The 70th anniversary of the ill-conceived, apartheid state of Israel is looming, and Murdoch's Australian is literally salivating at the prospect.
On Thursday, we had a 6-page supplement - INNOVATION NATION - "Seventy years ago on May 14, David Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of Independence proclaiming the state of Israel. In an arid landscape, the nation has succeeded through ingenuity in endeavours including agriculture and, more recently, hi-tech centred on Tel Aviv and its Silicon Wadi" (19/4/18) - and a lead article by Bruce Loudon, A miracle shaped from the desert, in which he amusingly confuses Israel's apartheid Law of Return with the Palestinians' international law-backed right of return:
"The 'right of return' has attracted migrants with a commitment to the future of Israel."
"And then there is the upsurge of violence in Gaza. Hamas terrorists are inciting impoverished Gazans into defiant protests under the banner of a 'Great March of Return' aimed at reclaiming Palestine, to coincide with Israel's 70th anniversary."
But for me the highlight of Loudon's leader was his resurrection of the hysterical words of Israel's first ambassador to the UN, Abba Eban (who, btw, once cynically quipped that "Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what one does not believe oneself"):
"Surrounded by hostile armies on all its land frontiers, subjected to savage and relentless hostility, exposed to penetration raids and assaults by day and by night, suffering a constant toll of life among its citizens, bombarded by threats of neighbouring governments to accomplish its extinction by armed force - embattled, blockaded, besieged, Israel alone among the nations faces a battle for its security anew with every approaching nightfall and every rising dawn."
An oldie but a goldie. Made my day.
Showing posts with label Law of Return. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law of Return. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Section 44 (i) & Israel's Law of Return
Section 44 (i) of the Australian Constitution famously reads:
"Any person who - Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power... shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives."
It of course has implications for any Jewish MPs and senators who take seriously the Zionist presumption that Israel is the state of all Jews, wherever they reside, and are entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship through Israel's Law of Return (1950).
The following news report is the first time, however, so far as I am aware, that Israel's Law of Return has been invoked in media commentary on the impact of Section 44 (i) on the eligibility of many of our parliamentarians to sit in federal parliament:
"A government citizenship hit-list suggests more than 25 Labor MPs and senators could be under a constitutional cloud because of dual nationality, as Parliament prepares for a new disclosure regime to kick in next week. The West Australian has obtained a comprehensive spreadsheet prepared by Coalition staff members, which presents research into the heritage of all sitting Labor parliamentarians [...] The document also suggests that Victorian Labor senator Kim Carr could have inadvertently obtained Israeli citizenship automatically granted to spouses under the Law of Return before 1999. It is unclear whether Senator Carr's spouse Carole Fabian holds Israeli citizenship, with the document saying the potential split allegiance 'has not been looked into'." (Coalition Government draws up hit-list of Labor pollies under dual-citizenship cloud, Sarah Martin and Nick Butterly, 25/11/17)
By drawing attention to Israel's Law of Return in this way, the Turnbull government has potentially unsheathed a two-edged sword, raising the prospect of its environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, to give but one example, coming under pressure to formally reject his 'right' under Israeli law to become a citizen of Israel.
It is worth remembering here that it was only the principled opposition of Britain's anti-Zionist Jewish establishment to the Zionist project in 1917 that ensured the inclusion of the following guarantee - "... nothing shall be done which may prejudice... or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country" - in the Balfour Declaration. What an irony then that Israel's Law of Return could conceivably prejudice the rights of Australian Jews to stand for election to Australia's federal parliament.
"Any person who - Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power... shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives."
It of course has implications for any Jewish MPs and senators who take seriously the Zionist presumption that Israel is the state of all Jews, wherever they reside, and are entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship through Israel's Law of Return (1950).
The following news report is the first time, however, so far as I am aware, that Israel's Law of Return has been invoked in media commentary on the impact of Section 44 (i) on the eligibility of many of our parliamentarians to sit in federal parliament:
"A government citizenship hit-list suggests more than 25 Labor MPs and senators could be under a constitutional cloud because of dual nationality, as Parliament prepares for a new disclosure regime to kick in next week. The West Australian has obtained a comprehensive spreadsheet prepared by Coalition staff members, which presents research into the heritage of all sitting Labor parliamentarians [...] The document also suggests that Victorian Labor senator Kim Carr could have inadvertently obtained Israeli citizenship automatically granted to spouses under the Law of Return before 1999. It is unclear whether Senator Carr's spouse Carole Fabian holds Israeli citizenship, with the document saying the potential split allegiance 'has not been looked into'." (Coalition Government draws up hit-list of Labor pollies under dual-citizenship cloud, Sarah Martin and Nick Butterly, 25/11/17)
By drawing attention to Israel's Law of Return in this way, the Turnbull government has potentially unsheathed a two-edged sword, raising the prospect of its environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, to give but one example, coming under pressure to formally reject his 'right' under Israeli law to become a citizen of Israel.
It is worth remembering here that it was only the principled opposition of Britain's anti-Zionist Jewish establishment to the Zionist project in 1917 that ensured the inclusion of the following guarantee - "... nothing shall be done which may prejudice... or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country" - in the Balfour Declaration. What an irony then that Israel's Law of Return could conceivably prejudice the rights of Australian Jews to stand for election to Australia's federal parliament.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Phillip Adams: Normalising Zionism
More muddying of the Palestine/Israel waters by the ABC's Philip Adams:
"We are all, each and every one of us, dual citizens... Just as Muslims pray to Mecca, Australia's Roman Catholics are, in a real sense, dual citizens of Australia and Vatican city. Australian Jews, from the Orthodox to the secular, have a form of dual citizenship with Israel. All diaspora cultures are powerfully connected to the cultures that gave them birth... " (Layers of loyalties, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 9/9/17)
Let's get this straight.
Australian Muslims have no designs on Mecca. They merely face it when praying, and, on occasion, visit as pilgrims.
Australia's Roman Catholics acknowledge the Pope as their spiritual leader. For historical reasons, he just happens to reside in the Vatican.
While Israeli Jews resident in Australia may be said to constitute an Israeli diaspora, Australian Jews, in general (whether born overseas or in Australia), have no diasporic connection whatever with Israel.
Just because political Zionism pushes the fantasy that all Jews, no matter their ethnicity, origin, or current citizenship, constitute a 'people/nation', and that the Zionist entity known as Israel is the 'national home' of this alleged 'people/nation' does not make it so.
And just because successive governments of this entity have sought to con Jews into emigrating there by legislating an apartheid 'Law of Return' (1950), granting anyone who can demonstrate a biological connection with a Jewish woman automatic citizenship rights, does not mean that Australian Jews are bound by it or have to take it seriously.
Suffice it to say that it is precisely the most ardent Zionists in Australia's Jewish community - Colin Rubenstein, Vic Alhadeff, Michael Danby et al - who never take advantage of this "form of dual citizenship," as Adams puts it, and emigrate to Israel.
The only genuine diaspora associated with the usurping Zionist entity is the Palestinian Arab diaspora. But you'll never hear about that from Adams.
"We are all, each and every one of us, dual citizens... Just as Muslims pray to Mecca, Australia's Roman Catholics are, in a real sense, dual citizens of Australia and Vatican city. Australian Jews, from the Orthodox to the secular, have a form of dual citizenship with Israel. All diaspora cultures are powerfully connected to the cultures that gave them birth... " (Layers of loyalties, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 9/9/17)
Let's get this straight.
Australian Muslims have no designs on Mecca. They merely face it when praying, and, on occasion, visit as pilgrims.
Australia's Roman Catholics acknowledge the Pope as their spiritual leader. For historical reasons, he just happens to reside in the Vatican.
While Israeli Jews resident in Australia may be said to constitute an Israeli diaspora, Australian Jews, in general (whether born overseas or in Australia), have no diasporic connection whatever with Israel.
Just because political Zionism pushes the fantasy that all Jews, no matter their ethnicity, origin, or current citizenship, constitute a 'people/nation', and that the Zionist entity known as Israel is the 'national home' of this alleged 'people/nation' does not make it so.
And just because successive governments of this entity have sought to con Jews into emigrating there by legislating an apartheid 'Law of Return' (1950), granting anyone who can demonstrate a biological connection with a Jewish woman automatic citizenship rights, does not mean that Australian Jews are bound by it or have to take it seriously.
Suffice it to say that it is precisely the most ardent Zionists in Australia's Jewish community - Colin Rubenstein, Vic Alhadeff, Michael Danby et al - who never take advantage of this "form of dual citizenship," as Adams puts it, and emigrate to Israel.
The only genuine diaspora associated with the usurping Zionist entity is the Palestinian Arab diaspora. But you'll never hear about that from Adams.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Israel: The World's Greatest Gerrymanderer
Israel gets creative to counter its demographic disadvantage (thenational.ae.com, 31/8/17) is a must-read from Nazareth-based journalist Jonathan Cook:
"Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a crushing rebuke to the perennial optimists roused to hopes of imminent peace by the visit to the Middle East last week of Donald Trump's adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. At an event on Monday in the West Bank celebrating the half centenary of Israeli occupation, Mr Netanyahu effectively admitted that US efforts to revive the peace process would prove another charade. There would be no dismantling of the settlements or eviction of their 600,000 inhabitants - the minimum requirement for a barely feasible Palestinian state. 'We are here to stay forever,' Mr Netanyahu reassured his settler audience. 'We will deepen our roots, build, strength and settle.'
"So where is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict heading if the two state solution is dead? The answer: back to its origins. That will entail another desperate numbers battle against the Palestinians - with Israel preparing to create new categories of 'Jews' so they can be recruited to the fray. Demography was always at the heart of Israeli policy.
"During the 1948 war that founded a Jewish state on the ruins of the Palestinian homeland, 750, 000 Palestinians were expelled in a campaign that today would be termed ethnic cleansing. By the end, a large native Palestinian majority had been reduced to less than a fifth of the new state's population. David Ben Gurion, the country's founding father, was unperturbed. He expected to swamp this rump group with Jews from Europe and the Arab world.
"But the project foundered on two miscalculations.
"First, Ben Gurion had not factored in the Palestinian minority's far higher birth rate. Despite waves of Jewish immigrants, Palestinians have held fast, at 20% of Israel's citizenry. Israel has fought a rear guard battle against them ever since. Studies suggest that the only Israeli affirmative action program for Palestinian citizens is in family planning.
"Israeli demographic scheming was on show again last week.
"An investigation by the Haaretz newspaper found that in recent years, Israel has stripped of citizenship potentially thousands of Bedouin, the country's fastest growing population...
"Meanwhile, another Rubicon was crossed this month when an Israeli court approved revoking the citizenship of a Palestinian convicted of a lethal attack on soldiers. Human rights groups fear that, by rendering him stateless, the Israeli right has established a precedent for conditioning citizenship on 'loyalty.' Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked underlined that very point this week when she warned the country's judges that they must prioritise demography and the state's Jewishness over human rights.
"The second miscalculation arrived in 1967. In seizing the last fragments of historic Palestine but failing to expel most of its inhabitants, Israel made itself responsible for many hundreds of thousands of additional Palestinians, including refugees from the earlier war. The 'demographic demon' as it is often referred to in Israel, was held at bay only by bogus claims for many decades that the occupation would soon end. In 2005, Israel bought a little more breathing space by 'disengaging' from the tiny Gaza enclave and its 1.5 million inhabitants.
