Meet Labor's Latest Faction

OMFG, what next?

"Labor senator Kimberley Kitching - a close ally and friend of Bill Shorten - is moving to create a bipartisan parliamentary group that will defend 'Judeo-Christian' and 'Western-liberal democratic' values as she launches her credentials as a new style of social conservative within the Labor Party." (Kitching caters for Labor's conservative core, Greg Brown, The Australian, 8/10/18)

"While most Labor MPs have backed this position [of not moving Australia's embassy to Jerusalem], others associated with Labor have been pressuring the party to switch its policies in favour of the move. Henry Pinskier, chair of the Labor-aligned John Curtin Research Centre has been campaigning for the move. 'He [Morrison] should move it. Finish what he started, stop back sliding, show some spine,' Mr Pinskier tweeted earlier this month. 'Get this done Josh before you lose government. Don't be swayed by what Indonesia or Malaysia say. A country that has no ties to Israel diplomatically cannot and should not dictate Australia's foreign policy interest.' Labor's senators Kim Carr and Kimberley Kitching and MPs Michael Danby and Mike Kelly are listed on the think tank's board of advisers. John Curtin Research Centre director Nick Dyrenfurth yesterday said Mr Pinskier's views did not represent the official position of the think tank. 'Henry's comments are made in a private capacity only,' Mr Dyrenfurth told The Australian. Mr Danby has said Mr Morrison will look like a 'worthless dud' if he does not make some policy changes on Iran and Jerusalem as a result of his policy review." (Embassy move: voters far from convinced, Primrose Riordan, The Australian, 28/11/18)

Strike a light!

If these misbegottens had a shred of honesty, they'd stop hiding behind the phony "Judeo-Christian" label, change the name of their lair to the Vladimir Jabotinsky Centre, and openly declare themselves for what they are - Zionists.

Another 'Clanking Colonel' Enters Federal Politics

Beware the entry of 'clanking colonels' (Bob Carr's phrase for Labor's Colonel Mike Kelly at the time of the 2003 Ashrawi affair) into Australia's federal parliament. It's yet another indication of Australia's appalling decline into USraeli-style reaction, bigotry and sabre-rattling:

"New Liberal senator Jim Molan is making no apology for using social media to share inflammatory anti-Muslim videos from Britain First - the same racist hate group Donald Trump was widely condemned for promoting. Labor has accused Senator Molan of stoking racism and bigotry and the Islamophobic Register of Australia says his actions are dangerous. Senator Molan admits that he cannot verify whether the videos are real [!!!] or whether they really show Muslim violence as Britain First claims but has strongly rejected the racism claims." (No apology by new senator, Adam Gartrell, Sydney Morning Herald, 6/2/18)

Now cop this from the man who has defended Israel's 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead, contributed to the Israeli propaganda offensive against the UN's Goldstone Report, perpetrated Operation Fury against the Iraqi City of Fallujah in 2004, and can see no difference between  a Palestinian resistance organisation such as Hamas and a global organisation such as al-Qaida:

"I've put my life on the line for major Islamic, Muslim countries in this world. And I find it deeply offensive that this cheapo back at me has come out on day one,' the former major-general told the ABC..."

Bob Carr Responds to Norrington:

"For the record, your feature article (Carr alarms pro-Israelis, 6/7) implies extreme language from me out of my recent speech making the case for recognition of Palestine and an end to the occupation.

"In my speech I was doing no more than advocating what every former head of Shin Bet and Mossad has advocated, although in more pungent language than mine. Paragraph 4 of the article has this dastardly Carr accusing Israel Israel of implementing a 'looting bill' and condoning 'war crimes'. Let's make it clear: this was Carr quoting Labor leader Isaac Herzog and Likud Knesset member Benny Begin. They were not Carr formulations. Two other Israeli prime ministers have used the word 'apartheid' - Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. The assassinated Yitzhak Rabin is reported to have used the same language.

"'Massacres' in 1948 was a conclusion of Benny Morris, an Israeli historian, who detailed this from Israeli army archives. As I said in an op-ed published in The Australian on November 8, 2014, Morris's revelations were a tribute to openness in Israeli society. And I began my speech by paying tribute to Jews who opposed the occupation - a number in attendance at the meeting - and said they were the best allies of the cause for Palestinian recognition. It would have been nice if that had been included." (Letter to The Australian, 7/7/17)

The irony here is that "Benny Morris' revelations," far from being "a tribute to openness in Israeli society," as Carr says, reveal only the extreme pressure brought to bear on any academic who departs from the Zionist narrative. Rather than stand and defend his revelations, let alone draw universal moral conclusions from them, Benny Morris long ago effectively reverted to the role of a shill for Israel. (My May 2008 posts on the subject make for harrowing reading, Bob. Just click on the Benny Morris label below.)

In today's Australian, there's more from Norrington on how Carr has been instrumental in "rolling" the NSW ALP's foreign affairs committee [dominated by Mike Kelly MP], which had recently assured Bill Shorten that the current "soft language" of its Palestine/Israel policy - "committing Labor in government only to 'discussing' recognition [of Palestine] with like-minded nations if there was no progress in peace talks," would be retained at the upcoming NSW Labor Conference. This Carr has done by coming up with an alternative policy, resolution 23 on the party's agenda, reportedly agreed to by shadow foreign minister Penny Wong, Jason Clare MP, and state secretary Karla Murnain, which the foreign affairs committee has to accept. "Carr's supporters," says Norrington, "wanted an even stronger resolution, but accept the revised Murnain wording," which they are "confident the federal conference will adopt next year." (How Carr turned ALP from Israel to Palestine)

Oh, and an op-ed by ALP political has-been-turned-defender-of-Israel, Peter Baldwin, in which, despite Zionism's age-old stranglehold over the ALP, he contends that "the Labor Party risks becoming a vehicle for sectional interests."

Drover Dan & His Good Mate, Mike, Ride Again

Now that Labor's shadow minister for Israel, Michael Danby, has been re-elected in his seat of Melbourne Ports, and his brother-in-Zion, Mike Kelly, has won back his old seat of Eden Monaro, can we expect the pair to once again resume their practice of rounding up and "corralling" their Labor colleagues in support of Israel, much as they did in 2009 in the wake of Israel's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Ghetto?

(To see what I mean, please re-read my 1/3/09 post Nipping at their Heels.)

