In my post, Kevin Rudd's 'The PM Years' (3/1/19), I mentioned several recent Australian memoirs that shed light on the tactics used by the Israel lobby to keep our politicians and journalists in line. One of these, Run for Your Life (2018), by former Labor Party foreign minister Bob Carr, has its own chapter on the subject - Me and 'The Lobby'.
These days, Carr is known for his efforts to push Labor in a pro-Palestinian state direction. This position, however, developed relatively late in his political career.
A mindset of blind support for Israel seems to have characterised most of the Labor Party since the creation of Israel in 1948, through to at least the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000. (It should be noted that NSW state MP George Petersen (1921-2000), and Bill Hartley (1930-2006), state secretary of the Victorian ALP from 1965 to 1970, were honourable exceptions to this tendency.) In fact, during this period, dogmatic support for Israel could almost be said to have become one of Labor's much-trumpeted 'values'.
I will examine the process of Carr's move from received to actual wisdom on the subject of Palestine/Israel, and the Israel lobby's response to same, in follow up posts. For now, here are excerpts from Carr's account of his early days, shilling for Israel:
"I had been a long-term supporter of Israel. In 1977, as a young trade union official, I had rented a room in the Trades Hall, bought some cask wine and invited Bob Hawke to come along and launch Labor Friends of Israel. I had remained its token president ever since and was always on hand to greet delegations and troop along to the [Israel] Independence Day celebrations... In 1983 I had visited Israel with a delegation of NSW Labor people... and had found it congenial enough, if not a revelation, admirable for its strong labour institutions. We met no Palestinians and were not driven around the occupied West Bank. At that time no Israeli historians had explored what had really happened in 1948. That would occur only when Benny Morris and others uncovered the story of massacres and expulsions that had forced the Arab population to flee. We just accepted the prevailing wisdom. It had been 'a land without a people for a people without a land': this was the Exodus narrative." (pp 174-5)
If Begin and Sharon's bloody invasion of Lebanon in 1982 registered with Carr, he doesn't mention it.
"I and my Labor crowd were in the Zionist camp. I remember joking with John Wheeldon, a former Labor senator and a minister in the Whitlam government, about our special closeness to Israel - with its craggy old Labour Party in permanent power, its collectivised agriculture, kibbutzniks who were Holocaust survivors... I entertained the notion that in retirement I might sign up as a volunteer to talk about the Holocaust to counter Holocaust denial. It seemed to me self-evident that the Jews were in fact an exceptional people who - and I said this in many speeches at their community events - had made a contribution to civilisation well above their numbers. I didn't dream that in feeding this self-image I might be encouraging a strand of thinking that, among other things, had Jews enjoying a view of themselves as the 'Chosen People' and therefore entitled to uncontestable rights to the land God gave them. (ibid)
As an example of collective delusion, the ALP's historical love affair with Israel is reminiscent of many Western leftists' unquestioning support for Stalinist Russia. To be sure, at the time, the lobby will have lapped up the kind of adulation of Israel expressed by Carr and others in the party - to the point of taking Labor's support for its cause for granted. But, as the old adage goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. My next post will look at Carr's gradual awakening to the reality of Palestine/Israel.
To be continued...
