France's former ambassador to Israel, Gerard Araud:
"The problem is that the disproportion of power is such between the two sides that the strongest may conclude that they have no interest to make concessions. And also the fact that the status quo is extremely comfortable for Israel. Because they [can] have their cake and eat it too. They have the West Bank, but at the same time they don't have to make the painful decision about the Palestinians, really making them totally stateless or making them citizens of Israel. They won't make them citizens of Israel. So they will have to make it official, which is an apartheid [situation]. There will be officially an apartheid state. They are in fact already." (A conversation with outgoing French ambassador Gerard Araud, Yara Bayoumy, theatlantic.com, 19/4/19)
Australia's former ambassador to Israel, "very proud ambassador for Israel to the world," and Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Wentworth, Dave Sharma:
"The documents... emphasised Mr Sharma's role in the decision [to move Australia's embassy to Jerusalem]. 'The Prime Minister will announce he has found the arguments put forward by Australia's former Ambassador to Israel... persuasive,' it said." (Australian embassies warned over security before Scott Morrison's Israel announcement, Dan Conifer, abc.net.au, 9/2/19)
Showing posts with label Israeli apartheid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israeli apartheid. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Gideon Levy: Israel is Voting Apartheid
An apartheid state voting for apartheid? Who'd have thought?
"There will be one certain result from Tuesday's election: around 100 members of the next Knesset will be supporters of apartheid. This has no precedent in any democracy. A hundred out of 120 legislators, an absolute of absolute majorities, one that supports maintaining the current situation, which is apartheid. With such a majority, it will be possible in the next Knesset to officially declare Israel an apartheid state. With such support for apartheid and considering the durability of the occupation, no propaganda will be able to refute the simple truth: nearly all Israelis want the apartheid to continue. In the height of chutzpah, they call this democracy, even though more than 4 million people who live alongside them and under their control have no right to vote in the election.
"Of course, no one is talking about this, but in no other regime around the world is there one community next to another where the residents of one, referred to as a West Bank settlement, have the right to vote, while the residents of the other, a Palestinian village, don't. This is apartheid in all its splendor, whose existence nearly all the country's Jewish citizens want to continue.
"A hundred Knesset members will be elected from slates referred to as either right-wing, left-wing or centre, but what they have in common surpasses any difference: none intend to end the occupation. The right wing proudly says so, while the centre-left resorts to futile illusions to obscure the picture, listing proposals for for a 'regional conference' or 'secure separation.' The difference between the two groupings is negligible. In unison, the right and left are singing 'say yes to apartheid.'
"As a result, this election is so unimportant, so far from crucial. So let's cut the hysteria and the pathos over the outcome. Neither civil war nor even a rift is in the offing. The people are more united than ever, casting their vote for apartheid. Whatever Tuesday's result may be, the country of the occupier will remain the country of the occupier. Nothing defines it better than all the other marginal issues... So there's no reason to hold our breath over Tuesday's results. The election is lost in advance. For the country's Jews, it will shape the tone, the level of democracy, the rule of law, the corruption in which they live, but it won't do a thing to change Israel's basic essence as a colonialist country.
"The far right wants the annexation of the West Bank, a step that would make permanent in law a situation that has long been permanent in practice. Such a step would present a tempting advantage. It would finally rip off Israel's mask of democracy and might finally generate opposition both in the country and abroad. But no person of conscience can vote for the fascist right wing, which includes people who advocate the expulsion of Palestinians or the construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount, the destruction of the mosques there, or who even dream about extermination. (From Israel is voting apartheid, Haaretz, 7/4/19)
"There will be one certain result from Tuesday's election: around 100 members of the next Knesset will be supporters of apartheid. This has no precedent in any democracy. A hundred out of 120 legislators, an absolute of absolute majorities, one that supports maintaining the current situation, which is apartheid. With such a majority, it will be possible in the next Knesset to officially declare Israel an apartheid state. With such support for apartheid and considering the durability of the occupation, no propaganda will be able to refute the simple truth: nearly all Israelis want the apartheid to continue. In the height of chutzpah, they call this democracy, even though more than 4 million people who live alongside them and under their control have no right to vote in the election.
"Of course, no one is talking about this, but in no other regime around the world is there one community next to another where the residents of one, referred to as a West Bank settlement, have the right to vote, while the residents of the other, a Palestinian village, don't. This is apartheid in all its splendor, whose existence nearly all the country's Jewish citizens want to continue.
"A hundred Knesset members will be elected from slates referred to as either right-wing, left-wing or centre, but what they have in common surpasses any difference: none intend to end the occupation. The right wing proudly says so, while the centre-left resorts to futile illusions to obscure the picture, listing proposals for for a 'regional conference' or 'secure separation.' The difference between the two groupings is negligible. In unison, the right and left are singing 'say yes to apartheid.'
"As a result, this election is so unimportant, so far from crucial. So let's cut the hysteria and the pathos over the outcome. Neither civil war nor even a rift is in the offing. The people are more united than ever, casting their vote for apartheid. Whatever Tuesday's result may be, the country of the occupier will remain the country of the occupier. Nothing defines it better than all the other marginal issues... So there's no reason to hold our breath over Tuesday's results. The election is lost in advance. For the country's Jews, it will shape the tone, the level of democracy, the rule of law, the corruption in which they live, but it won't do a thing to change Israel's basic essence as a colonialist country.
"The far right wants the annexation of the West Bank, a step that would make permanent in law a situation that has long been permanent in practice. Such a step would present a tempting advantage. It would finally rip off Israel's mask of democracy and might finally generate opposition both in the country and abroad. But no person of conscience can vote for the fascist right wing, which includes people who advocate the expulsion of Palestinians or the construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount, the destruction of the mosques there, or who even dream about extermination. (From Israel is voting apartheid, Haaretz, 7/4/19)
Monday, December 17, 2018
The Making of Morrison
Some gems from Scott Morrison's maiden speech, 14/2/08:
"Growing up in a Christian home, I made a commitment to my faith at an early age... "
Indoctrinated from birth...
"My personal faith in Jesus Christ is not a political agenda... "
OK...
"In recent times it has become fashionable to negatively stereotype those who profess their Christian faith in public life as 'extreme' and to suggest that faith has no place in the political debate of this country."
Contradicts himself...
"This presents a significant challenge for those of us... who seek to follow the example of... Desmond Tutu... [This leader] stood for the immutable truths and principles of the Christian faith."
My goodness, is this the same Archbishop Tutu who wrote "I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of apartheid"? (Divesting from injustice, huffingtonpost.com, 25/5/11)
And who praised the work of UC Berkeley BDS activists "in support of divesting the university's money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights"? (ibid)
And who pointed out that "these students are doing the right thing... the moral thing... which is incumbent on them as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings"? (ibid)
Mr Morrison, you're no Desmond Tutu.
"Growing up in a Christian home, I made a commitment to my faith at an early age... "
Indoctrinated from birth...
"My personal faith in Jesus Christ is not a political agenda... "
OK...
"In recent times it has become fashionable to negatively stereotype those who profess their Christian faith in public life as 'extreme' and to suggest that faith has no place in the political debate of this country."
Contradicts himself...
"This presents a significant challenge for those of us... who seek to follow the example of... Desmond Tutu... [This leader] stood for the immutable truths and principles of the Christian faith."
My goodness, is this the same Archbishop Tutu who wrote "I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of apartheid"? (Divesting from injustice, huffingtonpost.com, 25/5/11)
And who praised the work of UC Berkeley BDS activists "in support of divesting the university's money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights"? (ibid)
And who pointed out that "these students are doing the right thing... the moral thing... which is incumbent on them as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings"? (ibid)
Mr Morrison, you're no Desmond Tutu.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Spinning Israel's Jewish Nation-State Law
Editorial commentary in support of each and every Israeli turn of the screw is, to say the least, conspicuous by its presence in Murdoch's Australian, yet on the subject of the apartheid state's latest addition to its 50+ apartheid laws, the nation-state law, The Australian's editor has so far said zip.
Yesterday, however, The Australian published an opinion piece (Illiberalism lies with the critics of Jewish nation-state law, 23/7/18) in defence of the legislation by one, Eugene Kontorovich, described as "a scholar at the Jerusalem think tank Kohelet Policy Forum." (This outfit describes itself on its website as "striving to secure Israel's future as the nation-state of the Jewish people, strengthening representative democracy, and broadening individual liberty and free market principles in Israel.")
Kontorovich would have us believe that:
"... Israel's Basic Law would not be out of place among the liberal democratic constitutions of Europe - which include similar provisions that have not aroused controversy... Consider the Slovak constitution, which opens with the words, 'We the Slovak nation', and lays claim to 'the natural right of nations to self-determination'."
What he omits to mention, of course, is that, unlike Slovakia, there is nothing 'natural' about Israel or its political evolution. Slovakia's emergence as a nation was a natural progression following the breakup of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I and was based on the Wilsonian principle of national self-determination. The same natural process should have been applied to Palestine under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice... by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Instead, the Palestinians were deliberately denied their 'natural right to self-determination', first by the British on behalf of the Zionist settlers who were allowed to flood into Palestine from 1918 on, and then by the Zionist settler state of Israel following the military takeover and ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine by Zionist terror gangs in 1948. As Britain's foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour (of Balfour Declaration infamy) wrote in 1919: "The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policies of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the 'independent nation' of Palestine... For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country..."
But there's more. Why are we all up-in-arms about Israeli settlements? After all, they had the blessing of the - wait for it! - League of Nations:
"Another controversial provision of the law declares 'the development of Jewish settlement' to be a national value that the government should promote. It is understood to refer to encouraging population dispersion into the periphery of the country. This essentially restates policy adopted by the international community in 1922 in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which sought to 'encourage... close settlement by Jews'."
More sins of omission:
1) The League of Nations, from its inception, was little more than a rubber stamp in the hands of the two post WWI imperial powers, Britain and France.
2) The Palestine Mandate was given to Britain... by Britain. As to its composition, the great J.M.N. Jeffries revealed: "The Mandate followed the precedent of the Balfour Declaration [which was incorporated into the text of the Mandate]. It was drafted in quiet between the [British] Government and the Zionists, mostly by the Zionists, and then it was issued under the cover of the League of Nations, as though it were the result of the collected debates of the world's lawgivers." (Palestine: The Reality (1939), pp 522-23)
Note also the angry words of Britain's then foreign secretary Lord Curzon, who said of the draft Mandate: "Acting upon (? against) the noble principle of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document which reeks of Judaism in every paragraph and is an avowed constitution of a Jewish state - and the poor Arabs are only allowed to look through the keyhole as a non-Jewish community. It is quite clear that this mandate has been drawn up by someone reeling under the fumes of Zionism." (A.L.Tibawi, Anglo-Arab Relations & The Question of Palestine 1914-1921 (1977), pp 427-28)
Yesterday, however, The Australian published an opinion piece (Illiberalism lies with the critics of Jewish nation-state law, 23/7/18) in defence of the legislation by one, Eugene Kontorovich, described as "a scholar at the Jerusalem think tank Kohelet Policy Forum." (This outfit describes itself on its website as "striving to secure Israel's future as the nation-state of the Jewish people, strengthening representative democracy, and broadening individual liberty and free market principles in Israel.")
