'Neither I nor anyone in my organisation...'

23/3/16:

"The University of Sydney is refusing to answer questions relating to its short-lived decision to ban a Palestinian American activist, amid claims administrators singled him out for his support of boycotts against Israel. The university first approved, then banned, then approved again less than 24 hours later an address on Monday by Ali Abunimah, a US-born Princeton and University of Chicago-educated author and journalist.

"On Thursday last week the university informed organisers they must cancel the event, then on Friday it said the problem had been Abunimah's lack of a visa and since he now had one the event could go ahead. Jake Lynch, director of the University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies and a supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, said the explanation 'lacks credibility'.

"The HES (Higher Education Supplement) has obtained the email correspondence regarding Abunimah's visit. The organisers sought to book a lecture hall more than a month in advance and, after filling out an application, were told by university venues acting assistant Samantha Dos Santos that 'everything should be fine.' Ms Dos Santos said that if for any reason the event was not approved, 'a reason will be given.'

"On Thursday after 4pm, Ms Dos Santos wrote to the organisers to say the event 'wasn't approved by the university and you'll have to cancel it,' without stating a reason. Soon after 2pm on Friday, though, after a storm of online protest including a petition signed by more than 750 people, university venues manager Caroline Martin-Edwards wrote to organisers to say the issue was visa-related but since Abunimah now had one, the event could proceed given the university was 'deeply committed to free speech and open debate.' In fact, Abunimah, though he had difficulties getting a visa, had received it about 36 hours before Ms Dos Santos issued the email cancelling the event, and online media such as New Matilda reported on Wednesday that the visa had been granted.

"Sceptics of the university's explanation have pointed out that the abortive move to cancel the event came after considerable reporting of the visa controversy, and a couple of days after Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), issued a media statement describing Abunimah as 'a leader and founder of the loathsome BDS campaign.'

"Among questions Sydney University would not answer was whether University of Michigan art history professor Patricia Simons, who also delivered a public lecture on Monday - in her case on Italian Renaissance painter Jacopo Tintoretto's Susanna & the Elders - also had been screened for whether she had a visa, and how this was done. Associate Professor Lynch said: 'The university should clarify whether it is operating a general policy of checking for itself whether intended visitors to the university have visas to enter Australia or whether Mr Abunimah was singled out. If it is the latter, the university should explain why'." (Sydney fails to clear air over activist ban, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 23/3/16)

24/3/16:

"I refer to your article 'Sydney fails to clear air over activist ban' (23/3). It implies that Sydney University's short-lived decision to cancel a speaking event by anti-Israel campaigner Ali Abinimeh was as a result of my comments criticising him. Neither I nor anyone in my organisation has had any contact with anyone at Sydney University at any time in connection with Abunimah. My statement was about Abunimah's repugnant views, and makes no mention of his visa application." (Letter to editor, Robert Goot, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, 24/3/16)

Blinky & Tanya Run Scared

Federal Deputy Opposition leader Tanya (Once Was Warrior) Plibersek has been lately "calling on her party to compel MPs to vote for same-sex marriage, ending it as a conscience issue for the ALP... 'Labor has always been a party that is opposed to discrimination,' Ms Plibersek told Fairfax Media in an interview last week. 'It is a clear question. Do we support legal discrimination against one group in this country? Or do we not?'... A long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, Ms Plibersek said her position was 'fundamental to my politics'." (It's time: push to unite ALP on marriage, Judith Ireland, Sydney Morning Herald, 27/4/15)

Whatever one's position on same-sex marriage, the point I wish to make here is that Plibersek is clearly comfortable in speaking out on the issue, which, need I say, is as it should be if we purport to be a robust democracy.