If so, one hapless colleague they'll probably be keeping an eye on and/or singling out for special attention is the new Labor member for the south-western Sydney seat of Macarthur, Dr Michael Freelander, profiled in the Australian Jewish News as "a senior pediatrician at Campbelltown and Camden hospitals with more than three decades of medical practice in the region," and described as "a proud Zionist." (Jewish candidates setting their sights on Canberra, 1/7/16)

The extent of the good doctor's "Zionism", of course, remains to be determined, but it's clear he's hardly in the Danby mould, because, as the AJN just had to point out, "he landed himself in hot water earlier in this campaign when he compared the Manus Island detention centre for refugees to a concentration camp. He apologised for offending the Jewish community and said that he was aware that he chose the wrong words." (ibid)

Judging by his apology, Freelander's chances of standing up to a Danby/Kelly damage control exercise following the next, inevitable Israeli outrage aren't looking too good. Still, we live in hope.

Re the election result, I find myself, at least this time around, in full agreement with ECAJ supremo, Peter Wertheim:

"Describing the election of so many Jews as 'a historic first', executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Peter Wertheim said, 'Nothing could better illustrate how fortunate we are to live in a society where every office or position, no matter how high, is within the reach of any citizen, regardless of his or her ethnic or religious background." (History made with record number of Jews in Parliament, AJN, 8/7/16)

What a pity though he can't say the same about Israel.

Mike Kelly's Mission Impossible

OK, so Prime Minister Julia Gillard, in extremis, chose to keep her job rather than go down fighting for Israel. After all, her job description is Prime Minister of Australia.

But that doesn't mean she's happy about it. No way! She just can't make it through the day without a whiff of those irresistable Zionist pheromones. So wouldn't you think Israel's fifth columnists here would appreciate what a pickle the poor woman is in, show a little understanding and cut her a little slack?

But, alas, that's not how it is with this lot. Empathy is not exactly their strong point. You empathise with them, not vice versa, OK? No, she'll have to beg their forgiveness for Australia's criminal abstention in the UN vote on Palestine's observer status.

Her first attempt was a ringing declaration in the Australian Jewish News of December 7 to the effect that her party's historic friendship with Israel is quite simply beyond debate. (See my 9/12/12 post The Prisoner of Zion.)

But a one-off grovel is never enough in this kind of relationship. Which is why she's charged her faithful retainer, 'Clanking Colonel' Mike Kelly, with the mission of interceding on her behalf.

And so, in a 2-page spread in the latest edition of the AJN, Kelly's not only gone cap in hand and hand on heart to plead the lady's case but even taken the trouble to review the history of Labor's dedication to the "Australia/Israel relationship" from go to woe. Be that as it may, it's Kelly's spin on the offending abstention that we're interested in here:

"In the end the decision to 'abstain' was taken to convey the nuance required by the situation that, while the Australian Government acknowledges the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for statehood, our position on how that is to be achieved remains unchanged. Within the Labor caucus there were different views on this issue. This discussion was not driven by domestic political considerations but on what was the best option for achieving the two state solution. The Prime Minister ultimately presented to the Caucus her final view that we should 'abstain' and this position was unanimously supported by the Caucus without further debate. No argument was put to the Caucus to vote 'yes' and such a proposal would have been overwhelmingly defeated. It is utterly false and repulsive to suggest that this vote in any way indicates a dilution of Labor's committed support for Israel, based as it is on a proud and unmatched tradition, or that the Coalition is in any way a stronger supporter. Under the Government, and particularly within my own portfolio of Defence, the relationship with Israel has been taken to unprecedented levels and we are seeking to elevate it further. This has been to the great benefit of our effective operational capacity in Afghanistan and the enhancement of our Force Protection. There is no stronger friend of Israel than this Government. We face the same enemy and we have the same fervent hopes for peace. From time to time friends will differ but a healthy level of disputation is only a reflection of the nature of Israel itself, and what makes it so worthwhile defending." (Labor's abstention explained, 18/1/13)

Wow, the power and the passion! Now who wouldn't be moved by that?

The editor of the AJN, that's who!

In his capacity as editorialist, he excoriated the colonel for "resorting to enough spin to make us giddy" and accused him of concocting "a tortured rationale of how abstention means Labor's view on Palestinian statehood remains unchanged." And then, as if that wasn't enough of a lashing, he went for our ex-military lawyer's jugular with this: "to state... that 'there is no stronger friend of Israel than this [Gillard] government', is a lawyer's argument that stretches the bounds of credibility."

Well, I never! Talk about shooting the messenger.

Now the Palestinians have long been aware that Hell hath no fury like a Zionist scorned, or even looked at sideways, but not, apparently, the Kellys and Gillards of this world. Sometime down the track maybe, after sober reflection, but never while enjoying the spoils of office, that's for sure.

OK, so Kelly's plea to kiss and make up went down like the proverbial lead balloon but, be that as it may, there's still much in it to interest the serious student of the political hurly burly:

Note, for example, the spin Kelly puts on Gillard's rout: "The PM ultimately presented to the Caucus her final view that we should 'abstain' and this position was unanimously supported by the Caucus without further debate." You'd think from this that Her Highness had never, at any stage, been less than on top of the matter. Oh well, I guess all the other accounts of what went on can be junked now. (For those, see my posts While You Weren't Looking 1&2 (1 & 3/12/12); Julia the Downhearted (6/12/12); and The PM Who Put Her Job On the Line for Israel (18/1/13).)

Then we have Kelly's reference to Israel's contribution - presumably the drones mentioned in my 12/12/09 post Head-Shaking Stuff 2 - to our 'Force Protection' in Afghanistan. Where would we be without them?

Finally, there's that line about facing the same enemy. Foreign Minister Bob Carr, in his earlier incarnation of NSW Premier, once had the occasion, bless him, to remind the then Iraq-based Colonel Kelly - who had taken it upon himself to intervene in the entirely domestic matter of Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi being awarded the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize - that "[he] ought to understand the mission. The Australian mission in Iraq is not to engage in war with the Arab world or the Palestinians but to remove Saddam Hussein and find and destroy weapons of mass destruction." (Army critic of peace prize angers Carr, Nick O'Malley, SMH, 3/11/03) Seems Kelly still thinks we're at war with the Palestinians, and anyone else Israel doesn't like the look of for that matter.