Kontorovich would have us believe that:
"... Israel's Basic Law would not be out of place among the liberal democratic constitutions of Europe - which include similar provisions that have not aroused controversy... Consider the Slovak constitution, which opens with the words, 'We the Slovak nation', and lays claim to 'the natural right of nations to self-determination'."
What he omits to mention, of course, is that, unlike Slovakia, there is nothing 'natural' about Israel or its political evolution. Slovakia's emergence as a nation was a natural progression following the breakup of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I and was based on the Wilsonian principle of national self-determination. The same natural process should have been applied to Palestine under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice... by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Instead, the Palestinians were deliberately denied their 'natural right to self-determination', first by the British on behalf of the Zionist settlers who were allowed to flood into Palestine from 1918 on, and then by the Zionist settler state of Israel following the military takeover and ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine by Zionist terror gangs in 1948. As Britain's foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour (of Balfour Declaration infamy) wrote in 1919: "The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policies of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the 'independent nation' of Palestine... For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country..."
But there's more. Why are we all up-in-arms about Israeli settlements? After all, they had the blessing of the - wait for it! - League of Nations:
"Another controversial provision of the law declares 'the development of Jewish settlement' to be a national value that the government should promote. It is understood to refer to encouraging population dispersion into the periphery of the country. This essentially restates policy adopted by the international community in 1922 in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which sought to 'encourage... close settlement by Jews'."
More sins of omission:
1) The League of Nations, from its inception, was little more than a rubber stamp in the hands of the two post WWI imperial powers, Britain and France.
2) The Palestine Mandate was given to Britain... by Britain. As to its composition, the great J.M.N. Jeffries revealed: "The Mandate followed the precedent of the Balfour Declaration [which was incorporated into the text of the Mandate]. It was drafted in quiet between the [British] Government and the Zionists, mostly by the Zionists, and then it was issued under the cover of the League of Nations, as though it were the result of the collected debates of the world's lawgivers." (Palestine: The Reality (1939), pp 522-23)
Note also the angry words of Britain's then foreign secretary Lord Curzon, who said of the draft Mandate: "Acting upon (? against) the noble principle of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document which reeks of Judaism in every paragraph and is an avowed constitution of a Jewish state - and the poor Arabs are only allowed to look through the keyhole as a non-Jewish community. It is quite clear that this mandate has been drawn up by someone reeling under the fumes of Zionism." (A.L.Tibawi, Anglo-Arab Relations & The Question of Palestine 1914-1921 (1977), pp 427-28)
Sunday, July 22, 2018
The Netanyahu Declaration
On the subject of Israel's latest APARTHEID legislation:
"'We have determined in law the founding principle of our existence,' [Netanyahu] said. 'Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and respects the rights of all of its citizens'." (More equal than others, David Halbfinger & Isabel Kershner, The New York Times/Sydney Morning Herald, 21/7/18)
Note the second half of Netanyahu's sentence: "and respects the rights of all of its citizens."
Remind you of anything?
That's right, the Balfour Declaration's utterly hollow, 'safeguard' clause:
"... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities... "
Moving along, here's a Palestinian Israeli perspective on the new bill, which fleshes out just what it means to live as a non-Jew in a Jewish state, from Yousef Jabareen, MK (Hadash), Israel just dropped the pretense of equality for Palestinian citizens (latimes.com, 20/7/18):
"The Israeli Knesset on Thursday passed into law a bill designed to make a permanent underclass of Palestinian citizens. It threatens to set the country on a course to a full-blown Jewish theocracy. The so-called 'Jewish nation-state' bill formalizes in Israeli law the superior rights and privileges that Jewish citizens of the state enjoy over its indigenous Palestinian minority, who comprise roughly 20% of the population. It demotes Arabic from one of two official languages to a mere 'special' status, deepens racial segregation by directing the government to 'encourage and promote' Jewish settlement, and declares that the right to self-determination in Israel is 'exclusive' to the Jewish people, denying the history and ancient Palestinian roots in this land. It also prioritizes the Jewishness of the state over its democratic character, omitting any reference to 'democracy' or 'equality'.
"The final reading of the nation-state bill took place just days after the Knesset rejected a bill that I, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and Knesset member, had introduced. My bill called for Israel to guarantee full equality for all of its citizens, regardless of religion or race. A similar bill introduced in June calling for Israel to be a country 'for all its citizens' was banned from even being discussed. The fate of these three bills confirms what Palestinians have always known: In Israel, only Jews enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
"The tension of being a Palestinian citizen of a country that defines itself as Jewish has shaped every aspect of my life, from early childhood to my career as a human rights activist and a member of Israel's parliament today.
"I was born in Umm al Fahem, which pre-dates the state of Israel and is one of the largest Palestinian towns in the country. Although it is bigger and older than the Jewish municipalities that surround it, the residents of Umm al Fahem are denied the same quality of public services that Jewish towns receive, including in healthcare and public transportation.
"I first began to understand the unequal nature of Israeli society when I was 12 years old and started going to school in nearby Nazareth. Because we didn't have a bus station, I had to hitch a ride to and from class every day and witness the stark contrast between the crumbling buildings, roads, and other underfunded public infrastructure in Umm al Fahem and those of the affluent Jewish towns I traveled through.
"Every day, I would also pass by the village where members of my mother's family lived before Israel's establishment, Al Lajjun. They were uprooted and told they could not return. Israel's destruction of Palestinian communities like my ancestral village continues today, in places like Umm al-Hiran, a town in southern Israel facing destruction so that it can be replaced with a city for Jews (to be called 'Hiran').
"The nation-state bill further marginalizes my community and entrenches Israel's regime of racial discrimination and deterioration into apartheid. It will lead to more racist, anti-democratic laws, adding to the more than 50 laws already on the books that disadvantage non-Jewish citizens.
"In contrast, the bill I introduced called for the country to become a democracy that guarantees complete civil and national equality to all who live within its borders. It would have ensured that Israeli law is based on universal values that recognize both Arab and Jewish ethnic groups. The state would have been required to invest the wealth of this land for the benefit of all its citizens, not just a privileged majority. There would be equal status for the Arabic language and culture, and inclusive national symbols, so Palestinian girls and boys would feel welcome in their own country, and no longer have to be represented by a country's flag containing religious symbols that are not their own.
"Like President Trump in the United States and right-wing demagogues elsewhere, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government wish to turn the clock back on humanity's march toward a freer, more just and egalitarian world. Imagine if Trump and the Republican Party passed a constitutional amendment declaring the U.S. to be officially a Christian state, formally subordinating the country's democracy to right-wing, fundamentalist Christian principles, and encouraging American cities and towns to exclude Jews, Muslims and indigenous Americans.
"That is the situation that Palestinians in Israel face today. As we continue our struggle for equal citizenship and the just rights of Palestinians everywhere, we call on our brothers and sisters of conscience in the U.S. and around the world to support our shared vision for enlightened democracy and the well-being of all people, regardless of race or religion."
"'We have determined in law the founding principle of our existence,' [Netanyahu] said. 'Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and respects the rights of all of its citizens'." (More equal than others, David Halbfinger & Isabel Kershner, The New York Times/Sydney Morning Herald, 21/7/18)
Note the second half of Netanyahu's sentence: "and respects the rights of all of its citizens."
Remind you of anything?
That's right, the Balfour Declaration's utterly hollow, 'safeguard' clause:
"... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities... "
Moving along, here's a Palestinian Israeli perspective on the new bill, which fleshes out just what it means to live as a non-Jew in a Jewish state, from Yousef Jabareen, MK (Hadash), Israel just dropped the pretense of equality for Palestinian citizens (latimes.com, 20/7/18):
"The Israeli Knesset on Thursday passed into law a bill designed to make a permanent underclass of Palestinian citizens. It threatens to set the country on a course to a full-blown Jewish theocracy. The so-called 'Jewish nation-state' bill formalizes in Israeli law the superior rights and privileges that Jewish citizens of the state enjoy over its indigenous Palestinian minority, who comprise roughly 20% of the population. It demotes Arabic from one of two official languages to a mere 'special' status, deepens racial segregation by directing the government to 'encourage and promote' Jewish settlement, and declares that the right to self-determination in Israel is 'exclusive' to the Jewish people, denying the history and ancient Palestinian roots in this land. It also prioritizes the Jewishness of the state over its democratic character, omitting any reference to 'democracy' or 'equality'.
"The final reading of the nation-state bill took place just days after the Knesset rejected a bill that I, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and Knesset member, had introduced. My bill called for Israel to guarantee full equality for all of its citizens, regardless of religion or race. A similar bill introduced in June calling for Israel to be a country 'for all its citizens' was banned from even being discussed. The fate of these three bills confirms what Palestinians have always known: In Israel, only Jews enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
"The tension of being a Palestinian citizen of a country that defines itself as Jewish has shaped every aspect of my life, from early childhood to my career as a human rights activist and a member of Israel's parliament today.
"I was born in Umm al Fahem, which pre-dates the state of Israel and is one of the largest Palestinian towns in the country. Although it is bigger and older than the Jewish municipalities that surround it, the residents of Umm al Fahem are denied the same quality of public services that Jewish towns receive, including in healthcare and public transportation.
"I first began to understand the unequal nature of Israeli society when I was 12 years old and started going to school in nearby Nazareth. Because we didn't have a bus station, I had to hitch a ride to and from class every day and witness the stark contrast between the crumbling buildings, roads, and other underfunded public infrastructure in Umm al Fahem and those of the affluent Jewish towns I traveled through.
"Every day, I would also pass by the village where members of my mother's family lived before Israel's establishment, Al Lajjun. They were uprooted and told they could not return. Israel's destruction of Palestinian communities like my ancestral village continues today, in places like Umm al-Hiran, a town in southern Israel facing destruction so that it can be replaced with a city for Jews (to be called 'Hiran').
"The nation-state bill further marginalizes my community and entrenches Israel's regime of racial discrimination and deterioration into apartheid. It will lead to more racist, anti-democratic laws, adding to the more than 50 laws already on the books that disadvantage non-Jewish citizens.