Yet, on another issue fundamental to anyone who opposes discrimination wherever it rears its ugly head, she is curiously reticent:

"Mr Shorten and Ms Plibersek refused to answer questions about Palestine on Wednesday, with the deputy leader declaring 'I don't think today is the day for these other questions' following the execution of the Bali nine duo."  (Plibersek push on gay marriage backfires, James Massola, Sydney Morning Herald, 30/4/15)

And this while others in her party, particularly its justice [???!!!] spokesman, David Feeney, speak out loud and clear in defence of a certain entity founded on gross discrimination and inequality:

"... Mr Feeney questioned the push for a national conference resolution, which will be led by NSW frontbencher Tony Burke after discussions with Mr Shorten, for a future Labor government to recognise Palestine as a state in the absence of progress towards a two-state solution. Mr Feeney said that 'with so much going on in the Middle East, with more Arabs killed every year in Syria than have been killed in the history of Arab-Israeli conflict, the fixation on Israel is just that'." (ibid)

As for Labor leader Bill Shorten "who refused to answer questions on Wednesday," all it took was a mere phone call to get a reiterated pledge of allegiance reassurance from him:

"But president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Robert Goot, said on Thursday he had rung federal Labor leader Bill Shorten's office and been told that any moves to change the ALP's national position did not have Mr Shorten's approval." (Palestinians call for 'balance' on vote, Deborah Snow, Sydney Morning Herald, 1/5/15)

And this is despite Mr Goot's ECAJ colleague Alex Ryvchin asserting, in another context, the idea that the use of "terms such as 'Jewish lobby', 'Zionist lobby', and 'Israel lobby'" is "intended to appeal to antisemitic views of the Jews as exercising an extraordinary or dark power," and an example of "crude, conspiratorial thinking." (Activists corrupt noble principles in defence of Lynch, The Australian, 24/4/15)

(NB: For me to even hint that Mr Goot's ability to get just the answer he wants from Blinky Billy by means of a simple phone call (an ability you or I could only ever dream of) is an example of the Israel lobby at work is apparently conspiratorial thinking and "intended to appeal to antisemitic views." So, lest I be accused of same, let me state clearly that I'm absolutely certain Mr Goot had a great deal of difficulty getting through to Bill - Goot who? ECAJ? Never heard of it! - and I'm equally certain that his colleague, Mr Ryvchin had enormous difficulty getting his opinion piece published in the Australian. Oh yeah.)

But I digress. Back to Blinky. Frankly, I'm a bit worried about the guy. He's all over the shop if you ask me. I mean, look at this:

"Bill Shorten will anoint Nelson Mandela as a Labor hero at the July national conference, which will vote on a platform for 'a practical and pragmatic party, tinged and touched by a romantic spirit'." (Shorten to put Mandela on Labor pedestal, Sid Maher, The Australian, 21/4/15)

The problem with this is that Blinky seems blissfully unaware that Mandela once said (loud and clear I might add) the following:

"Arafat is a comrade-in-arms."

 "The people of South Africa will never forget the support of the state of Israel to the apartheid regime."

"We know all too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."

The Carr Diary 2: Israel Lobby Deniers

In his new book, Diary of a Foreign Minister, former foreign minister Bob Carr talks of an Israel lobby exercising an extraordinary influence over former  PM Julia Gillard, but according to some folk he's either a bigot or a conspiracy-theorist. Meet the Israel lobby deniers:

Michael Danby (Shadow Minister for Israel and all-round mensch):

Louise Yaxley: He also talks about the Jewish lobby or the pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne running the country and says it has an extraordinary influence over Julia Gillard's office. What do you make of that?  
Michael Danby: Well, I put it in the same category as all of the other claims. It was, no lobby in Australia I understand has that kind of influence. It's laughable. But I suppose in the current climate, as George Brandis says, it's OK to be a bigot. ...
LY: But how much influence did the pro-Israel lobby have over Julia Gillard's office in your view.
MD: As much influence as any other lobby does...
LY: And is that why Julia Gillard took that position that she did about how Australia should vote at the UN?
MD: I think she took that position because she believed that the best way to a peace settlement... and to end the issue of the settlements is a peace settlement. (Labor MP Michael Danby says Bob Carr 'nutty' and 'maniacal' in interview: bigoted views, mobile.abc.net.au, 10/4/14)

Mark Leibler (Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council):

"How does the Jewish lobby control the prime minister? Through donations to the ALP and sending people to Israel? I mean, give me a break. Would anyone seriously accept that?... When we've got an issue... which needs to be raised, we haven't had a problem in getting access to either ALP or liberal prime ministers or foreign ministers and so it should be. Any representative of a community organisation, if they've got something serious to say, they'll get the access." (Former foreign minister Bob Carr says 'pro-Israel lobby' influenced government policy, abc.net.au/news, 10/4/14)

Robert Goot (Executive Council of Australian Jewry):

"These claims border on conspiracy theories which make for salacious gossip and help sell books but bear no relation to reality." (The book salesman, jwire.com.au, 10/4/14)

Barry Cohen (retired federal Labor minister):

"I have seen what Bob Carr has written about the power of the pro-Israel lobby. You want to know what I think of Bob's comments? Here's what I think. I think it's bullshit." (Reasons stack up for ALP's simmering Israel divide, Mark Hawthorne, Sydney Morning Herald, 11/4/14)

Not Happy, Steve!

