Thank You & Best Wishes, Michael Danby!

I don't belong to his party.  I've never voted for it.  The chances are I never will. 
 
 But you don't have to be an ALP (Australian Labor Party) supporter to admire and appreciate that great stalwart champion of Israel, Member of the House of Representatives Michael Danby (pictured, in the heart of his constituency), who has just announced that he will not be contesting the next federal election.

He tells J-Wire readers, inter alia:

"Before I was elected to Parliament in 1998, there hadn’t been a single MP visit Israel for more than a decade. Thanks to the support of philanthropists Sol Lew and David Goldberger, I took the first mission of Australian Labor MPs to Jerusalem (led by the then opposition leader Simon Crean). Since then, the atmosphere has totally improved in Parliament, with many Members and Senators having visited Israel, the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group having one of the largest memberships in Parliament, we having regular speakers and functions thanks to the ECAJ [Executive Council of Australian Jewry], AIJAC [Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council] and the Israeli Embassy. Words cannot speak highly enough of my regard for our long-standing Labor stalwart Senator Glenn Sterle. He works with love and passion to continue my work with the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group. The same applies to my dear Liberal friend, the chairman of the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group and the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (which I used to chair), Senator David Fawcett. Israel visits have generally benefitted Australian national security. The visits to Israel have had an important transformative effect on our national politics. You don’t have to explain to MPs and Senators Iran, Jihadism, counter terrorism, the extremism of Erdogan, of Hezbollah and Hamas’ role as terrorist organisations and threat, once parliamentarians have visited there."  Read the rest here

The Australian newspaper's foreign editor Greg Sheridan on Danby here and here

Thanks for the memories, Michael, and best wishes! 

Regarding the terrorist featured below, don't miss Danby's very recent parliamentary speech here 

Bibi: " Do Not Test the Will of the State of Israel or the Army of Israel"

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara attended a memorial ceremony to honor the Australian and New Zealand soldiers who fell during World War One. The ceremony is part of the events marking 100 years since the battle for Be'er Sheba. Also attending the ceremony were Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his wife and New Zealand Governor General Patsy Reddy and her husband.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDdgs3GFdc

Transcript of Bibi's speech:

"Thank you, ANZAC soldiers and the families of the brave Aussies and Kiwis who fought here and died here.

Nearly 4,000 years ago, Abraham came to Be'er Sheba, the City of Seven Wells. Exactly 100 years ago, brave ANZAC soldiers liberated Beer Sheba for the sons and daughters of Abraham and opened the gateway for the Jewish people to reenter the stage of history. The heroism of your fallen men will never be forgotten. The brave soldiers who are buried here played a crucial role in defeating the Ottoman Empire, liberating the Holy Land, ending 400 years of Ottoman rule in one great dash.

This momentous occasion was a historic milestone in the natural kinship between our peoples. When I say natural, I don’t just mean the way we address life and each other, that easy informality, that warmth. That was evident from the moment our people met your people. I mean something deeper, because there’s a historical significance of what happened here. ANZAC soldiers went on to capture Jerusalem, Tiberius, Megiddo, then continued northward. They were actually retracing the footsteps of the heroes of the Bible. They were stepping on the verses of the Bible, and they knew it, and their clergy who spoke of this so movingly a moment ago, they knew it too.

This partnership began two years earlier, in 1915, with a great defeat. In the defeat at Gallipoli, two things were forged. One, the absolute resolve of the ANZAC forces to redeem their fallen brethren and establish this glorious victory here. And the second thing that was forged was the first meeting between ANZAC fighters and Jewish fighters, the first Jewish fighters who stood shoulder to shoulder with them in Gallipoli, the first Jewish fighting force in 2,000 years. And that continued here with the Jewish Legion that helped liberate Palestine here, in this campaign that we mark today. This was a point, a partnership that has historic significance today.