"In contrast, the bill I introduced called for the country to become a democracy that guarantees complete civil and national equality to all who live within its borders. It would have ensured that Israeli law is based on universal values that recognize both Arab and Jewish ethnic groups. The state would have been required to invest the wealth of this land for the benefit of all its citizens, not just a privileged majority. There would be equal status for the Arabic language and culture, and inclusive national symbols, so Palestinian girls and boys would feel welcome in their own country, and no longer have to be represented by a country's flag containing religious symbols that are not their own.
"Like President Trump in the United States and right-wing demagogues elsewhere, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government wish to turn the clock back on humanity's march toward a freer, more just and egalitarian world. Imagine if Trump and the Republican Party passed a constitutional amendment declaring the U.S. to be officially a Christian state, formally subordinating the country's democracy to right-wing, fundamentalist Christian principles, and encouraging American cities and towns to exclude Jews, Muslims and indigenous Americans.
"That is the situation that Palestinians in Israel face today. As we continue our struggle for equal citizenship and the just rights of Palestinians everywhere, we call on our brothers and sisters of conscience in the U.S. and around the world to support our shared vision for enlightened democracy and the well-being of all people, regardless of race or religion."
Friday, July 20, 2018
Israel's Latest Apartheid Law
Still not convinced that Israel is an apartheid state?
No, I'm not talking about Israeli apartheid in the occupied West Bank, for details of which you can scan my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In. I'm talking about Israeli apartheid west of the Green Line, in Israel itself.
As the Israeli scholar and activist Uri Davis points out in his seminal/must-read book Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within (2003) (claims to being 'the only democracy in the Middle East' notwithstanding), Israel is "probably the last remaining apartheid state member of the UN." This, he asserts, arises from "the regulation of racism in law through Acts of the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset), resulting in 93% of all the territory of pre-1967 Israel being designated in law through Acts of the Knesset for cultivation, development and settlement by, of and for Jews only." Davis goes on to explain, in contrast to South African apartheid, that "the key legal distinction in Zionist apartheid legislation in Israel is between 'Jew' and 'non-Jew'." This distinction, "as institutionalized in the Constitutions and Articles of Association of all the bodies affiliated to the World Zionist Organization, is incorporated into the body of the laws of the State of Israel, notably the body of strategic legislation governing land tenure." (pp 39-42)
Davis lists this apartheid legislation as follows:
*1950: Absentees' Property Law; Law of Return; Development Authority Law;
*1952: World Zionist Organization - Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (Status) Law;
*1953: Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (Jewish National Fund) Law; Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law;
*1954: Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Zionist Executive, also known as the Executive of the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel;
*1958: Prescription Law;
*1960: Basic Law: Israel Lands; Israel Lands Law; Israel Lands Administration Law;
*1961: Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Jewish National Fund.
To this "mainstay of Israeli apartheid," as Davis calls it, can now be added Israel's newest apartheid law, The Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People, which "describes Israel as 'the national home of the Jewish people' and says the right to exercise national self-determination there is 'unique to the Jewish people'." (Jewish nation state: Israel approves controversial bill, bbc.co.uk, 20/7/18)
But don't expect Australia's corporate media to call a spade a spade and invoke the A word. There was nothing whatever on the matter in today's Sydney Morning Herald, and the Associated Press report in The Australian could do no better than cite critics to the effect that the new law was "racist" and would "marginalise the country's Arab minority." (Knesset votes for Jewish nation state)
No, I'm not talking about Israeli apartheid in the occupied West Bank, for details of which you can scan my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In. I'm talking about Israeli apartheid west of the Green Line, in Israel itself.
As the Israeli scholar and activist Uri Davis points out in his seminal/must-read book Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within (2003) (claims to being 'the only democracy in the Middle East' notwithstanding), Israel is "probably the last remaining apartheid state member of the UN." This, he asserts, arises from "the regulation of racism in law through Acts of the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset), resulting in 93% of all the territory of pre-1967 Israel being designated in law through Acts of the Knesset for cultivation, development and settlement by, of and for Jews only." Davis goes on to explain, in contrast to South African apartheid, that "the key legal distinction in Zionist apartheid legislation in Israel is between 'Jew' and 'non-Jew'." This distinction, "as institutionalized in the Constitutions and Articles of Association of all the bodies affiliated to the World Zionist Organization, is incorporated into the body of the laws of the State of Israel, notably the body of strategic legislation governing land tenure." (pp 39-42)
Davis lists this apartheid legislation as follows:
*1950: Absentees' Property Law; Law of Return; Development Authority Law;
*1952: World Zionist Organization - Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (Status) Law;
*1953: Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (Jewish National Fund) Law; Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law;
*1954: Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Zionist Executive, also known as the Executive of the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel;
*1958: Prescription Law;
*1960: Basic Law: Israel Lands; Israel Lands Law; Israel Lands Administration Law;
*1961: Covenant between the Government of Israel and the Jewish National Fund.
To this "mainstay of Israeli apartheid," as Davis calls it, can now be added Israel's newest apartheid law, The Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People, which "describes Israel as 'the national home of the Jewish people' and says the right to exercise national self-determination there is 'unique to the Jewish people'." (Jewish nation state: Israel approves controversial bill, bbc.co.uk, 20/7/18)
But don't expect Australia's corporate media to call a spade a spade and invoke the A word. There was nothing whatever on the matter in today's Sydney Morning Herald, and the Associated Press report in The Australian could do no better than cite critics to the effect that the new law was "racist" and would "marginalise the country's Arab minority." (Knesset votes for Jewish nation state)
Friday, June 8, 2018
Don't Even Think About It
What makes Israel different from every other country on earth (apart, that is, from its cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs who stand up to its bullying) is that it is not a state of its citizens, but, in line with its 'Jewish state' Zionist ideology, the state of Jews all over the world - whether or not they wish to take up or refuse Israeli citizenship.
This, of course, means that while Jews get the red carpet treatment should they ever wish to avail themselves of Israeli citizenship, non-Jewish, indigenous Palestinian Arabs, whether evicted from their Palestinian homeland by Israeli forces in 1948 and 1967, or subjected to Israeli military occupation and the violence of Israeli settler thugs since 1967, haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell of ever being granted Israeli citizenship.
Yes, the Palestinian remnant, which escaped being ethnically cleansed in 1948, and which now constitutes 20% of Israel's population, are Israeli citizens, but of a distinctly inferior, second-class kind.
As it happens, one of the latter's MKs had recently dared to place a bill on the Knesset's agenda, calling for Israel "to be defined as a state of all its citizens." That is, mandating real equality between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.
The result? "On June 5, the Knesset issued a press release stating that its Presidium (a group consisting of the speaker and deputy speakers) voted to disqualify [it]." (Israeli lawmakers kill 'equality of all citizens' bill before it is even introduced, Mohamed Mohamed, mondoweiss.net, 6/6/18)
Yes, Virginia, Israel is an apartheid state.
This, of course, means that while Jews get the red carpet treatment should they ever wish to avail themselves of Israeli citizenship, non-Jewish, indigenous Palestinian Arabs, whether evicted from their Palestinian homeland by Israeli forces in 1948 and 1967, or subjected to Israeli military occupation and the violence of Israeli settler thugs since 1967, haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell of ever being granted Israeli citizenship.
Yes, the Palestinian remnant, which escaped being ethnically cleansed in 1948, and which now constitutes 20% of Israel's population, are Israeli citizens, but of a distinctly inferior, second-class kind.
As it happens, one of the latter's MKs had recently dared to place a bill on the Knesset's agenda, calling for Israel "to be defined as a state of all its citizens." That is, mandating real equality between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.
The result? "On June 5, the Knesset issued a press release stating that its Presidium (a group consisting of the speaker and deputy speakers) voted to disqualify [it]." (Israeli lawmakers kill 'equality of all citizens' bill before it is even introduced, Mohamed Mohamed, mondoweiss.net, 6/6/18)
Yes, Virginia, Israel is an apartheid state.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Apartheid Israel Speaks
It's Friday again, and as we await today's body count of dead and wounded Palestinians in the Gaza Ghetto, contemplate these appalling (and telling) statistics:
"Israelis overwhelmingly back the shooting of peaceful Palestinian protesters at the Gaza border and US President Donald Trump's plans to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Occupied Jerusalem, a new poll has found. Conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute, the poll shows that... 83% of Israelis say they support the shooting policy. Since March 30, 44 Palestinians have been killed, including 5 minors, and over 6,000 others injured in aggressive attacks by the Israeli military on the great March of Return protests staged at Gaza's border... The poll [also] shows that 63% of all Israelis say the embassy move benefits Israel." (Israelis strongly back shooting Palestinians at Gaza border, english.palinfo.com, 3/5/18)
"Israelis overwhelmingly back the shooting of peaceful Palestinian protesters at the Gaza border and US President Donald Trump's plans to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Occupied Jerusalem, a new poll has found. Conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute, the poll shows that... 83% of Israelis say they support the shooting policy. Since March 30, 44 Palestinians have been killed, including 5 minors, and over 6,000 others injured in aggressive attacks by the Israeli military on the great March of Return protests staged at Gaza's border... The poll [also] shows that 63% of all Israelis say the embassy move benefits Israel." (Israelis strongly back shooting Palestinians at Gaza border, english.palinfo.com, 3/5/18)
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Challenging Chomsky on BDS
I spent some time recently listening to the 8/7/10 Alison Weir (of If Americans Knew & Council for the National Interest) interview with Noam Chomsky. On the subject of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), Chomsky argued again and again that boycotting Israel would be harmful to the Palestinians because it would enable hardliners to ask 'Why boycott Israel, but not the United States?' To which question there was, presumably, at least for Chomsky, no possible answer.
While we can of course acknowledge the misery meted out on a global basis by the United States, including its aiding and abetting of Israel, it seems to me that Chomsky is overlooking the particularly cruel and inhuman punishment - summed up in the term Israeli apartheid - being meted out to the Palestinians, and the fact that this has been ongoing since 1948 and has now reached crescendo proportions, a state of affairs requiring BDS on the grandest of scales.
I note too that Chomsky recently signed, with others, an open letter written by the Emergency Committee for Rojava, A Call to Defend Rojava (nybooks.com), a response to the Turkish invasion of Afrin - "one of three cantons in Rojava, also called the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria."
Reports the letter, "Many of those who fled Afrin are now sleeping in open fields or in tent cities, lacking the most elementary necessities. Those who remain have been subjected to the same kind of ethnic discrimination, looting and sexual violence that ISIS perpetrated against the Yazidis in Iraq."
Need I remind the Palestinian history literate among you that "tent cities," "ethnic discrimination," "looting" and "sexual violence" were all features of the Zionist usurpation of Arab Palestine in 1948-49, and that tent cities, now permanent, concrete-block refugee camps, ethnic discrimination, and looting, now in the form of land theft, are still basic features of Israel's modus operandi vis-a-vis the Palestinians?
And what btw does the Emergency Committee for Rojava (and by extension Chomsky) want the US government to do?