There's just no pleasing some people.

The Australian Jewish News goes into campaign mode, urging its readers to call on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to "demand [the] immediate release" of Israeli "hostage" Gilad Shalit.

Australia's soft touch Foreign Minister Stephen Smith duly obliges with:

"This week marks the fourth anniversary of the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit was captured in a cross-border raid into Israel by the armed wing of Hamas and has been held in captivity in the Gaza Strip by Hamas since that time. Australia joins other members of the international community in calling for his immediate release. Australia firmly believes that ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not in the interest of either party, the Middle East region or the international community. Australia has consistently made clear our view that a long-term solution must be a just and enduring peace in the Middle East, where both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace in their own states. In support of the peace process, Australia has substantially increased humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and is contributing to the development of institutions necessary for statehood. Australia recently welcomed the Israeli Government's announcement of a significant easing of restrictions on the entry of civilian goods into Gaza, which should ease the humanitarian situation and help ensure Israel's security." (Last word for Gilad, jwire.com.au, 25/6/10)

But, for at least one of the usual suspects, it's a case of Not happy, Steve!

"I refer to the statement concerning Gilad Shalit, issued by you on 25 June 2010, the fourth anniversary of his capture and detention by Hamas. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) welcomes your announcement that 'Australia joins other members of the international community in calling for his immediate release' and thanks the government for making that call. The remainder of the announcement, however, was disconcertingly lacking in substance and tepid in its tone. To say, as you did, that Gilad Shalit 'has been held in captivity in the Gaza strip by Hamas' is to gloss over the most heinous aspect of his captivity - the fact that he has been held incommunicado for 4 long years. Gilad Shalit, as you would know, was abducted from Israeli soil by Hamas, after Israel had evacuated its troops and citizens from Gaza. His treatment by Hamas is in clear violation of the rules of customary international law which proscribe the taking or detaining of a hostage in order to compel a State to do or abstain from doing any act, and which require prisoners of war to be allowed contact with their families and access to the Red Cross. Gilad Shalit's captors even deny him letters from his family. As a parent, I cannot begin to imagine the anguish and heartbreak that he, his parents and family continue to suffer. You may be interested to know that at the time of your statement, your colleague, Franco Frattini, the Foreign minister of Italy, is reported as stating 'that the conditions of Gilad's captivity breached all international rules and showed the terrorist nature of Hamas'. Meanwhile, Rome's City council made Gilad Shalit an honorary citizen of the eternal City. I also draw your attention to the statement issued by the New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch, an organization which could never be accused of being a partisan supporter of Israel. It said that 'Hamas authorities are violating the laws of war by refusing to allow Shalit to correspond with his family', and concluded that Shalit's prolonged incommunicado detention 'may amount to torture'. Unlike your own announcement, the statement by Human Rights Watch concluded: 'Regardless of Hamas' grievances against Israel, there are no grounds to cut Shalit off completely from his family'. The eloquent articulation of similar arguments in Parliament by both Mark Dreyfus MP and Christopher Pyne MP, strongly suggests that there is a bipartisan consensus in support of the relevant humanitarian principles and the way those principles apply in the case of Gilad Shalit. There can be no justification at all for the ongoing inhumane treatment of Gilad Shalit or his continued captivity. His is a burning humanitarian issue which must be considered in its own right and divorced from the issues in contention between Israel and Hamas. It is regrettable that your announcement omitted to make this distinction. It is an omission that is especially troubling to Australian Jewry, in light of the general tenor and positive outcome of our recent discussions at The Lodge. Whilst my community is grateful to the Government for calling for Gillad Shalit's release, we cannot help feeling let down by the inexplicable failure of your announcement to make the clear statement of principle, and send the strong message of support, which the occasion required." (Robert Goot, Not enough, Minister, jwire.com.au, 28/6/10)

To which a spokesman for the minister can only respond with the following disconcertingly insubstantial and tepid excuse:

"Australia was one of only a handful of countries to make a formal statement urging Shalit's release, reflecting the strength and sincerity of Australia's views. Sadly, many others have remained silent in the face of his deplorable detention." (Smith's Shalit statement slated, Australian Jewish News, 2/7/10)

Pray for the soul of Stephen Smith.