"Now, in killing hopes of Palestinian statehood, Mr Netanyahu has made public his intention to realise the one settler state solution. Naftali Bennett, Mr Netanyahu's chief rival in the government, is itching to ignore international sentiment and begin annexing large parts of the West Bank. There is a problem, however. At least half the population in Netanyahu's Greater Israel are Palestinian. And with current birth rates, Jews will soon be an indisputable minority - one ruling over a Palestinian majority.
"That is the context for understanding the report of a government panel - leaked last weekend - that proposes a revolutionary reimagining of who counts as a Jew and therefore qualifies to live in Israel (and the occupied territories).
"Israel's 1950 Law of Return already casts the net wide, revising the traditional rabbinical injunction that a Jew must be born to a Jewish mother. Instead, the law entitles anyone with one Jewish grandparent to instant citizenship. That worked fine as long as Jews were fleeing persecution or economic distress. But since the arrival of one million immigrants following the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the pool of new Jews has dried up.
"The United States, even in the Trump era, has proved the bigger magnet. The Jerusalem Post newspaper reported last month that up to one million Israelis may be living there. Worse for Mr Netanyahu, it seems, that at least some are included in Israeli figures to bolster its demographic claims against the Palestinians. Recent trends show that the exodus of Israelis to the US is twice as large as the arrival of American Jews to Israel...
"With a pressing shortage of Jews to defeat the Palestinians demographically, the Netanyahu government is considering a desperate solution. The leaked report suggests opening the doors to a new category of "Jewish" non-Jews. According to Haaretz, potentially millions of people worldwide could qualify. The new status would apply to 'crypto Jews' whose ancestors converted from Judaism; 'emerging Jewish' communities that have adopted Jewish practices; and those claiming to be descended from Jewish 'lost tribes'... "
"Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a crushing rebuke to the perennial optimists roused to hopes of imminent peace by the visit to the Middle East last week of Donald Trump's adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. At an event on Monday in the West Bank celebrating the half centenary of Israeli occupation, Mr Netanyahu effectively admitted that US efforts to revive the peace process would prove another charade. There would be no dismantling of the settlements or eviction of their 600,000 inhabitants - the minimum requirement for a barely feasible Palestinian state. 'We are here to stay forever,' Mr Netanyahu reassured his settler audience. 'We will deepen our roots, build, strength and settle.'
"So where is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict heading if the two state solution is dead? The answer: back to its origins. That will entail another desperate numbers battle against the Palestinians - with Israel preparing to create new categories of 'Jews' so they can be recruited to the fray. Demography was always at the heart of Israeli policy.
"During the 1948 war that founded a Jewish state on the ruins of the Palestinian homeland, 750, 000 Palestinians were expelled in a campaign that today would be termed ethnic cleansing. By the end, a large native Palestinian majority had been reduced to less than a fifth of the new state's population. David Ben Gurion, the country's founding father, was unperturbed. He expected to swamp this rump group with Jews from Europe and the Arab world.
"But the project foundered on two miscalculations.
"First, Ben Gurion had not factored in the Palestinian minority's far higher birth rate. Despite waves of Jewish immigrants, Palestinians have held fast, at 20% of Israel's citizenry. Israel has fought a rear guard battle against them ever since. Studies suggest that the only Israeli affirmative action program for Palestinian citizens is in family planning.
"Israeli demographic scheming was on show again last week.
"An investigation by the Haaretz newspaper found that in recent years, Israel has stripped of citizenship potentially thousands of Bedouin, the country's fastest growing population...
"Meanwhile, another Rubicon was crossed this month when an Israeli court approved revoking the citizenship of a Palestinian convicted of a lethal attack on soldiers. Human rights groups fear that, by rendering him stateless, the Israeli right has established a precedent for conditioning citizenship on 'loyalty.' Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked underlined that very point this week when she warned the country's judges that they must prioritise demography and the state's Jewishness over human rights.
"The second miscalculation arrived in 1967. In seizing the last fragments of historic Palestine but failing to expel most of its inhabitants, Israel made itself responsible for many hundreds of thousands of additional Palestinians, including refugees from the earlier war. The 'demographic demon' as it is often referred to in Israel, was held at bay only by bogus claims for many decades that the occupation would soon end. In 2005, Israel bought a little more breathing space by 'disengaging' from the tiny Gaza enclave and its 1.5 million inhabitants.
"Now, in killing hopes of Palestinian statehood, Mr Netanyahu has made public his intention to realise the one settler state solution. Naftali Bennett, Mr Netanyahu's chief rival in the government, is itching to ignore international sentiment and begin annexing large parts of the West Bank. There is a problem, however. At least half the population in Netanyahu's Greater Israel are Palestinian. And with current birth rates, Jews will soon be an indisputable minority - one ruling over a Palestinian majority.
"That is the context for understanding the report of a government panel - leaked last weekend - that proposes a revolutionary reimagining of who counts as a Jew and therefore qualifies to live in Israel (and the occupied territories).
"Israel's 1950 Law of Return already casts the net wide, revising the traditional rabbinical injunction that a Jew must be born to a Jewish mother. Instead, the law entitles anyone with one Jewish grandparent to instant citizenship. That worked fine as long as Jews were fleeing persecution or economic distress. But since the arrival of one million immigrants following the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the pool of new Jews has dried up.
"The United States, even in the Trump era, has proved the bigger magnet. The Jerusalem Post newspaper reported last month that up to one million Israelis may be living there. Worse for Mr Netanyahu, it seems, that at least some are included in Israeli figures to bolster its demographic claims against the Palestinians. Recent trends show that the exodus of Israelis to the US is twice as large as the arrival of American Jews to Israel...
"With a pressing shortage of Jews to defeat the Palestinians demographically, the Netanyahu government is considering a desperate solution. The leaked report suggests opening the doors to a new category of "Jewish" non-Jews. According to Haaretz, potentially millions of people worldwide could qualify. The new status would apply to 'crypto Jews' whose ancestors converted from Judaism; 'emerging Jewish' communities that have adopted Jewish practices; and those claiming to be descended from Jewish 'lost tribes'... "
Monday, March 21, 2016
Born More Equal
Jennifer Oriel, writing in today's Australian:
"The greatest erosion of human potential arises from the belief that some of us are born more equal than others." (White, male & increasingly discriminated against, 21/3/16)
But what about the bizarre belief that a certain strip of land in the Middle East lying between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan really belongs to Jennifer Oriel and friendz, who not only have Australian citizenship, homes and jobs, but can migrate to said strip of land any time they choose and call it home, while those who were ethnically cleansed from it in 1948 and 1967- to make way for the Jennifer Orielz of this world - are not allowed to return there?
Looks like Jennifer Oriel and friendz were born more equal than they.
"The greatest erosion of human potential arises from the belief that some of us are born more equal than others." (White, male & increasingly discriminated against, 21/3/16)
But what about the bizarre belief that a certain strip of land in the Middle East lying between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan really belongs to Jennifer Oriel and friendz, who not only have Australian citizenship, homes and jobs, but can migrate to said strip of land any time they choose and call it home, while those who were ethnically cleansed from it in 1948 and 1967- to make way for the Jennifer Orielz of this world - are not allowed to return there?
Looks like Jennifer Oriel and friendz were born more equal than they.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
How to Solve the Syrian Refugee Problem
Too many Syrian refugees? In the Middle East? In Europe?
I have the answer.
It's simplicity itself. Just a matter of logistics and funding, really.
Here's what we do:
1) All Palestinian refugees driven out of Palestine in 1948 and 1967 by Zionist terrorists return to their homes and lands in Israel. We even have a perfectly serviceable UN General Assembly resolution, from 11 December, 1948, that's never been implemented, by way of sanction. It's called Resolution 194, and here are the key words:
"[UNGA] Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return..."
All it needs is to be implemented! End of Palestinian refugee problem!
2) Syrian refugees, currently in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe, move into the dwellings of Palestinian refugees departing Lebanon and Jordan for Israel, pending a political settlement in Syria.
I rest my case...
Oh... wait!
Israel won't let the Palestinian refugees return because, well, they're not Jews.
And the rest of the world has to pander to Israel's every vile, apartheid whim and wish - whatever the human cost - right?
I have the answer.
It's simplicity itself. Just a matter of logistics and funding, really.
Here's what we do:
1) All Palestinian refugees driven out of Palestine in 1948 and 1967 by Zionist terrorists return to their homes and lands in Israel. We even have a perfectly serviceable UN General Assembly resolution, from 11 December, 1948, that's never been implemented, by way of sanction. It's called Resolution 194, and here are the key words:
"[UNGA] Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return..."
All it needs is to be implemented! End of Palestinian refugee problem!
2) Syrian refugees, currently in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe, move into the dwellings of Palestinian refugees departing Lebanon and Jordan for Israel, pending a political settlement in Syria.
I rest my case...
Oh... wait!
Israel won't let the Palestinian refugees return because, well, they're not Jews.
And the rest of the world has to pander to Israel's every vile, apartheid whim and wish - whatever the human cost - right?
Sunday, September 6, 2015
When Zionists Advocate for Refugees...
It takes a special kind of chutzpah for a Zionist to bang on about refugees. Take Jonathan Freedland, for example. Prompted by the photograph of the drowned Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi, the Guardian's new editor-in-chief writes:
"Until the prime minister's announcement [that it would take in more Syrian refugees], it had set an upper limit of 750 refugees a year. Indeed, in the 18 months since it established the vulnerable person's scheme, it has admitted just 216 such people from Syria. It has always had an alibi: there's no room, no one wants them, councils cannot cope with the extra strain. But if councils themselves step forward, that alibi is gone. There are 433 local and county authorities in the UK. If each one committed to take 50 people, that would be more than 21,000... Of course, this could never be a whole solution. Action for refugees means not only a welcome when they arrive, but also a remedy for the problem that made them leave." (Aylan Kurdi: this one small life has shown us the way to tackle the refugee crisis, theguardian.com, 5/9/15)
Reading the above, we need to keep in mind that there are 12 Palestine refugee camps in Syria and 560,000 registered Palestine refugees. All have been affected by the conflict in Syria. Almost 300,000 are internally displaced. There are over 40,000 in Lebanon and over 15,000 in Jordan. How many are part of the Syrian refugee exodus currently streaming into Europe is anyone's guess.
We need also to remind ourselves that all of these Palestine refugees in Syria (as elsewhere) are the product of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and 1967, and that none of them have ever been allowed to return to their homes and lands in Palestine/Israel - just in case Jewish Zionists - like Jonathan Freedland - should one day decide to avail themselves of the Jews-only option, courtesy of Israel's apartheid Law of Return, of automatic Israeli citizenship.
If Freedland is ever to be taken seriously on the subject of refugees, he should publicly:
1) renounce his right as a Jew under Israel's Law of Return to take up citizenship in Israel;
2) call for the immediate repatriation to Israel of all Palestine refugees in Syria;
3) call for the phased repatriation of all Palestinian refugees to Israel;
4) support a transition from Israel as a Jewish state to a state for all of its citizens regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliation.
Unless and until he does so, anything he has to say on the subject of refugees should be taken with one hell of a grain of salt.
