"One afternoon in 1964 I was drinking coffee in the University of New England cafeteria with a bunch of young men from well-to-do grazing properties. They were rowdy and effortlessly good-natured. In those days Australia still rode on the sheep's back; they took for granted that they were the natural aristocrats of the campus and of the nation. We were laughing a lot that day. The conversation had turned to old family eccentrics; we'd been vying to cap each other's wacky stories.
"Then, a wealthy landowner's son took a turn. Sunday afternoons had been the fun time for his family, he announced. Presumably after church, and a good heavy Sunday dinner, his grandfather would go hunting on horseback with dogs and a posse of mates. Whooping. All armed with whips and guns. The quarry was Aborigines. They would be chased through the bush, cornered, then shot. Or driven over a mighty precipice to their death.
"Stunned silence fell around the table. The brutal declaration, so breezy and lighthearted, so shockingly new to my ears, threw us completely. I stared down into my coffee. Someone guffawed uneasily. I've often wondered why the young man blurted out those words. I remember he laughed as he spoke. Was it bravado to cover shame?
"The chilling thing was that, despite our shock, in the end the social niceties prevailed. We would ignore the faux pas. Besides, how many others among those young grandsons of squatters sitting around the table had similar secrets walled up behind their homestead facades?" (Who are we, really? Time to face the truth of the massacres of Aborigines, Frances Letters, Sydney Morning Herald, 7/7/17)
***
"Concerning Frances Letters' commentary, in the 1960s a family member born in the 1890s told me a similar story. I was about 14 at the time and I think the discussion touched on the Aboriginal referendum. He mentioned matter of factly that when he was a boy it was not uncommon for landowners to go on Aborigine shoots. I thought I had distorted my recollection, but after reading Frances's comments I now know it was true." (Letter to the SMH, 8/7/17)
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Friday, January 25, 2019
Magic Happens, even in The New York Times
Pence backs anti-Maduro moves was the header for The New York Times report recycled in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald.
"US Vice-President Mike Pence," it began, "has declared the United States' 'unwavering support' for planned mass protests in Venezuela against president Nicolas Maduro, the most explicit backing yet by the Trump administration as opposition leaders try to unseat Maduro... 'We are with you,' Pence wrote on Twitter on Tuesday in both Spanish and English, adding, 'We stand with you, and we will stay with you until Democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of Libertad'."
The report went on to cover the ins and outs of the matter. These included the emergence of the president of Venezuela's National Assembly as a touted replacement for Maduro, and Trump's "all options are on the table" speech at the UN last September. All pretty standard fare for the average news junkie.
But then, magic, as the saying goes, happened, and lo and behold, came this truly prophetic, utterly subversive utterance, the third last paragraph:
"Many citizens of Latin America recall a long history of the US supporting coups in the region by right-wing military leaders who then quashed democratic processes and rule of law to maintain power for years and sometimes decades."
Was the nameless journalist - there was no byline - who secreted these timeless words of contextual wisdom in his report trying to tell us something? Something to do with the future of Venezuela if Pence and his cronies have their way?
Was he what!
"US Vice-President Mike Pence," it began, "has declared the United States' 'unwavering support' for planned mass protests in Venezuela against president Nicolas Maduro, the most explicit backing yet by the Trump administration as opposition leaders try to unseat Maduro... 'We are with you,' Pence wrote on Twitter on Tuesday in both Spanish and English, adding, 'We stand with you, and we will stay with you until Democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of Libertad'."
The report went on to cover the ins and outs of the matter. These included the emergence of the president of Venezuela's National Assembly as a touted replacement for Maduro, and Trump's "all options are on the table" speech at the UN last September. All pretty standard fare for the average news junkie.
But then, magic, as the saying goes, happened, and lo and behold, came this truly prophetic, utterly subversive utterance, the third last paragraph:
"Many citizens of Latin America recall a long history of the US supporting coups in the region by right-wing military leaders who then quashed democratic processes and rule of law to maintain power for years and sometimes decades."
Was the nameless journalist - there was no byline - who secreted these timeless words of contextual wisdom in his report trying to tell us something? Something to do with the future of Venezuela if Pence and his cronies have their way?
Was he what!
