The Unbearable Cluelessness of Graham Richardson

"That war is a dirty business is a proposition that cannot be challenged. Both innocence and the innocent are the victims, and when the war has been going on for years..."

That's how colorful Labor identity and Murdoch muppet Graham 'Richo' Richardson begins his column on NSW MLA Shaoquett Moselmane's threatened defamation action against Richo's fellow Murdoch muppett Sharri Markson. (Talk at lunch, not in court, The Australiam, 4/3/16)

And that's how he misrepresents what has been going on "for years" in Palestine. Nothing to do with colonisation. Or dispossession. Or ethnic cleansing. Or occupation. Or apartheid. Just another "dirty war" between equals. That's what this boofhead thinks is/has been going on over there. That's what he thinks it's all about.

Clearly, he knows SFA about the issue. Still, he insists he's learnt 'wisdom' of a practical kind from his late "legendary" Labor mates, bruvver Ducker and Jack Ferguson, namely 'Never sue anyone': "You risk hundreds of thousands of dollars you can't afford and you make certain you relieve [sic] the horror you're trying to forget." And this sage advice he's now dishing out to Moselmane whom he represents as a Richo protege: "I have known Moselmane for quite some time and more than any other individual I am responsible for getting the Labor party to put him into parliament."

So Shaoquett, maaate, listen up!

To clarify the details of Moselmane's defamation action: he said in state parliament in 2013: "I accept the right of people to express their views, even when they are wrong, naive, ill-informed, indoctrinated and blinded by the power of a lobby group that is cancerous and malicious and seeks to deny, misinform and scaremonger." Not apropos nothing, of course, but after coming under attack by another Murdoch muppet, Cassandra Wilkinson.

"These harsh words," says Richo, "were used to describe what could be called 'the Jewish lobby'."

(You can read it all in context in my 27/5/13 post Shaoquett Moselmane Speaks Truth to Power.)

This is what Murdoch muppet Markson wrote in response: "He didn't utter them in the privacy of his own home. He felt comfortable enough broadcasting this anti-Semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament..."

Richo apparently has no problem with that malicious, career-destroying, mother-of-all-smears. But Moselmane's words, now that's a different matter: "Parliamentary privilege is a wonderful weapon in the hands of a politician with something nasty to say... It is hard to describe those words as anything but extreme."

Harsh... nasty... extreme. This is supposed to justify Markson hurling the A-bomb at Moselmane, calling him, in effect, from her public perch over at News Corpse, an anti-Semite. For Richo this is merely "free speech" and "commentary."

He puts in a plug for Markson:

"I want a society where strong debate with strong language is welcomed... I don't agree with all that is contained in the Markson commentary. Bob Carr, a friend of mine for more than 40 years, would have every right to be grievously offended by the column. Carr, though, would not call in the lawyers in a bid to shut Markson down. He knows debate is vital to democracy... Markson is tenacious and fearless. She can be irritating and sometimes can go too far. It should be noted, though, that the task of a good journalist is not to make us feel relaxed and comfortable. While I don't agree with much of her column, it would be a great shame if anyone succeeded in shutting her down. Markson is a good advertisement for modern journalism. It doesn't matter to me whether she has crossed some indiscernible legal line. This matter should not finish up in a court of law. Moselmane should rethink and back off. He would be far better to take Markson to lunch and debate the issue. You gave it, Shaoquett, now you have to man up and take it on the chin."

Is he for real? If Markson is "a good advertisement for modern journalism," then God help modern journalism!

It's not as if Richo is unfamiliar with Moselmane's background:

"Moselmane hails from a village in southern Lebanon. When the Israelis last ventured into Lebanon, I can vividly recall Moselmane's reaction when up to 12 children in his village died from aerial and artillery bombardment. Moselmane was quite emotional when discussing this with me. He vented his feelings about the Israeli army and the people who ordered them into his part of southern Lebanon. He would be less than human if the deaths of those children had no effect on his views about Israel and its inhabitants."

So Moselmane's got some skin in the vicious, expansionist games that Israel, as a hyper-aggressive, apartheid state, has been playing for decades in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, in Egypt, and in Iraq. And then, when he speaks out against the influence and reach of Israel's Australian cheer squad, who, in the words of Richo mate Bob Carr, derive their extraordinary power from "political donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists"* (such as Markson (rambammed: 2015) and Sheehan), he cops The Smear of Smears from Markson, who - and here's the rub - has no skin in the game whatever, other than to have been indoctrinated at some stage with the false Zionist notion that occupied - River to Sea - Palestine is her birthright as a Jew, a bizarre conceit she appears too thick or too full of herself to see through.

But I guess that's all a bit too subtle for Richo.

[*7.30 Report, 9/4/14]

Now He Speaks Up?