Tony Abbott On the Prowl

The Australian's editor at large, Paul Kelly, reports from Albert Dadon's latest Israel love-in in London on a bloke on the make:

"Tony Abbott has used his presence at an Australia-Israel-United Kingdom Leadership Dialogue in London to deepen his support for Israel and accentuate the split with the Gillard government over Middle East policy. The Opposition Leader has highlighted the crack in Australian bipartisanship by arguing that Coalition support for Israel is values-based as 'the only mature pluralist democracy in the Middle East' and therefore, enduring..." (Abbott vows support for Israel, 21/12/12)

Pluralist? What part of Jewish state does this brawler not understand? Democracy? Has he not heard of the Great Gerrymander of 1948? Silly question...

Beyond spouting Zionist cliches and talking points, what does this boofhead really know about the Middle East conflict? Well, as Kelly freely admits in an opinion piece on Abbott in the same issue, bugger all: "Abbott knows little about Israel yet his views are fixed." (Abbott throws a mean Right hook and leads with his chin on values)

That wilful ignorance probably goes back to his student days. Back then, issues were never examined on their merits but mindlessly opposed simply because they were espoused by those who didn't happen to share his rigidly conservative Catholic outlook: "... Abbott turned up at Monash University in January 1977 for his first AUS conference* determined to fight the good fight... The right's determination to control or crush AUS had been revitalised by the students' decision a few years earlier to support the Palestine Liberation Organization." (Political Animal: The Making of Tony Abbott, David Marr, 2012, p 12)

[*See my 13/9/12 post Greg & Tony Do Monash.]

"Interviewed by The Australian outside the dialogue, Mr Abbott attacked the Gillard government's new position on granting Palestine observer status at the UN, alleging it was motivated by electoral factors and warned that Australia's election to the UN Security Council... must not trigger abandonment of its traditional support for Israel. 'We made the wrong decision... for the wrong reasons,' Mr Abbott said. 'My main concern is that this issue was not discussed in terms of the merits - it was discussed in terms of the electoral impact. Labor MPs felt people in western Sydney might be looking at this in terms of their own religious or political heritage from the Middle East and not from the viewpoint of what is best for Australia. Our view is that Australia should have been supported for a term on the Security Council because of our values, not because we were prepared to compromise them.'" (Abbott vows...) 

Kelly again: "The evidence is that Abbott is wrong on Labor's motives. Carr was driven by foreign policy, not domestic politics." (Abbott throws...)

That's correct: wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again! It probably didn't occur to this ignoramus that even the Israel-besotted Cameron government had abstained in the UN. More to the point, was the Mad Monk aware of the Vatican's stance?:

"The Holy See welcomes with favor the decision of the General Assembly by which Palestine has become a Non-member Observer State of the United Nations." (Vatican hails UN Palestine vote, wants guarantees for Jerusalem, Philip Pullella, Reuters, 30/11/12)

Probably not.

"The two-day London dialogue was striking for the contrasting level of party representation. Mr Abbott attended as Opposition Leader backed by 6 Liberal parliamentarians including 3 frontbenchers. Labor did not send a minister; its senior representative was Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Mike Kelly..." (Abbott vows...)

How interesting that imbalance! Seems like the Libs are out to impress the devilishly attractive  - at least to ms politicians - Albert Dadon. I wonder if the preponderance of this particular species has implications for who'll be turning up at the mover & shaker's Toorak mansion next year? (See my 20/8/10 post A Pre-Poll Breakfast Tradition.)

Furthermore, it had been reported that Kevin Rudd would be attending, although there's no mention of him here. (See my 4/11/12 post Pollies in Love-In.)

"In his speech to the dialogue gala dinner at London's Reform Club, delivered in Abbott's absence by George Brandis, the Opposition Leader said: 'The Coalition maintains a complete and unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. Israel is the only mature pluralist democracy in the Middle East. Israel's values and courage deeply impress Australians. While occasionally Israel, like all countries, makes mistakes, it is a bastion of Western civilization in a part of the world where human rights, including the value of respectful dissent, are not well appreciated. And for no other reason, it is in the interest of the West to show understanding and support for Israel. If Australia or Britain had rockets regularly lobbing on to our territories. I dare say we would suddenly be a lot less particular about the moral gradations of response that we sometimes feel like imposing on Israel.'" (Abbott throws...)

Note the US-style declaration: complete and unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. Under Tony Abbott PM, expect to see Australia in the UN General Assembly voting REFLEXIVELY with Israel, the United States, Canada and the Pacific Island floozies  NO MATTER WHAT ISRAEL DOES.

And how completely out of touch with the international perception of Israel as a thug and bully is that bit about Australians admiring Israel's values and courage.  But then, if it's Albert you're making a play for, what the f...

"In the interview, Mr Abbott said 'bad behaviour should not be rewarded, adding: 'The Coalition position is that there should be no further international recognition of a Palestinian state until the Palestinians are prepared to recognise Israel's right to exist behind secure borders as part of a two-state solution.'" (Abbott vows...) 

How bloody typical! While the rest of the planet's talking about Israeli settlements, Israel's preferred method of sabotaging a two-state solution, Abbott's all rockets and the Palestinian failure to recognise Israel's right to exist as an apartheid Jewish state which has refused to allow the return of Palestinian refugees for the past 64 years and occupied the West Bank and Gaza for the last 45.

David Marr's Quarterly Essay on Abbott, cited above, reveals much about the creature. Here are two quotes that should leave Australians afraid, very afraid:

According to Abbott, "The Coalition of the Willing went to war in Iraq 'to uphold universal values... if it's possible to engage in an altruistic war, this was it.'" (p 57)

"A few days after becoming leader of the Opposition, [Abbott] was given a quick quiz by Josh Gordon of the Sunday Age. Favorite film? 'Gallipoli. Seen it many times.' Film star? 'John Wayne.' Book? 'I'd have to say it's probably Lord of the Rings. It's the book I've read most.'" (p 3)

Memo to all you foreign Frodos out there who read this blog. If this pugilistic bogan should win power in this country next year, pray for us here in Mordor, OK?