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
I Read the Guardian Today, Oh Boy
The latest dollop of liberal Zionist claptrap in that media repository of liberal Zionist claptrap, the Guardian, is a little homily by a certain Simon Baron-Cohen, director of Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre, author of Zero Degrees of Empathy, and yes, brother of Sacha. It is based on the following premise:
"Empathy is all about imagining other minds, appreciating that different people have different perspectives, and responding to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion. After a career studying autism and the nature of empathy, I see empathy as one of our most valuable natural resources. It has particular promise as an approach to conflict resolution... We can see this if we look at the Israel-Palestine conflict, where both communities have different views of the same historic period, both claim the same piece of land and both have valid emotional reactions to the conflict that must be acknowledged." (22/1/19)
Now one might reasonably expect that anyone who is serious about the need to "imagine other minds" and "appreciate different perspectives" as a means to resolving conflict would draw on considered accounts of same by both parties. But this is not what Baron-Cohen does. He only cites Israeli views, specifically those of novelist Amoz Oz and journalist Ari Shavit, author of My Promised Land: The Triumph & Tragedy of Israel.
No Palestinian voice gets a look in - unless one excepts what "one Palestinian friend said to me: 'It's hard to empathise with someone when you are looking up the barrel of their gun'." (Indeed!)
Baron-Cohen's way out of this dilemma - "Israelis should take the initiative, because they are the stronger party" - is pure ivory tower, and flies in the face of the logic of colonialism which rules out equality between coloniser and colonised. I've dealt with this issue before in my 16/11/19 post Dialogue of the Colonizer and the Colonized (just click on the colonialism label below) where I highlighted the words of a Palestinian prisoner, Ta'er Hamad, who had been approached by the mother of one of his Israeli victims: "I cannot hold a dialogue with someone who insists on equating the occupation with its victims."
The problem with reading this kind of liberal Zionist claptrap - and the Guardian is full of it - is that it wastes the reader's time, time better spent understanding, and calling out, the worse-than-apartheid reality of the colonial-settler Zionist project (projectile?) in Palestine.
To home in on just one of Baron-Cohen's fairy tales, aka the "Israeli perspective":
"If you ask Jewish Israelis why their families came to Palestine before 1948, they'll likely refer to two major waves of antisemitism. The first included the horrific pogroms of eastern Europe in the 1880s and 90s. In the second wave in the 1930s and 40s, two out of every three European Jews were killed by the Nazis... the Jews were drowning, looking for a piece of wood they could cling on to. Palestine, which for two millennia they had thought of as their ancient homeland, was that piece of wood."
The problem here is the colossal conceit that the Zionist movement was primarily a rescue mission. The reality, of course, is that it was a colonial settler movement from its inception. One only has to read the Basel Program, which emerged from the First Zionist Congress of 1897 to see this. As for the aforementioned Tsarist pogroms of the 1880s and 90s, only a minority of Russian Jews ever headed for Palestine, and most of them were not political Zionists. Many more emigrated to Western Europe, or the United States, while others joined Russian revolutionary currents.
As for "the second wave," Western Europe and the United States were again the preferred destination for European Jews impacted by the Nazi era.
Yosef Grodzinzky's 2004 book In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews & Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II is well worth a read on this matter:
"Post-Holocaust Displaced Persons, who lived in miserable conditions, became a human reserve of great migration potential, hence a prime target for the Zionists, who planned to transfer the entire DP population to Palestine. On the face of it, this task was easy: Mostly Holocaust survivors, the DPs were supposedly convinced by now that a Jewish state was the only viable solution. All it should have taken was thus immigration permits - as Palestine was still in British hands - and a sufficient number of boats that would ship the DPs to the safe haven. This, indeed, has been the official line. It has been said that with few exceptions, the shadow of the Holocaust made almost all the DPs want to go to Palestine; as immigration quotas were extremely limited while the British were in control, only few could enter; yet on May 15th 1948, the British left and with them went the quotas. An independent Jewish state was declared, and its doors were immediately opened; previously unable to immigrate to Palestine, the rest of the DPs now rushed to make 'aliyah (immigration) to Israel, and became proud citizens of the Jewish state. This is what I learned in school.
"Yet the documentary record I found in archives helped me discover two numerical discrepancies which call for an explanation. a. Polls taken in the camps at different times indicate that the vast majority of Jewish DPs (80-96.8 percent) stated their intention to immigrate to Palestine. If not to Palestine, they said, they would rather go back to the crematoria of the death camps. Yet, of the hundreds of thousands, only 40 percent (at most) actually went to Palestine/Israel, despite the fact that other migration routes were more difficult to follow at any point in time. b. A voluntary draft drive in the camps for the Israel Defense Force (IDF), then in formation, drew only 700 volunteers in the spring of 1948 (0.3 percent of the 250,000 Jewish camp dwellers then)... The failed attempt to mobilize volunteers led the Zionists to enact forced conscription of DPs in Germany and Austria to the IDF. Just months later, the headcount of camp draftees who fulfilled their 'national duty' went up eleven fold to 7,800...