For the full story on Freedland, I recommend: Why Jonathan Freedland isn't fit to be the new editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Blake Alcott, counterpunch.org, 13/2/15.
"Until the prime minister's announcement [that it would take in more Syrian refugees], it had set an upper limit of 750 refugees a year. Indeed, in the 18 months since it established the vulnerable person's scheme, it has admitted just 216 such people from Syria. It has always had an alibi: there's no room, no one wants them, councils cannot cope with the extra strain. But if councils themselves step forward, that alibi is gone. There are 433 local and county authorities in the UK. If each one committed to take 50 people, that would be more than 21,000... Of course, this could never be a whole solution. Action for refugees means not only a welcome when they arrive, but also a remedy for the problem that made them leave." (Aylan Kurdi: this one small life has shown us the way to tackle the refugee crisis, theguardian.com, 5/9/15)
Reading the above, we need to keep in mind that there are 12 Palestine refugee camps in Syria and 560,000 registered Palestine refugees. All have been affected by the conflict in Syria. Almost 300,000 are internally displaced. There are over 40,000 in Lebanon and over 15,000 in Jordan. How many are part of the Syrian refugee exodus currently streaming into Europe is anyone's guess.
We need also to remind ourselves that all of these Palestine refugees in Syria (as elsewhere) are the product of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and 1967, and that none of them have ever been allowed to return to their homes and lands in Palestine/Israel - just in case Jewish Zionists - like Jonathan Freedland - should one day decide to avail themselves of the Jews-only option, courtesy of Israel's apartheid Law of Return, of automatic Israeli citizenship.
If Freedland is ever to be taken seriously on the subject of refugees, he should publicly:
1) renounce his right as a Jew under Israel's Law of Return to take up citizenship in Israel;
2) call for the immediate repatriation to Israel of all Palestine refugees in Syria;
3) call for the phased repatriation of all Palestinian refugees to Israel;
4) support a transition from Israel as a Jewish state to a state for all of its citizens regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliation.
Unless and until he does so, anything he has to say on the subject of refugees should be taken with one hell of a grain of salt.
For the full story on Freedland, I recommend: Why Jonathan Freedland isn't fit to be the new editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Blake Alcott, counterpunch.org, 13/2/15.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Two Questions for Joe Bullock
Joe Bullock (a Labor senator for Western Australia) has gone to the extraordinary length of publishing, in the Australian, a propaganda blast for Israel on the eve of this week's Labor conference (24-26/7/15), where the issue of Israel and Palestine is to be discussed.
In it, he asks, "Why the focus on Israel and Palestine?" and denigrates I/P-focused Labor colleagues as "obsessives" and "cranks." (ALP must support two-state Middle East peace process: A motion intended to undermine bipartisan commitment was foolish & reckless, 24/7/15)
The all-too-easy answer to his question, of course, may be discerned in my last post, Pardon My French (24/7/15).
As for the rest of us, the really interesting question is why a former union boss (up until last July, Bullock was state secretary of the right-wing Shop Distributive & Allied Employees Association), should have taken the time and trouble to emit something on this of all subjects.
Here's a sample paragraph:
"It is fashionable now to say the Israeli settlements are the cause of all the trouble, or that Benjamin Netanyahu is a barrier on the path to piece. Yet while Israel will have to give ground on settlements... so too will the Palestinians have to let go of the fiction that all descendents of the original Palestinian people are themselves refugees, with a 'right of return'."
Now if Joe can ask 'why?', so too can I:
1) Joe, why have you taken it upon yourself to label the international law-backed right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel a "fiction," while ignoring completely the real fiction in the matter, namely that the likes of Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus (to name but two of your Labor colleagues) belong to a nebulous entity known as 'the Jewish people'; are part of a diaspora whose true home lies on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; and can, should they so desire, migrate to Israel under the provisions of its apartheid (Jews-only) Law of Return?
2) And Joe, why does your cited paragraph bear an uncanny resemblance to the words of Israel's UN envoy, Ron Prosor?
"'UNRWA fuels false promises and gives grievance to dangerous myths. We have heard time and again that settlements are a major hurdle to peace. In these halls, no one will admit that the real obstacle is the so-called 'claim to return'... UNRWA is responsible for helping fuel this 'fiction' of the right of return to Palestinian children..." (Israeli UN envoy: UNRWA fuels 'fiction' of Palestinian 'right of return', Maya Shwayder, The Jerusalem Post, 20/5/14)
In it, he asks, "Why the focus on Israel and Palestine?" and denigrates I/P-focused Labor colleagues as "obsessives" and "cranks." (ALP must support two-state Middle East peace process: A motion intended to undermine bipartisan commitment was foolish & reckless, 24/7/15)
The all-too-easy answer to his question, of course, may be discerned in my last post, Pardon My French (24/7/15).
As for the rest of us, the really interesting question is why a former union boss (up until last July, Bullock was state secretary of the right-wing Shop Distributive & Allied Employees Association), should have taken the time and trouble to emit something on this of all subjects.
Here's a sample paragraph:
"It is fashionable now to say the Israeli settlements are the cause of all the trouble, or that Benjamin Netanyahu is a barrier on the path to piece. Yet while Israel will have to give ground on settlements... so too will the Palestinians have to let go of the fiction that all descendents of the original Palestinian people are themselves refugees, with a 'right of return'."
Now if Joe can ask 'why?', so too can I:
1) Joe, why have you taken it upon yourself to label the international law-backed right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel a "fiction," while ignoring completely the real fiction in the matter, namely that the likes of Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus (to name but two of your Labor colleagues) belong to a nebulous entity known as 'the Jewish people'; are part of a diaspora whose true home lies on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; and can, should they so desire, migrate to Israel under the provisions of its apartheid (Jews-only) Law of Return?
2) And Joe, why does your cited paragraph bear an uncanny resemblance to the words of Israel's UN envoy, Ron Prosor?
"'UNRWA fuels false promises and gives grievance to dangerous myths. We have heard time and again that settlements are a major hurdle to peace. In these halls, no one will admit that the real obstacle is the so-called 'claim to return'... UNRWA is responsible for helping fuel this 'fiction' of the right of return to Palestinian children..." (Israeli UN envoy: UNRWA fuels 'fiction' of Palestinian 'right of return', Maya Shwayder, The Jerusalem Post, 20/5/14)
Monday, June 22, 2015
A Strange Choice of Book Reviewer
Let's say your the literary editor of the Sydney Morning Herald's Saturday arts supplement, Spectrum.
Let's assume you're well-informed and genuinely interested in debate.
Let's say you've decided (for reasons best known to yourself) that, of all the latest books on Palestine/Israel that need reviewing, it just has to be Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth's Boycotting Israel is Wrong.
Who are you going to commission to do the job?
Jake Lynch, Stuart Rees, Peter Slezak, Antony Loewenstein, Nick Reimer, Marcelo Svirsky? All conversant in the politics of Palestine/Israel, and all supporters of the pro-Palestine boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign.
OK, you're not Spectrum's literary editor. Susan Wyndham is, and she's commissioned Dennis Altman, professorial fellow in the Institute for Human Security & Social Change at LaTrobe University to review Mendes & Dyrenfurth (Shaky support for two states, 20/6/15)
Problem is, according to freelance journalist Michael Brull, a close observer of these things, Altman is dismissive of the call to boycott Israel. (But what about Zionism?, Michael Brull, Overland, Autumn 2010)
Now I've been unable to access the Altman article Brull refers to on Overland's website. It seems to have been withdrawn for some reason. But, assuming that Brull is correct, and Altman takes a dim view of BDS, or worse, why then commission him of all people to review an anti-BDS book?
Certainly, anyone who begins his review this way has got to be a bit of a worry:
"Anyone who writes about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is asking for trouble; even that statement will itself draw criticism. Few issues bring out such deeply polarised views, leaving little room for genuine empathy with the range of positions involved on the ground."
OMG... genuine empathy for the range of positions involved? Yes, yes, Mr Netanyahu, I do empathise with your position, I really do... you're absolutely right about... and... and... but...
Ditto for this:
"I largely agree with the comment they [Mendes & Dyrenfurth] cite from David Remnick... that: 'Israel exists; the Palestinian people exist... Within these territorial confines two nationally distinct groups, who are divided by language, culture and history cannot live... wholly together'."
Well, weren't South Africa's Whites and Blacks ONCE so divided? Now where do they live if not wholly together?
And this:
"Thus Boycotting Israel gives us a great deal of detail about some of the excesses of the BDS movement, including the attacks on the Max Brenner chocolate shops..."
Attacks? You're kidding me? What attacks?
But more than that, Altman avoids the real reason why Zionist propagandists such as Mendes and Dyrenfurth have gone to the trouble of writing a book smearing the BDS campaign.
It's because one of the three aims of the BDS campaign is the right of return to their homes and lands, in Israel (im)proper, of the Palestinian refugees of 1948.
Mendes & Dyrenfurth have referred to this fundamental tenet of international law sneeringly as "a so-called Right of Return." (The BDS campaign's flaws and failings, M&D, Australian Jewish News, 5/5/15) And Dyrenfurth recently said on the ABC's Radio National that "The most problematic aim of the PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel) statement relates to the right of return for Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war... if there was a mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper... that would mean the end of Israel..." (Is boycotting Israel ethical or anti-Semitic?, Religion & Ethics Report, 17/6/15)
What he meant was the end of Israel as a Jewish supremacist state, that is one which allows people like Mendes & Dyrenfurth, simply by virtue of their having Jewish mothers,* to swan in or out of Israel (im)proper as they please, while denying the same right to its original, indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants, ethnically cleansed in 1948. IOW, to discriminate in favour of Jews but against non-Jewish Palestinians.
[*Through Israel's Law of Return]
Let's assume you're well-informed and genuinely interested in debate.
Let's say you've decided (for reasons best known to yourself) that, of all the latest books on Palestine/Israel that need reviewing, it just has to be Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth's Boycotting Israel is Wrong.
Who are you going to commission to do the job?
Jake Lynch, Stuart Rees, Peter Slezak, Antony Loewenstein, Nick Reimer, Marcelo Svirsky? All conversant in the politics of Palestine/Israel, and all supporters of the pro-Palestine boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign.
OK, you're not Spectrum's literary editor. Susan Wyndham is, and she's commissioned Dennis Altman, professorial fellow in the Institute for Human Security & Social Change at LaTrobe University to review Mendes & Dyrenfurth (Shaky support for two states, 20/6/15)
Problem is, according to freelance journalist Michael Brull, a close observer of these things, Altman is dismissive of the call to boycott Israel. (But what about Zionism?, Michael Brull, Overland, Autumn 2010)
Now I've been unable to access the Altman article Brull refers to on Overland's website. It seems to have been withdrawn for some reason. But, assuming that Brull is correct, and Altman takes a dim view of BDS, or worse, why then commission him of all people to review an anti-BDS book?
Certainly, anyone who begins his review this way has got to be a bit of a worry:
"Anyone who writes about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is asking for trouble; even that statement will itself draw criticism. Few issues bring out such deeply polarised views, leaving little room for genuine empathy with the range of positions involved on the ground."
OMG... genuine empathy for the range of positions involved? Yes, yes, Mr Netanyahu, I do empathise with your position, I really do... you're absolutely right about... and... and... but...