"Impose economic and political sanctions on Turkey's leadership; embargo sales and delivery of weapons from NATO countries to Turkey; insist upon Rojava's representation in Syrian peace negotiations;... "
If only those forms of BDS were applied to Israel...
But there's a final, 4th demand on the group's to-do list:
"... continue military support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)."
In summary, Chomsky is happy to call for direct US intervention in Syria to protect the Kurds from Turkey, but baulks over the application of BDS to end decades of Israeli apartheid rule over the Palestinians.
While we can of course acknowledge the misery meted out on a global basis by the United States, including its aiding and abetting of Israel, it seems to me that Chomsky is overlooking the particularly cruel and inhuman punishment - summed up in the term Israeli apartheid - being meted out to the Palestinians, and the fact that this has been ongoing since 1948 and has now reached crescendo proportions, a state of affairs requiring BDS on the grandest of scales.
I note too that Chomsky recently signed, with others, an open letter written by the Emergency Committee for Rojava, A Call to Defend Rojava (nybooks.com), a response to the Turkish invasion of Afrin - "one of three cantons in Rojava, also called the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria."
Reports the letter, "Many of those who fled Afrin are now sleeping in open fields or in tent cities, lacking the most elementary necessities. Those who remain have been subjected to the same kind of ethnic discrimination, looting and sexual violence that ISIS perpetrated against the Yazidis in Iraq."
Need I remind the Palestinian history literate among you that "tent cities," "ethnic discrimination," "looting" and "sexual violence" were all features of the Zionist usurpation of Arab Palestine in 1948-49, and that tent cities, now permanent, concrete-block refugee camps, ethnic discrimination, and looting, now in the form of land theft, are still basic features of Israel's modus operandi vis-a-vis the Palestinians?
And what btw does the Emergency Committee for Rojava (and by extension Chomsky) want the US government to do?
"Impose economic and political sanctions on Turkey's leadership; embargo sales and delivery of weapons from NATO countries to Turkey; insist upon Rojava's representation in Syrian peace negotiations;... "
If only those forms of BDS were applied to Israel...
But there's a final, 4th demand on the group's to-do list:
"... continue military support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)."
In summary, Chomsky is happy to call for direct US intervention in Syria to protect the Kurds from Turkey, but baulks over the application of BDS to end decades of Israeli apartheid rule over the Palestinians.
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Bob Carr Responds to Norrington:
"For the record, your feature article (Carr alarms pro-Israelis, 6/7) implies extreme language from me out of my recent speech making the case for recognition of Palestine and an end to the occupation.
"In my speech I was doing no more than advocating what every former head of Shin Bet and Mossad has advocated, although in more pungent language than mine. Paragraph 4 of the article has this dastardly Carr accusing Israel Israel of implementing a 'looting bill' and condoning 'war crimes'. Let's make it clear: this was Carr quoting Labor leader Isaac Herzog and Likud Knesset member Benny Begin. They were not Carr formulations. Two other Israeli prime ministers have used the word 'apartheid' - Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. The assassinated Yitzhak Rabin is reported to have used the same language.
"'Massacres' in 1948 was a conclusion of Benny Morris, an Israeli historian, who detailed this from Israeli army archives. As I said in an op-ed published in The Australian on November 8, 2014, Morris's revelations were a tribute to openness in Israeli society. And I began my speech by paying tribute to Jews who opposed the occupation - a number in attendance at the meeting - and said they were the best allies of the cause for Palestinian recognition. It would have been nice if that had been included." (Letter to The Australian, 7/7/17)
The irony here is that "Benny Morris' revelations," far from being "a tribute to openness in Israeli society," as Carr says, reveal only the extreme pressure brought to bear on any academic who departs from the Zionist narrative. Rather than stand and defend his revelations, let alone draw universal moral conclusions from them, Benny Morris long ago effectively reverted to the role of a shill for Israel. (My May 2008 posts on the subject make for harrowing reading, Bob. Just click on the Benny Morris label below.)
In today's Australian, there's more from Norrington on how Carr has been instrumental in "rolling" the NSW ALP's foreign affairs committee [dominated by Mike Kelly MP], which had recently assured Bill Shorten that the current "soft language" of its Palestine/Israel policy - "committing Labor in government only to 'discussing' recognition [of Palestine] with like-minded nations if there was no progress in peace talks," would be retained at the upcoming NSW Labor Conference. This Carr has done by coming up with an alternative policy, resolution 23 on the party's agenda, reportedly agreed to by shadow foreign minister Penny Wong, Jason Clare MP, and state secretary Karla Murnain, which the foreign affairs committee has to accept. "Carr's supporters," says Norrington, "wanted an even stronger resolution, but accept the revised Murnain wording," which they are "confident the federal conference will adopt next year." (How Carr turned ALP from Israel to Palestine)
Oh, and an op-ed by ALP political has-been-turned-defender-of-Israel, Peter Baldwin, in which, despite Zionism's age-old stranglehold over the ALP, he contends that "the Labor Party risks becoming a vehicle for sectional interests."
"In my speech I was doing no more than advocating what every former head of Shin Bet and Mossad has advocated, although in more pungent language than mine. Paragraph 4 of the article has this dastardly Carr accusing Israel Israel of implementing a 'looting bill' and condoning 'war crimes'. Let's make it clear: this was Carr quoting Labor leader Isaac Herzog and Likud Knesset member Benny Begin. They were not Carr formulations. Two other Israeli prime ministers have used the word 'apartheid' - Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. The assassinated Yitzhak Rabin is reported to have used the same language.
"'Massacres' in 1948 was a conclusion of Benny Morris, an Israeli historian, who detailed this from Israeli army archives. As I said in an op-ed published in The Australian on November 8, 2014, Morris's revelations were a tribute to openness in Israeli society. And I began my speech by paying tribute to Jews who opposed the occupation - a number in attendance at the meeting - and said they were the best allies of the cause for Palestinian recognition. It would have been nice if that had been included." (Letter to The Australian, 7/7/17)
The irony here is that "Benny Morris' revelations," far from being "a tribute to openness in Israeli society," as Carr says, reveal only the extreme pressure brought to bear on any academic who departs from the Zionist narrative. Rather than stand and defend his revelations, let alone draw universal moral conclusions from them, Benny Morris long ago effectively reverted to the role of a shill for Israel. (My May 2008 posts on the subject make for harrowing reading, Bob. Just click on the Benny Morris label below.)
In today's Australian, there's more from Norrington on how Carr has been instrumental in "rolling" the NSW ALP's foreign affairs committee [dominated by Mike Kelly MP], which had recently assured Bill Shorten that the current "soft language" of its Palestine/Israel policy - "committing Labor in government only to 'discussing' recognition [of Palestine] with like-minded nations if there was no progress in peace talks," would be retained at the upcoming NSW Labor Conference. This Carr has done by coming up with an alternative policy, resolution 23 on the party's agenda, reportedly agreed to by shadow foreign minister Penny Wong, Jason Clare MP, and state secretary Karla Murnain, which the foreign affairs committee has to accept. "Carr's supporters," says Norrington, "wanted an even stronger resolution, but accept the revised Murnain wording," which they are "confident the federal conference will adopt next year." (How Carr turned ALP from Israel to Palestine)
Oh, and an op-ed by ALP political has-been-turned-defender-of-Israel, Peter Baldwin, in which, despite Zionism's age-old stranglehold over the ALP, he contends that "the Labor Party risks becoming a vehicle for sectional interests."
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Another USraeli Nail in the UN Coffin
The following piece, Text of resignation letter by ESCWA Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf (taken from jadaliyya.com, 18/3/17) bears eloquent testimony to the ongoing emasculation and marginalisation of the UN (and so of international law) by USraeli bullying and intimidation, a process which began with the underhanded tactics used by USrael to secure the passing of the Palestine partition resolution (181) of November 29, 1947 and has gone on ever since. Read, weep, and bear in mind that nothing whatever of this sorry tale has found its way into the Australian press:
"[The following text is the resignation letter submitted by Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf in response to the formal request by UN Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres] that ESCWA withdraw the publication of a report that asserts Israel is committing Apartheid. Click here to access the full ESCWA report, which has since been removed from the UN website.]
"Dear Mr Secretary-General,
"I have carefully considered your message... and assure you that at no point have I questioned your right to order the withdrawal of the report from our website or the fact that all of us working in the Secretariat are subject to the authority of its Secretary-General. Nor do I have any doubts regarding your commitment to human rights in general, or your firm position regarding the rights of the Palestinian people. I also understand the concerns that you have, particularly in these difficult times, that leave you little choice.
"I am not oblivious to the vicious attacks and threats the UN and you personally were subjected to from powerful Member States as a result of the publication of the ESCWA report 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People & the Question of Apartheid'. I do not find it surprising that such Member States, who now have governments with little regard for international norms and values of human rights, will resort to intimidation when they find it hard to defend their unlawful policies and practices. It is only normal for criminals to pressure and attack those who advocate the cause of their victims. I cannot submit to such pressure.
"Not by virtue of my being an international official, but simply by virtue of being a decent human being, I believe, like you, in the universal values and principles that have always been the driving force for good in human history, and on which this organization of ours, the United Nations, is founded. Like you, I believe that discrimination against anyone due to their religion, skin color, sex, or ethnic origin is unacceptable, and that such discrimination cannot be rendered acceptable by the calculations of political expediency or power politics. I also believe people should not only have the freedom to speak truth to power, but they have the duty to do so.
"In the space of two months you have instructed me to withdraw two reports produced by ESCWA, not due to any fault found in the reports and probably not because you disagreed with their content, but due to the political pressure by member states who gravely violate the rights of the people of the region.
"You have seen first hand that the people of this region are going through a period of suffering unparalleled in their modern history; and that the overwhelming flood of catastrophes today is the result of a stream of injustices that were either ignored, plastered over, or openly endorsed by powerful governments inside and outside the region. Those same governments are the ones pressuring you to silence the voice of truth and the call for justice represented in these reports.
"Given the above, I cannot but stand by the findings of ESCWA's report that Israel has established an apartheid regime that seeks the domination of one racial group over another. The evidence provided by this report drafted by renowned experts is overwhelming. Suffice it to say that none of those who attacked the report had a word to say about its content. I feel it my duty to shed light on the legally inadmissible and morally indefensible fact that an apartheid regime still exists in the 21st century rather than suppressing the evidence. In saying this I claim no moral superiority nor ownership of a more prescient vision. My position might be informed by a lifetime of experiencing the dire consequences of blocking peaceful channels to addressing people's grievances in our region.