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Confessions of an Innocent Bystander:
"The outgoing IDF chief of staff has acknowledged that Israel has been bombing Syria on a 'near-daily' basis for years, in a massive military campaign allegedly aimed at degrading Tehran's supposed military buildup in the region. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) rarely acknowledge striking specific targets in Syria but its outgoing chief of staff just openly confessed to running a large-scale bombing campaign in its neighbor's territory. In 2018 alone, Israel dropped around 2,000 bombs on alleged Iran-linked targets, Gadi Eisenkot told the New York Times in his final interview as chief of staff of the IDF before he retires next week. 'We struck thousands of targets without claiming responsibility or asking for credit,' Eisenkot stated, confessing to carrying out strikes on a 'near-daily' basis." ('We struck thousands of targets': IDF chief of staff on Israel's 'near-daily' strikes in Syria, rt.com, 13/1/19)
Monday, January 14, 2019
50 Years of Anti-Palestinian Press Bias
Here's the introduction to an important new study of press bias relating to Palestine/Israel coverage which, sadly, merely confirms what we already knew from our casual reading, namely that the mainstream US press is overwhelmingly anti-Palestinian in content, and has been since 1967:
"A study released last month by 416Labs, a Toronto-based consulting and research firm, supports the view that mainstream US newspapers consistently portray Palestine in a more negative light than Israel, privilege Israeli sources, and omit key facts helpful to understanding the Israeli occupation, including those expressed by Palestinian sources. The largest of its kind, the study is based on a sentiment and n-gram analysis of nearly a hundred thousand headlines in five mainstream newspapers dating back to 1967. The newspapers are the top five US dailies, The New York Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times. Headlines spanning five decades were put into two datasets, one comprising 17,492 Palestinian-centric headlines, and another comprising 82,102 Israeli-centric headlines. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, authors of the assessed the degree to which the sentiment of the headlines could be classified as positive, negative, or neutral. They also examined the frequency of using certain words that evoke a particular view or perception.
"Key findings of the study are:
*Since 1967, use of the word 'occupation' has declined by 85% in the Israeli dataset of headlines, and by 65% in the Palestinian dataset;
*Since 1967, mentions of Palestinian refugees have declined by an overall 93%;
*Israeli sources are nearly 250% more likely to be quoted as Palestinians;
*The number of headlines centering Israel were published four times more than those centering Palestine;
*Words connoting violence such as 'terror' appear three times as much as the word 'occupation' in the Palestinian dataset;
*Explicit recognition that Israeli settlements and settlers are illegal rarely appears both in both datasets;
*Since 1967, mentions of 'East Jerusalem,' distinguishing that part of the city occupied by Israel in 1967 from the rest of the city, appeared only a total of 132 times;
*The Los Angeles Times has portrayed Palestinians most negatively, followed by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and lastly The New York Times;
*Coverage of the conflict has reduced dramatically in the second half of the fifty-year period." (Exclusive: are US newspapers biased against Palestinians? Analysis of a hundred thousand headlines says yes, Dorgham Abusalim, palestinesquare.com, 9/1/19)
A comparable study of the Australian press, you can be sure, would only replicate such a bias. It should also be noted that since the Fairfax (now Nine Entertainment Co.) and Murdoch presses ceased to employ Middle East correspondents, the former now recycles reports from the Washington Post and The New York Times, while the latter draws on items from the Murdoch-owned The Times and The Wall Street Journal.
"A study released last month by 416Labs, a Toronto-based consulting and research firm, supports the view that mainstream US newspapers consistently portray Palestine in a more negative light than Israel, privilege Israeli sources, and omit key facts helpful to understanding the Israeli occupation, including those expressed by Palestinian sources. The largest of its kind, the study is based on a sentiment and n-gram analysis of nearly a hundred thousand headlines in five mainstream newspapers dating back to 1967. The newspapers are the top five US dailies, The New York Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times. Headlines spanning five decades were put into two datasets, one comprising 17,492 Palestinian-centric headlines, and another comprising 82,102 Israeli-centric headlines. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, authors of the assessed the degree to which the sentiment of the headlines could be classified as positive, negative, or neutral. They also examined the frequency of using certain words that evoke a particular view or perception.
"Key findings of the study are:
*Since 1967, use of the word 'occupation' has declined by 85% in the Israeli dataset of headlines, and by 65% in the Palestinian dataset;
*Since 1967, mentions of Palestinian refugees have declined by an overall 93%;
*Israeli sources are nearly 250% more likely to be quoted as Palestinians;
*The number of headlines centering Israel were published four times more than those centering Palestine;
*Words connoting violence such as 'terror' appear three times as much as the word 'occupation' in the Palestinian dataset;
*Explicit recognition that Israeli settlements and settlers are illegal rarely appears both in both datasets;
*Since 1967, mentions of 'East Jerusalem,' distinguishing that part of the city occupied by Israel in 1967 from the rest of the city, appeared only a total of 132 times;
*The Los Angeles Times has portrayed Palestinians most negatively, followed by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and lastly The New York Times;
*Coverage of the conflict has reduced dramatically in the second half of the fifty-year period." (Exclusive: are US newspapers biased against Palestinians? Analysis of a hundred thousand headlines says yes, Dorgham Abusalim, palestinesquare.com, 9/1/19)
A comparable study of the Australian press, you can be sure, would only replicate such a bias. It should also be noted that since the Fairfax (now Nine Entertainment Co.) and Murdoch presses ceased to employ Middle East correspondents, the former now recycles reports from the Washington Post and The New York Times, while the latter draws on items from the Murdoch-owned The Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Meanwhile, in the Killing Fields of Gaza...