"NSW Labor powerbroker Sam Dastyari is set to lash his own party's asylum-seeker policies and predict Australians will one day be as embarrassed by offshore processing as they are about the White Australia policy... The speech, to mark the Iranian new year festival of Nowruz, will be the first time the Iranian-born senator has spoken publicly about the death of Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati on Manus Island last month. The senator will say he was shocked by the 'brutal murder' and that he will not allow the Australian government to criminalise and further 'persecute young families fleeing their homes'. 'It could have been me and my sister,' he will say." (Dastyari will break ranks with Labor on offshore policy, James Massola, Sydney Morning Herald, 23/3/14)

So it's taken this long, and the murder of an Iranian asylum seeker, for Dastyari to speak up on the cruel Howard/Rudd/Gillard/Abbott policy of transporting asylum seekers to remote Pacific islands and abandoning them there to mayhem, madness, and now murder?

Dastyari, who you may remember took over as State Secretary of NSW Labor from Zionist enforcer* and US embassy habitue** Mark Arbib in 2007 and entered federal politics as a senator for NSW at the 2013 election, has presumably had no problems whatever with Labor's long flirtation with the Israeli apartheid state, the entity responsible for orchestrating the international sanctions regime which is destroying the Iranian economy and forcing young men like Berati abroad.

In fact, Dastyari is on record telling NSW Labor MLC Shaoquett Moselmane, who bluntly and bravely told the Israeli ambassador last year to "butt out of Australian politics," that his remarks were "completely inappropriate." (See my 27/5/13 post Shaoquett Moselmane Speaks Truth to Power.)

[*See my 30/7/10 post Get Thee to Israel!; **See my 10/12/10 post Wikileaks 6: Working for the Man.]

Odd Man Out

Remember the fuss back in 2011 when Marrickville Council decided to boycott Israeli products? Remember how it was derided by Labor's Anthony Albanese, in particular, for 'meddling' in a foreign policy issue? Remember how the NSW government of Baruch O'Farrell talked of sacking it? Well, cop this:

"A NSW parliamentary delegation, including a senior government minister, travelled to a disputed region in the Caucasus in defiance of a strong travel warning from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The delegation, which included the NSW Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, went to the disputed region of Nagorno Karabakh last month, addressed its parliament and had meetings with its president. Nagorno Karabakh... is not internationally recognised as a country and is considered a breakaway region of Azerbaijan... The delegation's trip followed an extraordinary motion passed through the NSW upper house which, in effect, recognised Nagorno Karabakh as a separate country by recognising it had 'the right to self-determination', and calling on Australia to recognise its independence. The motion, which received no publicity, was passed without dissent last October without even the Foreign Minister being aware of it... Following this, the Armenian National Committee of Australia issued an invitation to NSW parliamentarians to visit Nagorno Karabakh. Christian Democrat Fred Nile said MPs had to pay for the trip themselves, which had reduced the number. The parliamentary delegation was made up of 7 MPs led by Liberal MP Jonathon O'Dea and including Mr Nile, Liberals David Clarke and Marie Ficarra, and Labor MLCs Shaoquett Moselmane and Amanda Fazio." (MPs defy Caucasus travel warning, Mark Coultan, The Australian, 30/8/13)

Perhaps the most puzzling part of the whole business is the inclusion of Labor MLC Shaoquett Moselmane. Why would an MLC who has courageously spoken up in the NSW Legislative Council in defence of Palestinian rights pay for a trip to anywhere with the likes of such pro-Israel zealots as Nile, Clarke, Ficarra and O'Dea?

Shaoquett Moselmane Speaks Truth to Power

With so many NSW state politicians bending the knee to Israeli apartheid and its local fifth column these days, the voices of those who fearlessly speak out in defence of Palestinian rights deserve our utmost respect.

One such is NSW Labor MLC Shaoquett Moselmane.

He had this to say in the context of a speech on religious freedom in the NSW Legislative Council on May 23:

"In a democratic country such as ours there are many ways in which people can express their views - the opportunities are wide open. I am a person who will not shy away from having my say. I will always say and do what is right, even in the face of the trash I have read in the Australian-Israeli media. One or two reporters writing in the Murdoch press - namely the Australian - have been attacking me and denying the truth of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and the killing and dehumanising of the Palestinian people. This is utter garbage. I accept the right of people to express their views, even when they are wrong, naive, ill-informed, indoctrinated and blinded by the power of a political lobby group that is cancerous, malicious, and seeks to deny, misinform and scaremonger. What I do take exception to is foreigners intervening in the right of Australian politicians to speak out. Therefore, I say to the Israeli ambassador, Yuval Rotem, 'Butt out and stay out. Your perceived right to bully as you do in the Middle East does not extend to the Australian political arena.'

"In today's Australian, Cassandra Wilkinson*, lacking journalistic integrity and an informed knowledge of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, took aim and attacked me. In an example of sloppy reporting and sloppy journalism, she quotes a statement she attributes to Mr David Shoebridge MLC that was actually made by Dr John Kaye MLC. Perhaps because Dr Kaye is of Jewish descent Ms Wilkinson conveniently attacks others in the NSW Parliament who simply dare to criticise - as any ethical or moral person would do - the state of Israel's illegal and criminal practices against the Palestinian people. I applaud all Muslim and Arab leaders for speaking out on these and other issues. I call on the Australian Arab Muslim community to unite and for once speak with one Australian voice. I ask them to protect the right of their community to speak out and deliver a message of peace and citizenship on behalf of their community so that neither they nor their messages are misconstrued or misunderstood."

