Evatt in 1947 towards the establishment of the State of Israel was acknowledged and Rudd received an ovation when he reminded the audience that 'the first country to vote for the establishment of the State of Israel was the Government of Australia'." (Rudd, Abbott & Shalom talk at Sydney Forum, jwire.com.au)

Get the picture? Doc Evatt's a Labor icon. Why, there's even an Evatt Foundation, at which you can read that: "[Evatt] realised many of the labour movement's highest ideals... His achievements and uncompromising stand for just principles in public life will always be remembered... Dr Evatt initiated Australia's first independent foreign policy and became widely recognised around the world as a supporter of the right of the smaller nations to peaceful development and equality... At the San Francisco Conference [of 1945], Dr Evatt spoke to the Great Powers on behalf of the other nations of the world with a voice that commanded universal respect. After 3 months of diplomatic struggle, the Charter of the United Nations was adopted, a Charter that had become more humane and larger in scope, now containing provisions for the poor, the weak and the oppressed, provisions that had never been envisaged by the Great Powers... In 1948 Dr Evatt was elected President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The only Australian to have ever held the position, he presided over the adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of human rights protection throughout the modern world." (Doc Evatt: A Brilliant & Controversial Character, evatt.labor.net.au)

Very impressive, on the surface, yet how does one reconcile the alleged mover & shaper of the UN Charter with his support for the partition of Palestine?:

Article 1(2) of the UN Charter informs us that one of the purposes of the UN is "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." Thus, partition being against the will of the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1947, their right to self-determination was violated.

Article 80(1) informs us that "nothing in [the charter's chapter on trusteeship] shall be construed in or of itself to alter the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the UN may respectively be parties." Thus, the rights of the Palestinian people under the mandate instrument, including the right of self-determination, are preserved.

And how does one reconcile the alleged mover & shaper of the UDHR, Article 13(2) of which reads, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country," with his evident lack of real concern for Palestinian refugees?:

"Evatt believed that the Palestinian refugees... should be treated as a separate humanitarian issue and that their unresolved status as refugees should not impede Israel's membership [of the UN]." (HV Evatt & the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist, Daniel Mandel, 2004, p 227)

Displaying a decidedly colonialist mindset, Evatt was clearly blinded by the light (unto the nations): "I believe the State of Israel will become a bulwark of Western Civilization in the Middle East." (ibid p 222); "... Israel has come to stay, will carry out the UN's decisions, and will be a powerful force for peace and justice within the UN." (ibid p 229)

Although laughably naive in hindsight, such a misreading of the Zionist project impelled Australia to back Israel's membership in the UN on May 11, 1949.

Speaking of which, here's the most interesting part of that General Assembly resolution (273 (III)): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 [181: partition resolution] and 11 December 1948 [194: Palestinian right of return resolution] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, The General Assembly... 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations."

That's right, to win membership in the UN Israel agreed to implement both Resolution 181 (in its entirety) and Resolution 194 which stated that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." Needless to say, Israel is still a member of the UN and those refugees are still waiting for it to implement their return - 61 years later.

Following Israel's membership in the UN, the question of the status of Jerusalem arose. If Israel were to implement all of the terms of Resolution 181, Jerusalem would come under full international control. Having, as we have seen, agreed to implement 181 as a condition of its UN membership, "peace-loving" Israel (and Jordan btw, which had taken control of East Jerusalem) would tolerate only a limited internationalisation of the Holy Places. This proved too much for Evatt, however. "So far as Australia is concerned," he wrote, "we shall adhere steadfastly to the principle of a UN international regime for the whole of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a corpus separatum." (Mandel, p 260) Australia thus went on to vote for a resolution calling for the internationalisation of Jerusalem.

Consistency surely requires that today's Labor politicians, who can't attend a Zionist gathering without invoking the 'legacy' of 'Doc' Evatt, base their Middle East policy on same. This includes, inter alia, the full implementation of UNGA resolutions 181 and 194, that is a two-state solution based on a 'Jewish' state in only 56% of Palestine (the % alloted to it by Resolution 181), international control of the whole of Jerusalem - East and West - and a return to their homes of all Palestinian refugees and their descendents. Should Israel not agree to this, the Rudd government should immediately begin proceedings to have Israel expelled from the UN.

Alternatively, they could stop dropping Evatt's name.

Norm & Jason

Just look at the kind of Israel-friendly language used by Sydney Morning Herald Middle East correspondent Jason Koutsoukis in his 19/11/09 report Netanyahu shrugs off world criticism:

"Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem"/"built on land [which] is regarded as an illegal settlement by the United Nations"/"Gilo is home to 40,000 Jewish residents and completes a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods."

Jewish neighbourhoods, not Israeli colonies. Jewish residents, not Israeli colonists. Is regarded as illegal by the UN [presumably just another source of subjective opinion], not 'is illegal under international law'. And the 'o' word, occupied - banished entirely!

Contrast this with the no-nonsense language of another news report in the same issue on Sahrawi activist Aminatou Haidar ('African Gandhi' risks life, Xan Rice): "The Moroccan Government, which considers Western Sahara to be its southern provinces, even though this has no foundation in international law..." Render this into Morocco-friendly language and "no foundation in international law" becomes 'regarded as illegal by the UN'...