The Fur's Flying

The Australian Government's support for the Palestinian Authority's successful push for observer status in the UNGA sure has the fur flying on the editorial/letters page of this week's Australian Jewish News (7/112/12). And it's not just the government that's come under attack:

Is this, for example, the first ever criticism of an Israeli government by the AJN's editorialist?:

"Following Israel's response [ie, more settlement building] to the Palestinian statehood bid is like watching a person cut off his nose to spite his face... Israel's response has been childish and ill thought out." (The wrong response)

And even the AJN itself is copping stick. Here, Ameinu president Johnny Baker takes umbrage at last week's front cover which featured a photograph of foreign and defence ministers Bob Carr and Stephen Smith and the 'proceed-to-the-naughty-corner-IMMEDIATELY' accusation: You've let us down:

"The provocative and ill-conceived 'You've let us down' front cover of last week's AJN will do very little to enhance the standing of the Jewish community in the public arena. It is a classic case of how not to win friends and influence people. By pointing an accusing finger at politicians who have been consistent friends and whose cardinal sin was to advocate a stance taken by many prominent Israelis, The AJN has outflanked our communal leadership in expressing its outrage... Sorry AJN, but this time you have let us down."

Of course, Terry Davis of Lindfield, NSW isn't having any of this. He's gunning instead for Bob Carr, the bloke who dared to move the ALP from blind to tough love of Israel, and, in so doing, is apparently now up there in the ZDI (Zionist Demonology Index) with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hasan Nasrallah:

"One has to admire Bob Carr's ambition. In my view, as premier, he wrecked NSW, and now he's trying to do the same to the whole of the Middle East."

But my favourite letter has to be this touching tribute to mateship from Michael Danby MP, Labor's unofficial Minister for Israel, lamenting the lack of media limelight accorded his tag-team buddy, Clanking Colonel* Mike Kelly, who, Danby assures us, fought valiantly in the ranks of the blind luvvies** against Carr's yea-saying and abstaining tough luvvies:

"In the rush of events last week, mention that my parliamentary colleague, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Dr Mike Kelly AM, was one of the key stalwarts in defence of the pro-Israel position was overlooked. In fact Mike Kelly, Senator Glen Sterle and myself, were appointed by the right faction of the ALP Caucus to put proposals to Senator Carr. Unfortunately, Senator Carr would not agree to our suggestions. Dr Kelly was at every meeting with me, strongly arguing the case. I will never forget his steadfastness."

Shows you how clueless the 'right faction of the ALP Caucus' must be, pitting the 'Clanking Colonel' against Carr. Labor history - let alone history - is obviously not their strong point.

Actually, it doesn't look as though Danby's exactly flavour of the month at the AJN these days. How else to explain why his letter was immediately followed on the page by the following kick-arse correspondence from David Rosenberg, South Caulfield, Vic.:

"Labor and its leaders have now lost the plot in the foreign affairs department. Julia Gillard hasn't the courage of her own convictions to stand up for Israel in her left-dominated cabinet. As Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr swirls his way around the world, he has certainly picked up some communicable communication diseases from the United Nations, denigrating Israel at every opportunity. As John Faulkner has recently called for Labor parliamentarians to try to at least pretend to be ethical and to appear honest, Michael Danby sitting member for Melbourne Ports now has to ask himself: As the point man for Jewish representation, has he the courage of his own convictions? The party has left you, Michael; if you stand for anything, it's time to make a stand for the Jewish community at large. Leave the party, it's time."

Et tu, David?

[*On Carr and Kelly, see my 9/9/11 post The Pits; **On Labor's blind love (or 'falafel') faction, see my 30/11/12 post Pro-Israel Deadenders in Federal Labor. ]

Massacre Inc.

"America is about to enter a presidential election year... The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state."

So begins the introduction to Mearsheimer & Walt's 2007 classic, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy. 

As in the US, so too, unfortunately, in Australia. Here is merely the most recent example:

"The House of Representatives rose in unison on Tuesday in support of a motion calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to observe a minute of silence at the London Games for the 11 Israeli victims of the Munich massacre [of 1972]. The move comes less than a month after an open letter from The Australian Jewish News beseeching the IOC to hold a memorial at the 2012 Games attracted a raft of high-profile signatories, including Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott." (Parliament rises for Munich, 29/6/12) 

Nothing like a shared ignorance, sycophancy, and crying need for campaign funds to unite Lib and Lab. And nothing like our Israel lobby (and its parliamentary operatives, Paul Fletcher (Lib), Josh Frydenberg (Lib), Mike Kelly (Lab), and Michael Danby (Lab), who moved the above bi-partisan motion) to pull a stunt like this on behalf of a state whose very road to statehood was paved with the massacres of Palestinians and other Arabs, and whose history ever since has been studded with them.

I merely recall the one which followed, within mere days, the Munich massacre:

"When Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972, Syria bore the brunt of Israel's eye-for-eye reprisals. It was, of course, more like 20 eyes for one. For at least 200 people, many of them women and children, and possibly as many as 500, died in simultaneous air attacks on nine separate targets. The Phantoms and Skyhawks swooped on the suburban Damascus resort of al-Hama; the bombs fell indiscriminately on Palestinians in their hillside dwellings and on Syrians, in their cars or strolling by the river Barada on their weekend outing. Survivors recounted how they were machine-gunned as they ran for cover." (The Gun & The Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, David Hirst, 1977, p 251)

But don't ever expect any of our parliamentary sheep to stand up for these people.

To inject a little perspective here, allow me to adapt the words of Edward John Eyre (written in 1845) about the internecine warfare which arose when European settlers invaded Aboriginal Australia in the 19th century: Could blood answer blood, perhaps for every drop of Israeli's shed by Palestinian natives, a torrent of theirs, by Israeli hands, would crimson the earth. (See my 12/6/08 post Pemulwuy in Palestine.)

The Pits

Mike Kelly, Labor MP for Eden Monaro, boasts of the 'new' boy on Labor's factional block:

"[T]he former military man spoke of Labor's 'felafel [sic] faction': a group of pro-Israel Government MPs. 'We've banded together, whenever issues arise we put our views to the executive'. An example of that, he said, was convincing Prime Minister Julia Gillard to withdraw Australia's representatives from the 'Durban III' anti-racism convention in New York later this month. 'The Durban circus will roll without us, it is important we send an early message', he said." (Government won't support PA at UN, The Australian Jewish News, 9/9/11)

Gillard needed convincing? Give me a break! With the honourable exception of Doug Cameron or (fill in space), I can't think of anyone in federal Labor who isn't a card-carrying member of this so-called falafel faction.