"Israeli forces have shot and killed a Palestinian woman as thousands demonstrated along the Gaza Strip's perimeter fence, according to Gaza's health ministry... At least 25 other Palestinians were wounded by Israeli gunfire on Friday, including two members of the media and one paramedic... " (Israeli forces kill Palestinian woman during Gaza protests, aljazeera.com, 12/1/19)
Is History History?
The dumbing down of the United States is getting worse. Food for thought:
"George Orwell famously forewarned in 1984, 'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' We shouldn't be surprised then by some recent, disturbing trends in the study of history. According to a new analysis by the American Historical Association, the number of students choosing to major in history at the nation's colleges has plummeted. Undergraduate history majors have fallen by more than a third in less than a decade, declining to their lowest levels since the '80s. The evidence indicates that the vanishing history major is not a short-term response to the Great Recession's lousy job market. If anything, the trend is accelerating. The undergraduate history major seems to be on the way out. [...]
"While understandable, the sharp national decline in studying the past should worry all of us, not just history professionals. Few history majors... become historians, but they do move on to become citizens. Knowledge of the past provides young people with a sense of place and a concept of temporal continuity, lessons to apply to the present and future, an interpretive framework and perspective for navigating the choppy global world. An epidemic of historical amnesia already plaques this country, which has often paid a terrible price and done grave harm to other foreign people and lands due to its ignorance of the past... " (History majors are becoming a thing of the past, except in the Ivy League, Marc Wortman, thedailybeast.com, 4/1/19
"George Orwell famously forewarned in 1984, 'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' We shouldn't be surprised then by some recent, disturbing trends in the study of history. According to a new analysis by the American Historical Association, the number of students choosing to major in history at the nation's colleges has plummeted. Undergraduate history majors have fallen by more than a third in less than a decade, declining to their lowest levels since the '80s. The evidence indicates that the vanishing history major is not a short-term response to the Great Recession's lousy job market. If anything, the trend is accelerating. The undergraduate history major seems to be on the way out. [...]
"While understandable, the sharp national decline in studying the past should worry all of us, not just history professionals. Few history majors... become historians, but they do move on to become citizens. Knowledge of the past provides young people with a sense of place and a concept of temporal continuity, lessons to apply to the present and future, an interpretive framework and perspective for navigating the choppy global world. An epidemic of historical amnesia already plaques this country, which has often paid a terrible price and done grave harm to other foreign people and lands due to its ignorance of the past... " (History majors are becoming a thing of the past, except in the Ivy League, Marc Wortman, thedailybeast.com, 4/1/19
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Magic Mike Does Cairo
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has just (10/1) given a speech at the American University in Cairo. It is essentially, to borrow the words of The Bard, a tale told by a Christian Zionist idiot, full of imperial sound and fury, signifying God-only-knows-what in the years ahead. Since Pompeo is a little shaky on historical context, not to mention the most basic understanding of modern Western history - "In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation" - I couldn't help but comment and quip as the spirit moved me. These gems, btw, are but excerpts, albeit in chronological order:
"This trip is especially meaningful to me as an evangelical Christian... In my office, I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and the Truth."
OMG! Note the capitals.
"America's penchant for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hizballah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles... aimed squarely at our ally Israel."
Of course, Hezbollah was only formed to resist the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. And Hezbollah only exists today to prevent the Israeli re-occupation of south Lebanon. And of course Israel couldn't possibly be described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, now could it? Or is it the other way around?
"The good news is this. The age of self-inflicted American shame is over... Now comes the real new beginning... The Trump administration did not stand idly by when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his people."
US imperialism has never known shame. Nor has it ever stood idly by.