"After giving the matter due consideration, I realized that I too have little choice. I cannot withdraw another well-researched, well-documented UN work on grave violations of human rights, yet I know that clear instructions by the Secretary-General will have to be implemented promptly. A dilemma that can only be resolved by my stepping down to allow someone else to deliver what I am unable to deliver in good conscience. I know that I have only two more weeks to serve; my resignation is therefore not intended for political pressure. It is simply because I feel it my duty towards the people we serve, towards the UN and towards myself, not to withdraw an honest testimony about an ongoing crime that is at the root of so much human suffering. Therefore, I hereby submit to you my resignation from the United Nations."
A salute to Rima Khalaf, one who would not sell her soul.
"[The following text is the resignation letter submitted by Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf in response to the formal request by UN Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres] that ESCWA withdraw the publication of a report that asserts Israel is committing Apartheid. Click here to access the full ESCWA report, which has since been removed from the UN website.]
"Dear Mr Secretary-General,
"I have carefully considered your message... and assure you that at no point have I questioned your right to order the withdrawal of the report from our website or the fact that all of us working in the Secretariat are subject to the authority of its Secretary-General. Nor do I have any doubts regarding your commitment to human rights in general, or your firm position regarding the rights of the Palestinian people. I also understand the concerns that you have, particularly in these difficult times, that leave you little choice.
"I am not oblivious to the vicious attacks and threats the UN and you personally were subjected to from powerful Member States as a result of the publication of the ESCWA report 'Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People & the Question of Apartheid'. I do not find it surprising that such Member States, who now have governments with little regard for international norms and values of human rights, will resort to intimidation when they find it hard to defend their unlawful policies and practices. It is only normal for criminals to pressure and attack those who advocate the cause of their victims. I cannot submit to such pressure.
"Not by virtue of my being an international official, but simply by virtue of being a decent human being, I believe, like you, in the universal values and principles that have always been the driving force for good in human history, and on which this organization of ours, the United Nations, is founded. Like you, I believe that discrimination against anyone due to their religion, skin color, sex, or ethnic origin is unacceptable, and that such discrimination cannot be rendered acceptable by the calculations of political expediency or power politics. I also believe people should not only have the freedom to speak truth to power, but they have the duty to do so.
"In the space of two months you have instructed me to withdraw two reports produced by ESCWA, not due to any fault found in the reports and probably not because you disagreed with their content, but due to the political pressure by member states who gravely violate the rights of the people of the region.
"You have seen first hand that the people of this region are going through a period of suffering unparalleled in their modern history; and that the overwhelming flood of catastrophes today is the result of a stream of injustices that were either ignored, plastered over, or openly endorsed by powerful governments inside and outside the region. Those same governments are the ones pressuring you to silence the voice of truth and the call for justice represented in these reports.
"Given the above, I cannot but stand by the findings of ESCWA's report that Israel has established an apartheid regime that seeks the domination of one racial group over another. The evidence provided by this report drafted by renowned experts is overwhelming. Suffice it to say that none of those who attacked the report had a word to say about its content. I feel it my duty to shed light on the legally inadmissible and morally indefensible fact that an apartheid regime still exists in the 21st century rather than suppressing the evidence. In saying this I claim no moral superiority nor ownership of a more prescient vision. My position might be informed by a lifetime of experiencing the dire consequences of blocking peaceful channels to addressing people's grievances in our region.
"After giving the matter due consideration, I realized that I too have little choice. I cannot withdraw another well-researched, well-documented UN work on grave violations of human rights, yet I know that clear instructions by the Secretary-General will have to be implemented promptly. A dilemma that can only be resolved by my stepping down to allow someone else to deliver what I am unable to deliver in good conscience. I know that I have only two more weeks to serve; my resignation is therefore not intended for political pressure. It is simply because I feel it my duty towards the people we serve, towards the UN and towards myself, not to withdraw an honest testimony about an ongoing crime that is at the root of so much human suffering. Therefore, I hereby submit to you my resignation from the United Nations."
A salute to Rima Khalaf, one who would not sell her soul.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Vibrant Apartheid Israel
From the horse's mouth, aka Assaf Harel of the truth-to-power Israeli TV program, Goodnight with Assaf Harel, Wake up & smell the apartheid (2/3/17):
"If you look at our life in Israel, it's pretty great. Yes, it's expensive, and we're far from earning what we'd like. Clearly, the healthcare system could be better, and yes, the politicians could be more impressive and less embarrassing. But if you look at our life from a bird's eye view, we're doing just great. Really. Great weather, great food, great people, great beaches, not bad at all,
"And that's exactly the point - that we're doing great but there are a couple of million people, that we're responsible for, who are in a horrible state - infrastructure, food, healthcare, education. Millions who are living in abject poverty. Gaza is on the verge of plague, and hours on end without electricity or water. Israel controls everything that goes in or out.
"'But they chose Hamas, let them pay for it.' 'Humaneness? What does that have to do with us? What are we, Arab lovers?' Ever since the right wing took power, more and more voices are warning of apartheid. Are you kidding? Apartheid has been here for ages. Ages. It's just that we're on its good side, so it doesn't really bother us. We've been abusing the Palestinians on a daily basis for years, denying them their basic rights. In Judea and Samaria [West Bank], we're taking their lands from them. Once, we used the Jewish National Fund to raise money to buy the lands. Today, we just pass a law saying we can just take their lands and that's it.
"Soldiers shoot stone-throwers because they're a real threat, but if, in Israel, someone throws stones they won't even be charged. Palestinian journalists are put on administrative detention without trial because they wrote something. Every time we have a holiday, they're under closure. God forbid they ruin it for us. For years we've been deepening the hatred, the same hatred that we later complain about in peace talks. 'Why do you incite your children against us? Why don't you teach your children to love us?
"Israel's most impressive innovation, more than any high-tech project or Rafael weapon, is an amazing ability to ignore what is happening mere kilometres away to our neighbours. A whole people, transparent, like it doesn't exist. Not in the news, not online, not on social media, and definitely not in the hearts of the people. Nothing.
"We've got a great country, and great restaurants, and it's fun to travel abroad, just don't tell us what's really happening. We're good, don't bum us out. But there are a few righteous in Sodom. People who see the Matrix and are trying to yell, to let us know what's happening. Maybe we'll wake up. Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Yesh Din... "
"If you look at our life in Israel, it's pretty great. Yes, it's expensive, and we're far from earning what we'd like. Clearly, the healthcare system could be better, and yes, the politicians could be more impressive and less embarrassing. But if you look at our life from a bird's eye view, we're doing just great. Really. Great weather, great food, great people, great beaches, not bad at all,
"And that's exactly the point - that we're doing great but there are a couple of million people, that we're responsible for, who are in a horrible state - infrastructure, food, healthcare, education. Millions who are living in abject poverty. Gaza is on the verge of plague, and hours on end without electricity or water. Israel controls everything that goes in or out.
"'But they chose Hamas, let them pay for it.' 'Humaneness? What does that have to do with us? What are we, Arab lovers?' Ever since the right wing took power, more and more voices are warning of apartheid. Are you kidding? Apartheid has been here for ages. Ages. It's just that we're on its good side, so it doesn't really bother us. We've been abusing the Palestinians on a daily basis for years, denying them their basic rights. In Judea and Samaria [West Bank], we're taking their lands from them. Once, we used the Jewish National Fund to raise money to buy the lands. Today, we just pass a law saying we can just take their lands and that's it.
"Soldiers shoot stone-throwers because they're a real threat, but if, in Israel, someone throws stones they won't even be charged. Palestinian journalists are put on administrative detention without trial because they wrote something. Every time we have a holiday, they're under closure. God forbid they ruin it for us. For years we've been deepening the hatred, the same hatred that we later complain about in peace talks. 'Why do you incite your children against us? Why don't you teach your children to love us?
"Israel's most impressive innovation, more than any high-tech project or Rafael weapon, is an amazing ability to ignore what is happening mere kilometres away to our neighbours. A whole people, transparent, like it doesn't exist. Not in the news, not online, not on social media, and definitely not in the hearts of the people. Nothing.
"We've got a great country, and great restaurants, and it's fun to travel abroad, just don't tell us what's really happening. We're good, don't bum us out. But there are a few righteous in Sodom. People who see the Matrix and are trying to yell, to let us know what's happening. Maybe we'll wake up. Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Yesh Din... "
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Israeli Apartheid... in The Sun-Herald!
When was the last time you saw journalism on Palestine/Israel like this in the normally don't-go-there Fairfax press?:
"This is the occupied West Bank, the putative Israeli-occupied Palestinian state as described by the 1967 war and contemplated in the 1993 Oslo Accords between the Israeli government and the PLO. Some souls live up here. Dotted hither and thither as the highway snakes eastward are Jewish settlements, invariably holding commanding hilltop positions. And lower down, perched awkwardly in the treeless gullies closer to the highway, there are Bedouins. Their ad hoc micro-settlements are untidy off-grid affairs. Illegal shanty towns of tin and tarps, marking out these itinerants as the most dispossessed of the 2.9 million Palestinians in the West Bank.
"In one such community, just 20 minutes from First World Jerusalem, a mud-brick school clings to a hillside. Its defiantly permanent adobe structures use solar panels for electricity, fake grass for play areas, and rely on donated equipment, most notably from Italy. But even that international recognition has not protected the tiny school from capricious treatment. A community leader displays a children's swing reduced to a useless frame after its parts were allegedly confiscated because the concrete footings had breached the rules - an example of the countless small ways in which officialdom makes life hard for non-Jewish persons in the hope they simply give up.
"Overlooking all this sits a gleaming white hamlet of Jewish settlers, replete with valuable water rights, extra security and private service roads - just some of the 600,000 state-subsidised outliers intent on expanding the Jewish state into the West Bank permanently per force of occupation." (Blind support for Israel does it no favours, Mark Kenny*, The Sun-Herald, 19/2/17)
Have you ever seen phrasing like this before in the normally black-is-white, Israel-is-a-democracy, up-is-down Fairfax press?:
"Israel is a... purportedly democratic nation..." (ibid)
When was the last time you read plain talk on Israeli apartheid like this in the normally afraid-of-its-own-shadow Fairfax press?:
"This... is conflict central. A place where rights are dependent on race and religion." (ibid)
Or this:
"The comprehensiveness of Israel's suppression of the local population is staggering. Yet it occasions little serious study from governments like Australia's, which has succumbed to the self-serving binary that there are only two critiques of Israel: unqualified support or anti-semitism." (ibid)
Or this:
"... it's not just Cold war-style partitioning to which much of the world has turned a blind eye, but now a new South Africa." (ibid)
[*"Mark Kenny is chief political correspondent. He travelled to Israel in 2014 courtesy of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council and to the occupied territories in 2016 courtesy of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network." (ibid)]
"This is the occupied West Bank, the putative Israeli-occupied Palestinian state as described by the 1967 war and contemplated in the 1993 Oslo Accords between the Israeli government and the PLO. Some souls live up here. Dotted hither and thither as the highway snakes eastward are Jewish settlements, invariably holding commanding hilltop positions. And lower down, perched awkwardly in the treeless gullies closer to the highway, there are Bedouins. Their ad hoc micro-settlements are untidy off-grid affairs. Illegal shanty towns of tin and tarps, marking out these itinerants as the most dispossessed of the 2.9 million Palestinians in the West Bank.