"What happened? Why did so many say they wanted to go to Palestine, when only a minority actually did so? What justified forced conscription of survivors to fight for a cause they did not necessarily support, in a land they had never seen, and whose language they did not speak? How was a non-sovereign body able to force conscripts on German and Austrian soil to embark on boats that took them to the battlefield in Palestine?
"To forecast, the Zionists successfully took control of the Jewish DP camps early on, which later enabled them to enforce a draft... Zionist planners and organizers followed a clear line of reasoning: To them, a Jew not wanting to go to Palestine adversely affected the struggle for the establishment of an independent state in two ways. First, it was a net loss to the effort to populate Palestine... Secondly, reluctance to make 'aliyah weakened the Zionist pressure to open the gates of Palestine for unlimited Jewish immigration. As the suffering of the DPs was used as a bargaining chip in the struggle against immigration quotas imposed by the British, who controlled Palestine until the state was established, a Jew immigrating to the West was one less suffering Jew knocking on Palestine's doors. The migration of Jews to places other than Palestine was thus discouraged, sometimes even blocked by force. Attempts to evacuate child survivors to England and France immediately after Liberation in 1945 were thus thwarted, on Ben-Gurion's explicit instructions." (pp 9-12)
So much for Baron-Cohen's "drowning" Jews, just itching to reach Palestine after "two millennia" of longing. Boilerplate Zionist dogma, of course. But, where the issue of Palestine/Israel is concerned, Zionist dogma, framing, bias, and embroidery, in one form or another, is invariably what you get at the Guardian.
"Empathy is all about imagining other minds, appreciating that different people have different perspectives, and responding to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion. After a career studying autism and the nature of empathy, I see empathy as one of our most valuable natural resources. It has particular promise as an approach to conflict resolution... We can see this if we look at the Israel-Palestine conflict, where both communities have different views of the same historic period, both claim the same piece of land and both have valid emotional reactions to the conflict that must be acknowledged." (22/1/19)
Now one might reasonably expect that anyone who is serious about the need to "imagine other minds" and "appreciate different perspectives" as a means to resolving conflict would draw on considered accounts of same by both parties. But this is not what Baron-Cohen does. He only cites Israeli views, specifically those of novelist Amoz Oz and journalist Ari Shavit, author of My Promised Land: The Triumph & Tragedy of Israel.
No Palestinian voice gets a look in - unless one excepts what "one Palestinian friend said to me: 'It's hard to empathise with someone when you are looking up the barrel of their gun'." (Indeed!)
Baron-Cohen's way out of this dilemma - "Israelis should take the initiative, because they are the stronger party" - is pure ivory tower, and flies in the face of the logic of colonialism which rules out equality between coloniser and colonised. I've dealt with this issue before in my 16/11/19 post Dialogue of the Colonizer and the Colonized (just click on the colonialism label below) where I highlighted the words of a Palestinian prisoner, Ta'er Hamad, who had been approached by the mother of one of his Israeli victims: "I cannot hold a dialogue with someone who insists on equating the occupation with its victims."
The problem with reading this kind of liberal Zionist claptrap - and the Guardian is full of it - is that it wastes the reader's time, time better spent understanding, and calling out, the worse-than-apartheid reality of the colonial-settler Zionist project (projectile?) in Palestine.
To home in on just one of Baron-Cohen's fairy tales, aka the "Israeli perspective":
"If you ask Jewish Israelis why their families came to Palestine before 1948, they'll likely refer to two major waves of antisemitism. The first included the horrific pogroms of eastern Europe in the 1880s and 90s. In the second wave in the 1930s and 40s, two out of every three European Jews were killed by the Nazis... the Jews were drowning, looking for a piece of wood they could cling on to. Palestine, which for two millennia they had thought of as their ancient homeland, was that piece of wood."
The problem here is the colossal conceit that the Zionist movement was primarily a rescue mission. The reality, of course, is that it was a colonial settler movement from its inception. One only has to read the Basel Program, which emerged from the First Zionist Congress of 1897 to see this. As for the aforementioned Tsarist pogroms of the 1880s and 90s, only a minority of Russian Jews ever headed for Palestine, and most of them were not political Zionists. Many more emigrated to Western Europe, or the United States, while others joined Russian revolutionary currents.
As for "the second wave," Western Europe and the United States were again the preferred destination for European Jews impacted by the Nazi era.