Ditto for this:
"I largely agree with the comment they [Mendes & Dyrenfurth] cite from David Remnick... that: 'Israel exists; the Palestinian people exist... Within these territorial confines two nationally distinct groups, who are divided by language, culture and history cannot live... wholly together'."
Well, weren't South Africa's Whites and Blacks ONCE so divided? Now where do they live if not wholly together?
And this:
"Thus Boycotting Israel gives us a great deal of detail about some of the excesses of the BDS movement, including the attacks on the Max Brenner chocolate shops..."
Attacks? You're kidding me? What attacks?
But more than that, Altman avoids the real reason why Zionist propagandists such as Mendes and Dyrenfurth have gone to the trouble of writing a book smearing the BDS campaign.
It's because one of the three aims of the BDS campaign is the right of return to their homes and lands, in Israel (im)proper, of the Palestinian refugees of 1948.
Mendes & Dyrenfurth have referred to this fundamental tenet of international law sneeringly as "a so-called Right of Return." (The BDS campaign's flaws and failings, M&D, Australian Jewish News, 5/5/15) And Dyrenfurth recently said on the ABC's Radio National that "The most problematic aim of the PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel) statement relates to the right of return for Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war... if there was a mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper... that would mean the end of Israel..." (Is boycotting Israel ethical or anti-Semitic?, Religion & Ethics Report, 17/6/15)
What he meant was the end of Israel as a Jewish supremacist state, that is one which allows people like Mendes & Dyrenfurth, simply by virtue of their having Jewish mothers,* to swan in or out of Israel (im)proper as they please, while denying the same right to its original, indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants, ethnically cleansed in 1948. IOW, to discriminate in favour of Jews but against non-Jewish Palestinians.
[*Through Israel's Law of Return]
Saturday, April 25, 2015
My Problem with Amira Hass
I thought I'd tune in to Phillip Adams' Late Night Live program on 22/4/15 to hear visiting Israeli journalist Amira Hass, "the only Jewish journalist who has lived among the Palestinians, both in Gaza and now full-time in the West Bank." (Amira Hass: An Israeli journalist living in Palestine)
Adams was, of course, his usual blunt self - 'blunt', that is, in the sense that his interviewing style, particularly with Jewish Zionists, totally contradicts the program's claim to be about "razor-sharp analysis of current events [which] puts you firmly in the big picture."
But it's mainly Hass (unexpectedly I might add) that I have the bigger problem with this time around. While sound on the occupation of 1967, I found the following words more than a little problematic:
"In my lectures here in Australia, I'm speaking to you as one settler to another. This institutionalisation of colonial times I see it everywhere here in Australia. Everywhere. And I also say different things to different audiences. So for people who tell me the solution is to dissolve Israel, I say 'Why don't you dissolve Australia?' And just because you got away with most of the indigenous people... and luckily and happily Israel and Zionism did not decimate the Palestinians. So... it's an extension of London. So I see the whites here and your colonialism is still fresh and the thing is how we look at the future and not the past. We cannot undo the past, but the future has to be worked on..."
Now, to take up my razor...
What does she mean by 'dissolve Israel/dissolve Australia'? Typically Adams didn't ask her.
Was this in response to a questioner who had suggested that Israel's apartheid structure be dismantled? That Israel be de-Zionised? That it become a state of its citizens, with equal rights for all, regardless of ethno-religious affiliation, rather than continue to be reserved as the exclusive domain of those Jews who see themselves as belonging to that entity, 'the Jewish people'? That Israel's outrageous, biology-based, apartheid Law of Return be scrapped? That the indigenous people of Palestine, ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967, be allowed to return to their homes and land?
Was she seriously suggesting that there are no differences between Israel and Australia? Typically, Adams didn't ask her whether she saw Australia as an apartheid state (that is, a state based, like former apartheid South Africa and today's Israel, on a raft of discriminatory legislation), and if so, which discriminatory laws made it so. Nor did he ask her whether indigenous Australians were languishing in exile in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, denied the right of return to Australia.
Why was she using the old Zionist whataboutery: You dare criticise Israel? What about Australia?
And when she said, Israel and Zionism (that is, almost 100 years of Zionist colonisation, dispossession, expulsion and occupation of Palestinians) did not decimate the Palestinians, what the hell was she on about? Typically, there was no response, razor-sharp or otherwise, from Adams.
Finally, in saying that we cannot undo the past, was she implying that Israel was set in concrete in 1948 and must forever remain a Jewish state, and that the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and 1967 must therefore remain in exile?
Adams was, of course, his usual blunt self - 'blunt', that is, in the sense that his interviewing style, particularly with Jewish Zionists, totally contradicts the program's claim to be about "razor-sharp analysis of current events [which] puts you firmly in the big picture."
But it's mainly Hass (unexpectedly I might add) that I have the bigger problem with this time around. While sound on the occupation of 1967, I found the following words more than a little problematic:
"In my lectures here in Australia, I'm speaking to you as one settler to another. This institutionalisation of colonial times I see it everywhere here in Australia. Everywhere. And I also say different things to different audiences. So for people who tell me the solution is to dissolve Israel, I say 'Why don't you dissolve Australia?' And just because you got away with most of the indigenous people... and luckily and happily Israel and Zionism did not decimate the Palestinians. So... it's an extension of London. So I see the whites here and your colonialism is still fresh and the thing is how we look at the future and not the past. We cannot undo the past, but the future has to be worked on..."
Now, to take up my razor...
What does she mean by 'dissolve Israel/dissolve Australia'? Typically Adams didn't ask her.
Was this in response to a questioner who had suggested that Israel's apartheid structure be dismantled? That Israel be de-Zionised? That it become a state of its citizens, with equal rights for all, regardless of ethno-religious affiliation, rather than continue to be reserved as the exclusive domain of those Jews who see themselves as belonging to that entity, 'the Jewish people'? That Israel's outrageous, biology-based, apartheid Law of Return be scrapped? That the indigenous people of Palestine, ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967, be allowed to return to their homes and land?
Was she seriously suggesting that there are no differences between Israel and Australia? Typically, Adams didn't ask her whether she saw Australia as an apartheid state (that is, a state based, like former apartheid South Africa and today's Israel, on a raft of discriminatory legislation), and if so, which discriminatory laws made it so. Nor did he ask her whether indigenous Australians were languishing in exile in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, denied the right of return to Australia.
Why was she using the old Zionist whataboutery: You dare criticise Israel? What about Australia?
And when she said, Israel and Zionism (that is, almost 100 years of Zionist colonisation, dispossession, expulsion and occupation of Palestinians) did not decimate the Palestinians, what the hell was she on about? Typically, there was no response, razor-sharp or otherwise, from Adams.
Finally, in saying that we cannot undo the past, was she implying that Israel was set in concrete in 1948 and must forever remain a Jewish state, and that the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and 1967 must therefore remain in exile?
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The Question of Palestine
"Why is it right for a Jew born in Chicago to immigrate to Israel, whereas a Palestinian born in Jaffa is a refugee?" (The Question of Palestine, Edward Said, 1979, p 234)
Monday, November 17, 2014
Shlomo Sand: The 'New Jews'
Essential reading from Shlomo Sand's whistle-blowing must-read, How I Stopped Being a Jew (2014):
"According to the spirit of its laws, the State of Israel belongs more to non-Israelis than it does to its citizens who live there. It claims to be the national inheritance more of the world's 'new Jews' (for instance, Paul Wolfowitz, former president of the World Bank; Michael Levy, the well-known British philanthropist and peer in the House of Lords; Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former managing director of the International Monetary Fund; Vladimir Gusinsky, the Russian media oligarch who lives in Spain) than of the 20% of its citizens identified as Arabs, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were born within its territory. Various nabobs of Jewish origin from around the world thus feel the right to intervene in Israeli life; through massive investment in the media and the political apparatus, they increasingly seek to influence its leaders and its orientation.
"Intellectuals who know well that the state of the Jews is their own also figure among the ranks of the 'new Jews'. Bernard-Henri Levi, Alan Dershowitz, Alexandre Adler, Howard Jacobson, David Horowitz, Henryk M. Broder and numerous other champions of Zionism, active in various fields of the mass media, are quite clear about their political preferences. Contrary to what Moscow meant for Communists abroad in former times, or Beijing for the Maoists of the 1960s, Jerusalem really is their property. They have no need to know the history or the geography of the place, nor are they obligated to learn its languages (Hebrew or Arabic), to work there or pay taxes, or - thank heaven! - to serve in its army. It is enough to make a short visit to Israel, readily obtain an identity card, and acquire a secondary residence there before returning immediately to their national culture and their mother tongue, while remaining in perpetuity a co-proprietor of the Jewish state - and all this simply for having been lucky enough to be born of a Jewish mother.
"The Arab inhabitants of Israel, on the other hand, if they marry a Palestinian of the opposite sex in the occupied territories, do not have the right to bring their spouses to live in Israel, for fear that they will become citizens and thereby increase the number of non-Jews in the Promised Land.
"That last assertion, in fact, requires a certain amplification. If an immigrant identified as Jewish arrives from Russia or the United States along with his non-Jewish wife, the latter will have the right to citizenship. However, even if the spouse and her children are never considered Jews, the fact that they are not Arab will prevail over the fact of not being Jewish. 'White' immigrants from Europe or America, even if not Jewish, have always enjoyed somewhat tolerant treatment. To diminish the demographic weight of the Arabs, it is judged better to weaken the Jewish state through non-Jewish dilution, so long as the newcomers are white Europeans." (pp 84-85)
Next post: Shlomo Sand: To be a Jew in Israel
"According to the spirit of its laws, the State of Israel belongs more to non-Israelis than it does to its citizens who live there. It claims to be the national inheritance more of the world's 'new Jews' (for instance, Paul Wolfowitz, former president of the World Bank; Michael Levy, the well-known British philanthropist and peer in the House of Lords; Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former managing director of the International Monetary Fund; Vladimir Gusinsky, the Russian media oligarch who lives in Spain) than of the 20% of its citizens identified as Arabs, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were born within its territory. Various nabobs of Jewish origin from around the world thus feel the right to intervene in Israeli life; through massive investment in the media and the political apparatus, they increasingly seek to influence its leaders and its orientation.
"Intellectuals who know well that the state of the Jews is their own also figure among the ranks of the 'new Jews'. Bernard-Henri Levi, Alan Dershowitz, Alexandre Adler, Howard Jacobson, David Horowitz, Henryk M. Broder and numerous other champions of Zionism, active in various fields of the mass media, are quite clear about their political preferences. Contrary to what Moscow meant for Communists abroad in former times, or Beijing for the Maoists of the 1960s, Jerusalem really is their property. They have no need to know the history or the geography of the place, nor are they obligated to learn its languages (Hebrew or Arabic), to work there or pay taxes, or - thank heaven! - to serve in its army. It is enough to make a short visit to Israel, readily obtain an identity card, and acquire a secondary residence there before returning immediately to their national culture and their mother tongue, while remaining in perpetuity a co-proprietor of the Jewish state - and all this simply for having been lucky enough to be born of a Jewish mother.
"The Arab inhabitants of Israel, on the other hand, if they marry a Palestinian of the opposite sex in the occupied territories, do not have the right to bring their spouses to live in Israel, for fear that they will become citizens and thereby increase the number of non-Jews in the Promised Land.