"In one such community, just 20 minutes from First World Jerusalem, a mud-brick school clings to a hillside. Its defiantly permanent adobe structures use solar panels for electricity, fake grass for play areas, and rely on donated equipment, most notably from Italy. But even that international recognition has not protected the tiny school from capricious treatment. A community leader displays a children's swing reduced to a useless frame after its parts were allegedly confiscated because the concrete footings had breached the rules - an example of the countless small ways in which officialdom makes life hard for non-Jewish persons in the hope they simply give up.
"Overlooking all this sits a gleaming white hamlet of Jewish settlers, replete with valuable water rights, extra security and private service roads - just some of the 600,000 state-subsidised outliers intent on expanding the Jewish state into the West Bank permanently per force of occupation." (Blind support for Israel does it no favours, Mark Kenny*, The Sun-Herald, 19/2/17)
Have you ever seen phrasing like this before in the normally black-is-white, Israel-is-a-democracy, up-is-down Fairfax press?:
"Israel is a... purportedly democratic nation..." (ibid)
When was the last time you read plain talk on Israeli apartheid like this in the normally afraid-of-its-own-shadow Fairfax press?:
"This... is conflict central. A place where rights are dependent on race and religion." (ibid)
Or this:
"The comprehensiveness of Israel's suppression of the local population is staggering. Yet it occasions little serious study from governments like Australia's, which has succumbed to the self-serving binary that there are only two critiques of Israel: unqualified support or anti-semitism." (ibid)
Or this:
"... it's not just Cold war-style partitioning to which much of the world has turned a blind eye, but now a new South Africa." (ibid)
[*"Mark Kenny is chief political correspondent. He travelled to Israel in 2014 courtesy of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council and to the occupied territories in 2016 courtesy of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network." (ibid)]
Monday, February 13, 2017
Historically Illiterate British MPs Debate Palestine
Following Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's 'STFU, I'm talking about Iran, not settlements' visit to the UK, the British parliament passed the following resolution on 9 February:
"That this House reaffirms its support for the negotiation of a lasting peace between two sovereign states of Israel and Palestine, both of which must be viable and contiguous within secure and internationally recognised borders; calls on the Government to take an active role in facilitating a resumption of international talks to achieve this; welcomes UN Security Council Resolution 2334 adopted on 23 December 2016; and further calls on the government of Israel immediately to halt the planning and construction of residential settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories which is both contrary to international law and undermines the prospect for the contiguity and viability of the state of Palestine."
While I liked (and disliked) some of the speeches which preceded it, I couldn't help but notice, and be profoundly irritated by, the historical illiteracy of certain MPs when it came to Britain's key role in opening up Palestine to wave after wave of Zionist fanatics from 1918 on. After all, this is their history, and there can be no excuses for not knowing it. So here are some snippets from the debate, both those I enjoyed, and those by MPs in dire need of a remedial history course:
Sir Desmond Swayne (Con), mover of the motion: "On Monday night, when a Bill was passed in the Knesset retrospectively legalising 4,000 homes in illegal settlements, the Israeli Minister of Culture welcomed the result, saying that it was 'The first step towards complete... Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.' The words 'Judea and Samaria' were chosen carefully. When President Trump was elected, the Israeli Interior Minister, no less, welcomed it by saying that we are witnessing 'the birth pangs of the Messiah when everything has been flipped to the good of the Jewish people.'... It is absolutely clear that a significant proportion of the Israeli political establishment is in thrall to an increasingly strident settler movement that regards Palestine as a biblical theme park - Judea and Samaria."
"I am certain that the Prime Minister will have made representations to the PM of Israel on Monday. I last made representations to an Israeli politician at a meeting in the Knesset with the chief negotiator with the Palestinians and Deputy PM. Halfway through that meeting, he stormed out announcing that I had launched a brutal assault - moi! As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a pussy in comparison with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is a terrier. I am absolutely convinced that his representations will be much more robust than mine but, so long as they remain representations, the Government of Israel will continue to act with absolute impunity."
[Do we even have one Desmond Swayne in the Australian parliament? Anyone? Rhetorical question.]
Richard Burden (Lab): "What John Kerry was getting at was that if we end up with the de facto annexation of the West Bank, that gives Israel a choice. It can say either that everybody living there should have the vote and rights equal to those of its own citizens, or that they do not. If it says that they do have those rights, the future of Israel with a Jewish majority is at an end. If it says that they do not have those rights, Israel can no longer claim to be a democracy. Not only that, but if there is de facto annexation while Israel maintains a system of laws and controls that discriminate against the majority of people who live in the West Bank and denies them basic rights, what term can we use to describe what we are left with but a form of apartheid?"
[Just imagine what would happen if an Australian MP invoked the word 'apartheid' in connection with Israel.]
Crispin Blunt (Con): "Since Oslo, Palestinians have been betrayed by two decades of factionalised leadership; by the international community in the disastrous consequences of the implementation of the Oslo process; historically by their Arab neighbours in the catastrophic way that they first advanced their own interests ahead of the Palestinian cause; and, also historically, by Britain in our failure to deliver the second half of the Balfour Declaration."
[OFFS, does Blunt seriously thinks that Balfour promising the Zionists "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine was fine and dandy, just so long as "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"?
Think about it: assorted Russian, Polish and Romanian Zionist fanatics score a "national home" in Palestine, while Palestine's "existing non-Jewish communities," which is how the Balfour Declaration dismissively referred to the indigenous Muslim/Christian Palestinian Arab majority (over 90% of Palestine's population in 1917), get mere "civil and religious rights." What a bargain!
Honesty dictates that Blunt's last comment should have been replaced with, The Palestinians have been betrayed historically, by Britain in our CRIMINAL decision to issue the Balfour Declaration."]
Joan Ryan (Lab): "Before addressing the motion, I wish to condemn the rocket attack on Israel last night, when Islamic State fired four rockets from the Sinai Peninsula into Eilat. I expect that the whole House wants to join me in that sentiment."
[LOL Ryan, you'll remember, heads Labour Friends of Israel, and was caught on film, in the recent Al Jazeera expose, licking her lips at the prospect of receiving 1 million pounds from the Israeli Embassy operative, Shai Masot.]
Philip Holobone (Con): "My point was that Britain's connection with the region goes back an awfully long way. For the best part of 30 years after the First World War, we did our best to try to come to a reconciled solution between Arabs and Jews. As a nation we failed, which was why we pulled out in 1948."
[Holobone's historical sketch doesn't go back far enough. The British betrayed a 1915 treaty they had signed with the Arabs promising Arab independence, including Palestine (the Hussein-McMahon pledge), in exchange for a rising against the Ottoman Turks, by doing deals, first with the French, to carve up the Middle East between them (the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916), and second with the Zionist movement, to which they promised Palestine in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
IOW, the British BETRAYED their Arab allies, and by so doing SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATED TODAY'S PALESTINE PROBLEM.
Any British MP who isn't familiar with these elementary historical facts, and thinks that Britain 'did its best to reconcile Arabs and Jews' (as opposed to unleashing hordes of Zionist fanatics on the unsuspecting Palestinian Arabs) in British-occupied Palestine (1918-1948), should be debarred from holding office on the grounds of historical illiteracy.]
Tommy Sheppard (SNP): "This is the longest-running conflict in the modern era and its solution seems further away than ever, but its very intractability is a reason why we should rededicate ourselves to trying to move the process forward. Every time the international community has considered the competing claims in the region, they have arrived at the same conclusion: that two states living side by side, one Jewish in character and one Arab in character, in peaceful coexistence is the solution to aim for. That was true when Balfour and Sykes looked at it 100 years ago... "
[Bullshit! Sheppard seems to think that when Balfour and Sykes were playing colonial games in the Ottoman Middle East, they found, in Palestine, two equal, indigenous communities, one Jewish and one Arab, who needed a little help from the British to get along together. He doesn't seem to know that the Arabs were not only indigenous to the area, but were, in fact, the overwhelming majority of the population (90%+) at the time, while the Zionists were British-backed and protected European settlers, out to create their very own, exclusive, ethnocratic Jewish (and hence Arabrein) state.]
Andy Slaughter (Lab): "The tragedy of the Palestinians is the occupation. The length of the occupation... The settlements are the embodiment of occupation. Everything else that is wrong in the occupied territories flows from those settlements; 85% of the barrier, which is there to protect the settlements, is on occupied territory. It has been said that the settlements occupy only 1.5% of the land, but they control 42.7% of the land. Palestinians in the West Bank are not allowed to build on 60% of the land."
[A useful rebuttal to the Netanyahu line that the settlements are not the problem.]
Alan Brown (SNP): "On one trip, I saw a settlement positioned, nice and bright, on the top of a hill, with plenty of green shrubbery made possible by the piped water supply. Meanwhile, the closest Bedouin village, despite having electricity pylons running past it, is not allowed to connect to the electricity. The water supply for the settlement runs through the Bedouin village, but the villagers are not allowed access to it. The school in the village is part funded by the EU but has a demolition order hanging over it. That is state intimidation by Israel."
[Nicely put.]
"That this House reaffirms its support for the negotiation of a lasting peace between two sovereign states of Israel and Palestine, both of which must be viable and contiguous within secure and internationally recognised borders; calls on the Government to take an active role in facilitating a resumption of international talks to achieve this; welcomes UN Security Council Resolution 2334 adopted on 23 December 2016; and further calls on the government of Israel immediately to halt the planning and construction of residential settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories which is both contrary to international law and undermines the prospect for the contiguity and viability of the state of Palestine."
While I liked (and disliked) some of the speeches which preceded it, I couldn't help but notice, and be profoundly irritated by, the historical illiteracy of certain MPs when it came to Britain's key role in opening up Palestine to wave after wave of Zionist fanatics from 1918 on. After all, this is their history, and there can be no excuses for not knowing it. So here are some snippets from the debate, both those I enjoyed, and those by MPs in dire need of a remedial history course:
Sir Desmond Swayne (Con), mover of the motion: "On Monday night, when a Bill was passed in the Knesset retrospectively legalising 4,000 homes in illegal settlements, the Israeli Minister of Culture welcomed the result, saying that it was 'The first step towards complete... Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.' The words 'Judea and Samaria' were chosen carefully. When President Trump was elected, the Israeli Interior Minister, no less, welcomed it by saying that we are witnessing 'the birth pangs of the Messiah when everything has been flipped to the good of the Jewish people.'... It is absolutely clear that a significant proportion of the Israeli political establishment is in thrall to an increasingly strident settler movement that regards Palestine as a biblical theme park - Judea and Samaria."