Australia Dumps On Durban

The arcane saga of Durban II goes on: "Despite changes to the draft text last month to exclude specific references to Israel, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith said on Monday that it was 'unlikely' Australia would attend the Durban Review Conference, aka Durban II, which commences in Geneva on April 20. However, he was holding off on making a final decision to give a UN working group the opportunity to make last-minute changes." (Australia attendance at Durban II 'unlikely', The Australian Jewish News, 17/4/09)

The draft conference declaration has been neutered, with no mention of Israel, occupation, racism or apartheid*, but that's not good enough for Smith. And Smith's failure to jump when the Zionist Lobby says jump is simply not good enough for its movers & shakers: "Smith's postponement, however, just days in from the conference, has frustrated Jewish leaders, who have been lobbying the Government for months [sic: over a year] to boycott the conference... This week, Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Robert Goot said he wrote again to the Foreign Minister urging him to pull out of the conference given that ongoing deliberations of the draft text had gone from 'bad to worse'." (ibid)

So for Goot, the dropping of all references to Israel in the draft means that it has "gone from 'bad to worse'"? Can you, dear reader, figure these guys out?

But the song & dance has finally paid off with Smith announcing: "Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views." (Anti-racism talks hit by Western boycott, AAP, 20/4/09)

Typically, Smith was merely waiting for the US to pull out: "On Friday [20/4], negotiators, including Western and Muslim states, believed they had ironed out the most controversial issues relating to religious discrimination and the Middle East in the draft conference declaration. But the US State Department spokesman Robert Wood said it still reaffirmed unacceptable parts of the 2001 Durban declaration referring to the Middle East conflict and infringed on freedom of speech." (ibid)

So let's draw a few relevant conclusions from all this:
1) Australia, which voted against funding Durban II in the UN in January last year**, has sufficient chutzpah to stuff the UN around since then with its maybe/maybe not routine before finally giving it the finger, but insufficient chutzpah to give same to the Israel Lobby.
2) The KRuddies have just made their own special contribution to Australia's grand foreign policy tradition of 'All-the-way-with LBJ'.
3) It's simply not good enough anymore for the UN to ignore what Israel so transparently is - a racist, genocidal entity - it must knuckle under to USrael and adopt the rhetoric of the Israeli PR machine.
4) The KRuddies have, by implication, ordained that calling the Israeli occupying power an occuping power is anti-Semitic; that calling Israel's racist project and policies racist is anti-Semitic; and that calling apartheid Israel an apartheid state is anti-Semitic.
5) The KRuddies have once again affirmed that support for Israel is in their DNA.
6) Canberra, like Washington, is effectively Israeli-occupied territory.
7) Black is white, wrong is right.
8) Over at Israel Lobby HQ, they're popping champagne corks.

Stop Press: Blimey! I've just seen today's Australian. Cop this: "The Australian understands the Dutch will not be going to the conference and Germany is also considering a boycott after intense lobbying by Mr Smith of his European counterparts..." (Israel slur fear forces boycott, Mark Dodd) There you have it - Smith has been swanning around Europe, at Australian taxpayers' expense, acting as a sock puppet for the Israelis. Could it get any worse?

[* See my 20/3/09 post Australia Bats for Israel in the UN **See my 18/1/08 post Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship]

The SMH: Puerile & Pusillanimous

Is the position of letters editor at The Sydney Morning Herald reserved for the especially clueless? Listen to this Postscript from Mike Ticher commenting on letter writers' responses to the carnage in Gaza: "As ever most letters focused on moral rights and wrongs: who did what 40 or 60 years ago, who had or had not broken international law and was or was not justified in certain actions. Those certainly should be debated, but it would make a change to have a more pragmatic debate about what might realistically work to change the situation." (17/1/09)

Ah yes, right and wrong, history, international law - so boring, so yesterday. And yet some letter writers actually took the bait - no doubt allowing Ticher to bin other writers who likely had more of a grasp of the moral, historical, and legal background to the issue. (I do not, of course, include the Fishmans, Lewis's and Burds in this category.)