In an article in today's Australian (Attack on Israel's backers puts ALP in damage control, Christian Kerr & Mark Coulton), quoting snatches of the above speech, we get some idea of the pressure Shaoquett Moselmane is coming under to toe the party (Likud?) line. One is reminded of the pressure to which the courageous and principled federal Labor MP Julia Irwin was subjected whenever she spoke up for the Palestinian cause:

"Clashes on Middle East policy are expected when the NSW Labor caucus meets tomorrow after a Muslim MP attacked supporters of Israel as 'cancerous' and 'malicious'."

(You'll note here that Moselmane was referring to the Israel lobby, not mere supporters of Israel. He's in good company in this regard: Fairfax columnist Mike Carlton has called the lobby a "ferocious beast," and another former Fairfax columnist and broadcaster, Terry Lane, described it as "malicious, implacable, mendacious and dangerous." (See my 12/6/10 post A Ferocious Beast.)

"MLC Shaoquett Moselmane was slapped down by Opposition Leader John Robertson after he used a speech in parliament about religious tolerance and multiculturalism to attack his critics, including columnists in The Australian... 'I comprehensively reject the allegations made by Mr Moselmane. I have made this clear to him', Mr Robertson said, adding that he had contacted Mr Rotem and Yair Miller, the president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. NSW Labor general secretary Sam Dastyari called the remarks 'completely inappropriate'. Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes condemned Mr Moselmane's comments as 'contrary to the policy of the Labor Party'. Mr Moselmane declined to return calls from The Australian."

Watch this space.

[*See my 23/5/13 post Cassandra Wilkinson & Herstory.]

Cassandra Wilkinson & Herstory

The Australian's holy war against the demonic forces of the pro-Palestinian BDS movement in Australia took a most unusual turn today with an opinion(ated) piece by columnist Cassandra Wilkinson, Boycott continues centuries-old hatred.

Described at the Australian as a "strategy consultant," an adviser to ex-NSW Labor politicians, Michael Costa and Christina Keneally, and a "regular SkyNews commentator on political issues," Wilkinson has never before, so far as I'm aware, broken into print on the subject of Palestine/Israel. Nor, it appears, has she ever been rambammed. And as for Exodus - that'd be the second book of the Bible, right?

Still, there exists at least one sign that the lady's for turning. Here she is, for example, discoursing on "20th century security":

"The history of 20th century security shows that when the West turns a blind eye to trouble around the world, things get worst [sic]. When the French and British ran out of Suez, the Middle East got less safe..." (Sky News, The Nation with Helen Dalley, Kerry Chikarovski, Cassandra Wilkinson & Ed Husic, scottryan.com.au, 8/11/12)

Wowee, break out the pith helmets and the puttees NOW!

Apparently, back in '56, the Britz and the Frogz should've told Eisenhower to go get stuffed, shocked and awed Cairo, pursued Nasser all the way to his spiderhole in the sticks, put him on trial for stealing the Suez Canal, pronounced him guilty and strung him up. The fact that they didn't means the Middle East's been all down hill since then.

A recent (23/5) twitter exchange yields another insight. Make of it what you will:

Glenn Barling: great article this morning in the australian.
Cassandra Wilkinson: thanks - small gesture of solidarity from a Bondi girl to her neighbours.

And so to Wilkinson's column:

She's deeply troubled about something she calls "the bonds of convenience growing between elements of the Left and anti-Semitism."

Her beloved UNSW, in particular, is a real worry:

"The student activists who tried to prevent the University of NSW from allowing Mr Brenner [!] to open on campus, claimed the BDS campaign was initiated in 2005. Such sloppy referencing and fact-checking wouldn't pass muster on their exams, I hope. As it happens, I studied history at UNSW - something the protesters could profit from before they graduate. A basic grasp of history shows us the boycotting of businesses is a longstanding tactic in the campaign of hate against the Jewish people."

Let me get this straight, Wilkinson's study of history at UNSW taught her that boycotts of Jewish businesses have always been, are now, and will always be nakedly anti-Semitic. Right...

Maybe, if that's what is being dished out as history at UNSW, our 'offending' student activists would do well to ignore her advice.

It's painfully obvious here that however much 'history' Wilkinson actually studied at UNSW she still does not have the wherewithal to distinguish between Jews as Jews and Jews as Zionists.

Never mind, she still has the wherewithal (UMURDOCH?) to con her readers into thinking of the Israeli corporation which owns the Max Brenner brand as just a sweet little man standing behind a counter against a backdrop of yummy chocolate allsorts.

The only alternative explanation is that she really does believe that to be the case. Hell, maybe she's the kind of person - poor thing! - who walks into, say, a Dick Smith outlet expecting to see the guy in person.

That Ms Wilkinson has a 'way' with history becomes appallingly apparent at the start of her next paragraph:

"Boycotts of Jewish merchants were practised in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and later across eastern Europe..."

Let's focus, shall we, just on the Ottoman Empire? Unless she's prepared to cite a source or two for the assertion that boycotting Jewish shops was a feature of life under the Ottomans, I think we can safely dismiss it as garbage.