"I am certain that the Prime Minister will have made representations to the PM of Israel on Monday. I last made representations to an Israeli politician at a meeting in the Knesset with the chief negotiator with the Palestinians and Deputy PM. Halfway through that meeting, he stormed out announcing that I had launched a brutal assault - moi! As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a pussy in comparison with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is a terrier. I am absolutely convinced that his representations will be much more robust than mine but, so long as they remain representations, the Government of Israel will continue to act with absolute impunity."
[Do we even have one Desmond Swayne in the Australian parliament? Anyone? Rhetorical question.]
Richard Burden (Lab): "What John Kerry was getting at was that if we end up with the de facto annexation of the West Bank, that gives Israel a choice. It can say either that everybody living there should have the vote and rights equal to those of its own citizens, or that they do not. If it says that they do have those rights, the future of Israel with a Jewish majority is at an end. If it says that they do not have those rights, Israel can no longer claim to be a democracy. Not only that, but if there is de facto annexation while Israel maintains a system of laws and controls that discriminate against the majority of people who live in the West Bank and denies them basic rights, what term can we use to describe what we are left with but a form of apartheid?"
[Just imagine what would happen if an Australian MP invoked the word 'apartheid' in connection with Israel.]
Crispin Blunt (Con): "Since Oslo, Palestinians have been betrayed by two decades of factionalised leadership; by the international community in the disastrous consequences of the implementation of the Oslo process; historically by their Arab neighbours in the catastrophic way that they first advanced their own interests ahead of the Palestinian cause; and, also historically, by Britain in our failure to deliver the second half of the Balfour Declaration."
[OFFS, does Blunt seriously thinks that Balfour promising the Zionists "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine was fine and dandy, just so long as "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"?
Think about it: assorted Russian, Polish and Romanian Zionist fanatics score a "national home" in Palestine, while Palestine's "existing non-Jewish communities," which is how the Balfour Declaration dismissively referred to the indigenous Muslim/Christian Palestinian Arab majority (over 90% of Palestine's population in 1917), get mere "civil and religious rights." What a bargain!
Honesty dictates that Blunt's last comment should have been replaced with, The Palestinians have been betrayed historically, by Britain in our CRIMINAL decision to issue the Balfour Declaration."]
Joan Ryan (Lab): "Before addressing the motion, I wish to condemn the rocket attack on Israel last night, when Islamic State fired four rockets from the Sinai Peninsula into Eilat. I expect that the whole House wants to join me in that sentiment."
[LOL Ryan, you'll remember, heads Labour Friends of Israel, and was caught on film, in the recent Al Jazeera expose, licking her lips at the prospect of receiving 1 million pounds from the Israeli Embassy operative, Shai Masot.]
Philip Holobone (Con): "My point was that Britain's connection with the region goes back an awfully long way. For the best part of 30 years after the First World War, we did our best to try to come to a reconciled solution between Arabs and Jews. As a nation we failed, which was why we pulled out in 1948."
[Holobone's historical sketch doesn't go back far enough. The British betrayed a 1915 treaty they had signed with the Arabs promising Arab independence, including Palestine (the Hussein-McMahon pledge), in exchange for a rising against the Ottoman Turks, by doing deals, first with the French, to carve up the Middle East between them (the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916), and second with the Zionist movement, to which they promised Palestine in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
IOW, the British BETRAYED their Arab allies, and by so doing SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATED TODAY'S PALESTINE PROBLEM.
Any British MP who isn't familiar with these elementary historical facts, and thinks that Britain 'did its best to reconcile Arabs and Jews' (as opposed to unleashing hordes of Zionist fanatics on the unsuspecting Palestinian Arabs) in British-occupied Palestine (1918-1948), should be debarred from holding office on the grounds of historical illiteracy.]
Tommy Sheppard (SNP): "This is the longest-running conflict in the modern era and its solution seems further away than ever, but its very intractability is a reason why we should rededicate ourselves to trying to move the process forward. Every time the international community has considered the competing claims in the region, they have arrived at the same conclusion: that two states living side by side, one Jewish in character and one Arab in character, in peaceful coexistence is the solution to aim for. That was true when Balfour and Sykes looked at it 100 years ago... "
[Bullshit! Sheppard seems to think that when Balfour and Sykes were playing colonial games in the Ottoman Middle East, they found, in Palestine, two equal, indigenous communities, one Jewish and one Arab, who needed a little help from the British to get along together. He doesn't seem to know that the Arabs were not only indigenous to the area, but were, in fact, the overwhelming majority of the population (90%+) at the time, while the Zionists were British-backed and protected European settlers, out to create their very own, exclusive, ethnocratic Jewish (and hence Arabrein) state.]
Andy Slaughter (Lab): "The tragedy of the Palestinians is the occupation. The length of the occupation... The settlements are the embodiment of occupation. Everything else that is wrong in the occupied territories flows from those settlements; 85% of the barrier, which is there to protect the settlements, is on occupied territory. It has been said that the settlements occupy only 1.5% of the land, but they control 42.7% of the land. Palestinians in the West Bank are not allowed to build on 60% of the land."
[A useful rebuttal to the Netanyahu line that the settlements are not the problem.]
Alan Brown (SNP): "On one trip, I saw a settlement positioned, nice and bright, on the top of a hill, with plenty of green shrubbery made possible by the piped water supply. Meanwhile, the closest Bedouin village, despite having electricity pylons running past it, is not allowed to connect to the electricity. The water supply for the settlement runs through the Bedouin village, but the villagers are not allowed access to it. The school in the village is part funded by the EU but has a demolition order hanging over it. That is state intimidation by Israel."
[Nicely put.]
Thursday, February 9, 2017
There's No Business like (Israeli Apartheid) Show Business
"It took 3000 [Israeli] police to clear the isolated hilltop of protesting [Israeli settler] youths." (Knesset passes West Bank land law, William Booth, Washington Post/Sydney Morning Herald, 8/2/17)
3,000?
Oh, I see. One to dispense tissues. One to serve cool drinks. One to apologise profusely. One to...
After all, G-d himself gave this land to these gilded youths with Brooklyn accents, don't you know?
Just ask them and they'll tell you: "The Amona settlers said God had promised the land to the Jews and denied the Arab claims." (ibid)
Meanwhile, on the other side of the apartheid wall, only a handful of Israeli troops are needed to keep the G-d forsaken Palestinian untermenschen in line.
In fact, only 4 Israeli ubermenschen were needed when the 17-year-old Palestinian youth, Qusai al-Imour was SHOT 6 TIMES while resisting the Israeli OCCUPATION of his ancestral homeland:
"A human rights group has demanded that the army investigate the killing of a Palestinian teen after footage showed soldiers dragging the youth's bullet-ridden body to their vehicle with his head banging on the ground. Only then did the soldiers offer medical care." (Video shows Israeli soldiers dragging Palestinian teen shot in clashes, Jack Khoury & Gili Cohen, Haaretz, 17/1/17)
3,000?
Oh, I see. One to dispense tissues. One to serve cool drinks. One to apologise profusely. One to...
After all, G-d himself gave this land to these gilded youths with Brooklyn accents, don't you know?
Just ask them and they'll tell you: "The Amona settlers said God had promised the land to the Jews and denied the Arab claims." (ibid)
Meanwhile, on the other side of the apartheid wall, only a handful of Israeli troops are needed to keep the G-d forsaken Palestinian untermenschen in line.
In fact, only 4 Israeli ubermenschen were needed when the 17-year-old Palestinian youth, Qusai al-Imour was SHOT 6 TIMES while resisting the Israeli OCCUPATION of his ancestral homeland:
"A human rights group has demanded that the army investigate the killing of a Palestinian teen after footage showed soldiers dragging the youth's bullet-ridden body to their vehicle with his head banging on the ground. Only then did the soldiers offer medical care." (Video shows Israeli soldiers dragging Palestinian teen shot in clashes, Jack Khoury & Gili Cohen, Haaretz, 17/1/17)
Friday, November 25, 2016
Ya Yassmin...
As I've wondered before, what other Australian embassy carries on like our embassy in Israel? (For the backstory on this, just click on the Dave Sharma label below.) Anyhow, here's the latest:
"Australia's embassy in Israel has hosted Yassmin Abdel Magied a prominent young Australian voice on gender equality, overcoming unconscious bias, and women's empowerment... Her flying visit included a morning spent at Tel Aviv's Bialik Rogozin School for... students from underprivileged backgrounds... Yassmin lectured to a packed auditorium at the Tel Aviv University on overcoming bias in the workplace..." (Australia embassy hosts prominent young activist, jwire.com.au, 23/11/16)
Yassmin, 25, is described by jwire as being born in Sudan and migrating to Australia at the age of two; "a qualified mechanical engineer with years of working on an oilrig"; a "founder of Youth Without Borders"; "Young Australian Muslim of the Year"; and an "amateur boxer, racing car designer, footballer and motorsport enthusiast."
I'll try to be as charitable as I can here, OK?
Obviously, Yassmin's 25 years on planet earth have been so frenetic that she simply hasn't had the time to put 2+2 together on the subject of Israel. Otherwise, the enormous irony inherent in the prospect of lecturing the beneficiaries of an apartheid regime on the subject of workplace (or any other kind of) bias would have dissuaded her from agreeing to play the useful fool for Israel.
***
Now since writing the above, I notice from Yassmin's tweets that Tel Aviv was just one stop (18/11) on 'Yassmin's Middle East Speaking Tour, and followed an appearance in Ramallah (14-15/11). She's also tweeted (22/11) that she's got a copy of Joe Sacco's wonderful graphic history, Palestine. Perhaps this was presented to her in Ramallah. Let's hope she's now engrossed in reading it, cover to cover, that the proverbial light bulb is growing ever brighter in her head, and that it's the beginning of an intellectual journey.
Cross fingers...
"Australia's embassy in Israel has hosted Yassmin Abdel Magied a prominent young Australian voice on gender equality, overcoming unconscious bias, and women's empowerment... Her flying visit included a morning spent at Tel Aviv's Bialik Rogozin School for... students from underprivileged backgrounds... Yassmin lectured to a packed auditorium at the Tel Aviv University on overcoming bias in the workplace..." (Australia embassy hosts prominent young activist, jwire.com.au, 23/11/16)
Yassmin, 25, is described by jwire as being born in Sudan and migrating to Australia at the age of two; "a qualified mechanical engineer with years of working on an oilrig"; a "founder of Youth Without Borders"; "Young Australian Muslim of the Year"; and an "amateur boxer, racing car designer, footballer and motorsport enthusiast."
I'll try to be as charitable as I can here, OK?