But there's really nothing new about the falafels, as the following 2009 puff piece from The Australian Jewish News on Labor's Zionist godfather, Michael Danby MP, reminds us. Danby is described as "act-[ing] as a watchdog with the new Rudd Government... corral[ing] his parliamentary colleagues and forc[ing] them to think long, hard and seriously about matters that often conjure knee-jerk reactions. 'During a recent political controversy, we had 11 federal MPs get together on an Israeli issue. Mike Kelly convened them and I organised with Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)... to sit down with us and we strategised together'."* (A decade of Danby, AJN, 27/2/09)

I wonder if, rather than the AJN's euphemistic corraling, Danby's canine style wouldn't be more aptly described as 'bailing up'. In which case, maybe a more appropriate moniker for the 'faction' would be the 'pitbull faction', or, more accurately, just the pits.

But alas, the slobber doesn't end there.

Once dubbed the 'clanking colonel' by Bob Carr for his bizarre intervention from Iraq in the awarding of the Sydney Peace Prize to Palestinian activist and academic Hanan Ashrawi in 2003, an award Kelly described in a letter to Carr as "legitimating terrorism and giving 'comfort to the enemy',"** Kelly is actually married to a cousin of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.

No surprises then to learn that he "also spoke strongly against the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement, calling it 'anti-Semitic, vile & disgusting'." (Government won't support PA...)

And the by now ritual thirties flashback so characteristic of the pits? Kelly doesn't disappoint:

"Last month in Parliament, Kelly delivered a powerful speech on BDS posing the question: 'What are we going to see next? Will these people be daubing windows and breaking windows again?' He also called upon Greens leader Senator Bob Brown to 'exercise some control or intervention' over the NSW branch of his party, which openly supports the BDS movement." (ibid)

[* See my 1/3/09 post Nipping at Their Heels; **Army critic of peace proposal angers Carr, Nick O'Malley, SMH, 3/11/03)

In With the Wrong Crowd

If torture is good
and black is white,
then day is night
and wrong is right.
Are these the truths
for which you fight?

When you're easily led and just can't help tagging along with the big boys, instead of thinking for yourself, staying home and doing something useful, you never know where you'll end up. Yes, I'm talking about you, Australia*:

"Documents released to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) reveal that Major George O'Kane, a military lawyer with the Australian Defence Force, had concerns about the legality of interrogation techniques proposed for prisoners at Abu Ghraib. However, the Australian Government publicly announced that Major O'Kane's legal opinion was that the interrogation techniques complied with the Geneva Conventions. The Government has never corrected the public record. The proposed techniques - including sleep management, dietary manipulation and sensory deprivation - are generally regarded under international law as cruel and inhuman treatment and in some cases, torture.

"Major O'Kane was in Iraq, working as a legal officer in the office of the US Staff Judge Advocate, Colonel Marc Warren, the senior legal officer in Iraq, when he was asked to provide legal advice in 2003 about the proposed techniques. Major O'Kane said he believed the techniques would be open to abuse and had inadequate safeguards. He wrote in a legal memorandum dated 27 August 2003 that the techniques 'substantially comply' with the Geneva Convention, which imposes absolute standards. He later explained that the reason he did not think the techniques fully complied was because there was no time limits on their use.

"The Commanding officer of the US 205th Military Intelligence Brigade who sought Major O'Kane's advice had previously been investigated following the death of a detainee in Afghanistan. The same Brigade was later revealed as being at the centre of the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Speaking inside the the Australian Federal Parliament on 30 May 2004, the head of Defence Legal Services, Air Commodore Simon Harvey, said Major O'Kane's legal memorandum concluded that the proposed interrogation techniques were consistent with the Geneva Conventions. In subsequent weeks, Defence Minister Robert Hill and senior Department of Defence officials knew Air Commodore Harvey's statement was inaccurate. However, the Department of Defence made no effort to correct the public record and refused to publicly release Major O'Kane's advice without first consulting the United States.

"Major O'Kane based his reservations about the legality of the proposed Abu Ghraib techniques on the fact that there was insufficient detail in the US Interrogation Manual about the length of time that interrogators could use techniques such as sleep management and sensory deprivation. Major O'Kane noted that the Australian Interrogation Manual also failed to specify time limits for these techniques and was therefore open to abuse. Major O'Kane may not have had the appropriate clearance to provide his advice. He was asked to confine his advice to proposed interrogation techniques for one particular individual who was considered a high value detainee. However, Major O'Kane provided general advice and looked at the US Interrogation Manual in general terms. Moreover, Major O'Kane based his advice on a view of the Geneva Conventions that was inconsistent with the Australian Government's publicly stated interpretation of international law. This placed Australia in the untenable position of endorsing a particular view about detention treatment and conditions that it simultaneously condemned." (Military Detention: uncovering the truth, Story 4 - Australian military lawyer's advice on interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib, PIAC, 1/7/11, pp 6-7)

That's the PIAC's Executive Summary of the matter, stemming from a 6-year FOI battle with the Defence Department for hundreds of pages of documents relating to this and other matters showing little Australia clearly way out of its depth. In its reporting of the matter on the 4th of July, ABC1's 7.30 included the following pious soundbytes from another Australian military lawyer, Colonel Mike Kelly (now federal Labor MP for Eden-Monaro) attached at the time to the Coalition Provisional Authority of Paul Bremer:

"Geoff Thompson: Mike Kelly agrees that coalition forces simply got it wrong at Abu Ghraib and says their actions were inconsistent with his own advice to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Mike Kelly: My clear advice to them at the time in Baghdad was a level of coercion that a civil policeman could apply in this situation should be... the limits of what they could do.

Geoff Thompson: And that wouldn't include putting women's underwear on men's heads?

Mike Kelly: No, I think those sorts of things go beyond the pale.

Geoff Thompson: George O'Kane says he saw no connection between the allegations of mistreatment he read in the ICRC report of October 2003 and the photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib published in April 2004 [See PIAC's Story 3]. Mike Kelly says the worst abuses began when a team from Guantanamo Bay arrived in Baghdad in September 2003.