For my part, however, having read the fascinating study Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine (2011) by Michelle U. Campos, Assistant Professor of the Modern Middle East at the University of Florida, the only reference to a boycott I could find was a joint Muslim/Christian/Jewish Ottoman citizen boycott of Austro-Hungarian products following the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. Just one quote should suffice: "Importantly, Muslims were not the only participants in the imperial boycott, and in many locations Christians and Jews were also active as organizers, mobilisers, and participants. When the mass demonstrations spread inland to Jerusalem, they were led by the Mufti Taher al-Husayni, but he was joined by Jewish, Greek Orthodox, and Armenian representatives who were elected to serve alongside him on a boycott committee." (p 104)

On the general status of Ottoman Jews, Campos writes as follows:

"For the Ottoman state... population diversity was a product of, and a powerful testament to, successful empire building. The eponymous founder of the dynasty, Osman, had consolidated his power in Asia Minor in the late 13th century through alliance with local Turkic tribes and Christian principalities. As the empire spread throughout Asia, Europe, and Africa, later sultans continued to integrate their diverse subjects into the state... After the conquest of Constantinople, the capital of Byzantium, Sultan 'Fatih' Mehmet ('the Conqueror') retained the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church and strategically moved Jews into the city to replace the fleeing Byzantines. Decades later, in 1492, when the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella expelled Jews and Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, Sultan Beyazit II famously welcomed the exiles to Ottoman shores.

"The point of this recounting is not to argue that the Ottoman Empire was a multicultural paradise, for it surely was not. As an Islamic empire it maintained an 'institutionalized difference' between Muslims and non-Muslim subjects which was accentuated - or indeed erupted - in times of crisis. Non-Muslim populations were organized, counted, taxed, legislated, and otherwise 'marked' according to their confessional or ethno-confessional communities. At the same time, however, non-Muslim communities were allowed a tremendous degree of self-governance and autonomy in the realms of communal institutions and religious law, and comparatively speaking, the status of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire was far better than that of non-Christians in Europe." (pp 8-9)

To say that Wilkinson's grasp of history is shaky is to indulge in understatement:

"In 1922, the Fifth Palestine Arab Congress called for a boycott of all Jewish businesses."

An Arab Congress meeting in Nablus in 1922 resolved to boycott the elections for a proposed gerrymandered Legislative Council. This had nothing whatever to do with 'Jewish businesses'.

"In 1943, the Arab League banned the purchase of 'products of Jewish industry'."

The Arab League was not founded until 1945.

"Note I have passed over here the not insignificant events of 1933-45 lest I fall foul of politicians such as Greens MP David Shoebridge..."*

When it comes to the subject of boycotts, I certainly won't be passing over the Nazi era. The fact is that when American Jews called for a boycott of German goods in 1933, the World Zionist Organisation (WZO) opposed the idea: "It not only bought German wares; it sold them, and even sought out new customers for Hitler and his industrialist backers." (Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Lenni Brenner, 1983, p 59)

Now let me draw Wilkinson's attention to the Zionist anti-Arab boycott: "But this [Zionist] craze for the possession of [Palestinian] land did not prevent the [British] Government from attempting to protect [Palestinian Arab] cultivators against displacement through the sale of land over their heads. It was no secret that no Arab could be employed on land purchased by the Jewish National Fund. In fact clause 23 of the lease agreement [Jewish] settlers are required to sign, makes it incumbent on the lessee 'to execute all works connected with cultivation of the holding, only with Jewish labour." (Palestine Through the Fog of Propaganda, M.F. Abcarius, 1946, p 131)

Ah, but why bother with the real facts or the actual dynamics of the colonial struggle still underway in Palestine, when you're just a cog in the machinery of the Australian's holy war against defenders of Palestinian rights? Just get on with it and smear to your heart's content:

"In reality [the BDS] is the most recent name for a centuries-old economic persecution of Jews for having the temerity to become educated and entrepreneurial despite their exclusion from many occupations, geographies and institutions."

Wilkinson's grasp on the present is equally shaky.

She is shocked that NSW Labor MLC Shaoquett Moselmane** "disgraced the house by accusing Israel of running torture camps..."

Moselmane was, of course, referring to the notorious Khiam Prison in Israeli-occupied south Lebanon (1982-2000), and his disgraceful accusation just happens to be supported by Human Rights Watch. (See Torture in Khiam Prison: Responsibility & Accountability, 27/10/99.)

Wilkinson is also shocked by Moselmane's claim that "Israel is driven by a 'craving to take over other people's lands'," seemingly oblivious to Israel's 65 years of territorial expansion, aka wiping Palestine (and chunks of Syria and Lebanon) off the map. She then has the gall to accuse him of being "particularly guileless in his views"!

Finally, Wilkinson spruiks the thoroughly bogus London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism*** as though it's the only thing capable of preventing the seemingly "trivial or childish" BDS protest at UNSW from morphing into something - Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? - more "potent."

"The Left," she cries, must "stand with those who educate women, stand with those who let gays serve openly in the military, stand with those who allow free speech and political activism. Stand, in short, with the Jewish people and their state of Israel."