Yosef Grodzinzky's 2004 book In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews & Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II is well worth a read on this matter:
"Post-Holocaust Displaced Persons, who lived in miserable conditions, became a human reserve of great migration potential, hence a prime target for the Zionists, who planned to transfer the entire DP population to Palestine. On the face of it, this task was easy: Mostly Holocaust survivors, the DPs were supposedly convinced by now that a Jewish state was the only viable solution. All it should have taken was thus immigration permits - as Palestine was still in British hands - and a sufficient number of boats that would ship the DPs to the safe haven. This, indeed, has been the official line. It has been said that with few exceptions, the shadow of the Holocaust made almost all the DPs want to go to Palestine; as immigration quotas were extremely limited while the British were in control, only few could enter; yet on May 15th 1948, the British left and with them went the quotas. An independent Jewish state was declared, and its doors were immediately opened; previously unable to immigrate to Palestine, the rest of the DPs now rushed to make 'aliyah (immigration) to Israel, and became proud citizens of the Jewish state. This is what I learned in school.
"Yet the documentary record I found in archives helped me discover two numerical discrepancies which call for an explanation. a. Polls taken in the camps at different times indicate that the vast majority of Jewish DPs (80-96.8 percent) stated their intention to immigrate to Palestine. If not to Palestine, they said, they would rather go back to the crematoria of the death camps. Yet, of the hundreds of thousands, only 40 percent (at most) actually went to Palestine/Israel, despite the fact that other migration routes were more difficult to follow at any point in time. b. A voluntary draft drive in the camps for the Israel Defense Force (IDF), then in formation, drew only 700 volunteers in the spring of 1948 (0.3 percent of the 250,000 Jewish camp dwellers then)... The failed attempt to mobilize volunteers led the Zionists to enact forced conscription of DPs in Germany and Austria to the IDF. Just months later, the headcount of camp draftees who fulfilled their 'national duty' went up eleven fold to 7,800...
"What happened? Why did so many say they wanted to go to Palestine, when only a minority actually did so? What justified forced conscription of survivors to fight for a cause they did not necessarily support, in a land they had never seen, and whose language they did not speak? How was a non-sovereign body able to force conscripts on German and Austrian soil to embark on boats that took them to the battlefield in Palestine?
"To forecast, the Zionists successfully took control of the Jewish DP camps early on, which later enabled them to enforce a draft... Zionist planners and organizers followed a clear line of reasoning: To them, a Jew not wanting to go to Palestine adversely affected the struggle for the establishment of an independent state in two ways. First, it was a net loss to the effort to populate Palestine... Secondly, reluctance to make 'aliyah weakened the Zionist pressure to open the gates of Palestine for unlimited Jewish immigration. As the suffering of the DPs was used as a bargaining chip in the struggle against immigration quotas imposed by the British, who controlled Palestine until the state was established, a Jew immigrating to the West was one less suffering Jew knocking on Palestine's doors. The migration of Jews to places other than Palestine was thus discouraged, sometimes even blocked by force. Attempts to evacuate child survivors to England and France immediately after Liberation in 1945 were thus thwarted, on Ben-Gurion's explicit instructions." (pp 9-12)
So much for Baron-Cohen's "drowning" Jews, just itching to reach Palestine after "two millennia" of longing. Boilerplate Zionist dogma, of course. But, where the issue of Palestine/Israel is concerned, Zionist dogma, framing, bias, and embroidery, in one form or another, is invariably what you get at the Guardian.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
I Read the Herald Today, Oh Boy
I see that Nine Entertainment Co. rag The Sydney Morning Herald is crowing about polling that shows that its "readership has surged ahead of its News Corp rivals after the way digital and newspaper audiences are measured was changed to better take into account growing consumption on mobile devices." (Herald moves further ahead in readership, 21/1/19)
But what exactly are readers 'consuming'?
Among other things, chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies Vic Alhadeff''s account of his recent junket in Germany as a "guest of the German Foreign Ministry" (Confronting Germany's new generation of neo-Nazis, 19/1/19).
Parenthetically, just why the German government would be squandering its taxpayers' money on a Zionist shill from down under is anyone's guess.
After informing us that "German Jews - who include an estimated 30,000 Israelis - are overwhelmingly positive, while profoundly concerned at the emergence of the AfD [Alternative for Deutschland]" party, which includes "neo-Nazi elements," he proceeds to tell us that "3600 British Jews have applied for German citizenship in the event Jeremy Corbyn becomes that country's prime minister."
Now before you exclaim, 'the mind boggles', remember that what you're dealing with here is a typical propaganda trick: cherry-picked facts taken out of context.
Here's The Times report on the subject:
"Thousands of British Jews have applied for foreign passports since 2016, driven mainly by a desire to retain EU citizenship after Brexit but also by fears over rising antisemitism and the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn coming to power. New figures obtained by The Times show that more than 3,600 Britons have applied for German nationality under a 2015 scheme inviting the descendants of those driven out on religious, racial or political grounds by the Nazis to reclaim citizenship, with most applications from Jewish people." (British Jews apply for foreign passports as 'insurance policy', Kaya Burgess, 17/11/18)
"... driven mainly by a desire to retain EU citizenship after Brexit... " says it all.