Mike Kelly: The whole regime was suffering from a very poor lack of preparation and a very bad tactical approach and strategic approach to counter-insurgency, and then of course when the added element of the Guantanamo team came in, then we really went down a very dark road... You have to be able to justify yourself at the end of the day and to be open to scrutiny. And if you can't do that, then you're going down the same road as your enemies." (Australia's ties to Abu Ghraib)

Now I'm wondering just who wrote those insufficiently detailed Interrogation Manuals mentioned in PIAC's account above. And why is that you ask? Well, two reasons actually, and both straight out of the Sydney Morning Herald.

"Colonel Mike Kelly (who gained some notoriety when he wrote from Iraq to the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, to protest against the awarding of the Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi), was another central player. On his first tour - Kelly is now back in Iraq - he made multiple visits to detention facilities and played a key role in drafting interrogation procedures." (On the defensive, Mike Seccombe & Tom Allard, 5/6/04)

"The documents, which include extensive interviews with Major O'Kane when he returned from Iraq in 2004, reveal that as a military lawyer embedded with the United States he was a primary author of the manual for processing prisoners in Iraq." (ADF knew of abuses at Abu Ghraib, Anne Davies, Deborah Snow & Debra Jopson, 5/7/11)

These two surely need clarification.

[* See my 28/7/10 post 'A Mature Democracy?']

The Kevin Rudd Road Show 5

How lucky we are to have an account of the Palestinian leg of the KRRS from the Australian Jewish News' Naomi Levin, because the rest of the media pack showed no such interest. As you'd expect, Levin colourfully depicts an Australian delegation that aggressively engages with its Palestinian interlocutors from an Israeli perspective. (NB: Additional details provided by my fly-on-the-wall):

Led by Albert Dadon, property developer and chair of the Australia Israel Leadership Forum (without whom the entire show could never have been staged), and Labor senator Kim Carr, with "senior (of course!) journalists" in tow, the Aussies bore down on the Palestinians like wolves on the fold:

"Sirens wail and blue-and-red lights blink incessantly as a convoy of armoured, five-and-a-half tonne Landcruisers storm through [Ramallah]. The 6 cars take up both sides of the road and go over, rather than around, roundabouts." (Journey to Ramallah, 24/12/10)

"Ramallah is less than half-an-hour drive from Jerusalem. For the convoy, it is a short trip. For others, it can be much longer as they await security checks by the fastidious young Israeli soldiers."

Trans: others=Palestinians; fastidious=fractious.

"Once through the checkpoint, the road snakes alongside the high concrete security wall* - built to prevent suicide bombers crossing into Israel and a huge success."

[* Wall, Naomi? Wall? How many times do we have to tell you, klutz: fence, FENCE, f-e-n-c-e.]

The Oi, Oi, Ois, of course, loved every metre of the grey beast, especially Labor MP Mike Kelly who had, in his former incarnation as a military lawyer, written a legal paper accusing the International Court of Justice, which had dared, in 2004, to rule the aforementioned fabulously successful structure illegal and call for its removal, of "damaging its credibility" (Critical Analysis of the ICJ Ruling on Israel's Security Barrier, Fordham International Law Journal, December 2005). 'It's still standing', he and Albert hummed cheekily as the convoy stormed by.

First stop was the Palestinian Legislative Council where our Aussie Heroes were greeted by four of that body's shiftiest Spawn of Satan. However, armed as they were with only the latest and most sophisticated of Israeli talking points, our boys were more than ready for anything these SoS had to dish out.

Senator Carr, who had already forgotten (if he'd noticed them at all) those "others" still being f****d around by the fastidious ones at the checkpoints they'd stormed past, wanted to know about "progress in the Palestinian territories."

One of the SoS present "described a very bleak scenario in the West Bank," a description, as Levin noted with a raised editorial eyebrow, "that appears to stand in contrast to the neat apartment blocks and full shops."

Yeah, but what about all the flash apartment blocks and full shops we stormed past, mate? shot back one of our True Blues, with a knowing smirk.

The "economic progress was in spite of Israeli barriers and obstacles," replied the SoS, as Albert, who just couldn't help himself, ejaculated, In spite of? Because of, more bloody likely!

Another of our Bronzed Aussies, thinking to sow confusion in the ranks of the SoS and so amuse his mates, wanted to know "whether the 2-state solution was becoming a 3-state solution because of Hamas's dominance in Gaza."

In response, one of the SoS foolishly attempted to crack a joke: "By the time the Israelis are ready to pull out and recognise an independent Palestinian state in pre-1967 borders, the Palestinian conflict will be resolved." (Well, he could hardly have said, By the time the Israelis are ready to pull out and recognise an independent Palestinian state, Hell will have frozen over, being a denizen of the place and all, now could he?) Anyway, it went down like the proverbial lead balloon, sending "small waves of disbelief around the table of Australians." The small waves of disbelief, reported my fly-on-the-wall, took the form of a chorus of soto voce OMGs.

"And what of Jerusalem? Why has the PA produced a research paper... claiming the Jewish people have no real connection to the Western Wall?" one of our Doughty Diggers chipped in, with a roguish wink to his mates.

Er, fact is, it just so happens to be "the Western Wall [of the] Aksa [sic: Aqsa] compound," which belongs to the "Muslim world," responded the one they later Christened, to everyone's merriment, Beelzebub.

Aksa-cuse me, roared our Lovable Larrikins, Wazzat? Bull-shit! ejaculated Albert.

And that was that.

The delegation then "zoomed up the road" to meet with Nabil Shaath, "former foreign minister of the PA and a long-time warhorse of the Palestinian cause."

Predictably, the old warhorse dared to voice "a simplistic [Good one, Naomi!] comparison between the Palestinians and black South Africans under apartheid."

Our Bra Boys were all, like, OMG! Did he really say that?

When Queensland Labor MP Bernie Ripoli, who'd never even heard of apartheid, asked him for "more concrete information on the comparison," the warhorse listed Jews-only roads, evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, and that rabbinical call for a ban on renting homes to Arabs, before explaining that, anyway, a South African delegation had preceded them and declared that the West Bank was deja vu all over again, only worse, so there.