When I joined the Israeli army 50 years ago, I joined our Special Forces, I was given a broad hat. It was called an Australian hat. It was very good to shield ourselves from the sun. We also sat next to eucalyptus trees that came from Australia. And we learned about the ethos of courage of Australian and New Zealand soldiers. We talked about it. We drank it in. It stood as a shining example for us. It was an example of the spirit of fortitude and courage, and the willingness to act in the defense of our people and our values. These are the values that guide us today as well. We saw here in Beer Sheba 800 cavalry go against 4,000 embedded Turks with machine guns, with bunkers. The few won against the many.

That’s the spirit of the army of Israel. It stands today. We set out a simple policy: We seek peace with all our neighbors, but we will not tolerate any attacks on our sovereignty, on our people, on our land, whether from the air, from the sea, from the ground or below the ground. We attack those who seek to attack us. And those who contemplate that, I strongly advise you: Do not test the will of the State of Israel or the army of Israel.

When the Light Horse were charging here, their commanders were worried about the absence of water. Today we do not worry about that. A few months ago, we signed an agreement on water between Australia and Israel. It can apply to New Zealand. We can make water. We can change the world. What we established here with the rise of Israel, the rise of technology, the rise of ingenuity, is that we can cooperate to better the lives of our peoples and of all people everywhere. That too we should remember at the Battle of Beer Sheba. I believe that those soldiers who fell here would be proud of the deep and enduring alliance between our countries today.

As then, today we stand on the same side of history, on the right side of history. We stand for progress; we stand for peace; we stand for democracy. We stand against tyranny and terror. Israel salutes the sacrifice of these brave soldiers. We will never forget them.

We will forever honor and treasure their memory."

 While on the subject of New Zealand, see here

"This Vote Sends a Very Hurtful Message to Australian Jews"

Dutney's article is pro-BDS, folks!

The Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) was formed in 1977 as the result of a merger between the Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians here.  Its statement regarding Jews and Judaism notwithstanding, relations with the Jewish community have frequently been fraught owing to its often hostile attitude towards Israel, and like many Protestant churches nowadays it appears to have been hijacked by political leftists espousing many a trendy political cause.  (This descent into leftist political activism has seen it lose more members than any other church in Australia, by the way.)

During a debate on the Middle East its national assembly, reports The Australian newspaper, the UCA has "opened the way for members to embrace" the BDS movement, its president,  the anti-Israeli boycott, divestment and sanctions movement"

The Uniting Church in Australia has "opened the way for members to embrace the anti-Israeli boycott, divestment and sanctions movement", its president, Stuart McMillan saying that the church had "encouraged members to be ­informed and to consider personally boycotting" goods produced "within the occupied territories".

He added:

“At this particular time of great concern for peace in the Holy Land, indeed in the Middle East, we must all make every ­effort to build upon the good ­relations we have in Australia between people of faith, ­acknowledging we will see some things differently and act ­accordingly, but always with peace for the people of the region in mind.”

His explanation has cut little ice with with University of Melbourne academic Dr Dvir Abramovich, chairman of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission, who has called on the UCA to rescind the "unfair"  resolution:

“At a time when Christians are beheaded, forcibly converted, expelled and persecuted in the Middle East and around the world, the Uniting Church in Australia has chosen to single out the only democracy in the ­region which provides a safe haven and freedom of worship for Christians.

This vote sends a very hurtful message to Australian Jews and foments an atmosphere of hostility."

 In other news, however ...

"Islamic and Arab Countries Fiddle While Syria Burns": David Singer on bully boy tactics against Australia regarding The O Word

Titled "Palestine – Islamic and Arab Countries Fiddle While Syria Burns", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Australia’s decision on 5 June to no longer refer to East Jerusalem and the West Bank as “occupied territory” but rather “disputed territory” has provoked outrage among Islamic and Arab countries accredited in Australia.

They sought and received an urgent meeting with Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on 19 June – following a letter sent to Ms Bishop on 12 June by Moroccan Ambassador HE Mohamed Mael-Ainin on behalf of the Heads of Mission of this powerful Islamic lobby.