"That last assertion, in fact, requires a certain amplification. If an immigrant identified as Jewish arrives from Russia or the United States along with his non-Jewish wife, the latter will have the right to citizenship. However, even if the spouse and her children are never considered Jews, the fact that they are not Arab will prevail over the fact of not being Jewish. 'White' immigrants from Europe or America, even if not Jewish, have always enjoyed somewhat tolerant treatment. To diminish the demographic weight of the Arabs, it is judged better to weaken the Jewish state through non-Jewish dilution, so long as the newcomers are white Europeans." (pp 84-85)
Next post: Shlomo Sand: To be a Jew in Israel
Monday, October 27, 2014
Bill Shorten's Values
"No faith, no religion, no set of beliefs should ever be used as an instrument of division or exclusion." (Shorten to front Christian lobby over his values, James Massola, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/10/14)
That's what federal Opposition leader Bill Shorten reportedly said to Australia's Christian lobby on the subject of same-sex marriages last Saturday.
One is left wondering how, if he really believes what he says, Shorten can reconcile this statement of principle with his unqualified support for Israel, a state which occupies, oppresses and dispossesses the Palestinians simply because they are not Jewish.
As historian Adel Safty reminds us:
"Had the Palestinians been Jewish, they would have been entitled by law in Israel to automatic citizenship, political rights, subsidized housing and medical care." (Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine, 2009, p 255)
Bill?
That's what federal Opposition leader Bill Shorten reportedly said to Australia's Christian lobby on the subject of same-sex marriages last Saturday.
One is left wondering how, if he really believes what he says, Shorten can reconcile this statement of principle with his unqualified support for Israel, a state which occupies, oppresses and dispossesses the Palestinians simply because they are not Jewish.
As historian Adel Safty reminds us:
"Had the Palestinians been Jewish, they would have been entitled by law in Israel to automatic citizenship, political rights, subsidized housing and medical care." (Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine, 2009, p 255)
Bill?
Saturday, July 5, 2014
No Difference Between Blood & Blood?
"Violent clashes rocked Jerusalem yesterday following the discovery in a forest of the charred body of a 16-year-old Arab boy..." (Arab boy's murder unleashes fury, John Lyons, The Australian, 4/7/14)
His name: Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
"Naftali Fraenkel and Gilad Sha'er, both 16, and Eyal Yifrah, 19, were found on Monday dumped in a pit near Hebron in the West Bank after being kidnapped on June 12... The family of Naftali Fraenkel condemned Muhammed's murder. 'There is no difference between blood and blood,' Naftali's uncle, Yishai Fraenkel said." (ibid)
So there's no difference between Naftali's and Mohammed's blood? Really? Who is Yishai Fraenkel trying to fool?
The very reason - in fact, the only reason - the Fraenkels were able to move from Brooklyn to Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine so seamlessly is because Israel's blatantly apartheid Law of Return privileges their 'Jewish' blood over that of the non-Jewish Abu Khdeirs.
The fact that Mohammed was actually born in Palestine (as were his parents, and his grandparents, and his...) advantages him (and them) not a whit. Indeed, the Israeli government would have them all over the border in Jordan in an instant if it thought it could get away with it.
And it's all down, literally, to an accident of birth: none of them, you see, have Jewish mothers! So, no Jewish mothers... no 'Jewish' blood.
That precious commodity allows American Jews like the Fraenkels to move to, and settle just about anywhere in, Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine - as though it actually belonged to them!
Palestinian Arab blood, on the other hand, condemns folk like the Abu Khdeirs to all that living under the Israeli jackboot has to offer: humiliation, confinement, caging, detention, imprisonment, torture, dispossession, expulsion and... death.
'Jewish' blood means the Fraenkels have two homes, Occupied Palestine and the United States.
Arab blood means that the Abu Khdeirs can't even feel secure in their one, Palestinian home.
No, sorry, thanks to Zionist apartheid, there's a world of difference between blood and blood in Occupied (River-to Sea) Palestine.
(I am assuming, of course, that Yishai Fraenkel's statement is genuine. In a land where carefully crafted and targeted government PR, fed to a lazy, ignorant, and often partisan international media, tends to drown out the baying of settler mobs for Arab blood, one can never be certain.)
"Mohammed's cousin, Majdi Abu Khdeir, said the kidnappers should suffer the same fate as the kidnappers of the three Jewish teenagers, whose houses in Hebron have been destroyed with explosives." (ibid)
The same fate, Majdi? Fat chance! As you know, equality's most emphatically not what Occupation and apartheid are all about.
Under Israeli apartheid, there's one law for you and yours - that of the jungle - and another for them and theirs.
Their murderers will, of course, never be found.
Incredibly, yours are 'known' and routinely dispatched, as often as not even before they strike.
But then, you'd know all about that.
His name: Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
"Naftali Fraenkel and Gilad Sha'er, both 16, and Eyal Yifrah, 19, were found on Monday dumped in a pit near Hebron in the West Bank after being kidnapped on June 12... The family of Naftali Fraenkel condemned Muhammed's murder. 'There is no difference between blood and blood,' Naftali's uncle, Yishai Fraenkel said." (ibid)
So there's no difference between Naftali's and Mohammed's blood? Really? Who is Yishai Fraenkel trying to fool?
The very reason - in fact, the only reason - the Fraenkels were able to move from Brooklyn to Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine so seamlessly is because Israel's blatantly apartheid Law of Return privileges their 'Jewish' blood over that of the non-Jewish Abu Khdeirs.
The fact that Mohammed was actually born in Palestine (as were his parents, and his grandparents, and his...) advantages him (and them) not a whit. Indeed, the Israeli government would have them all over the border in Jordan in an instant if it thought it could get away with it.
And it's all down, literally, to an accident of birth: none of them, you see, have Jewish mothers! So, no Jewish mothers... no 'Jewish' blood.
That precious commodity allows American Jews like the Fraenkels to move to, and settle just about anywhere in, Occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine - as though it actually belonged to them!
Palestinian Arab blood, on the other hand, condemns folk like the Abu Khdeirs to all that living under the Israeli jackboot has to offer: humiliation, confinement, caging, detention, imprisonment, torture, dispossession, expulsion and... death.
'Jewish' blood means the Fraenkels have two homes, Occupied Palestine and the United States.
Arab blood means that the Abu Khdeirs can't even feel secure in their one, Palestinian home.
No, sorry, thanks to Zionist apartheid, there's a world of difference between blood and blood in Occupied (River-to Sea) Palestine.
(I am assuming, of course, that Yishai Fraenkel's statement is genuine. In a land where carefully crafted and targeted government PR, fed to a lazy, ignorant, and often partisan international media, tends to drown out the baying of settler mobs for Arab blood, one can never be certain.)
"Mohammed's cousin, Majdi Abu Khdeir, said the kidnappers should suffer the same fate as the kidnappers of the three Jewish teenagers, whose houses in Hebron have been destroyed with explosives." (ibid)
The same fate, Majdi? Fat chance! As you know, equality's most emphatically not what Occupation and apartheid are all about.
Under Israeli apartheid, there's one law for you and yours - that of the jungle - and another for them and theirs.
Their murderers will, of course, never be found.
Incredibly, yours are 'known' and routinely dispatched, as often as not even before they strike.
But then, you'd know all about that.
Monday, December 30, 2013
The Heart of Darkness
The masthead of Murdoch's 'flagship' paper in this country, The Australian, loudly proclaims itself to be The Heart of the Nation.
Now I'd only be inclined to go along with that claim provided that the adjective 'dark' preceded the noun 'heart'. Or, even better (and with apologies to Joseph Conrad), that it was replaced altogether with the words 'The Heart of Darkness', as befits the paper's status as the mouthpiece of the Abbottoir and all that is vile and retrograde in this country.
So what has provoked this little exercise in calling a spade a spade? What else but Ean - with an 'E' - Higgins' latest EXCLUSIVE:
"Sydney academic Jake Lynch's promotion of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] has discriminated against all Israelis in the same fashion as a pub owner hanging out a sign saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed', the lawyer leading a lawsuit against him will argue. Andrew Hamilton, representing the Israel-based legal action group Shurat HaDin, has submitted a sweeping statement of claim to the Federal Court alleging Professor Lynch has directly discriminated against academics, but also helped deprive all Israelis of cultural, educational, and professional opportunities." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', 28/12/13)
OMG! This is news? This is journalism? Seriously?
No, this is advocacy, pure and simple. The Heart of Darkness has donned the mantle of media-advocate for the plaintiff, and is getting in on the act even before the case is underway.
Call me sheltered, but I simply cannot for the life of me remember a media outlet intervening in a legal case in this fashion before. Of the 19 paragraphs that make up this pseudo-report, just one (1) is given over to a statement by the defendant. Extraordinary.
To return to those opening paragraphs. The simple fact of the matter here is that the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign is little more than a reaction to the behaviour of an apartheid state which, having booted out Palestine's non-Jews and stolen their lands and possessions, has put up a sign (known officially as the Law of Return) which reads, in effect, 'No Non-Jews Allowed'.
Needless to say, on Planet Zion, reality is invariably reversed. Strange things happen there. Anti-racists, for example, are labelled racists by the supporters of a state based at its most fundamental level - the level of who gets in and who gets all the perks that come with getting-in, as opposed to those who don't - on biology.
On Planet Earth (how weird that this has to be emphasised time and again), it is Professor Lynch, not Andrew Hamilton (or Akiva as he likes to style himself), who, as a backer of BDS, stands against institutionalised racism, discrimination and exclusion.
As to those poor Israelis deprived by Professor Lynch of "cultural, educational, and professional opportunities," get ready to cry the proverbial river:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics [Dr Leonard Hammer & Dr Mordechai Kedar], who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor Lynch's policy [because]... [t]hey are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Professor Lynch's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies..." (ibid)
"Shurat HaDin's statement... says two of the applicants, David Hans Lange and Jonathan Bose, and their wives were 'deprived of the opportunity to attend the local Israeli public performances of Elvis Costello' because a scheduled performance in 2010 for which they had tickets was cancelled 'due to implementation of boycott calls'." (ibid)
The Heart of Darkness bleeds for these miserable wretches.
Now I'd only be inclined to go along with that claim provided that the adjective 'dark' preceded the noun 'heart'. Or, even better (and with apologies to Joseph Conrad), that it was replaced altogether with the words 'The Heart of Darkness', as befits the paper's status as the mouthpiece of the Abbottoir and all that is vile and retrograde in this country.
So what has provoked this little exercise in calling a spade a spade? What else but Ean - with an 'E' - Higgins' latest EXCLUSIVE:
"Sydney academic Jake Lynch's promotion of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign [BDS] has discriminated against all Israelis in the same fashion as a pub owner hanging out a sign saying 'No Jews or Blacks Allowed', the lawyer leading a lawsuit against him will argue. Andrew Hamilton, representing the Israel-based legal action group Shurat HaDin, has submitted a sweeping statement of claim to the Federal Court alleging Professor Lynch has directly discriminated against academics, but also helped deprive all Israelis of cultural, educational, and professional opportunities." (Lynch like 'publican denying blacks, Jews', 28/12/13)
OMG! This is news? This is journalism? Seriously?
No, this is advocacy, pure and simple. The Heart of Darkness has donned the mantle of media-advocate for the plaintiff, and is getting in on the act even before the case is underway.