But what exactly are readers 'consuming'?
Among other things, chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies Vic Alhadeff''s account of his recent junket in Germany as a "guest of the German Foreign Ministry" (Confronting Germany's new generation of neo-Nazis, 19/1/19).
Parenthetically, just why the German government would be squandering its taxpayers' money on a Zionist shill from down under is anyone's guess.
After informing us that "German Jews - who include an estimated 30,000 Israelis - are overwhelmingly positive, while profoundly concerned at the emergence of the AfD [Alternative for Deutschland]" party, which includes "neo-Nazi elements," he proceeds to tell us that "3600 British Jews have applied for German citizenship in the event Jeremy Corbyn becomes that country's prime minister."
Now before you exclaim, 'the mind boggles', remember that what you're dealing with here is a typical propaganda trick: cherry-picked facts taken out of context.
Here's The Times report on the subject:
"Thousands of British Jews have applied for foreign passports since 2016, driven mainly by a desire to retain EU citizenship after Brexit but also by fears over rising antisemitism and the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn coming to power. New figures obtained by The Times show that more than 3,600 Britons have applied for German nationality under a 2015 scheme inviting the descendants of those driven out on religious, racial or political grounds by the Nazis to reclaim citizenship, with most applications from Jewish people." (British Jews apply for foreign passports as 'insurance policy', Kaya Burgess, 17/11/18)
"... driven mainly by a desire to retain EU citizenship after Brexit... " says it all.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Palestinian
In reporting the brutal murder in Melbourne of Palestinian Israeli exchange student Aya Maasarwe, the Australian corporate media have referred to her either as an 'Israeli' or an 'Arab Israeli', the latter being the preferred Zionist term for the Palestinian minority who managed to avoid being driven into stateless exile in 1948, were kept under military lock and key until 1966, and who only thereafter received Israeli - second class - citizenship.
I can't recall seeing Aya anywhere in the media described as what she was, a 'Palestinian Israeli'. Here is yet another example of how a hopelessly biased, Zionised media misrepresents, marginalises, and erases Palestinian reality.
Another Palestinian Israeli, the poet Mahmoud Darwish, wrote the following lines, taken from his 1966 poem, A Lover from Palestine. He was, of course, referring to his stolen homeland. My thoughts are of Aya Maasarwe as I type Darwish's words here:
Palestinian, her eyes and her tattoo
Palestinian, her name
Palestinian, her dreams and her sorrow
Palestinian, her scarf, her feet, and her body
Palestinian, her words and her silence
Palestinian, her voice
Palestinian, her birth and her death
I can't recall seeing Aya anywhere in the media described as what she was, a 'Palestinian Israeli'. Here is yet another example of how a hopelessly biased, Zionised media misrepresents, marginalises, and erases Palestinian reality.
Another Palestinian Israeli, the poet Mahmoud Darwish, wrote the following lines, taken from his 1966 poem, A Lover from Palestine. He was, of course, referring to his stolen homeland. My thoughts are of Aya Maasarwe as I type Darwish's words here:
Palestinian, her eyes and her tattoo
Palestinian, her name
Palestinian, her dreams and her sorrow
Palestinian, her scarf, her feet, and her body
Palestinian, her words and her silence
Palestinian, her voice
Palestinian, her birth and her death
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Bob Carr's 'Run for Your Life' 3
Carr's learning curve on Palestine/Israel continued while he served as foreign minister in the Gillard government. You can read all about it in my posts on his 2014 Diary of a Foreign Minister.