It's hard to believe she's even read the declaration, which calls on its signatories to legislate against hate crime, essentially Zio-speak for criticism of the Zionist project and its manifold crimes against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples.

Doesn't it say somewhere in the Old Testament that 'It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt'?

[*Yet another indication of Wilkinson's shoddy journalism. This 'Correction' appeared in The Australian on 24/5: "Cassandra Wilkinson's opinion article in The Australian yesterday... incorrectly attributed a quote, which accused supporters of Israel of 'using the Holocaust for political purposes', to NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge. In fact, the statement was made by fellow Greens MLC John Kaye. The Australian apologises to Mr Shoebridge for the error."; **See my 3/4/13 post Doing the Donkey in the NSW Knesset 10; ***See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]

Doing the Donkey* in the NSW Knesset 11

On the speech of The Hon. Lynda Voltz, Labor Party, in the NSW Legislative Council, arising out of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel (PFoI) 'Study mission" debate of March 14:

Another swipe at The Greens?

"Unlike my colleague Mr David Shoebridge, if I received an invitation from the Jewish Board of Deputies to go on a tour of Israel I would certainly take them up on the offer because I am a strong believer in the notion that travel broadens the mind and you should always listen to a person's point of view with an open mind. Travel should expose us to beliefs that are contrary to our own and challenge some of our views, particularly of history and international politics. However, if the reports of the study tour I have heard are anything to go by, I doubt there was any significant challenge to the existing views of those who went on the tour."

Is Voltz really suggesting that she had no idea that lobby-funded trips to Israel were all about welding already closed minds shut until her colleagues' speeches disabused her of the idea?

And what's this about David Clarke?

"While we may not agree it does not mean I do not respect his views."

Oh really? So what are his views? Here are but 2 from his speech given that very day, March 14 (See my 23/3/13 post Doing the Donkey* in the NSW Knesset 6):

1) "What the US faced on [9/11] is the threat that Israel has faced every day of its existence. It is something it has faced day in and day out for 65 years."

2) "[Israel] was a righteous cause 65 years ago and it is still a righteous cause 65 years later."

Voltz respects such views?

How sad it is that Shaoquett Moselmane appears to be the only person left in the NSW Labor Party capable of calling a spade a spade when it comes to the subject of the Middle East?

Still, she did usefully wonder "whether some of the outrage that was expressed in this Chamber over the BDS campaign was relayed to the [PA] Governor [Abdel Fattah Hamayel] who undertakes inspections of local shops to ensure that no products from illegal Israeli settlements are sold anywhere within Bethlehem," and note that "the tour did not meet with the democratically elected mayor of Bethlehem given all the support for democracy being voiced around this Chamber."

And, by way of underscoring the mission's complete lack of balance, she also listed a range of individuals our missionaries could have met with but didn't.

Be that as it may, however, Voltz's concluding comment was as lame as it gets:

"The most heartbreaking issue of the conflict is that it probably began when when the British insisted on preventing the immigration of Jewish holocaust survivors, which led to a Jewish uprising. The history since then has been complex. These people have been in conflict for a long time and there are arguments from all sides. It is important that members do not come into this Chamber with a binary view."

Voltz here completely misrepresents the conflict in Palestine.

By suggesting that the Palestinian conflict began in 1939 with Britain's decision to curb mass Jewish immigration (Zionism's primary means of achieving a demographic majority at the expense of Palestine's indigenous population) she ignores the history of the Zionist settler-colonial project in Palestine stretching back to 1917 and the indigenous Palestinian Arab resistance to it.

Further, to pretend that, in a vicious, one-sided struggle between colonizer and colonized, oppressor and oppressed, perpetrator and victim, there are "arguments from all sides" equally deserving of consideration and support is sheer poppycock.

The next post in the Doing the Donkey in the NSW Knesset series will be the last.

[*See my 2/3/13 post Doing the Donkey.]

Doing the Donkey* in the NSW Knesset 10

On the speech of The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, Labor Party, in the NSW Legislative Council, arising out of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel (PFoI) "study Mission" 'debate' of March 14:

Although Labor's Shaoquette Moselmane did not acquit himself particularly well in the NSW Legislative Council's 'debate' on BDS in September 2011,* I'm pleased to say that this time around he passed the Palestine test - the litmus for intellectual and moral courage in our time - with flying colours. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Moselmane's speech, though not without its problems, is the most forthright and wide-ranging defence of the Palestinian cause heard in an Australian parliament in recent years.

It certainly provoked the anger of the usual suspects, with The Australian Jewish News of March 22 referring to it as a "stinging diatribe," and quoting Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff (present at the delivery) describing it as "outrageous slurs and baseless comments."**

It is surely indicative of the extraordinary state of affairs that now pertains in Baruch O'Farrell's NSW Knesset that even the Israeli ambassador, Yuval Rotem, saw fit to intervene. Clearly accustomed to seeing Labor politicians dancing as one to Israel's tune, he whined: "It is immensely troubling to see a member of the NSW Labor Party, in an official capacity, using such a contemptible tone and terminology. It was also very disappointing to see that only one member of the NSW Labor Party, Mr Walt Secord, stood up and spoke against these unacceptable, highly defamatory statements."**