Then the old bugger got real uppity: "We have complaints about your political position. It is too close to the Americans, particularly under the Bush administration*," he said, before compounding his impudence by calling on Australia to follow the lead of Brazil, Argentina and other banana republics in recognising a sovereign Palestinian state. [*PA to OZ: recognise Palestine, Naomi Levin, AJN, 24/12/10]

But that was it, the Likely Lads had had quite enough, thankyou, of his insolence. Kevvie, who had been absent from the earlier Terrorist tete a tete, suddenly manifested, proclaiming, Fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate. Get your cotton pickin' hands off my policy settings and listen to moi: the peace process is a "'step-by-step' prospect" and "Australia [is] not yet prepared to address Palestinian statehood."

Then it was on for young and old, with Liberal senator Scott Ryan wanting to know "why the Palestinian people use the local media to spread hate," and Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Mike Kelly wanting the dirt on "the delegitimisation of Israel in the Palestinian media." Of course, they'd been unwittingly primed by the folk over at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) who'd told them of "a song being broadcast on the official PA TV station calling for jihad against the Israeli 'oppressors'." Jeeehad! Albert had ejaculated, as Scott and Mike furiously scribbled in their notebooks. This information, need I remind you, had been carefully designed to hit home, a fact which the delegation was soon to find out.

Scott and Mike's questions about Palestinian hate speech and delegitimisation proved too much for the old Palestinian warhorse, who, on letting fly an obscene Arabic curse, ending in what sounded like... ya ibn sharmuta, clutched at his ailing ticker, and collapsed in a heap on the floor. Undeterred, but obviously quite pleased with their performance, the Aussie party purloined the Palestinian cutlery as souvenirs, and left, giving the body a wide berth.

The Devolution of ALP Middle East Policy

In 1986, the Australian Labor Party's Middle East policy sought a "just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East." It affirmed United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for Israel to "withdraw from territories occupied" in 1967. It affirmed UNSC Resolution 465/80, which states that "... Israel's policies and practices of settling parts of its population... in those territories [occupied since 1967] constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention..." It affirmed UNSC Resolution 476/80, which "[u]rgently calls on Israel, the Occupying Power... to desist... from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of... Jerusalem."

Back in 1986, at least on paper, justice and peace hadn't yet parted company. Back then, Israel was fingered unequivocally as an Occupying Power engaged in the crimes of colonizing the occupied Palestinian territories and judaising occupied Arab East Jerusalem. Back then, Israel was the problem, and it was expected to mend its ways by getting out of the occupied Palestinian territories.

In 2004, the ALP's Middle East policy supported the "right of Israel to live in peace and security within secure and recognised borders," but also the "right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, including their right to their own independent state." The Federal Government was enjoined to "lend every support to the peace process, in particular through the UN..."

By 2004 then, while Israel was busier than ever occupying, colonising and judaising the occupied Palestinian territories and occupied Arab East Jerusalem, it had somehow, mysteriously acquired a "right" to do so, undisturbed by resistance from the occupied! Justice, of course, had long since parted company with "peace and security." But the Palestinians' "right of self-determination" somehow managed a foot in the door, while the UN, alas, put in a final, fleeting appearance before going the way of the dodo.

In 2007, the ALP's Middle East policy called for a "lasting and equitable solution to the problems that have worked against stability and development in the Middle East." It referred to the "rights of all peoples in the Middle East to peace and security," and the "urgent attainment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

By 2007, it seems, the Middle East conflict had become, frankly, a pain in the butt, hindering easy imperial exploitation of the area. With the UN and international law long since gone to God, all that mattered was "stability and development." With all talk of occupier and occupied being, like, sooo yesterday, and the Occupying Power having the same right to "peace and security" as the occupied, a "two-cake solution," with Israel getting the cake and the Palestinians the crumbs, was all the rage.

In 2009, the ALP's Middle East policy reads simply: "That Conference supports the latest peace initiatives to support a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and within secure borders."

This means - if it means anything - that the ALP supports whatever peace process charade the Americans are prepared to stage, while the Israelis get on with erecting and expanding their Greater Israel edifice and confining the Palestinians to its interstices aka a Palestinian state.

And the 'brains' behind this latest formulation? Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support & Water Dr Mike Kelly, who just happens to be married to a cousin of former Israeli PM (2006-2009) Ehud Olmert*; and former ALP national president Warren Mundine, who has visited Israel twice, the first on a Yachad Scholarship in 2006, the second with Deputy Prime Minister Gillard in July. [*Olmert has the distinction of being the first Israeli PM to face trial on corruption charges.]

In speaking to their resolution, Kelly called on the Labor movement "to contribute to the process of moving forward rather than wasting energy looking back," and urged it "to fight against Islamic extemism 'given its fundamental denial of human rights, its tenets of gender inequity and intolerance of social and religious diversity'." (ALP recommits to two-state solution at national conference, The Australian Jewish News, 7/8/09)

Yes, comrades, history, international law, matters of justice and injustice - such a bore! The Middle East conflict is really just another chapter in the Clash between Western Civilization and Islamic Barbarism.

Mundine "hit out at people who claim to be friends of Palestine... 'If they are real friends, they have got to work with Israelis, work with Palestinians. I'm very optimistic things can happen. Real friends work in conversation and urge each other forward to the peace process'." (ibid)

You go first. No, you go first. No, I insist, you...

Nipping at their Heels

The Australian Jewish News of 27/2/09 on the government's 'Minister for Israel', Labor MP for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby:-

"Significantly, in both elections [2004 & 2007], the Liberals fielded Jewish candidates against him... because they understood Danby's key strategy. To survive as a Labor MP in Liberal territory, he needed the edge of identity politics, and the Jewish community provided it for him. But while they understood identity politics [the Liberals] could not defeat, perhaps even fully grasp, what made Danby an asset to the Jewish community... if Danby bills himself as the Jewish community's 'friend indeed', he is sometimes also seen as a 'friend in need'. In the end, Jewish voters concluded they did not really need a Jewish MP cheerleading in the ranks of the Howard government, but they did need a Jewish MP... to keep in line a Labor opposition flying with an unsecured left-wing, and after November 2007, to act as a watchdog within the new Rudd Government... He corrals his parliamentary colleagues and forces them to think long, hard and seriously about matters that often conjure knee-jerk reactions. 'During a recent political controversy, we had 11 federal MPs get together on an Israel issue. Mike Kelly [MP] convened them and I organised with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), who had a delegation up there, to sit down with us and we strategised together', Danby said. 'That is like America - people being part of the normal run of Australian politics and that's the way it should be'." (A decade of Danby, Peter Kohn & Naomi Levin)

Summing up: Danby was elected specifically to keep government MPs on the Zionist straight & narrow, putting the hard word on them should they show any sign of deviation from same, and wheeling in the lads of the Israel lobby if required (Gaza?).