For now, here's Carr's distillation of what he's learnt so far about the issue, in Run for Your Life (2018). The words which follow - from an insider not afraid to speak out - should be uppermost in the minds of all Australians concerned with how we go about shaping our foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East:
"The hold of the Israel lobby over Australian politicians is based on two facts: first, donations to the political parties from the Jewish community leadership; second, paid trips to Israel extended to every member of parliament and journalists. From the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) over 700 trips alone. This political influence is particularly noticeable with the Victorian ALP Right and deserves some examination by journalistic sleuths, who seem reluctant to touch the subject. No other community, in my experience, treats politicians as their poodles, even when making a political case - not the Tamils or Singhalese, the Chinese, the Macedonians, the Cypriots, the Turks nor the Armenians." (p 180)
And here is Carr on that Zionist weapon of last resort, the false accusation of anti-Semitism:
"If it's anti-Semitic to believe that:
*the occupation needs to end;
*the Israelis are conning us by spreading settlements;
*all of them are illegal under international law;
*Israel is not a special state but a normal state which can be criticised;
then there will be no cringing, no apologetics, no backtracking from me... Criticism of an Israeli occupation, the settlements and the chauvinism of its politicians is not anti-Semitic. Only Zionist zealots wish it so." (p 181)
The chapter goes on to describe Carr's work inside the NSW ALP in support of the recognition of a Palestinian state, which culminated in a resolution to that effect at the 2017 ALP State Conference:
"I had carefully built support in the Labor Party for this next step - simple, straightforward, recognition for Palestine - and due to the quiet resolve of the young NSW party secretary, Kaila Murnain, was confident of it being carried at the conference. The small Israel faction within Labor was sour. One of their number put to me that, when it came time for me to move the motion, I should do so without giving a speech. And, he said, their side would do the same. This was a proposition as extraordinary as it was ratty: on a matter that had produced twenty-five motions from ALP branches, the conference should agree to progress the eventual resolution but with a solemn vow no one would speak to it. In other words, no hint of criticism of Israel might be allowed to be heard under the mock-Renaissance ceiling in the wood-panelled auditorium of Sydney Town Hall, lest it horrify the 800 delegates and the party members in the galleries. Here was the old refrain: how dare you - in this case how dare you contemplate voicing a criticism of a nation at once so precious and yet so fragile. How dare you.
"Nothing doing, to that outrageous proposition. I was proud as a rank-and-file member of the party... to stand on the floor of the Town Hall and say: 'Delegates, as the oldest and biggest state branch, we can't be left stranded on the wrong side of history. It was once time for Whitlam's opening to China. It was once time for an independent East Timor. Time now for another historic shift in Labor Party foreign policy. If the late, great Gough Whitlam were here he would intone into this microphone, 'Men and women of Australia, It's Time... to recognise Palestine.' It was carried unanimously... " (pp 183-4)
For now, here's Carr's distillation of what he's learnt so far about the issue, in Run for Your Life (2018). The words which follow - from an insider not afraid to speak out - should be uppermost in the minds of all Australians concerned with how we go about shaping our foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East:
"The hold of the Israel lobby over Australian politicians is based on two facts: first, donations to the political parties from the Jewish community leadership; second, paid trips to Israel extended to every member of parliament and journalists. From the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) over 700 trips alone. This political influence is particularly noticeable with the Victorian ALP Right and deserves some examination by journalistic sleuths, who seem reluctant to touch the subject. No other community, in my experience, treats politicians as their poodles, even when making a political case - not the Tamils or Singhalese, the Chinese, the Macedonians, the Cypriots, the Turks nor the Armenians." (p 180)
And here is Carr on that Zionist weapon of last resort, the false accusation of anti-Semitism:
"If it's anti-Semitic to believe that:
*the occupation needs to end;
*the Israelis are conning us by spreading settlements;
*all of them are illegal under international law;
*Israel is not a special state but a normal state which can be criticised;
then there will be no cringing, no apologetics, no backtracking from me... Criticism of an Israeli occupation, the settlements and the chauvinism of its politicians is not anti-Semitic. Only Zionist zealots wish it so." (p 181)
The chapter goes on to describe Carr's work inside the NSW ALP in support of the recognition of a Palestinian state, which culminated in a resolution to that effect at the 2017 ALP State Conference:
"I had carefully built support in the Labor Party for this next step - simple, straightforward, recognition for Palestine - and due to the quiet resolve of the young NSW party secretary, Kaila Murnain, was confident of it being carried at the conference. The small Israel faction within Labor was sour. One of their number put to me that, when it came time for me to move the motion, I should do so without giving a speech. And, he said, their side would do the same. This was a proposition as extraordinary as it was ratty: on a matter that had produced twenty-five motions from ALP branches, the conference should agree to progress the eventual resolution but with a solemn vow no one would speak to it. In other words, no hint of criticism of Israel might be allowed to be heard under the mock-Renaissance ceiling in the wood-panelled auditorium of Sydney Town Hall, lest it horrify the 800 delegates and the party members in the galleries. Here was the old refrain: how dare you - in this case how dare you contemplate voicing a criticism of a nation at once so precious and yet so fragile. How dare you.