Call me sheltered, but I simply cannot for the life of me remember a media outlet intervening in a legal case in this fashion before. Of the 19 paragraphs that make up this pseudo-report, just one (1) is given over to a statement by the defendant. Extraordinary.
To return to those opening paragraphs. The simple fact of the matter here is that the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign is little more than a reaction to the behaviour of an apartheid state which, having booted out Palestine's non-Jews and stolen their lands and possessions, has put up a sign (known officially as the Law of Return) which reads, in effect, 'No Non-Jews Allowed'.
Needless to say, on Planet Zion, reality is invariably reversed. Strange things happen there. Anti-racists, for example, are labelled racists by the supporters of a state based at its most fundamental level - the level of who gets in and who gets all the perks that come with getting-in, as opposed to those who don't - on biology.
On Planet Earth (how weird that this has to be emphasised time and again), it is Professor Lynch, not Andrew Hamilton (or Akiva as he likes to style himself), who, as a backer of BDS, stands against institutionalised racism, discrimination and exclusion.
As to those poor Israelis deprived by Professor Lynch of "cultural, educational, and professional opportunities," get ready to cry the proverbial river:
"Shurat HaDin alleges two academics [Dr Leonard Hammer & Dr Mordechai Kedar], who have joined the case as plaintiffs, have been adversely affected by Professor Lynch's policy [because]... [t]hey are people who quite realistically may want to be a visiting scholar at [Professor Lynch's] Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies..." (ibid)
"Shurat HaDin's statement... says two of the applicants, David Hans Lange and Jonathan Bose, and their wives were 'deprived of the opportunity to attend the local Israeli public performances of Elvis Costello' because a scheduled performance in 2010 for which they had tickets was cancelled 'due to implementation of boycott calls'." (ibid)
The Heart of Darkness bleeds for these miserable wretches.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
The New Face of Multiculturalism in NSW
Meet the new chairman of the NSW Community Relations Commission, the state's promoter of multiculturalism:
"Mr [Vic] Alhadeff said he felt he had 'graduated' to the chairmanship after spending his formative years in Africa. 'I would have swastikas painted on my locker as a Jewish kid at school in Zimbabwe," he said. Mr Alhadeff said schoolyard racism, the death of his grandparents in the Holocaust and his work as a newspaperman in apartheid-era South Africa helped shape his view of multiculturalism. 'To this day I have this passion to promote respect for every person irrespective of the colour of their skin, the accent they may have, the language they speak, the faith they belong to, the culture which they represent,' he said." (Multicultural body gets new chairman, The Australian, 18/12/13)
On the face of it, no one could possibly quarrel with such an appointment. Judging from the above, Alhadeff appears eminently qualified to step into the shoes of his predecessor, Stepan Kerkyasharian.
The problem is that we're not getting the full story here. And that's because Alhadeff has neglected to mention that he's also a political Zionist, indeed arguably Australia's most active Israel lobbyist.
As such he's a vigorous defender of an exclusive, Jews-only ethnocracy predicated on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous Arab majority in 1948 - the very antithesis of an inclusive, non-discriminatory multiculturalism where neither ethnicity nor creed are allowed to stand in the way of citizenship.
Putting it even more simply, Alhadeff supports the reservation of Israel for Jews the world over, including himself, while millions of Palestinian refugees are prohibited from returning to their homes and lands there, forever condemned to statelessness and exile in squalid refugee camps scattered about the Middle East - for no other reason than that they are not Jewish.
Just to demonstrate how alien this concept of a Jewish ethnocracy is to multicultural societies such as the United States and Australia, consider the following revealing extract from Max Blumenthal's absolutely must-read book on contemporary Israel Goliath: Life & Loathing in Greater Israel* (2013):
"In a 2008 meeting with then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, [Tzipi] Livni emphasized Israel's rejection of the Palestinian refugees' right to return to their confiscated land and property inside Israel on the grounds that the refugees threatened Israel's Jewish character. Rice, an African-American raised in the Jim Crow American South by a pro-civil rights Baptist preacher, shuddered at the implications of Livni's statement. 'I must admit that though I understood her argument intellectually,' Rice reflected, 'it struck me as a harsh defense of the ethnic purity of the Israeli state when Tzipi said it. It was one of those conversations that shocked my sensibilities as an American. After all, the very concept of 'American' rejects ethnic or religious definitions of citizenship." (pp 25-26)
It's hard to believe, I know, but even as rabid a Zionist as our own Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan once recoiled, even if only momentarily, when faced with the stark racism of another Israeli leader:
"What makes [Avigdor] Lieberman controversial, and unacceptable to many, is his view that as well as territory, Israel should give away people, too, in particular its Muslim Arab citizens. He doesn't want to expel them exactly, just redraw some borders so that some Arab towns and villages move into a new Palestinian state nextdoor, thus making Israel a more Jewish state. The idea of excluding people on the basis of their ethnicity or religion is anathema to every liberal principle... Yet it conforms to the reality of the Middle East." (Israeli right-winger redraws the battle lines**, The Australian, 17/12/07)
The bottom line is that Alhadeff's Zionism and the mission of the CRC to promote multiculturalism in NSW are clearly incompatible. NSW Premier Baruch O'Farrell has a case to answer here.
[*Go and buy Blumenthal's new book. In fact, why not buy several copies? It'd make a great Xmas present for anyone with a brain; **How interesting that a simple Google search for this particular column of Sheridan's yields only the reference in this blog. Has it been pulled, I wonder?]
"Mr [Vic] Alhadeff said he felt he had 'graduated' to the chairmanship after spending his formative years in Africa. 'I would have swastikas painted on my locker as a Jewish kid at school in Zimbabwe," he said. Mr Alhadeff said schoolyard racism, the death of his grandparents in the Holocaust and his work as a newspaperman in apartheid-era South Africa helped shape his view of multiculturalism. 'To this day I have this passion to promote respect for every person irrespective of the colour of their skin, the accent they may have, the language they speak, the faith they belong to, the culture which they represent,' he said." (Multicultural body gets new chairman, The Australian, 18/12/13)
On the face of it, no one could possibly quarrel with such an appointment. Judging from the above, Alhadeff appears eminently qualified to step into the shoes of his predecessor, Stepan Kerkyasharian.
The problem is that we're not getting the full story here. And that's because Alhadeff has neglected to mention that he's also a political Zionist, indeed arguably Australia's most active Israel lobbyist.
As such he's a vigorous defender of an exclusive, Jews-only ethnocracy predicated on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous Arab majority in 1948 - the very antithesis of an inclusive, non-discriminatory multiculturalism where neither ethnicity nor creed are allowed to stand in the way of citizenship.
Putting it even more simply, Alhadeff supports the reservation of Israel for Jews the world over, including himself, while millions of Palestinian refugees are prohibited from returning to their homes and lands there, forever condemned to statelessness and exile in squalid refugee camps scattered about the Middle East - for no other reason than that they are not Jewish.
Just to demonstrate how alien this concept of a Jewish ethnocracy is to multicultural societies such as the United States and Australia, consider the following revealing extract from Max Blumenthal's absolutely must-read book on contemporary Israel Goliath: Life & Loathing in Greater Israel* (2013):
"In a 2008 meeting with then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, [Tzipi] Livni emphasized Israel's rejection of the Palestinian refugees' right to return to their confiscated land and property inside Israel on the grounds that the refugees threatened Israel's Jewish character. Rice, an African-American raised in the Jim Crow American South by a pro-civil rights Baptist preacher, shuddered at the implications of Livni's statement. 'I must admit that though I understood her argument intellectually,' Rice reflected, 'it struck me as a harsh defense of the ethnic purity of the Israeli state when Tzipi said it. It was one of those conversations that shocked my sensibilities as an American. After all, the very concept of 'American' rejects ethnic or religious definitions of citizenship." (pp 25-26)
It's hard to believe, I know, but even as rabid a Zionist as our own Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan once recoiled, even if only momentarily, when faced with the stark racism of another Israeli leader:
"What makes [Avigdor] Lieberman controversial, and unacceptable to many, is his view that as well as territory, Israel should give away people, too, in particular its Muslim Arab citizens. He doesn't want to expel them exactly, just redraw some borders so that some Arab towns and villages move into a new Palestinian state nextdoor, thus making Israel a more Jewish state. The idea of excluding people on the basis of their ethnicity or religion is anathema to every liberal principle... Yet it conforms to the reality of the Middle East." (Israeli right-winger redraws the battle lines**, The Australian, 17/12/07)
The bottom line is that Alhadeff's Zionism and the mission of the CRC to promote multiculturalism in NSW are clearly incompatible. NSW Premier Baruch O'Farrell has a case to answer here.
[*Go and buy Blumenthal's new book. In fact, why not buy several copies? It'd make a great Xmas present for anyone with a brain; **How interesting that a simple Google search for this particular column of Sheridan's yields only the reference in this blog. Has it been pulled, I wonder?]
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Israeli Apartheid: Visible from Space
Israeli apartheid may be visible from space, but not, it seems, down here on the ground in Abbottoir.
Despite the ms media currently being awash with references to the late, unlamented, and thoroughly vile South African brat, you'll find not a whisper about its even more evil twin, Israeli apartheid, such is the terror in our newsrooms at the prospect of a visit by the Zionist thought police.
And yet, those of conscience, familiar with both, couldn't help but notice that the two came from the same stock. One such, the South African anti-apartheid activist and associate of ANC leader Oliver Tambo, Ronald Segal (1932-2008), made the following observations as long ago as 1973:
"A second insight of the Arab case is the similarity between Israel and white South Africa. After all, the pioneers of white settlement in South Africa were refugees, too; from Catholic power and intolerance in Europe. And the subsequent history of the Afrikaners was long informed by the resistance to British imperial ambitions. The cause of the Jewish state has enjoyed support from the same sort of liberal opinion in the West that rose to the defence of the Boer republics at the turn of the century.
"The unique identity of the Afrikaner nation is now undeniable. And the cry of the Afrikaners - that they have nowhere else to go; that no reasonable refuge offers itself; that they are engaged in their conflict with Africans for no less than their very survival as a people, after centuries of separate existence - is not without its resemblance to the profile of Israeli nationalism. (Which is one reason why, for all the recent past of organized and even institutionalized anti-Semitism among them, the Afrikaners regard Israelis today with a kind of kinship.)
"And just how different has been the treatment of Arabs under their control by the Israelis from the treatment of Africans by white South Africa? Under the wrappings, many of the goods are the same. Land has been expropriated under various pretexts from Arabs who did not flee, and at times of relative peace; with compensation long delayed and, when finally paid, far below real value. And this plundering has been extended even to Druze land; though the Druzes have never been considered a significant security risk and are, indeed, permitted to serve in the Israeli armed forces.
"Whatever the security excuse, the Israeli Defence Laws have operated to treat Arab citizens quite differently from Jewish ones, with restrictions on movement, curfews, detention or banishment, and the confiscation or destruction of property. And though military rule within Israel proper has receded since the Six Day War, the occupied territories are administered on the basis of economic but not political integration. Some 40 to 50 thousand workers from these territories have already been sucked into the Israeli economy, in an effective relationship not so remote from that between white South Africa and the Bantustans. Indeed, many Israelis see in what would be a virtual Bantustan a solution to the problem of the West Bank: whose overt political autonomy would be in pawn to an inescapable economic subservience.