Given the impact of Moselmane's speech , therefore, I'm reproducing it in full, with my own comments in square brackets:

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: All people have a right to a homeland - all people, including Jews [A bad start admittedly. Jews are a faith community, not a 'people' and have no right to anyone else's homeland, including that of the Palestinian people.], Kurds, Armenians and Palestinians. All people have a right to exist and receive protections under international law and live in peace and security. Since the 1948 [sic: 1947] United Nations resolution to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, the Palestinian people have been left to suffer the trauma and indignity of a people dispossessed. I am not surprised that there is no mention in the motion of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, Palestinian suffering and Palestinian rights as a people deprived of their land, persecuted, imprisoned, killed, traumatised and dehumanised. I wonder whether the members on their study mission [ever] considered the Palestinian people; I wonder whether the human rights of the Palestinian people [ever] crossed their minds. I hope it did cross their minds and that they pondered a little the human rights of others now being dispossessed of their land, their dreams, their aspirations and their future as a people. Ever since 1948 the Zionist plan has been to... expand the borders of the Jewish colonial state. Zionist ideology demanded--

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance. The member is not speaking to the motion and, as the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel I disassociate myself from his remarks. [This is particularly rich coming from a man whose speech, which touched on just about every human rights issue in the Middle East (and beyond - Holocaust, Armenia) bar one, was heard uninterrupted. (See my 19/3/13 post Doing the Donkey* in the NSW Knesset 4 19/3/13.) The AJN had this to say of Secord's interruptions in its March 22 editorial: "When Labor MLC Shaoquett Moselmane claimed last week in NSW's Upper House that Israel had torture camps in southern Lebanon and that Gaza is the world's largest open-air prison, it would have been easy to sit quietly in the corner. It would have been easy to call a journalist after the session or make a generic statement about how he, and Labor, still had a love of Israel, despite those comments. But Secord did neither. Instead, he stood up in the NSW Parliament and in a moment that put his political career on the line, he objected to the speech being made by a member of his own party. Having described it as an 'anti-Israel rant', according to political insiders, he has suffered a backlash behind closed doors." (A true friend) Put his political career on the line? Have you ever heard such balderdash?]

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: This is a fairly broad-ranging motion. While the member's speech is not directly relevant to the wording of the motion, it would be unfair if he were not allowed to continue to speak, considering the breadth of the topic that has been debated in relation to this motion.

Deputy-President (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane may resume his speech. He is within the latitude of the general purpose of the motion.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: After the UN allocated 56% of Palestine to a Jewish state, 80% [sic:78%] was seized by force. Christians and Muslims made up two-thirds of the population. Jews, who owned only 6% of the land took 85% [sic:82%] of Palestine's land. The 800,000 [Palestinians] who were initially dispossessed, expelled from their land - now 5 million - [constitute] a diaspora. There was nothing fair or legitimate about the UN's offer. It was carried out over the objections of the majority. But even this corruption of justice was not enough to satisfy [Israel's] craving for other people's land. Arab voices were ignored. Not a single Arab was consulted on the plan. Now 5 million Palestinians are scattered across the globe and those still living in their homeland are living in two non-contiguous territories - Gaza and the West Bank - which make up less than 20% [NB: 22% in 1967] of the territory they originally had in 1967. I believe it is more like 14% of the former Palestine that they now live in. Members will see from this plan [sic: map] the former territory of Palestine and the land the Palestinians now own - just spots of land scattered all over.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of Order: The member is using props. The use of props is out of order.

Deputy-President (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The member would be well aware that the protocol of the House is that members should not use props to support their arguments.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: The Palestinians' right to return to their homeland is a fundamental right of all people. It is a fundamental right that is at the heart of the Palestinian struggle. This must be addressed and resolved fairly. In all of the speeches made in the House today, we have not heard about the Israeli assaults on Arab territories in 1956, 1967, 1982, 2006 and 2009. In the 2009 assault on Gaza, one thousand residents were killed [sic: 1,387], over 300 of them children, and 5,000 were wounded. As was described by a member earlier today, Gaza is the world's largest open-air prison camp, containing 1.5 million people in a very small parcel of land. The Israeli assault continues on Gaza. According to the Al-Mezan Center for Human rights, some 90,000 Gazans were forced to flee their homes. Residents of Gaza City and those to its north had no water or electricity; they were trapped, traumatised and terrorised. Nothing was said in this debate about the rights of those Palestinians who were effectively murdered by this military machine. They did not have hospitals. The Israeli military machine effectively erased government buildings, apartment buildings and mosques. It struck UN schools, the UNRWA compound, ambulances and hospitals. Their actions can be seen as a violation of international humanitarian law. The ICRC accused Israel of breaches of humanitarian conventions for failing to bring assistance to wounded and starving civilians and preventing ambulance access for 4 days. B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights and other Israeli human rights groups have described civilians being fired on in doorways by Israeli soldiers, attacks on ambulance crews and aid workers, and schools being used as civilian refuges. Human Rights Watch accused Israel of using white phosphorus munitions over densely populated areas of Gaza in violation of international humanitarian law. The UN Human Rights Council has condemned the Israeli offensive for 'massive violations of human rights'. Amnesty International says that Israeli shelling of residential areas is 'prima facie evidence of war crimes'. The organisation has also accused Israeli soldiers of using Palestinians as human shields: 'It's standard practice for Israeli soldiers to go into a house, lock up the family in a room on the ground floor and use the rest of the house as a military base.' Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories and Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, says that Israel is in breach of the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international law and international humanitarian law. Falk says: 'If there were the political will there could be an ad hoc tribunal established to hear allegations of war crimes. This could be done by the General Assembly acting under Article 22 of the UN Charter which gives them the authority to establish subsidiary bodies.' But they did not do so. A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Israel had repeatedly and indiscriminately fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza, killing and injuring civilians-