The Ambassador’s letter has not been released by the Foreign Affairs Department as it:

“does not publicly release correspondence to the Foreign Minister from representatives of foreign countries.”

Yet – in a media release issued after the meeting – Ms Bishop attached her written response to the Moroccan Ambassador, in which she stated:

“I emphasise that there has been no change in the Australian Government's position on the legal status of the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. Our position is consistent with relevant UN resolutions on the issue, adopted over many years, starting with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Senator Brandis' statement was about nomenclature, and was not a comment on the legal status of the Palestinian Territories.

Australia continues to be a strong supporter of a just and lasting two-state solution, with Israel and a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. To this end, we are urging both sides to resume direct negotiations. We do not consider it helpful to engage in debates over legal issues, nor to prejudge any final status issues that are the subject of these negotiations.”

Creating a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine – in addition to Jordan – for the first time ever in recorded history remains an illusion after fruitless negotiations spanning the last 20 years.
Legal issues will determine final status issues – one essential legal prerequisite being secure and recognized borders for Israel demanded by Resolutions 242 and 338

The Palestine Liberation Organisation’s acceptance of the League of Nations and United Nations decisions recognising the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Mandatory Palestine remains another legal lynch pin to achieving Australia’s desired two-state solution.

Refusal to recognise the State of Israel by all 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has materially contributed to the 130-years-old Jewish-Arab conflict remaining unresolved.

Photo by Andrew Meares; from SMH

Jordan’s Ambassador Rima Ahmad Alaadeen (on the right of this Sydney Morning Herald photo by Andrew Meares), after meeting Ms Bishop reportedly made the OIC’s potential hostility towards Australia very clear:

“Alaadeen said she could not say whether there would be trade sanctions against Australia. The controversy was on the agenda of the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation summit of foreign ministers in Jeddah this week.

“There is a clause or a paragraph … on the recent events in Australian policy regarding East Jerusalem, so we have to wait and see what transpires,” she said.

Iraq’s Ambassador to Australia, Mouayed Saleh, who also attended the meeting, similarly said he could not rule out trade sanctions.”

In pursuing this diplomatic dressing down of Australia including threats of sanctions for having the temerity to pursue its own independent foreign policy – these Islamic and Arab States missed a golden opportunity to raise with Ms Bishop a shocking Report released on 16 June by the Human Rights Council received from its “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” – a fellow Arab and Islamic State.
 
The Report – detailing developments in the ongoing conflict between 15 March and 15 June – states:

“In three years of conflict, millions of Syrians have suffered the loss of relatives to attacks, to violence in detention facilities, to disappearances and to starvation. Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives. The failure to protect civilians, both from the conduct of the Syrian Government forces and non-State armed groups unaligned with the Government (NSAGs), has led to unspeakable suffering. An estimated 9.3 million Syrians are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, with 4.25 million IDPs and 2.8 million refugees in neighbouring countries. The vast majority are women and children.

In the course of the conflict, the infrastructure that constitutes civilian life has been targeted and misused. Schools have been reduced to rubble or occupied by armed forces, hospitals have come under attack, and entire residential neighbourhoods have been destroyed.”

Horrors being currently perpetrated include:

Extra-judicial killings, sexual assaults, beatings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary arrests

Reports of deaths in custody, particularly in detention centres in Damascus city, rising dramatically. Former detainees described being held in cells with corpses of cellmates who had been tortured or died as a result of untreated medical conditions.

Persistent reports of the use of torture – including beating, electrocution and hanging from walls. Increasing attacks by Government forces and the armed opposition targeting civilians.

Australia is presently a member of the UN Security Council.

The Report states that through UN inaction:

“a space has been created for the worst of humanity to express itself.”

Those Islamic and Arab diplomats meeting Ms Bishop should have been urging Australia to sponsor a Security Council resolution demanding that an armed UN force be sent to Syria to implement an imposed cease fire to end this mayhem and slaughter.