Obviously, Yassmin's 25 years on planet earth have been so frenetic that she simply hasn't had the time to put 2+2 together on the subject of Israel. Otherwise, the enormous irony inherent in the prospect of lecturing the beneficiaries of an apartheid regime on the subject of workplace (or any other kind of) bias would have dissuaded her from agreeing to play the useful fool for Israel.
***
Now since writing the above, I notice from Yassmin's tweets that Tel Aviv was just one stop (18/11) on 'Yassmin's Middle East Speaking Tour, and followed an appearance in Ramallah (14-15/11). She's also tweeted (22/11) that she's got a copy of Joe Sacco's wonderful graphic history, Palestine. Perhaps this was presented to her in Ramallah. Let's hope she's now engrossed in reading it, cover to cover, that the proverbial light bulb is growing ever brighter in her head, and that it's the beginning of an intellectual journey.
Cross fingers...
Monday, May 30, 2016
Draw Your Own Conclusions...
"I was born and brought up in South Africa and so naturally people ask me what I see of South Africa in the present situation in Palestine... Apartheid was a system of enforced segregation based on race or ethnicity, put in place by an exclusive, self-defined group in order to consolidate colonial conquest, in particular to cement its hold on the land and natural resources.
"In Jerusalem and in the West Bank - to speak only of Jerusalem and the West Bank - we've seen a system of enforced segregation based on religion and ethnicity, put in place by an exclusive, self-defined group to consolidate colonial conquest, in particular to maintain, and indeed extend, its hold on the land and its natural resources. Draw your own conclusions." (From South African Nobelist [J.M.] Coetzee on Israel and apartheid: 'Draw your own conclusions', Alison Deger, mondoweiss.net, 28/5/16)
"In Jerusalem and in the West Bank - to speak only of Jerusalem and the West Bank - we've seen a system of enforced segregation based on religion and ethnicity, put in place by an exclusive, self-defined group to consolidate colonial conquest, in particular to maintain, and indeed extend, its hold on the land and its natural resources. Draw your own conclusions." (From South African Nobelist [J.M.] Coetzee on Israel and apartheid: 'Draw your own conclusions', Alison Deger, mondoweiss.net, 28/5/16)
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Einstein's Other Discovery
Einstein scores:
"Scientists have for the first time observed elusive gravitational waves - tiny ripples in the fabric of space-time caused by violent astronomical events. The discovery, announced overnight in Washington DC, confirms the last outstanding prediction made by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity." (Einstein was proven right, 100 years on, Marcus Strom, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/2/16)
Now you don't have to be an Einstein to reach the following conclusion, but here it is from the horse's mouth anyway:
"We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better." (Einstein's Last Media Statement, New York Post, 12/3/55)
That was in 1955.
You can imagine Einstein's 'Last Media Statement' today:
'We once had great hopes for Israel. Then we used to console ourselves with the thought that at least it was better than apartheid South Africa. But not anymore. It is no better - in fact, it's worse, far worse.'
"Scientists have for the first time observed elusive gravitational waves - tiny ripples in the fabric of space-time caused by violent astronomical events. The discovery, announced overnight in Washington DC, confirms the last outstanding prediction made by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity." (Einstein was proven right, 100 years on, Marcus Strom, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/2/16)
Now you don't have to be an Einstein to reach the following conclusion, but here it is from the horse's mouth anyway:
"We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better." (Einstein's Last Media Statement, New York Post, 12/3/55)
That was in 1955.
You can imagine Einstein's 'Last Media Statement' today:
'We once had great hopes for Israel. Then we used to console ourselves with the thought that at least it was better than apartheid South Africa. But not anymore. It is no better - in fact, it's worse, far worse.'
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Why Does Melbourne Ports Keep Voting for Michael Danby?
What kind of electorate is Melbourne Ports?
In election after election after election (1998 on), the voters there have voted again and again and again, either directly or through preferences (Hello, Greens), for a politician whose sole interest, if one is to judge by the frequency and nature of his comments in the Australian press, is deflecting criticism of Israel.
Here he is again, butting in on the proposal by some in NSW Labor to ban Israel lobby-sponsored trips to Israel at February's NSW Labor annual conference:
"The federal Labor MP for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, asked why Israel was being singled out. 'If a Labor person takes a trip to the United States, do they have to spend the same time in Russia?" (Shorten leaves Israel up to MPs, Mark Coultan, The Australian, 29/1/16)
Why is Israel being singled out?
It's the OCCUPATION, stupid.
As a former Israeli attorney-general (1993-96), Michael Ben-Yair, once wrote:
"The Six-Day War was forced upon us [A zombie myth, but we'll let it go for now]; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day [He was speaking here in 2002!] is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That regime exists to this day."
The question on everyone's lips should not be 'Why is Israel being singled out?' but 'Why does Melbourne Ports keep voting for Michael Danby?'
In election after election after election (1998 on), the voters there have voted again and again and again, either directly or through preferences (Hello, Greens), for a politician whose sole interest, if one is to judge by the frequency and nature of his comments in the Australian press, is deflecting criticism of Israel.
Here he is again, butting in on the proposal by some in NSW Labor to ban Israel lobby-sponsored trips to Israel at February's NSW Labor annual conference:
"The federal Labor MP for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, asked why Israel was being singled out. 'If a Labor person takes a trip to the United States, do they have to spend the same time in Russia?" (Shorten leaves Israel up to MPs, Mark Coultan, The Australian, 29/1/16)
Why is Israel being singled out?
It's the OCCUPATION, stupid.
As a former Israeli attorney-general (1993-96), Michael Ben-Yair, once wrote:
"The Six-Day War was forced upon us [A zombie myth, but we'll let it go for now]; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day [He was speaking here in 2002!] is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That regime exists to this day."
The question on everyone's lips should not be 'Why is Israel being singled out?' but 'Why does Melbourne Ports keep voting for Michael Danby?'
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Galloway: Jews Don't Have to Be on the Side of Apartheid
Place: Oxford Union
Time: 14/10/13
Zionist Smartypants (referring to an earlier declaration by Galloway that he doesn't debate Israelis):
If I said in a debate that I would not debate with a Pakistani, I would rightly be called a racist. My question for you is: Are you a racist? (Vigorous applause)
George Galloway:
Why are you applauding that? What kind of people would applaud that? Am I a racist? You've sat through the last hour and a half of me speaking and you're applauding someone asking me if I'm a racist? What kind of people are you? Or do you just applaud anything? Would you just applaud anything?
I'll let you in on something you don't know. I'm one of the few people on the Left in Britain who travelled the length and breadth of South Africa as an underground agent of the ANC led by Nelson Mandela, then in Pollsmoor Prison in Capetown. Therefore, the subject of apartheid is particularly important to me. The question of racism is particularly important to me and, in parenthesis, let me tell you this: throughout the entirety of my time underground in South Africa under apartheid, every house I slept in, every dinner I ate, every car I drove in was provided by Jewish activists of the ANC.
So Jews don't have to be on the side of apartheid (Applause), they don't have to be on the side of racism (Vigorous applause). Jewish heroes - amongst my blood brotherhood, like Denis Goldberg, who served 27 years on Robben Island, in Pollsmoor Prison, but never was able to touch Mandela and his comrades because they were on one side of the apartheid prison wall, and he and a few other Jewish heroes of the ANC were on the other. Denis Goldberg, Albie Sachs, Joe Slovo, Ruth First - perhaps you've heard of these people. If you haven't, look them up. Jews don't have to be on the side of apartheid. They can stand up against it, and I say to those who imagine that they are friends of the state of Israel, whose flag was just waved in my face, turn away from the racist, apartheid ideology of Zionism. Turn back towards where Jews were before the emergence of the hegemony of Zionism.
The greatest people on the earth were Jews. The leaders of the socialists, communists, trade unions, liberal enlightenment, throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries, were great Jews. Marx himself was a Jew. None of them believed that, as Jews, they should go and take somebody else's country, and drive millions of them around the world as refugees. All of them would have turned their backs against such an ideology. But because of my experience in South Africa... because of my time in South Africa, because of the decades that I worked against apartheid in South Africa, do you imagine that I would turn up at a university and debate apartheid with a supporter of the apartheid regime from South Africa? I'd rather punch him in the face than debate with him. Why? Because apartheid is a racist poison. It is the worst kind of fascism, and I would never debate with any supporter of South African apartheid. Why should I debate with a supporter of Israeli apartheid?
Time: 14/10/13
Zionist Smartypants (referring to an earlier declaration by Galloway that he doesn't debate Israelis):
If I said in a debate that I would not debate with a Pakistani, I would rightly be called a racist. My question for you is: Are you a racist? (Vigorous applause)
George Galloway:
Why are you applauding that? What kind of people would applaud that? Am I a racist? You've sat through the last hour and a half of me speaking and you're applauding someone asking me if I'm a racist? What kind of people are you? Or do you just applaud anything? Would you just applaud anything?
I'll let you in on something you don't know. I'm one of the few people on the Left in Britain who travelled the length and breadth of South Africa as an underground agent of the ANC led by Nelson Mandela, then in Pollsmoor Prison in Capetown. Therefore, the subject of apartheid is particularly important to me. The question of racism is particularly important to me and, in parenthesis, let me tell you this: throughout the entirety of my time underground in South Africa under apartheid, every house I slept in, every dinner I ate, every car I drove in was provided by Jewish activists of the ANC.
So Jews don't have to be on the side of apartheid (Applause), they don't have to be on the side of racism (Vigorous applause). Jewish heroes - amongst my blood brotherhood, like Denis Goldberg, who served 27 years on Robben Island, in Pollsmoor Prison, but never was able to touch Mandela and his comrades because they were on one side of the apartheid prison wall, and he and a few other Jewish heroes of the ANC were on the other. Denis Goldberg, Albie Sachs, Joe Slovo, Ruth First - perhaps you've heard of these people. If you haven't, look them up. Jews don't have to be on the side of apartheid. They can stand up against it, and I say to those who imagine that they are friends of the state of Israel, whose flag was just waved in my face, turn away from the racist, apartheid ideology of Zionism. Turn back towards where Jews were before the emergence of the hegemony of Zionism.
The greatest people on the earth were Jews. The leaders of the socialists, communists, trade unions, liberal enlightenment, throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries, were great Jews. Marx himself was a Jew. None of them believed that, as Jews, they should go and take somebody else's country, and drive millions of them around the world as refugees. All of them would have turned their backs against such an ideology. But because of my experience in South Africa... because of my time in South Africa, because of the decades that I worked against apartheid in South Africa, do you imagine that I would turn up at a university and debate apartheid with a supporter of the apartheid regime from South Africa? I'd rather punch him in the face than debate with him. Why? Because apartheid is a racist poison. It is the worst kind of fascism, and I would never debate with any supporter of South African apartheid. Why should I debate with a supporter of Israeli apartheid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)