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I remind the honourable member that the motion states: That this House notes that: (a) The NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel under the auspices of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies hosted a delegation of NSW Parliamentarians on a study mission to Israel from 6 January 2013 to 10 January 2013-

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You cannot read the whole motion.

The Hon. Walt Secord: I am just reminding the member of the motion.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Get to your point of order.

The Hon. Walt Secord: It was relevance.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Relevance has already been raised.

The Hon. Walt Secord: This speech is simply an anti-Israel rant.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You are trying to stop democratic debate in the Chamber.

The Hon. Walt Secord: This is simply an anti-Israel rant and he is not speaking to the motion.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: That is rubbish, and you know it.

Deputy-President (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Hon. Walt Secord is correct. Members have the motion in front of them, or have access to the motion. While I have been generous in general about speeches, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane needs to stay within the purview of the motion and not give a lengthy history.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: If ever there were a group in need of international protection from war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing it is the Palestinians, and yet the Palestinians receive little outside help.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: They received billions from the UN. [Notice how one little yappie can set off another?]

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon.

The Hon. Peter Phelps: Billions.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Deputy-President, I did not interrupt other speakers. I let them make their speeches without interruption. Previous speakers had the opportunity to speak without interruption and I ask that the same courtesy be shown to me. I have only 4 minutes left to speak. I have the right to inject some balance into this debate. I am glad that I am a member of this House and have the opportunity to speak and inject balance and humanity into this debate. I have that right and I have 4 minutes to do so.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: Could the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane retire while I take my point of order?

Deputy-President (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane will retire to his seat while a point of order is taken, as per the protocols of the House.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: I have listened with tolerance to the member. I take a point of order based on relevance. This is a motion about a study mission to Israel and members have noted the facts in relation to that study mission. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane did not even go on the study mission. He is having a little rant about personal issues. The motion is about a study mission to Israel, nothing more, nothing less. The House has been more than tolerant in listening to some of the garbage he has been talking about. [Now we've got 3 little yappies!]

The Hon. Trevor Khan: To the point of order. Whilst I agree with the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox with regard to the words of the motion, speakers have raised a very broad range of matters. It is my argument that having allowed broad discretion in the debate so far and, to be frank, having allowed a scab to be picked, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane is entitled to have his say. He has only a few minutes left in which to speak.

Deputy-President (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I ask the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane to address his remarks to the motion. Mr David Shoebridge was given an opportunity to speak on a range of matters and I will extend the same latitude to the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: As I stated, all people have a right to a peaceful existence and so do the Palestinian people. I want this House to know that and I want that comment recorded. They, as well as the Jewish people have a right to peaceful existence and to a homeland. [There he goes again. Vic Alhadaff, who has a homeland - Australia - has a right to another homeland in Palestine?] We have heard comments about how peaceful and democratic the Israeli government is. I remind the House that in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and then occupied it for 18 years, they imprisoned people. People in southern Lebanon were tortured. I visited the camps and I saw the prisons. I invite members to go to these torture camps that the Israelis set up in southern Lebanon and see for themselves. They occupied Lebanon for 18 years. I resent members here accusing the resistance of being terrorist groups. I salute the resistance. If the resistance in Lebanon had not forced the Israelis out of Lebanon, I would not have been able to go to my grandparents' home in south Lebanon and visit the land I was born in. I salute them for their resistance. It is the right of people to do so. Imagine what the response would have been in 1941 or 1942 if we had condemned resistance against Nazi Germany. In Lebanon the resistance was able to force the Israelis out. In 2006, towards the end of the Israeli war on Lebanon, they dropped 3 million cluster bombs on little south Lebanon. Those bombs are buried in the ground. A child walking there will be blown up or lose a limb. An animal walking there will die. Three million cluster bombs will exist there for hundreds of years and people will continue to suffer. In conclusion-[Time expired.]

Next in the Doing the Donkey* in the NSW Knesset series: Lynda Voltz MLC. Stay tuned.

[*See my 2/3/13 post Doing the Donkey.]

[*See my 7/12/11 post Witches Brew 10; **Secord champions Israel in Parliament.]

Witches Brew 10

Continuing my dissection of the NSW Legislative Council's anti-BDS emissions of September 15...

The Hon. Shaoquette Moselmane, Labor:

"Like my colleagues, I was not aware that this motion [condemning the targeting of Max Brenner outlets by BDS protesters] was to be debated today."

But our two broadly-grinning Israel lobbyists in the gallery knew it was on. It didn't catch them by surprise.