Regrettably, imposing bully boy tactics on Australia was obviously considered far more important than trying to end the interminable suffering of millions of their Syrian Arab brethren and sisters.

Go figure.

"Occupation": Aussie Labor Senator Anne Urquhart quotes Ali Kazak

Another reason why Australian supporters of Israel would be wise to consider even the worst Liberal government superior to the best Labor one: Anne Urquhart, Labor's deputy whip in the Senate, acting yet again as spokeswoman for the anti-Israel pro-Arab cause.  Senator Urquhart's hardly a charismatic figure, her tone in this speech on "Occupation" and East Jerusalem and Aussie policy is soporific, and she seems not to have too high an opinion of her fellow-senators' intellectual level since she patronises them what the word "tendentious" means.

 

I must admit, I almost dozed off during this monotonous address, but the Tasmanian senator's quotation from a letter from a familiar figure, Ali Kazak, former PLO representative in Canberra ("Thank you, Mr Kazak"), jolted me awake again.

Still, this motion, brainchild of Greens leader Christine Milne and Independent senator Nick Xenophon, was thwarted:

David Singer: "Palestine – Negotiating Semantic Minefield Becomes Pressing Necessity"

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Two former [Labor] Australian Foreign Ministers – Bob Carr (2012-2013) and Gareth Evans (1988-1996) – have published an article this past week engaging in a semantic tug of war with Australia’s current [Liberal] Foreign Minister – Julie Bishop  – over Australia’s recently declared policy of refusing to describe East Jerusalem as “occupied territory”.

East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria were conquered in 1948 by Transjordan and illegally annexed in 1950  – when Transjordan then changed its name to “Jordan” and the 3000 years old geographic designation of “Judea and Samaria” to the “West Bank”.

East Jerusalem and the West Bank were lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed a Basic Law declaring reunified Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel, while providing for freedom of access to each religion's holy sites – a decision not sanctioned by the United Nations.

“Occupied territory” carries the clear connotation that such territory indisputably belongs to someone else. Yet East Jerusalem and the West Bank have not been under any internationally recognised sovereignty or control since Great Britain handed back its administration of the Mandate for Palestine to the United Nations in 1948. Israel refers to the West Bank as “disputed territory”: 

“The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.”

Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, agrees: 

“It is important, as far as you can, not to use loaded terms, not to use pejorative terms, not to use terms which suggest that matters have been prejudged and that is a freighted term.

The truth is they’re disputed territories.”

Carr and Evans conveniently overlook mentioning or rebutting Israel’s position – indicating a level of intellectual dishonesty which is disappointing coming from persons with such distinguished backgrounds.

Instead, Carr and Evans ring the alarm bells – attempting to incite a state of international hysteria when claiming:

“If East Jerusalem is not to be referred to as “occupied”, why not Nablus or Bethlehem? If the Australian government can say “occupied East Jerusalem” is fraught with “pejorative implications” what is to stop Ms Bishop applying this to the occupied West Bank as a whole? It is a short step away for the Coalition government to declare that all the West Bank, with its population of more than 2 million Arabs, is no more than a “disputed" territory.'

Are they really unaware that 40 per cent of the West Bank – including Nablus and Bethlehem - contains 96 per cent of the West Bank Arab population – and has been under the total administrative control of the Palestine Liberation Organisation since 1995?

Have they forgotten that Israel offered to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90 per cent of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/2001 and 2008 – and that both offers were rejected.

Carr and Evans aren’t averse in misleading their readership when they assert:

“The International Court of Justice in 2004 declared not only that the West Bank was occupied but that this was illegal.”

It is unseemly that they forget to mention that this decision was an Advisory Opinion only and has no binding legal effect.