"For those who fret about the US of American power, remember this: America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force, not an occupying power. We've never dreamed of domination in the Middle East. Can you say the same about Iran? In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation. (!) Fifty years later, we assembled a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Would the Russians and Chinese come to your rescue in the same way... that we have?"
So, in Iraq, the US was a "liberating force, not an occupying power," while the tread of Iranian jackboots can be heard over vast swathes of the Middle East. Really, inhabiting a parallel universe doesn't begin to describe the world of Pompeo and his fellow Christian Zionist brethren.
And yes, he did say that American troops "helped free North America from Nazi occupation." But then again, he comes from a country where only 1% of university graduates study history.
"Let's turn to Iran. President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises. The US re-imposed sanctions that should never have been lifted. We embarked on a new pressure campaign to cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world. We joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability. And importantly, we fostered a common understanding with our allies of the need to counteract the Iran regime's revolutionary agenda. Countries increasingly understand that we must confront the ayatollahs, not coddle them."
"Pressure campaign" = war of regime change.
"Spreading terror and destruction around the world": an precise description of the globe-girding depredations of the American capitalism and imperialism.
"We're building out (?) a healthy dialogue with the Government of Iraq, a thriving and young democracy. We're also building relationships for our shared prosperity. It is time for old rivalries to end for the sake of the greater good of the region."
To quote Tacitus' rendition of the words of the Caledonian chieftain who fought the Romans in first century Scotland: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
"We're also seeing remarkable change. New bonds are taking root that were unimaginable until very recently. Who could have believed a few years ago that an Israeli prime minister would visit Muscat?... In October of last year, the Israeli national anthem played as an Israeli judo champion was crowned the winner of a tournament in the United Arab Emirates. It was the first time - the first time - that an Israeli delegation was allowed to participate under its own national flag. It was also the first time an Israeli culture and sports minister attended a sports event in the Gulf. She said, and I quote, 'It is a dream come true. For two years we had talks in order to reach this moment.' It was hard for her to stop the tears."
I know the feeling.
"We strongly support Israel's efforts to stop Tehran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon."
And I can fully understand the Lebanese people strongly supporting Hezbollah's efforts to stop Tel Aviv from turning south Lebanon into the next Golan Heights.
"It is important to know also that we will not cease our campaign to stop Iran's malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world, the nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security, achieve economic stability, or advance the dreams of their people if Iran's revolutionary regime persists on its current course. February 11th will mark 40 years since the oppressive regime came to power in Tehran. America's economic sanctions against the regime are the strongest in history, and will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country."
No mention, of course, of the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, or the oppressive US-backed regime of the Shah (1941-1979), which led to the birth of "the oppressive regime (which) came to power in Tehran" in 1979.
And what's with this rhetoric about "security" and "economic stability" in the Arab world that Iran is supposedly standing in the way of? What Pompeo really means here is that the Arab world must lie back, spread its legs wide, and allow US corporations (and Israel) to have their way.
"Iran may think it owns Lebanon. Iran is wrong."
The mind boggles.
"In Iraq, the United States will help our partners build a nation free of Iranian influence."
With friends like the US, who needs enemies?
"And I think this is clear, but it is worth reiterating: The United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself against the Iranian regime's aggressive adventurism. We will continue to ensure that Israel has the military capacity to do so decisively."
He means here that the US will underwrite Israel's top-dog status in the Middle East as per the doctrine of maintaining its QME (qualitative military edge) over the Arabs.
"The Trump administration will also continue to press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Again, we've adhered to our word. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem - the seat of Israel's government - as the nation's capital. In May, we moved our embassy there. These decisions honor a bipartisan congressional resolution from more than two decades ago. President Trump acted on this commitment."
Oh, the Palestinians! Yes, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will ineluctably lead to "a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." How come only Trump, Bolsanaro, Morales and Morrison could manage to come up with this magic solution to the Israeli lion lying down with the Arab lamb in Palestine/Israel? Nobel peace prizes all round. Now!
"This trip is especially meaningful to me as an evangelical Christian... In my office, I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and the Truth."
OMG! Note the capitals.
"America's penchant for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hizballah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles... aimed squarely at our ally Israel."