Don Brown of Narrabeen tried his best to descend to Ticher's challenge, grumbling relevantly that neglecting the history of the conflict was "as difficult as discussing US-Muslim relations without mentioning the twin towers." His letter climaxed with "The power imbalance, both militarily and diplomatically, is so great that Israel believes it is impervious to any criticism, let alone any punitive action. It has developed nuclear weapons, bombed Syria, built walls and settlements and ignored the claims of the Palestinians for all the long years of the occupation." So far, so good, but Ticher's puerile terms of reference reduced Don to this nonsense: "Perhaps if the immense military aid to Israel were to be totally replaced by a program of building schools, clinics and sporting facilities to be shared by the people of both Israel and the occupied territories, some progress could be made." (19/1/09)

Bruce Weatherlake of Bli Bli, Qld wrote relevantly about the need for Israel to allow the Palestinian right of return, but, nobbled by Ticher's terms of reference, plunged into irrelevance with "All Australians... have been heartened to see the great camaraderie among different members of the South African cricket team; something unimaginable 25 years ago," and concluded with this inane Obamarism: "Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game." (19/1/09)

Guys, guys, this is so not a game! Don't allow yourself to be diverted by know-nothings like Ticher. Here are the kinds of things you could have written about, courtesy of Australian academics John Docker & Ned Curthoys' newly formed Committee for the Dismantling of Zionism: Statement of Aims:-

1) In the Ghandhian tradition of non-violence, the committee stands for the peaceful co-existence of Israeli Jews and Palestinians within a unified democratic state where everyone is a full citizen irrespective of religion or ethnicity.
2) The committee supports the view of Sir Isaac Isaacs, a Jewish jurist and former Governor General of Australia in the 1940s, that the very idea of a Jewish state is absurd, unjust, and untimately untenable, since it makes all the non-Jewish citizens necessarily and inevitably second-class citizens.
3) In the Gandhian traditon of non-violence, we support the cultural and economic boycott of Israel.
4) The Jewish Right [sic: Law] of Return is a weapon in the Zionist colonization and occupation of Palestinian lands. Accordingly, we urge that the world wide Jewish diaspora should renounce the Right of Return.
5) We urge support for UN Resolution 194 which declares the unconditional right of the Palestinian refugees expelled from Palestine in 1948 to return to their homes.
6) We observe that Zionist Israel is guilty of genocidal policies as defined in Article II (c) of the Genocide Convention, in that it intends to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group by "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." By "physical destruction" we mean that Zionist Israel transparently seeks to destroy Palestinian society and remove Palestinians from their ancestral lands in order to Judaize those same lands.
7) The world wide Zionist organisations are also guilty, in terms of the Genocide Convention, Article III (e), of "complicity in genocide." (From antony loewenstein.com/blog/ 5/1/09)

To add insult to injury, the SMH (along with its Ziocon rival, The Australian), on the same day as the above letters, failed to cover the third and largest of Sydney's massive anti-Israel demonstrations. Contrast this with the excellent coverage in Melbourne's Age - Thousands march in Melbourne against Gaza war, Andra Jackson, 19/1/09 - a piece, moreover, which actually quoted some of those who spoke at the rally, and, in a revolutionary new journalistic development, even one of the demonstrators!

By turning its back on the thousands of Sydneysiders who flooded the streets of Sydney's CBD for block after block to express their solidarity with the victims of Israeli genocide in Gaza, the SMH reveals itself yet again to be more of a media firewall acting to block and deflect, rather than a serious newspaper in the business of reporting and investigating contemporary trends and developments. Whether this failure to report arises out of cowardice or conviction, the SMH as currently configured, deserves our contempt.