"Certainly, as the Israeli authorities have been quick to declare, such workers earn more in Israel than they would in the territories themselves, let alone almost anywhere else in the Arab world. But this argument is, after all, rather like the conventional apology of apartheid: that Africans in general earn much more in South Africa than they do elsewhere on the continent, and that the borders must be controlled to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to enjoy the notorious discrimination of racial policy. Yet even given the accuracy of the South African government contention, what matters, of course, is not the difference between black earnings in South Africa and black earnings elsewhere, but the difference between the earnings of blacks and the earnings of whites within the same country. Similarly, what matters in an assessment of Israeli society is that in general Arab labour from the occupied territories earns substantially less than does Jewish labour: not because, as in South Africa, the state explicitly requires it, but because there is, in institutionalized Jewish labour organization, a form of pressure on employers not possessed by migrant Arab labour.
"And the parallel with white South Africa is taken further. Israel is essentially a Jewish state, and Jewishness has been made an essentially biological phenomenon. By the Law of Return, 1950, Israeli citizenship is all but automatically conferred on any Jew who arrives and asks for it.And a decision was recently taken to confer Israeli citizenship on Jews still living abroad who choose to claim it. On the other hand, to become a Jew, it is not enough to fulfil certain residential and other civil requirements customary in other countries. It is not enough even to be born in the Jewish state. A Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother. (Whose Jerusalem?, pp 13-15)
Of course, there was an occasion, though only one that I can recall, when both branches of the Australian corporate press uncharacteristically lapsed into plain talk and used the 'a' word to describe Israel.
Then the shit really hit the fan. (See my posts Consensus At Last (7/5/12) & Down the Memory Hole (10/5/12).)
Despite the ms media currently being awash with references to the late, unlamented, and thoroughly vile South African brat, you'll find not a whisper about its even more evil twin, Israeli apartheid, such is the terror in our newsrooms at the prospect of a visit by the Zionist thought police.
And yet, those of conscience, familiar with both, couldn't help but notice that the two came from the same stock. One such, the South African anti-apartheid activist and associate of ANC leader Oliver Tambo, Ronald Segal (1932-2008), made the following observations as long ago as 1973:
"A second insight of the Arab case is the similarity between Israel and white South Africa. After all, the pioneers of white settlement in South Africa were refugees, too; from Catholic power and intolerance in Europe. And the subsequent history of the Afrikaners was long informed by the resistance to British imperial ambitions. The cause of the Jewish state has enjoyed support from the same sort of liberal opinion in the West that rose to the defence of the Boer republics at the turn of the century.
"The unique identity of the Afrikaner nation is now undeniable. And the cry of the Afrikaners - that they have nowhere else to go; that no reasonable refuge offers itself; that they are engaged in their conflict with Africans for no less than their very survival as a people, after centuries of separate existence - is not without its resemblance to the profile of Israeli nationalism. (Which is one reason why, for all the recent past of organized and even institutionalized anti-Semitism among them, the Afrikaners regard Israelis today with a kind of kinship.)
"And just how different has been the treatment of Arabs under their control by the Israelis from the treatment of Africans by white South Africa? Under the wrappings, many of the goods are the same. Land has been expropriated under various pretexts from Arabs who did not flee, and at times of relative peace; with compensation long delayed and, when finally paid, far below real value. And this plundering has been extended even to Druze land; though the Druzes have never been considered a significant security risk and are, indeed, permitted to serve in the Israeli armed forces.
"Whatever the security excuse, the Israeli Defence Laws have operated to treat Arab citizens quite differently from Jewish ones, with restrictions on movement, curfews, detention or banishment, and the confiscation or destruction of property. And though military rule within Israel proper has receded since the Six Day War, the occupied territories are administered on the basis of economic but not political integration. Some 40 to 50 thousand workers from these territories have already been sucked into the Israeli economy, in an effective relationship not so remote from that between white South Africa and the Bantustans. Indeed, many Israelis see in what would be a virtual Bantustan a solution to the problem of the West Bank: whose overt political autonomy would be in pawn to an inescapable economic subservience.
"Certainly, as the Israeli authorities have been quick to declare, such workers earn more in Israel than they would in the territories themselves, let alone almost anywhere else in the Arab world. But this argument is, after all, rather like the conventional apology of apartheid: that Africans in general earn much more in South Africa than they do elsewhere on the continent, and that the borders must be controlled to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to enjoy the notorious discrimination of racial policy. Yet even given the accuracy of the South African government contention, what matters, of course, is not the difference between black earnings in South Africa and black earnings elsewhere, but the difference between the earnings of blacks and the earnings of whites within the same country. Similarly, what matters in an assessment of Israeli society is that in general Arab labour from the occupied territories earns substantially less than does Jewish labour: not because, as in South Africa, the state explicitly requires it, but because there is, in institutionalized Jewish labour organization, a form of pressure on employers not possessed by migrant Arab labour.
"And the parallel with white South Africa is taken further. Israel is essentially a Jewish state, and Jewishness has been made an essentially biological phenomenon. By the Law of Return, 1950, Israeli citizenship is all but automatically conferred on any Jew who arrives and asks for it.And a decision was recently taken to confer Israeli citizenship on Jews still living abroad who choose to claim it. On the other hand, to become a Jew, it is not enough to fulfil certain residential and other civil requirements customary in other countries. It is not enough even to be born in the Jewish state. A Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother. (Whose Jerusalem?, pp 13-15)
Of course, there was an occasion, though only one that I can recall, when both branches of the Australian corporate press uncharacteristically lapsed into plain talk and used the 'a' word to describe Israel.
Then the shit really hit the fan. (See my posts Consensus At Last (7/5/12) & Down the Memory Hole (10/5/12).)
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
A Palestinian Martin Luther King
The dumbed-down Sydney Morning Herald on Monday carried yet another opinion piece by Vic Alhadeff, chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies.
Wearing his Jewish liberal - as opposed to his Israel lobbyist - hat, Baruch O'Farrell's recently-appointed NSW Human Rights Award judge took advantage of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous 'I have a dream' speech to bask in King's reflected glory.
Inevitably, Alhadeff got around to quoting King's ringing admonition that "individuals should be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."
All I could think of was Israel's discriminatory, Jews-only Law of Return, and a Palestinian Martin Luther King saying: 'Individuals should not be judged by the Jewishness of their mothers, but by their actual - not imagined - connection to the land of Palestine.
Wearing his Jewish liberal - as opposed to his Israel lobbyist - hat, Baruch O'Farrell's recently-appointed NSW Human Rights Award judge took advantage of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous 'I have a dream' speech to bask in King's reflected glory.
Inevitably, Alhadeff got around to quoting King's ringing admonition that "individuals should be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."
All I could think of was Israel's discriminatory, Jews-only Law of Return, and a Palestinian Martin Luther King saying: 'Individuals should not be judged by the Jewishness of their mothers, but by their actual - not imagined - connection to the land of Palestine.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Desperately Seeking Australian Apartheid
It's amazing the lengths some guys will go to to impress a girl. (Now to understand just how that statement ties in with the quotation below, you're going to have to stop reading this post NOW and go directly to my June 28 post, His Brilliant Career, where all will be revealed. Simply click on the Andrew Hamilton label below.)
Now as you will have gathered after reading my earlier post on him, Andrew (call me Akiva) Hamilton is an example of what has been called OZCS - Over-Zealous Convert Syndrome. In Hamilton's case, of course, the conversion has been to political Zionism, and such is the lad's zeal that, in addition to taking on Associate Professor Jake Lynch, he's now taking on his very birthplace, Australia:
"The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement justifies its racist persecution of Jewish Israeli businesses in Australia, the UK, Europe and North America with the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state... But the analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false on every level. A comparison of Israel with Australia... reveals this clearly... Israel is one of the most un-apartheid states in the world, with a record of successful multiculturalism, protection and integration of minorities that puts most western countries, including Australia, to shame. Apartheid South Africa had a system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination against 'blacks' and 'coloreds' in every aspect of South African society. This was similar to, but more extreme than, the system of racist laws that Australia had in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)." (Israel, the un-apartheid state - a comparison with Australia, The Jerusalem Post, 21/8/13)
Now Hamilton's contention that Israel is "one of the most un-apartheid states in the world" is, of course, pure bunkum. For a state which converted an indigenous Arab majority into a minority by a) packing it off to exile in refugee camps in surrounding countries and refusing its return; and b) passing a Law of Return which allows in as citizens only persons deemed to be Jews, regardless of their origin, to be characterised as "un-apartheid" is high-order chutzpah, something we've come to expect from Mr Hamilton.
But rather than re-canvass the issue of apartheid Israel in this post, simply click on the Israeli apartheid label below and read through my various posts on the subject, particularly those which refer to the seminal work of Israeli scholar Uri Davis.
Without in any way underestimating the genocidal impact of white settler-colonialism on Australia's indigenous Aboriginal population, and keeping in mind that the sine qua non of both South African and Israeli apartheid derives from a body of discriminatory legislation, I intend here to deal only with Hamilton's assertion that Australia was some kind of apartheid South Africa lite until its Aboriginal population achieved 'equality' with other citizens in 1967.
To begin with, his charge that Australia had a "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)" is contradicted by such an elementary reference source as Wikipedia:
"It is frequently stated that the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginal people Australian citizenship and that it gave them the right to vote in federal elections. Neither of these statements is correct. Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1949, when a separate Australian citizenship was created for the first time (before that time all Australians, including Aborigines, were 'British subjects'). Aboriginal people from Queensland and Western Australia gained the vote in Commonwealth elections in 1962. However, the Commonwealth voting right of Aborigines from other states was confirmed by a Commonwealth Act in 1949 (the constitution already gave them that right but it was often interpreted differently before 1949). They got the vote in WA state elections in 1962 and Queensland state elections in 1965."
Finally, an examination of the historical background of of the Australian Constitution with respect to Aborigines in no way supports Hamilton's fiction:
"To understand the constitutional provisions which the Referendum [of 1967] amended, it is necessary to examine their origin at Federation. During the Federal Conventions of the 1890s, representatives barely mentioned Aborigines. Aboriginal welfare rested with the States. As the Commonwealth had no territory of its own (receiving the Northern Territory from South Australia only in 1911), it had no Aboriginal population to directly administer. Secondly, popular belief at the turn of the century held that Aborigines were a 'dying race' whose future, therefore, did not warrant a lot of discussion. The resulting Constitution of 1901 mentions Aborigines in only these two clauses: Section 51: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:... (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. Section 127: In reckoning the number of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The motivation for Section 51 (xxvi) was the Commonwealth's desire to to have control over the migration, status or expulsion of non-white groups such as Chinese and Kanaka labourers. Aboriginal people, by being exempted, would not become the focus of discriminatory Commonwealth laws... The genesis of Section 127 was to create 'fairness' among the States. Only the white population would be counted in estimating the share of customs revenue each State was required to contribute to the Federal Government; States with large Aboriginal populations would therefore not be disadvantaged. An additional rationale related to the calculation of seats in the Federal Parliament, which were based on census figures." (Thesis: 'As One People': Interpreting the 1967 Referendum, Jane McLachlan-Chew, Department of History, University of Melbourne, 2006, available at recognise.org.au)
This then, is Hamilton's "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)," which is supposed to be "similar to" South African apartheid's "system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination aganst 'blacks'... in every aspect of South African society."