Israeli propaganda, peddled in the mainstream media by the likes of Koutsoukis, wreaks havoc on the public's understanding of the criminal Israeli colonization underway in occupied Palestine. Look what happened when one of these know-nothing peddler hacks bumped into the formidable Norman Finkelstein on Danish TV (You can enjoy the video on Finkelstein's website):

Norman Finkelstein: Any talks or resolution of the [Israel/Arab] conflict has to be based on international law, and the law is clear: the basic priciple of international law is that it's inadmissable to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war, and therefore, in international law, it has no title to any of the Golan Heights. There has to be a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 4 border. That's a precondition. You can't resolve any conflict unless there are basic principles - and the principles for resolving the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Syrian conflict has to be international law.

Adam Holms: Just a couple of days ago Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon paid a visit to our studios. Just listen to what he says: 'Hamas is the real enemy of peace. Hamas is the enemy of Palestinian interests. By the way, Hamas does not represent Palestinian interests but Iranian interests. They're being helped and supplied and financed and equipped by Iran with the same ideology of sharia - a very radical Islamist entity...' It's pretty clear what he's saying: the onus rests with Hamas. What's your take on this?

Norman Finkelstein: Well it's not as if Hamas has been around since eternity. The Israelis had the option of settling the conflict with the Palestinians before January 2006 when Hamas was elected to office. If Hamas is the obstacle, then why weren't they able to settle the conflict before Hamas was elected into office? Because they refused the terms of the international community. Every year, as it happens, in November, the international community votes on a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly to settle the conflict and every year the vote is the same. The whole world on one side, 161 nations last year, and then there are the US, Israel, Naurau, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and sometimes Australia on the other side. The problem is not Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly said it's willing to settle the conflict in the June 67 border.

Adam Holms: But still they refuse to recognise the state of Israel.

Norman Finkelstein: Well they refuse to recognise what they call the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but under international law they're not obliged to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel. If you go back to 1947, Gandhi said he'd accept the reality of Pakistan but he would never accept the legitimacy of the state of Pakistan. And Hamas is not expected to be held to a higher level of diplomacy than Gandhi. Gandhi said Pakistan is a reality which I'm forced to accept but I don't accept it as legitimate and that's the same as the position of Hamas.

Adam Holms: But this is what makes Jerusalem wary of Hamas because they keep saying how can you have a neighbour that doesn't recognise our legitimacy?

Norman Finkelstein: You see the problem is... listen to your own language. You're just spouting Israeli propaganda. Why are you saying Jerusalem? East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. That was the ruling of the International Criminal Court in 2004, and if you look at the Goldstone Report that just came out... they refer to East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory. But now you've given over Jerusalem to the Israelis. You're just repeating Israeli propaganda. They have no title under international law to East Jerusalem.

Adam Holms (sheepish & defensive): Speaking of what you call my Israeli propaganda, which I refute, but anyway you're on record for saying that Israel is a terrorist state, a lunatic state... Why do you use such stark language about a state which is essentially just defending its own right to exist?

Norman Finkelstein: OK, you accuse me of using stark and provocative language, so let's take the renowned international jurist Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor for the war crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia - he came out a few weeks ago with a report on what Israel did in Gaza approximately a year ago and he said... Israel's purpose was to 'punish, humiliate and terrorise' a civilian population - terrorise a civilian population. So is Mr Goldstone guilty of incendiary language or is he simply accurately reporting on what happened? Terrorism is a fact and refers to the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve a political end, and Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals, so it's terrorism. I can't help it if that's what Israel chooses as its targets...

Adam Holms: Terrorist state or self-defence? It depends on the eye that looks at it.

Norman Finkelstein: No. Let's say for argument's sake that Israel were engaged in a war of self-defence in Gaza - that still means you can engage in terrorism. You can be engaged in a war of self-defence, but if, in the course of the war, you're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure then you're engaged in terrorism. That's the basic distinction in international law between the reason why you went to war and how you're conducting the war.

Adam Holms: What do you think the international community should do about Israel? How should the case of Israel be handled?

Norman Finkelstein: There's a very simple way to handle it. They should enforce the law. That is the easiest and most efficacious way to resolve the conflict.

Adam Holms: So Israel's been granted special treatment you say.

Norman Finkelstein: The law is not being enforced against it. Richard Goldstone is saying Israel is committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court if those who are guilty of these crimes are not prosecuted. Just enforce the law. These are not radical ideas...

Koutsoukis and his kind need a similar whipping.

Israel's Pacific Solution 2

Further to my 9/11/09 post Israel's Pacific Solution, today's Australian reports as follows: "Israel is sending a foreign ministry official to the Solomon Islands next week to seek an explanation as to why it was the only country in Oceania to vote at the UN for the Goldstone report condemning Israel's assault on Gaza... The Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau joined Australia in opposing the Goldstone report... Fiji, PNG, Samoa and Tonga joined New Zealand in abstaining." (Israel wants answers from Solomons, Rowan Callick)

What the fly on the wall is going to hear:

Solomon Islands, you've been a bad, bad, baaad boy. All the other nations in the Israeli - I mean Pacific - Ocean either voted against Goldstone or abstained... OK, you're right, not quite all... Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu were absent when the vote was taken. Such acts of truancy simply cannot be tolerated here in the Israeli - err Pacific - and rest assured I will be seeking an explanation from each of them. But you! Going for Goldstone! How could you? Gross insubordination! What on earth possessed you? If you couldn't quite bring yourself to follow the magnificent example of our Head Prefect, Australia, the very least you could have done was abstain. And you have the nerve to call yourself the Solomons - while dissing us, the dinky-di (a little slang I've picked up from our Head Boy) descendents of King Solomon himself! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now, Solomons, you see what I have here? ... No, I'm not listening to any of your lame excuses, boy. Put out your hand now!