Another indication of the strength of popular feeling against Israeli war crimes emerged in The Sun-Herald of 18/1/09. In response to that publication's airing of the views of federal Labor MP Julia Irwin (one of the tiny minority of Australian politicians with the courage to speak up for the Palestinians) the week before, columnist Kerry-Anne Walsh wrote as follows: "Ms Irwin's article generated a greater flood of correspondence in The Sun-Herald than any issue in recent years, the overwhelming majority in support. What emerged - strongly - in their views was a yearning for politicians to break ranks and voice opinions." (Toe the line, don't step on any) Walsh followed this with a selection of these emails. Needless to say, the Israel lobby, in the person this time of Robert Goot of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), had obtained a right of reply - Just defence despite death toll. What a pity that his space on the paper's Comment page wasn't given over entirely to that "flood of correspondence."

World public opinion is turning decisively against the rogue state of Israel, and rightly so. The bulk of the Australian corporate media (with the possible exception of The Age), however, still hasn't got it.

The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 5

"The pro-Israel lobby in this country is a powerful, influential and intimidating group. Backbenchers such as Julia Irwin and Leo McLeay get left way behind, along with the interests of the Palestinians." Alan Ramsey, Lost, even with a map, 30/8/03

Meanwhile, over at Fairfax...

In my first post in the series, The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament, I cited Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey's brave foray into the matter of The Motion, Don't mention the war as Israel lauded (8/3/08). His was a lone voice in the Fairfax press that week.

There were, of course, the inevitable outraged responses on the letters page (10/3/08): Ramsey's reference to "Jewish financial support of party coffers" drew satirical scorn ("Curse those Zionist paymasters!") and assertions that "[t]here is no evidence that Jewish organizations per se have ever donated to Australian political parties." One letter writer dismissed his opinion piece as a "finger-pointing rant."

And they, apparently, were just the tip of the iceberg: according to Letters co-editor, Mike Ticher, in his Postscript comment on 15/3/08, "That [letters on 'white flight'] was just a polite exchange compared with the vitriol inspired by Alan Ramsey's opinion piece on Israel last Saturday and the various responses to it."

Another letter attacking Ramsey, Friendships with Israel are more enduring than hate-filled rhetoric, by Robert Goot and David Knoll, presidents respectively of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was published on the day of Rudd's motion (12/3/08). They charged him with a) "indulging one of his passions - hatred of Israel"; b) "crossing the line from robust debate to racial vilification"; c) " denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination"; d) "applying double standards by requiring Israel to adhere to standards not demanded of any other democratic nation"; e) "using images associated with classic anti-semitism"; and f) "reverting to classic anti-semitic canards about Jews and money."

To its credit the SMH printed 3 rebuttals of Goot and Knoll the following day (13/3/08). To touch briefly on each of these accusations:-

a) For Zionists, reasoned criticism of Israel is invariably misconstrued as "hatred for Israel."

b) This is a groundless assertion not in any way borne out by reference to what Ramsey actually says.

c) Notice that Goot and Knoll want self-determination, not for Israel's citizens as such, 20% of whom are non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs, but for "the Jewish people," including presumably Goot and Knoll.

d) This begs the questions: What kind of democracy discriminates in law against part of its citizenry, exiles and renders stateless millions more potential citizens, and occupies the land of another people? And since the passing of apartheid South Africa, are there any other such "democratic nations?"

e) Another groundless assertion not borne out by reference to what Ramsey actually says.

f) Perhaps Goot and Knoll should first take this matter up with the editor of The Australian Jewish News. In its issue of 9/2/07, the AJN journalist, Melissa Singer, writes, under the headline, Jewish political donations nudge $1m, that "Jewish-owned businesses and individuals continued their support for the 2 major political parties in 2005-06, according to an Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) report released last week. While the overall number of Jewish donors was down on 2004-05, it is anticipated that 2006-07 will be stronger, with an election less than 10 months away." Singer goes on to list Frank Lowy's Westfield Group, Harry Triguboff's Meriton Premier Apartments, Phil Green's investment firm Babcock & Brown, David Goldberger & David Wieland, Smorgan Steel, Richard Pratt and his Visy Group, Harry Segal, Gandel Group, Sherman Group, Ivany Investment group, law firm Arnold Bloch Liebler, and the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce. [As Jack Lang told the young Paul Keating: "Always put your money on self-interest, son, it's the only horse that always tries."]