"Nothing doing, to that outrageous proposition. I was proud as a rank-and-file member of the party... to stand on the floor of the Town Hall and say: 'Delegates, as the oldest and biggest state branch, we can't be left stranded on the wrong side of history. It was once time for Whitlam's opening to China. It was once time for an independent East Timor. Time now for another historic shift in Labor Party foreign policy. If the late, great Gough Whitlam were here he would intone into this microphone, 'Men and women of Australia, It's Time... to recognise Palestine.' It was carried unanimously... " (pp 183-4)
Friday, January 18, 2019
Bob Carr's 'Run for Your Life' 2
Apart from the issue of Israeli settlements, which "slowly wormed its way into my consciousness, but not enough to undermine my instinctual support for the Jewish state," it was "the storm of criticism" unleashed by the Israel lobby, following his presentation, as premier of NSW, of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi which gave Bob Carr pause for thought on the subject of Israel - even though he reveals that his motive was merely to "reward a Palestinian leader who has signed up for a peaceful path to Palestinian statehood," and that that had to be "good for Israel." Carr describes the hue and cry as follows:
"Soon after my participation was announced, Jewish leaders launched an 'international petition' to force me to withdraw from the award. Sam Lipski, a prominent member of the Jewish community in Melbourne, denounced Hanan Ashrawi as a Holocaust denier. There was not a shred of evidence, and he was forced to withdraw and apologise. There were threats of funding being withdrawn from Sydney University. Its chancellor, Justice Kim Santow, barred Ashrawi from even appearing in the Great Hall. So much for academic freedom. Letters of protest were dispatched about the award going to a Palestinian, switchboards set aflame with indignation. This campaign had two objectives: to see that no Australian politician attended the presentation of the peace prize and that the peace prize be withdrawn. Lucy Turnbull, then the lord mayor of Sydney, withdrew her attendance. Her husband was running for Liberal Party preselection in the seat of Wentworth, home to a large and influential Jewish community. Kathryn Greiner was a member of the board which had made the decision to award the prize, but she phoned Stuart Rees, the director of the Sydney Peace Prize Foundation, and told him: 'I'll tell you how serious this is. Bob Carr won't come to the dinner. He'll flick the responsibility to [his deputy, Andrew] Refshauge at the last minute. And you won't get the Town Hall. It is more than Lucy's life is worth.' An article in The Australian suggested that by accepting this invitation I had damaged the federal Labor leadership of Simon Crean and quoted an anonymous member of his staff to that effect. Just as federal Labor is lifting its game, the NSW premier does this unconscionable thing that sets us back - this was the tone of the story planted by a member of Crean's staff but not, I am convinced, by Crean himself." (pp 176-7)
The proverbial penny had finally begun to drop:
"The day it appeared I received a call from a former colleague, Laurie Brereton, now serving in the federal parliament, who told me in strong language that I should not back down. He said, 'This group [he meant the Israel lobby, especially in Melbourne] is used to bullying to get its way. They do it all the time. You get nothing by backing off. Stand firm.'... I had already reached the same view as Brereton. If I had backed down it would have sent a melancholic message to all Australians of Arabic or Palestinian background: namely that, through its political clout, the other side - 'the lobby', 'the community' - will always crush you. I had given my word I would present this prize (ironically, because in one tiny way it would make a contribution to Israel being more secure). I would not back down. I have never received more support on any single issue in my time in public life. I was stopped in the street by strangers who said, 'Congratulations on not backing down... ' and seeing me look puzzled would add by way of explanation, '... in meeting...' and, not being able to recall the Arabic name would add, '... that woman.' It was the only controversy I can recall where this continued a month after publicity ceased. The award dinner was a sellout full of people from boardroom Sydney, who, I realised, had an instinctive understanding of what had gone on here: a plain bullying attempt to silence a side in the debate as legitimate as its opposite." (ibid)
The Israel lobby had overreached itself - and, critically, its bullying ways had come, via the media spotlight, to the attention of the man/woman on the street, as evinced by Carr above. He continues:
"The bullying Jewish leadership began to realise they had gone too far. I received a phone call from Frank Lowy, not to threaten or cajole but to ask out of curiosity, 'I just wondered why you did this?' Looking back I'm struck by the assumption there must be something perverse in treating a Palestinian with courtesy, as someone who might have an equal right to attention. I told him I did it because I believed encouraging peaceful Palestinians would be something one might do for a more secure Israel. But it dawned on me - with his phone call and the other reaction - what had been behind this campaign. I came to recognise it as a phenomenon that I later saw discussed on Mondoweiss, an American Jewish website, as 'Jewish Narcissism'. Maybe it's more fairly seen as an acute defensiveness and anxiety about losing friends. Whatever, there was a strong tone of 'How dare you'. That is, how dare you break ranks with us. How dare you criticise Israel. I later encountered this mentality when I was foreign minister." (ibid)
"The assumption that there must be something perverse in treating a Palestinian with courtesy"? The mind boggles. One cannot help but think at this point that if only Carr had spent a little more time reading about Israel's brutal treatment of occupied Palestinians on the ground at the time, instead of stroking Israel lobby egos, then he would have seen the idea of Ashrawi's receiving courteous treatment from Australia's Israel firsters as plainly risible. Still, it must be admitted that the transition from brainwashed Zionist dupe to pro-Palestinian activist is hardly ever a 'road to Damascus' thing.