Of course, Hezbollah was only formed to resist the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. And Hezbollah only exists today to prevent the Israeli re-occupation of south Lebanon. And of course Israel couldn't possibly be described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, now could it? Or is it the other way around?
"The good news is this. The age of self-inflicted American shame is over... Now comes the real new beginning... The Trump administration did not stand idly by when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his people."
US imperialism has never known shame. Nor has it ever stood idly by.
"For those who fret about the US of American power, remember this: America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force, not an occupying power. We've never dreamed of domination in the Middle East. Can you say the same about Iran? In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation. (!) Fifty years later, we assembled a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Would the Russians and Chinese come to your rescue in the same way... that we have?"
So, in Iraq, the US was a "liberating force, not an occupying power," while the tread of Iranian jackboots can be heard over vast swathes of the Middle East. Really, inhabiting a parallel universe doesn't begin to describe the world of Pompeo and his fellow Christian Zionist brethren.
And yes, he did say that American troops "helped free North America from Nazi occupation." But then again, he comes from a country where only 1% of university graduates study history.
"Let's turn to Iran. President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises. The US re-imposed sanctions that should never have been lifted. We embarked on a new pressure campaign to cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world. We joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability. And importantly, we fostered a common understanding with our allies of the need to counteract the Iran regime's revolutionary agenda. Countries increasingly understand that we must confront the ayatollahs, not coddle them."
"Pressure campaign" = war of regime change.
"Spreading terror and destruction around the world": an precise description of the globe-girding depredations of the American capitalism and imperialism.
"We're building out (?) a healthy dialogue with the Government of Iraq, a thriving and young democracy. We're also building relationships for our shared prosperity. It is time for old rivalries to end for the sake of the greater good of the region."
To quote Tacitus' rendition of the words of the Caledonian chieftain who fought the Romans in first century Scotland: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
"We're also seeing remarkable change. New bonds are taking root that were unimaginable until very recently. Who could have believed a few years ago that an Israeli prime minister would visit Muscat?... In October of last year, the Israeli national anthem played as an Israeli judo champion was crowned the winner of a tournament in the United Arab Emirates. It was the first time - the first time - that an Israeli delegation was allowed to participate under its own national flag. It was also the first time an Israeli culture and sports minister attended a sports event in the Gulf. She said, and I quote, 'It is a dream come true. For two years we had talks in order to reach this moment.' It was hard for her to stop the tears."
I know the feeling.
"We strongly support Israel's efforts to stop Tehran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon."
And I can fully understand the Lebanese people strongly supporting Hezbollah's efforts to stop Tel Aviv from turning south Lebanon into the next Golan Heights.
"It is important to know also that we will not cease our campaign to stop Iran's malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world, the nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security, achieve economic stability, or advance the dreams of their people if Iran's revolutionary regime persists on its current course. February 11th will mark 40 years since the oppressive regime came to power in Tehran. America's economic sanctions against the regime are the strongest in history, and will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country."
No mention, of course, of the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, or the oppressive US-backed regime of the Shah (1941-1979), which led to the birth of "the oppressive regime (which) came to power in Tehran" in 1979.
And what's with this rhetoric about "security" and "economic stability" in the Arab world that Iran is supposedly standing in the way of? What Pompeo really means here is that the Arab world must lie back, spread its legs wide, and allow US corporations (and Israel) to have their way.
"Iran may think it owns Lebanon. Iran is wrong."
The mind boggles.
"In Iraq, the United States will help our partners build a nation free of Iranian influence."
With friends like the US, who needs enemies?
"And I think this is clear, but it is worth reiterating: The United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself against the Iranian regime's aggressive adventurism. We will continue to ensure that Israel has the military capacity to do so decisively."
He means here that the US will underwrite Israel's top-dog status in the Middle East as per the doctrine of maintaining its QME (qualitative military edge) over the Arabs.
"The Trump administration will also continue to press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Again, we've adhered to our word. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem - the seat of Israel's government - as the nation's capital. In May, we moved our embassy there. These decisions honor a bipartisan congressional resolution from more than two decades ago. President Trump acted on this commitment."
