Working for the (White) Man

You've really gotta feel sorry for Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley in a way. I mean, with parents like hers:

"When [Nikki] Haley was 5 years old, her parents entered her in the 'Miss Bamberg' contest. The contest traditionally crowned a black queen and a white queen. Since the judges decided Haley did not fit in either category, they disqualified her." (Wikipedia)

And, really, what kind of parental advice is this?:

"Every position I've ever had, people have assumed that I am looking towards something bigger, when in reality I am the daughter of Indian parents who said to me, 'Whatever you do, be great at it and make sure people remember you for it. That's all I'm trying to do,' she said." ('New sheriff in town' seizes the foreign affairs agenda, Cameron Stewart, The Australian, 5/4/17)

Seems like Nikki's being trying to earn the approbation of the White Man ever since:

"The days of Israel-bashing are over,' she told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] in Washington last week to a standing ovation. 'For anyone who says you can't get anything done at the UN, they need to know there is a new sheriff in town'' She said the Trump administration was 'putting everyone on notice,' at the UN. 'I wear heels. It's not for a fashion statement,'' Haley said. 'It's because if I see something wrong we're gonna kick 'em every time'." (ibid)

Pathetic, if it weren't so serious.

Bored with Gallipoli? Then Try...

Another interesting ad. This time in Monday's Australian:

100th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA
Oct 22-Nov 3, 2017

On 31 October, 1917, the strategic town of Beersheba was captured by the Australian Light Horse Brigades in a helter skelter great cavalry charge, with the Lighthorsemen armed only with rifles and bayonets.
Join Military History Tours as we follow the campaign of the Australian Light Horse in Palestine (now Israel) during the First World War. This is a special tour is [sic] developed in the hope that we will, in a small way, ensure that this part of Australia's history is not forgotten as we visit the battle sites, each with an informative briefing, meet the local dignitaries who maintain our military heritage and pay our respects at the resting places of our fallen.

To register for attendance pass, visit https://overseascommemorations.ticketek.com.au/
For more information call 1300 364 671 or visit www.militaryhistorytours.com.au
Limited spaces left. Book now to avoid disappointment.

***

See my 23/6/13 post How Palestinian Beersheba Became Israeli Be'er Sheva

Uproot Nation

Here's the Jewish National Fund's latest campaign ad, as seen at jwire.com.au:

JNF Blue Box Pesach Campaign 2017
Help Ethiopian Jews find their roots
Donate Now

The irony is breathtaking.

First, Israel uproots thousands of Ethiopian Jews in the 80s and 90s, and airlifts them to the usurped homeland of the uprooted Palestinians, where, of course, they have no roots. Now it's soliciting money to help these same uprooted Ethiopians find - wait for it - their roots.

The Real Julie Bishop

Age columnist Sarah Gill, although beginning to have her doubts following Julie Bishop's recent meeting with President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines ("At this juncture, what's called for is not an expression of 'concern'... but a point-blank repudiation of Duterte's drug war - its mission and its methods."), has obviously been a great fan of our sleek and stylish foreign minister:

"Underneath it all, I think Bishop cares a great deal about human rights. I believe in the authenticity of her desire to eradicate the death penalty globally - although it's not clear the matter was broached with Duterte, who is on the verge of reinstating it. I also believe in her sincerity when she speaks of fundamental freedoms, or argues passionately for democracy, or insists that human rights are inextricably linked to prosperity and regional stability." (We turn blind eye to regional atrocities, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/4/14)

Frankly, foreign ministry press releases can only take us so far with these professional politicians. It's the unscripted, on-the-hop, quip which best takes us to the "underneath it all." As in:

"I would like to see which international law has declared [Israeli settlements] illegal." (Julie Bishop, quoted in Israeli lawyers caution Bishop, John Lyons, The Australian, 27/1/14)

Waiting for Szego

Fairfax (ex-Australian Jewish News) columnist Julie Szego on Islam:

"A secular society must reject special pleading for religious dogma. And why should the religion that's at this moment in history the most dogmatic be the one shielded from attack and marked 'fragile'?" (Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets up so many people's noses, The Age, 30/3/17)

Given her stance as a fearless defender of secularism against religious dogma, I'm very much looking forward to Szego's next column on these two egregious examples:

"Defense is important and security is important, but the most important thing is the moral claim of Israel. We are committed to go forward with living in our ancient land, land that was given to us not by Google and Wikipedia, but by the Bible." (Communications Minister Tzachi Hanegbi, quoted in Israeli minister: the Bible - not Google - gives Israel moral right to land, Tovah Lazaroff, The Jerusalem Post, 28/3/17)

"Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said there were three quick arguments for placing Area C of the West Bank within Israel's borders, all of which centred around the word 'just,' and then mentioned Israel's victory in the Six Day War. 'It was a just war. It is a just defense. But the most important one, it was based on a just claim. A just claim of the Jewish people on [the Biblical areas of] Beit El, Shechem, Jerusalem and Hebron." (ibid)

The Balfour Declaration Centenary: 7 Months To Go

November 2, 1917, was, of course, when the British government of David Lloyd George issued the infamous Balfour Declaration, arguably the worst (because most short-sighted, shameful, far-reaching and destructive) foreign policy decision in British imperial history. In the countdown to the centenary of its issue, on November 2, 2017, I will be featuring, on the 2nd of each month, a commentary/judgment on the subject.

I begin here with that of the British suffragist and peace activist Maude Royden (1876-1956). It comes from her 1939 book The Problem of Palestine:

"What was the Balfour Declaration?

"It was a statement, issued by the British Government in November, 1917 that 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

"The negotiations which led up to this Declaration were for the most part in the hands of Lord Balfour and Dr Weizmann: hence its title. There is more of it than I have quoted but this paragraph expresses its purpose.

"It is concerned with Palestine; that is to say, with an Arab country to whose people we had promised their freedom, and in return, had their support in war. But the wishes of these people were never once consulted.

"It is concerned with Palestine; that is to say, with a country whose inhabitants were 90% Arabs, but the word Arab does not once appear in the whole of this extraordinary document.

"It is concerned with Palestine; that is to say, with a people who had inhabited that land for thirteen hundred years; yet all the recognition of their existence and presence is a reference from time to time to the 'non-Jewish communities'.

"Non-Jewish! It is as though the Welsh, who once dwelt in Ancient Britain, should refer to the entire English nation as the 'non-Welsh communities of England'!

"The British Government had no right to make this promise. It was invalid from the start. When pressed for a justification, its defenders must - and do - fall back in the end on the fact that 'we conquered Palestine and had a right to do do as we liked with it'. We 'conquered' Palestine by the curious expedient of promising freedom to her people and so ranging them on our side; but if indeed we had conquered them, the justification offered is clearly one of naked force. Has Mussolini a right to 'do what he likes' in Abyssinia or the Japanese in China, where and in so far as they have conquered it?

"Neither had the League of Nations any right to give Britain a mandate for Palestine, still less to give it (as it did) subject to a condition that the Balfour Declaration be carried out. It will seem astonishing to believers in 'power politics' but it is nevertheless true that the weak nations have rights of their own and that these are not less valid than those of the powerful merely because they cannot so readily be enforced.

"Certainly the Arabs have never accepted this strange view of international politics. They have not admitted and they will not admit our right to dispose of their country over their heads." (pp 94-96)

I would urge all and sundry to sign and publicise this petition:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Sir Christopher Geidt Private Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II Please do not advise Royal Visit to Israel in Balfour Cent/?tvHuLlb

Australia's Latest Poll on Palestine/Israel

From a March 30 media release by APAN (Australia Palestine Advocacy Network):

"A Roy Morgan Poll released this week revealed that the Australian public is much more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Turnbull government.

"An overwhelming majority of survey participants expressed support for the recognition of Palestinian statehood: 73% (up from 62% in 2011), while a majority (55%) indicated that they regarded the Palestinians' call for 'a boycott of Israeli goods, services, companies and institutions profiting from the occupation of Palestine' as reasonable."

Other findings were as follows:

"61%... opposed the construction of Israeli settlements in the Occupied territories."
"53%... opposed the Turnbull government's rejection of UNSC Resolution 2334."

These figures would, I believe, be much higher but for several political and media-related factors such as:

1) Blind, bipartisan support for Israel by LibLab.
2) The ignorance/cowardice of the national Greens on this issue.
3) The failure of the ACTU to take up the issue. (In fact, its vice president, Michael Borowick, heads an Australia Israel Leadership Dialogue (AILD).
4) The ignorance/cowardice and self-censorship of the Fairfax press.
5) The strident, unrelenting pro-Israel line of the Murdoch press.
6) The 'soft' pro-Israel line of Guardian Australia.
7) The presence of prominent pro-Israel gatekeepers at the ABC (Adams, Doogue, Kohn, et al).

Considering our generally skewed media coverage, I am not surprised by this finding:

"Despite extensive media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, only 44%... indicated that they knew either 'a lot' or 'a fair amount' about the issue."

An interesting question not put by the poll would have been:

How do you view the Palestine/Israel conflict?

a) primarily a religious conflict between Jews and Muslims
b) primarily a colonial-settler conflict
c) other