"I support paragraph (d) of the motion and condemn all forms of discrimination, anti-Semitism and racism... I ask the mover of the motion not only to condemn anti-Semitism but also to follow my lead in condemning the cheap political motivation behind the rest of the motion. I do not believe that the rest of the motion is genuine."

Too right! You've been caught up in what is essentially a shameless, American-style swearing of fealty to the Lords of the Lobby. So why then did you not push an amendment along these lines: That this House stop wasting its time with what is transparently nothing more than an attempt to smear and stifle legitimate dissent over Israel's serial violations of Palestinian rights?

But no, you wimped out with this tiresome reiteration of Anthony Albanese's pronouncement that "Foreign policy is a fair way outside of the parameters of Marrickville Council..."*:

"Just as we argued that Marrickville Council should not interfere in international politics, we in this House also should not interfere in international politics."

The Labor line has to be toed - always. Too bad that it always leads back to Lobby Land.

[*See my 18/1/11 post A Rising Tide of Pro-Israel Bias at the ABC.]

Then comes this:

"I do not know Max Brenner but I offer him my best wishes. I have not eaten the chocolate or the waffles that his shops offer. However, I wish him the same success that I wish any Australian business operators who are doing the best they can for their family."

As in, I've never met the Australian businessman Ronald MacDonald but I offer him and his family my best wishes?

You are taking the piss here, aren't you?

But then:

"I also know nothing about the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, but I do know that the politics motivating the movement should be condemned. Although that movement is shameful, this motion is designed simply to drive a wedge between members of this House."

Let's get this clear: You know nothing about the BDS movement (despite toeing the party line on Marrickville Council) but you condemn its politics. Pure genius! Alhadeff and his mate in the gallery must've been in stitches!

Next comes what appears to be a real cris de coeur:

"I cannot support what the Israelis are doing. I come from southern Lebanon, which the Israelis have invaded many times. I was there when the tanks rolled in and the jets roared overhead. My family was there when 10 of my father's first cousins in a car were the victims of an Israeli missile attack and 8 were killed. The Israelis have occupied southern Lebanon for 25 [sic: 29] years and created a southern Lebanese army of mercenaries whose job it is [sic] to punish the local people. That must also be condemned. I support the comments made by Dr John Kaye and Mr David Shoebridge to the extent that people who have suffered under the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon or elsewhere - leaving aside the Palestinians at this point - must have a say and their rights must be recognised. The Palestinians, who have been made homeless as a result of the Israeli state for the last 60 years [sic: 63], must be recognised. They are human beings who have rights. They have as much right as Israelis, and everybody recognises that. In my inaugural speech I said that Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist side by side. The Israelis must have their state, as should the Palestinians. They are, like you and me, human beings who have a right to live in their homeland. Although it has been 60 years, some of them still have keys to their homes and wait for the opportunity to return."

OK, I see you're big on Palestinian rights. Well, what do you think BDS, which you've described as "shameful," is all about if not securing Palestinian rights? Let's run through BDS 101 for you. Paying attention?:

"For the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self-determination, Israel must end its 3 forms of injustice that infringe international law and Palestinian rights by: 1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied in 1967] and dismantling the wall 2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality 3) respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights pf Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN resolution 194." (BDS: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, Omar Barghouti, 2011, p 6)

Yet you "condemn the politics motivating the BDS movement"?

OK, moving along:

"It is not [too] much [to ask] for people to be able to protest, to have a say democratically in a non-violent way. People can protest on the streets here if they wish. I am happy for them to [do] so as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. I do not think these protests will infringe upon the rights of others. I do not support targeting a business, but there is a principle behind this, human beings are behind this and the Palestinian people have suffered for so long. I call on the Israeli state to make peace with the Palestinians, to give them their rights and to allow Palestinians a homeland. If it does not do so, we will continue to have this debate for many years to come."

But wait a minute, didn't you just say that the "politics motivating the [BDS] movement should be condemned"? And here you are, calling on Israel to "make peace with the Palestinians" after invoking the Albanese line that only the feds have the right to deal with foreign policy issues.

"In conclusion, I respect the Hon. David Clarke. I have had good relations with him since becoming a member of this Chamber. I call on him, as he condemns anti-Semitism, to move motions to condemn the vilification of the Muslim community in this House and outside. I ask the Hon. David Clarke to move a motion condemning all forms of anti-Muslim sentiments happening here in this House."

Oh, I see! You've just expressed support for key-carrying Palestinian refugees denied their right of return by Israel for over 60 years now, but you respect David Clarke, who spoke out strongly against the Palestinian right of return because it might mess with Israel's "Jewish character." (See Witches Brew 1). Then you're calling on the man, whom the openly Islamophobic Fred Nile called a "fearless and uncompromising leader on moral and Muslim issues," to move a motion against Islamophobia. (See my 19/9/11 post Friends.) ???

OK, I could put up with your contradictions if you'd at least voted for John Kaye's amendment opposing Clarke's motion, but what'd you do? Why, vote it down with the rest of your LibLab pack of course. Cris de coeur and Palestinian rights:0 - party line: 1.