What is completely inexcusable is that Carr and Evans relied only on this International Court of Justice decision – whilst apparently failing to consider the following established international law with specific application to the West Bank – namely:

1. The Mandate for Palestine 1922 – especially article 6 – and article 80 of the United Nations Charter; and

2. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

These provisions provide the legal basis for Israel using the term “disputed territory” and Australia rejecting the pejorative term “occupied territory” used in countless UN Resolutions – misleadingly suggesting an Arab entitlement to 100 per cent exclusive sovereignty.

The Arab-Jewish conflict has been an ongoing battle of words as much as a series of real live battles fought by the Jews against its Palestinian Arab neighbours, the armies of six Arab States and a myriad number of terrorist groups over the last 130 years.

Notable semantic battles that have influenced the political debate include:

1. Do the words “in Palestine” as used in the Mandate for Palestine mean “all of Palestine”?

2. Do the words “Withdraw from territories” used in Security Council Resolution 242 mean “all the territories”?

3. Are there “1967 borders” or only “1967 armistice lines”?

4. Did the words “Reconstitute the Jewish National Home” as used in the Mandate for Palestine preclude the creation of a Jewish State?

5. Does “Palestine” include what is today called “Jordan”?

Whilst one side talks “occupied territory” and the other “disputed territory”,  negotiations will continue to go nowhere. A pathway through this semantic minefield needs to be found which leads to the parties using commonly agreed and understood language.

If not, this minefield could blow up with disastrous consequences for everyone – not just the disputants.

Another Syria or Iraq is the last thing the world needs now.

"Occupied Palestinian Territories": Brandis Riles Rhiannon

In this video veteran pro-BDS stalwart Aussie Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, the daughter of Stalinist parents, one of them of Jewish extraction, is deliciously put down and accordingly flummoxed by federal Attorney-General George Brandis when she uses the word "occupied" in relation to East Jerusalem and the "Palestinian Territories".

She: "Why did the Australian Ambassador to Israel attend a meeting in occupied East Jerusalem with the Israeli minister for housing and construction; the same minister who is forecasting a 50 per cent increase in settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the next five years?"

 He: 'Well I think I should say, Senator Rhiannon, that the rather tendentious way in which you've put that question and in particular the use of the word "occupied" is not something that the Australian Government of either political persuasion acknowledges or accepts.'

She: 'So you don't use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories", even though it's a United Nations term used widely by a number of international agencies, European members et cetera…'

He: 'Well it's used by a lot of people. It's used by a lot of communists too. Weren't you a member of the Communist Party once?'

Naturally, Australia's lefties and leftist press are much perturbed at Brandis's stance and what it implies about current Australian government policy, as seen here and here and here

See also here and  here

(Hat tip: readers Ian and Marvin)

The PLO's Dr Hanan Ashwari denounces Brandis's comments thus:

“It is absolutely disgraceful and shocking that on the 47th anniversary of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and Gaza, Australian Attorney-General George Brandis is issuing such inflammatory and irresponsible statements that ‘occupied East Jerusalem’ is ‘a term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither appropriate nor useful.’  Such pronouncements are not only in blatant violation of international law and global consensus, but are also lethal in any pursuit of peace and toxic to any attempt at enacting a global rule of law.

Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem is beyond ‘pejorative’ and ‘inappropriate’; it is a deliberate and egregious violation, not just of international humanitarian law and consensus, but of the basic norms of responsible behavior that governs relations among civilized states.”

Trying to fabricate or distort the law to fit Israel’s lawless behavior is shameful and dangerous.  Attorney-General Brandis, whether out of ignorance or whether out of blind bias, is trying to render Australia complicit in the Israeli occupation, and is forcing it to become an advocate of international criminal behavior”.

From Eli E. Hertz of the Myths and Facts website, a timely item:

'The term “occupied territory,” which appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention, originated as a result of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Though it has become common parlance to describe the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied territories,” there is no legal basis for using this term in connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

[University of Sydney] Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, categorically rejected the use of the term “occupied territory” to describe the territories controlled by Israel on the following counts:

(1) Article 49 relates to the invasion of sovereign states and is inapplicable because the West Bank did not and does not belong to any other state.