Oh, the Palestinians! Yes, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will ineluctably lead to "a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." How come only Trump, Bolsanaro, Morales and Morrison could manage to come up with this magic solution to the Israeli lion lying down with the Arab lamb in Palestine/Israel? Nobel peace prizes all round. Now!
Friday, January 11, 2019
Zionist Hypocrisy Alert
As rich as Zionist pontification and bombast is in chutzpah, hypocrisy and insufferable arrogance, I dare anyone to top this example:
"The Australian Labor Party recently passed a motion at the national conference that 'calls on the next Labor government to recognise Palestine as a state'... the motion provides much-coveted Western legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority, a non-state entity whose value system is at odds with that of Australia and indeed the entire liberal democratic world. As the international community marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the PA's state-in-waiting is a brazen violator of the declaration's most basic principles yet is being pre-emptively endorsed by Labor." (Palestine policy is a real killer, Danny Eisen & Sheryl Saperia*, The Australian, 8/1/19)
So, a Canadian and an American Zionist team up to condemn the policy of an Australian political party on behalf of a terrorist entity, currently in occupation of the ancestral homeland of the Palestinian people.
Now, if you think that's rich, there's more. There always is with these bullshitters.
For a Zionist to speak of an "entity whose value system is at odds with Australia," is to raise the obvious question as to whether the practises of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, which define the Zionist entity in Palestine, and which have been perpetrated by it on a daily basis ever since its misconception 70 years ago, are compatible with contemporary "Australian values."
What other mob would have the hide to assert an equivalence between an apartheid state and a liberal democracy?
But the piece de resistance, the very pinnacle of Zionist chutzpah, hypocrisy and arrogance must surely be the propagandists' accusation that the Palestinian Authority is a "brazen violator of the UDHR's most basic principles." Truly, is there anything more nauseating than a Zionist orating on the subject of human rights?
One of those "basic principles" can be found in the UDHR's Article 13: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Ever since Zionist terror gangs ethnically cleansed most of Palestine in 1948, their upstart entity has rejected the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees - enshrined in Article 13 - to return to their homeland. And this, solely in the interests of maintaining a Jews-only state so that the likes of Eisen and Saperia can go and live there - if they wish.
Need more be said?
[*Danny Eisen is co-founder of the Canadian Coalition Against terror. Sheryl Saperia is a director of policy at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies.]
"The Australian Labor Party recently passed a motion at the national conference that 'calls on the next Labor government to recognise Palestine as a state'... the motion provides much-coveted Western legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority, a non-state entity whose value system is at odds with that of Australia and indeed the entire liberal democratic world. As the international community marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the PA's state-in-waiting is a brazen violator of the declaration's most basic principles yet is being pre-emptively endorsed by Labor." (Palestine policy is a real killer, Danny Eisen & Sheryl Saperia*, The Australian, 8/1/19)
So, a Canadian and an American Zionist team up to condemn the policy of an Australian political party on behalf of a terrorist entity, currently in occupation of the ancestral homeland of the Palestinian people.
Now, if you think that's rich, there's more. There always is with these bullshitters.
For a Zionist to speak of an "entity whose value system is at odds with Australia," is to raise the obvious question as to whether the practises of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, which define the Zionist entity in Palestine, and which have been perpetrated by it on a daily basis ever since its misconception 70 years ago, are compatible with contemporary "Australian values."
What other mob would have the hide to assert an equivalence between an apartheid state and a liberal democracy?
But the piece de resistance, the very pinnacle of Zionist chutzpah, hypocrisy and arrogance must surely be the propagandists' accusation that the Palestinian Authority is a "brazen violator of the UDHR's most basic principles." Truly, is there anything more nauseating than a Zionist orating on the subject of human rights?
One of those "basic principles" can be found in the UDHR's Article 13: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Ever since Zionist terror gangs ethnically cleansed most of Palestine in 1948, their upstart entity has rejected the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees - enshrined in Article 13 - to return to their homeland. And this, solely in the interests of maintaining a Jews-only state so that the likes of Eisen and Saperia can go and live there - if they wish.
Need more be said?
[*Danny Eisen is co-founder of the Canadian Coalition Against terror. Sheryl Saperia is a director of policy at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)