Thankfully, Ramsey was not bullied into silence. Quite the contrary, the whole of his regular Saturday column of 15/3/08, Blinkers off for the other side of the story, was devoted to the bizarre spectacle which had taken place just 3 days earlier in the House of Representatives.

While The Australian had given the false impression of near wall-to-wall support for the motion, Ramsey tells a different story: "...one half of the Australian Parliament 'celebrated' the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel. More than a third of that one-half was absent, whatever their reasons. A number of MPs deliberately excluded themselves." Apart from Rudd and Nelson, "[n]obody else spoke. The whole affair, carefully orchestrated, carefully bipartisan, lasted just 15 minutes. The press gallery was almost empty. So, too, were the 2 public galleries. About 100 invited guests...filled the first 3 rows of the Speaker's gallery...These were the people who, after Rudd's...motion had been 'put and passed' without a vote, applauded enthusiastically. The only other person who spoke - or attempted to - was a middle-aged woman [who] held up a T-shirt, exclaiming, 'What about UN resolution 242?' " She was evicted.

Ramsey goes on to tell the story of how, on the same night, a lone Liberal MP, Susan Ley, "did an extremely courageous thing...speak for the Palestinian people. She was the only MP [out of 150] who did...When Rudd and Nelson had spoken at midday I counted 53 Government MPs present, including 6 ministers, and 39 Coalition MPs. When Ley got the call 7 1/2 hours later...to speak on the adjournment, there were 5 people in the public gallery, 4 Labor MPs and 2 Coalition MPs in the chamber, and one journalist in the press gallery." Ramsey gives an edited version of Sussan Ley's speech, from which I quote the following:-

"Israel has many friends in this country and in the Parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause. But it is one I support, in part out of knowledge that the victors of WW II, including Australia, wrote a 'homeland' cheque to cover the sins of the holocaust and centuries of anti-semitism in Europe, but it was the Palestinians who had to cash it."

Ley referred to Israel's 'achievements' (though mistakenly describing the Jewish ethnocratic state as a "democracy"), its "40-year occupation of the Palestinain territories, its continued expansion of [illegal Israeli] settlements [on Palestinian land] and its refusal to allow the return of expelled refugees." She also asserted that "The current blockade of Gaza, confiscation of Palestinian land, and the expansion of settlements must be mentioned in the context of today's motion."

"We are the leaders of our generation. We are accountable for results. If the principal protagonists and the rest of the world community hand Palestine on to the next generation as a twisted mess of grievance, hatred and retribution, then we have failed. The last 2 generations of leaders have failed to produce peace. Let us renew our efforts."

Ramsey reflected: "Unlike earlier in the day, nobody applauded - though I wished I could have. Many Australians, too, had they been present, surely would have wanted to acknowledge such a speech of such honesty and sensibility...Ley put the grovelling Rudd and Nelson to shame. The truth is there is no real debate in this country about the travesty of what is happening in the Middle East, and there are those in the community who, with their money and influence, do all they can to ensure no such open debate occurs, either in the national Parliament, in the media or anywhere else. So why was the Rudd Government, in its first 4 months in office, doing what no Australian government or parliament had done, to acknowledge any of the decades of Israeli statehood since the Six-Day War in 1967 saw the Israeli military occupy the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza and ignore 40 years of mutual violence and barbarity as well as 40 years of UN resolutions to withdraw? The Howard government did not 'honour' Israel's 50th anniversary...nor the Hawke government the 40th...nor the Fraser government the 30th...Why the 60th in 2008 the instant a Labor Government comes to power?"

Ramsey's question demands an answer. At least one Labor MP was trying to prise one out of the PM: "When the Labor caucus met on Tuesday...Sydney's Julia Irwin asked Rudd this very question. Why? Irwin never takes a backward step in her defence of Palestinian rights, but all she got from Rudd this time was waffle. He did not explicitly respond as to why 60 might be different from earlier decades when the Parliament had done nothing and neither had earlier governments. And no Labor MP supported Irwin in pushing it. She was a lone voice in the Labor caucus as Susan Ley was in the Parliament. How's that for political ticker?"

Unfortunately, like Ley and Irwin in federal politics, Alan Ramsey is a lone voice in Australian journalism. What have we come to? Where are we going?