(2) The drafting history of Article 49 [Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] – that is, preventing “genocidal objectives” must be taken into account. Those conditions do not exist in Israel’s case.

(3) Settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants. Moreover, Stone asserted: that “no serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations” [exists]; rather “a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the [local Palestinian] inhabitants since 1967 [has occurred].”

 See all of Hertz's article here

"Carr ... Offers No Criticism of ... a 'Palestinian Lobby' While Acknowledging The Lobbying of ... Arabs on Australia's Foreign Policy"

In an op-ed entitled (should you wish to google it) "A great read with deeply troubling insights into the mind of Carr and his Israel-lobby obsession"  published in yesterday's The Australian newspaper, Gerard Henderson, executive director of the Sydney Institute and a longtime friend of Israel, has offered his thoughts on Bob Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister, which he considers "very much the real Carr".


And in so doing he's told of an incident that sheds further light on Carr's negative attitude towards Israel, and suggests that it began earlier than often thought.

The incident in question occurred in the immediate wake of 9/11, when Carr was premier of New South Wales.  Ken Burns, the American documentary film maker (his output includes the acclaimed The Civil War, which had been shown on Australian television), was due to present the prizes at a dinner marking the annual event known as The Premier's History Awards.

Reveals Henderson:

"...The date was September 17, 2001....

It turned out that Burns was a last-minute scratching from the event. It was around a week since al-Qa’ida’s terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Air transport from the US had been disrupted.

Moreover, word got around the audience that Burns was not keen on flying in the wake of what Americans term 9/11.

At the start of the dinner Carr came over to talk to me. I expressed commiserations that his guest Burns was a non-starter. To my surprise, Carr seemed quite shaken by the 9/11 attack.

He said to me that he had now come to the conclusion that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 had been a mistake.

Carr stated his belief that the Arab world would never accept the creation of a Jewish state and that Islamists would continue to target Western nations.

From around late 2001, I noticed a change in Carr’s attitude towards Israel."

Henderson, inter alia, makes the excellent point that Carr's book contains "numerous references" to the importance, particularly in Sydney's western suburbs, to the Arab Muslim votes, and that while he  'is ready to bag what he terms the “Israel lobby” in Australia and to identify ... AIJAC figures ... as allegedly exerting improper influence' he 'offers no criticism of such an entity as a “Palestinian lobby” while acknowledging the lobbying of Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs on Australia’s foreign policy towards the Middle East'.

(For many years the Palestinian representative in Australia was Ali Kazak, whose vigorous lobbying efforts were often in the limelight; see also here)

Henderson believes the book

"indicates that Carr is somewhat unhinged in so far as Israel is concerned. He cannot accept that [Julia] Gillard’s long-time support for Israel reflects her real position...."

Hat tip: reader Ian

Israel: Australia's Abbott Sets The Tone

Aussie Foreign Minister Julie Bishop

The Sydney Morning Herald (like its Fairfax stablemate, the Melbourne Age, not a newspaper highly supportive of Israel) reports inter alia:

'The Abbott government has swung its support further behind Israel at the expense of Palestine, giving tacit approval to controversial activities including the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Acting on instructions from Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, government representatives at the United Nations have withdrawn Australia's support for an order to stop ''all Israeli settlement activities in all of the occupied territories''....

Former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr described Australia's withdrawal of support for Palestine as ''a shame, in the deepest sense''...'

Down Under, "Palestine" Features In Election Campaign

With an Australian federal election due on 7th September, both major parties have begun making a bid for the Muslim vote, with Foreign Minister Bob Carr and Joe Hockey, the Opposition's treasury spokesman,addressing a crowd outside Sydney's Lakemba Mosque during Eid celebrations marking the close of Ramadan.