To be continued...
"Soon after my participation was announced, Jewish leaders launched an 'international petition' to force me to withdraw from the award. Sam Lipski, a prominent member of the Jewish community in Melbourne, denounced Hanan Ashrawi as a Holocaust denier. There was not a shred of evidence, and he was forced to withdraw and apologise. There were threats of funding being withdrawn from Sydney University. Its chancellor, Justice Kim Santow, barred Ashrawi from even appearing in the Great Hall. So much for academic freedom. Letters of protest were dispatched about the award going to a Palestinian, switchboards set aflame with indignation. This campaign had two objectives: to see that no Australian politician attended the presentation of the peace prize and that the peace prize be withdrawn. Lucy Turnbull, then the lord mayor of Sydney, withdrew her attendance. Her husband was running for Liberal Party preselection in the seat of Wentworth, home to a large and influential Jewish community. Kathryn Greiner was a member of the board which had made the decision to award the prize, but she phoned Stuart Rees, the director of the Sydney Peace Prize Foundation, and told him: 'I'll tell you how serious this is. Bob Carr won't come to the dinner. He'll flick the responsibility to [his deputy, Andrew] Refshauge at the last minute. And you won't get the Town Hall. It is more than Lucy's life is worth.' An article in The Australian suggested that by accepting this invitation I had damaged the federal Labor leadership of Simon Crean and quoted an anonymous member of his staff to that effect. Just as federal Labor is lifting its game, the NSW premier does this unconscionable thing that sets us back - this was the tone of the story planted by a member of Crean's staff but not, I am convinced, by Crean himself." (pp 176-7)
The proverbial penny had finally begun to drop:
"The day it appeared I received a call from a former colleague, Laurie Brereton, now serving in the federal parliament, who told me in strong language that I should not back down. He said, 'This group [he meant the Israel lobby, especially in Melbourne] is used to bullying to get its way. They do it all the time. You get nothing by backing off. Stand firm.'... I had already reached the same view as Brereton. If I had backed down it would have sent a melancholic message to all Australians of Arabic or Palestinian background: namely that, through its political clout, the other side - 'the lobby', 'the community' - will always crush you. I had given my word I would present this prize (ironically, because in one tiny way it would make a contribution to Israel being more secure). I would not back down. I have never received more support on any single issue in my time in public life. I was stopped in the street by strangers who said, 'Congratulations on not backing down... ' and seeing me look puzzled would add by way of explanation, '... in meeting...' and, not being able to recall the Arabic name would add, '... that woman.' It was the only controversy I can recall where this continued a month after publicity ceased. The award dinner was a sellout full of people from boardroom Sydney, who, I realised, had an instinctive understanding of what had gone on here: a plain bullying attempt to silence a side in the debate as legitimate as its opposite." (ibid)
The Israel lobby had overreached itself - and, critically, its bullying ways had come, via the media spotlight, to the attention of the man/woman on the street, as evinced by Carr above. He continues:
"The bullying Jewish leadership began to realise they had gone too far. I received a phone call from Frank Lowy, not to threaten or cajole but to ask out of curiosity, 'I just wondered why you did this?' Looking back I'm struck by the assumption there must be something perverse in treating a Palestinian with courtesy, as someone who might have an equal right to attention. I told him I did it because I believed encouraging peaceful Palestinians would be something one might do for a more secure Israel. But it dawned on me - with his phone call and the other reaction - what had been behind this campaign. I came to recognise it as a phenomenon that I later saw discussed on Mondoweiss, an American Jewish website, as 'Jewish Narcissism'. Maybe it's more fairly seen as an acute defensiveness and anxiety about losing friends. Whatever, there was a strong tone of 'How dare you'. That is, how dare you break ranks with us. How dare you criticise Israel. I later encountered this mentality when I was foreign minister." (ibid)
"The assumption that there must be something perverse in treating a Palestinian with courtesy"? The mind boggles. One cannot help but think at this point that if only Carr had spent a little more time reading about Israel's brutal treatment of occupied Palestinians on the ground at the time, instead of stroking Israel lobby egos, then he would have seen the idea of Ashrawi's receiving courteous treatment from Australia's Israel firsters as plainly risible. Still, it must be admitted that the transition from brainwashed Zionist dupe to pro-Palestinian activist is hardly ever a 'road to Damascus' thing.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)