(NB: I'll be returning to other false and misleading assertions in his Jerusalem Post piece as time permits and the spirit moves me.)
Now as you will have gathered after reading my earlier post on him, Andrew (call me Akiva) Hamilton is an example of what has been called OZCS - Over-Zealous Convert Syndrome. In Hamilton's case, of course, the conversion has been to political Zionism, and such is the lad's zeal that, in addition to taking on Associate Professor Jake Lynch, he's now taking on his very birthplace, Australia:
"The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement justifies its racist persecution of Jewish Israeli businesses in Australia, the UK, Europe and North America with the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state... But the analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false on every level. A comparison of Israel with Australia... reveals this clearly... Israel is one of the most un-apartheid states in the world, with a record of successful multiculturalism, protection and integration of minorities that puts most western countries, including Australia, to shame. Apartheid South Africa had a system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination against 'blacks' and 'coloreds' in every aspect of South African society. This was similar to, but more extreme than, the system of racist laws that Australia had in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)." (Israel, the un-apartheid state - a comparison with Australia, The Jerusalem Post, 21/8/13)
Now Hamilton's contention that Israel is "one of the most un-apartheid states in the world" is, of course, pure bunkum. For a state which converted an indigenous Arab majority into a minority by a) packing it off to exile in refugee camps in surrounding countries and refusing its return; and b) passing a Law of Return which allows in as citizens only persons deemed to be Jews, regardless of their origin, to be characterised as "un-apartheid" is high-order chutzpah, something we've come to expect from Mr Hamilton.
But rather than re-canvass the issue of apartheid Israel in this post, simply click on the Israeli apartheid label below and read through my various posts on the subject, particularly those which refer to the seminal work of Israeli scholar Uri Davis.
Without in any way underestimating the genocidal impact of white settler-colonialism on Australia's indigenous Aboriginal population, and keeping in mind that the sine qua non of both South African and Israeli apartheid derives from a body of discriminatory legislation, I intend here to deal only with Hamilton's assertion that Australia was some kind of apartheid South Africa lite until its Aboriginal population achieved 'equality' with other citizens in 1967.
To begin with, his charge that Australia had a "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)" is contradicted by such an elementary reference source as Wikipedia:
"It is frequently stated that the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginal people Australian citizenship and that it gave them the right to vote in federal elections. Neither of these statements is correct. Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1949, when a separate Australian citizenship was created for the first time (before that time all Australians, including Aborigines, were 'British subjects'). Aboriginal people from Queensland and Western Australia gained the vote in Commonwealth elections in 1962. However, the Commonwealth voting right of Aborigines from other states was confirmed by a Commonwealth Act in 1949 (the constitution already gave them that right but it was often interpreted differently before 1949). They got the vote in WA state elections in 1962 and Queensland state elections in 1965."
Finally, an examination of the historical background of of the Australian Constitution with respect to Aborigines in no way supports Hamilton's fiction:
"To understand the constitutional provisions which the Referendum [of 1967] amended, it is necessary to examine their origin at Federation. During the Federal Conventions of the 1890s, representatives barely mentioned Aborigines. Aboriginal welfare rested with the States. As the Commonwealth had no territory of its own (receiving the Northern Territory from South Australia only in 1911), it had no Aboriginal population to directly administer. Secondly, popular belief at the turn of the century held that Aborigines were a 'dying race' whose future, therefore, did not warrant a lot of discussion. The resulting Constitution of 1901 mentions Aborigines in only these two clauses: Section 51: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:... (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. Section 127: In reckoning the number of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The motivation for Section 51 (xxvi) was the Commonwealth's desire to to have control over the migration, status or expulsion of non-white groups such as Chinese and Kanaka labourers. Aboriginal people, by being exempted, would not become the focus of discriminatory Commonwealth laws... The genesis of Section 127 was to create 'fairness' among the States. Only the white population would be counted in estimating the share of customs revenue each State was required to contribute to the Federal Government; States with large Aboriginal populations would therefore not be disadvantaged. An additional rationale related to the calculation of seats in the Federal Parliament, which were based on census figures." (Thesis: 'As One People': Interpreting the 1967 Referendum, Jane McLachlan-Chew, Department of History, University of Melbourne, 2006, available at recognise.org.au)
This then, is Hamilton's "system of racist laws... in place prior to the recognition of indigenous Australians as equal citizens in 1967 (by Constitutional amendment)," which is supposed to be "similar to" South African apartheid's "system of strictly enforced laws that enshrined racial discrimination aganst 'blacks'... in every aspect of South African society."
(NB: I'll be returning to other false and misleading assertions in his Jerusalem Post piece as time permits and the spirit moves me.)
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Flabergasted
Yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald review of a new French? Israeli? French-Israeli? film due for release this Thursday in Sydney really had me squirming:
"The Other Son is a film that poses a potent question: what happens when two Middle Eastern youths - one Jewish, the other Palestinian - discover they have been accidentally switched as babies during a Gulf War air raid? As Joseph prepares to join the Israeli army for national service, he learns he is actually the son of a Palestinian family from the West Bank."* (Middle East fairy story a tale of faith tolerance, Garry Maddox)
So the Middle East conflict boils down to... religious intolerance? Oh really...?
"In shock, he wonders if he has to trade his skull cap for a suicide bomb."
Jeeesus! You're kidding me, right?
"Like Yacine, who has been living in tougher conditions in the West Bank..."
Never use the 'O'(ccupation) word if you can possibly avoid it!
"Director Lorraine Levy... says... 'I'm Jewish... But I profoundly respect Arabs, Christians, Buddhists - that's the way I was raised. I'm always completely flabergasted when some people reject others just because of their beliefs. For me that's just as crazy and stupid as during the Middle Ages when people who were heretics were burned'."
OK, Lorraine, if you're flabergasted by the idea of people rejecting others because they have different beliefs, what about the idea of people rejecting others because their mums aren't Jewish?
Come on, you're an adult. Surely you know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Israel's bizarro Law of Return, which allows you, for example, to migrate to Israel because your mother's Jewish but gives the thumbs down to the return of all those Palestinian Muslims and Christians (and their kids and their kids) who were booted out in 1948 and 1967.
What say you? Crazy? Stupid? Medieval? Flabergasting?
"Levy is philosophical... 'Despite all the hatred embedded in centuries of history, I wanted to do something."
Hello? Centuries? Does the year 1917 mean anything to you?
And that embedded hatred rubbish, why do I suspect you really mean embedded Palestinian/Arab hatred? As in: the Palestinians are just the latest in a long line of vicious, Jew-hating mongrels stretching back to the pharaohs.
Is that your 'understanding' of the conflict? And you're going to do something about it?!
Listen, I've got a great idea. Why not read a decent book on the subject first?
In French? No problem. I've got just the one for you, not too long: Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (1973) by Maxime Rodinson:
"Those who automatically classify all the Arab movements and regimes as fascist simply because they are opposed to Israel are spreading an erroneous and deeply harmful conception of the problem. Similarly, all those who hold to legends about a gratuitous hatred of Arabs for Jews... are misleading themselves and others. If there is indeed hatred that often exceeds all bounds... it is all based on an objective reality for which the Zionist leaders are responsible: the colonization of a foreign land." (p 94)
"The only way forward in this conflict, I believe, is through a reasoned approach and compromise - with each party receiving a part of what they're entitled to."
Right! The only way.
So what exactly is each party entitled to, Lorraine?
What are the colons entitled to? And what the colonized?
What are the occupiers entitled to? And what the occupied?
What are the ethnic cleansers entitled to? And what the ethnically cleansed?
Do tell.
Oh, and do spell out those compromises while you're at it.
Don't be shy. You've bought into the issue with your film so we're entitled to know where you're really coming from, non?
[*So Palestinian women from the Israeli occupied West Bank were having babies in maternity wards in Israel at the time? Really...? And by "Gulf War air raid," I take it that Maddox means Saddam Hussein's Scud missile attacks on Tel Aviv in 1991.]
"The Other Son is a film that poses a potent question: what happens when two Middle Eastern youths - one Jewish, the other Palestinian - discover they have been accidentally switched as babies during a Gulf War air raid? As Joseph prepares to join the Israeli army for national service, he learns he is actually the son of a Palestinian family from the West Bank."* (Middle East fairy story a tale of faith tolerance, Garry Maddox)
So the Middle East conflict boils down to... religious intolerance? Oh really...?
"In shock, he wonders if he has to trade his skull cap for a suicide bomb."
Jeeesus! You're kidding me, right?
"Like Yacine, who has been living in tougher conditions in the West Bank..."
Never use the 'O'(ccupation) word if you can possibly avoid it!
"Director Lorraine Levy... says... 'I'm Jewish... But I profoundly respect Arabs, Christians, Buddhists - that's the way I was raised. I'm always completely flabergasted when some people reject others just because of their beliefs. For me that's just as crazy and stupid as during the Middle Ages when people who were heretics were burned'."
OK, Lorraine, if you're flabergasted by the idea of people rejecting others because they have different beliefs, what about the idea of people rejecting others because their mums aren't Jewish?
Come on, you're an adult. Surely you know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Israel's bizarro Law of Return, which allows you, for example, to migrate to Israel because your mother's Jewish but gives the thumbs down to the return of all those Palestinian Muslims and Christians (and their kids and their kids) who were booted out in 1948 and 1967.
What say you? Crazy? Stupid? Medieval? Flabergasting?
"Levy is philosophical... 'Despite all the hatred embedded in centuries of history, I wanted to do something."
Hello? Centuries? Does the year 1917 mean anything to you?
And that embedded hatred rubbish, why do I suspect you really mean embedded Palestinian/Arab hatred? As in: the Palestinians are just the latest in a long line of vicious, Jew-hating mongrels stretching back to the pharaohs.
Is that your 'understanding' of the conflict? And you're going to do something about it?!
Listen, I've got a great idea. Why not read a decent book on the subject first?
In French? No problem. I've got just the one for you, not too long: Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (1973) by Maxime Rodinson:
"Those who automatically classify all the Arab movements and regimes as fascist simply because they are opposed to Israel are spreading an erroneous and deeply harmful conception of the problem. Similarly, all those who hold to legends about a gratuitous hatred of Arabs for Jews... are misleading themselves and others. If there is indeed hatred that often exceeds all bounds... it is all based on an objective reality for which the Zionist leaders are responsible: the colonization of a foreign land." (p 94)
"The only way forward in this conflict, I believe, is through a reasoned approach and compromise - with each party receiving a part of what they're entitled to."
Right! The only way.
So what exactly is each party entitled to, Lorraine?
What are the colons entitled to? And what the colonized?
What are the occupiers entitled to? And what the occupied?
What are the ethnic cleansers entitled to? And what the ethnically cleansed?
Do tell.
Oh, and do spell out those compromises while you're at it.
Don't be shy. You've bought into the issue with your film so we're entitled to know where you're really coming from, non?
[*So Palestinian women from the Israeli occupied West Bank were having babies in maternity wards in Israel at the time? Really...? And by "Gulf War air raid," I take it that Maddox means Saddam Hussein's Scud missile attacks on Tel Aviv in 1991.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)