Elsewhere in the same piece we read: "Michael... has also been very influential in ensuring that the policies of the Labor Party, in its internal considerations of the issues relating to the Middle East, are consistent with the aspirations of the local Jewish community."

And what are the policies of the Labor Party?

In 1986 Labor's platform contained this: "Labor seeks a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. The attainment of such peace remains an urgent necessity. Labor thus affirms UN Security Council Resolutions 242 & 338 which seek such a peace; also UNSC Resolutions condemning acts contrary to such objectives, namely 388/73 (violation of Lebanese sovereignty); 508 and 509/82 (June 1982 invasion of Lebanon); 501/82 (annexation of Golan Heights); 476/80 (annexation Arab section, Jerusalem); 465/80 (Israeli settlement in occupied territory)."

Nothing to write home about, of course, but compare it to Labor's current (2007) platform: "Labor is convinced that all Australians seek a lasting and equitable solution to the problems that have worked against stability and development in the Middle East. Labor will pursue a sustained Australian engagement in the Arab/Israeli conflict based on the rights of all people in the Middle East to peace and security and livelihood and their desire for better access to land, water and financial assistance than they have had in the past, regardless of their race, religion or origins. Labor believes that urgent attainment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the best way to reduce violence and conflict across the Middle East."

The change is enormous. A just peace has given way to a merely equitable one, the UN's role in underpinning Palestinian rights and challenging Israel's occupation of Arab lands has disappeared completely, and there's no mention of Israel's occupation or its abusive treatment of the Palestinians. Instead, we're left with only vague references to "the rights of all people in the Middle East."

By way of contrast, here's Labor's current policy on Western Sahara: "Labor supports the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and is concerned about allegations of human rights abuses in the occupied areas of Western Sahara. Labor believes in maintaining an appropriate dialogue with the Polisario Front, the legitimate representative of the people of Western Sahara. In government, Labor will support UN efforts to organise a free and fair referendum on independence in Western Sahara, and calls on the UN to press Morocco to implement all UN resolutions pertaining to Western Sahara."

Only the intervention of an Israel lobby (and absence of a Moroccan) can account for the stark difference between the two.

While Danby alone can't be credited with this obscene emasculation of Labor's Middle East policy (he was first elected to the seat of Melbourne Ports in 1998), there's no doubt that, along with his mates from ECAJ and the rest, he's played a vital role in the process.

Enlist Now!

"I found Private First Class Hayes with a woman under an empty carport. He pointed his M-16 at her head, but she would not stop screaming.

'What are you doing this for?' she said.

Hayes told her to shut up.

'We've done nothing to you,' she went on.

Hayes was starting to lose it, and we weren't even supposed to be talking to this woman. I told her that we were there on orders and that we couldn't speak to her, but on and on and on she bawled at Hayes and me.

'You Americans are disgusting! Who do you think you are, to do this to us?'

Hayes slammed her in the face with the stock of his M-16. She fell face down into the dirt, bleeding and silent. The woman lay still on the ground.

I pushed Hayes away. 'What are you doing, man?' I said to him. 'You've a wife and 2 kids! Don't be hitting her like that.'

He looked at me with eyes full of hatred, as if he was ready to kill me for saying what I did, but he didn't touch her again.

Then something happened that haunts my dreams to this day.

All the women were led back inside the house, and our entire platoon was ordered to stand guard outside. Four US military men who outranked us went inside with the women. They closed the doors. We couldn't see anything through the windows.

I don't know who the military men were, or what unit they were from, but I can only conclude that they outranked us and were at least at the level of a first lieutenant or above. That's because our own Second Lieutenant Joyce was there, and his presence did not deter them...

Normally when we conducted a raid we were in and out in 30' minutes or less. You never wanted to stay in one place for too long, for fear of exposing yourself to mortar attacks. But our platoon was made to stand guard outside that house for about an hour. The women started shouting and screaming. The men stayed in there with them, behind closed doors. It went on and on and on.

Finally, the men came out and told us to get the hell out of there.

It struck me then that we, the American soldiers, were the terrorists.

We were terrorising Iraqis. Intimidating them. Beating them. Destroying their homes. Probably raping them. The ones we didn't kill had all the reasons in the world to become terrorists. Given what we were doing to them, who could blame them for wanting to kill us, and all Americans? This sick realisation lodged like cancer in my gut. It grew, and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day. We, the Americans, had become the terrorists in Iraq." (Joshua Key, The Deserter's Tale: Why I Walked Away from the War in Iraq, pp 133-134)

Read this: "Australians have a 'quite robust' tolerance for battlefield casualties in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said yesterday as the body of our latest casualty was flown out of the war zone for home." (Aussies 'accept' Afghan casualties, The Australian, 14/7/08)

And this: "Mr Fitzgibbon said he was trying to persuade his own daughter, in her first year of nursing at the University of Newcastle, to join up. 'If she joined the ADF she'd be remunerated and she'd have her HECS fees paid for her', he said. 'She would have a return of service obligation for 4 years after she completed her studies, and I'd be more than delighted for her to do so'." (Students to get taste of life in the military, The Australian, 14/7/08)

What a leader! What a dad! I'm lost for words.

If Ms Fitzgibbon does join up, this will surely inspire a stampede of politicians' offspring to step up to the plate, if I can use an Americanism Fitz must be hearing a lot while "in the US for meetings with defence suppliers, senior officials of the Bush administration and members of Congress..." (Aussies 'accept'... 14/7/08)

Oh, and Fitz's parliamentary secretary for defence, Mike Kelly, Member for Eden-Monaro, has been over in Israel paying his respects to his cousin-in-law, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert: "'We've talked about the future of settlements as security mechanisms and things like that', Mr Kelly said." (Friendly family feud with cousin Ehud, The Australian, 24/6/08) Settlements as "security mechanisms"? If anyone can enlighten me as to the meaning of this, I'd be most grateful. "... and things like that"? Tell me more.

You've got to feel sorry for Kelly Jr, though. Is it the A'D'F or the I'D'F? Decisions, decisions.