Writes Mr Carr, inter alia, on his blog (which contains the photo at left):

'This morning I had the pleasure of speaking at the Eid al-Adha celebration at Lakemba Mosque.

I said that this celebration is a reminder of the important role of Islam in the lives of many Australians.

Australia is home to nearly half a million Muslims and Islam is our country’s third largest religion (behind Christianity and Buddhism).

Australian Muslims contribute strongly to Australian society.

The Australian Government funds a multitude of inter-faith, cultural overlap and community development activities overseas ....

It is important to emphasise that Australia has long-standing links with the Arab world, especially in trade and education  ....

Our formal links with regional organisations are growing:

• I participated in the second Australia- Gulf Cooperation Council dialogue in New York last month;

• we have a formal dialogue with the Arab League;

• we have a framework of cooperation with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation;

• we have senior officials talks with the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and Iraq; and

• we have agreed to hold these talks with Libya, Oman, Algeria and Morocco.

We are also supporting the democratic transition of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Iraq.

It is these links that we must remind ourselves of in the face of the efforts of extremist minorities to incite violence or create gaps between cultures.'

Nothing about Israel and the Palestinian Arabs there, as far as I can see.  But, to quote SBS (hat tip: reader Rita:

'Bob Carr told the crowd he's proud of the Labor Government's support in the United Nations for lifting the status of the Palestinians in the UN.

Senator Carr says all Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease.

"I am very, very proud that Australia's hand did not go up against increased Palestinian status in the general assembly of the United Nations.

That's something you ought to think about. I've been to Ramallah, I've spoken to the Palestinian leadership and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle Eastern peace and that means respect for the right of Israel to exist."'

As for Mr Hockey, a Christian of Palestinian and Armenian parentage, he

'told the crowd all Australians should be proud of their heritage.

He says he's proud that his father was born in Palestine and came to Australia as a migrant in 1948 and said if the Coalition wins government his Arabic heritage will earn him a unique place in Australian history. 

"We believe in the future of Australia. If there is a change of government on the seventh of September it will be the very first time in Australian history that someone of Arab heritage has taken a leadership position in Australia," Mr Hockey says.

"And that is a significant event, significant event for Australia and it is a significant event for the Arab community and that will only come about with a change of government on the seventh of September."'

See here for acerbic commentary by a well-known Aussie Jewish voice,as well as here.

"Joining In The Popular Kicking Of Israel Is Not a Sign Of Moral Courage"

" Israel is Australia's friend and ally. The Labor Party used to know this and care about it. Joining in the popular kicking of Israel is not a sign of moral courage, though it will win plaudits from the usual suspects at the UN and in conventional international relations think tanks.

But it is an immoral position that betrays fundamental political, moral and ethical values that Labor used to understand pretty well."

So writes Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian, who's long been a staunch supporter of Israel,  in his column of 9 March, which argues that the Zygier affair "brings to the fore the strange pathologies in Australian opinion concerning Israel. It also underlines how badly the Labor government has gone off course in its conception of Israel, and Israel's place in the world" and claims that former Minister for Foreign Affair Kevin Rudd and current incumbent of that post Bob Carr are responsible, along with the still baneful influence of an earlier holder of the office, Gareth Evans, and the mindset that believes,with ex-President Jimmy Carter, that

"The heart and mind of every Muslim is affected by whether or not the Israel-Palestine issue is dealt with."

Observes Sheridan:

'Last year in a cabinet revolt, Julia Gillard was overridden on a key UN vote. Australia was set to vote no to elevating the status of the Palestinian Authority to an observer state at the UN. Carr and Rudd opposed Gillard's position (though Rudd was not a player in this vote). Under the baleful influence of [then Minister for Foreign Affairs] Gareth Evans, a tremendously negative force on contemporary Labor foreign policy who offers only a bureaucratic version of conventional wisdom (and conventional wisdom is often wrong), Canberra changed its vote and abstained.

In its own terms, this was a very bad move. There will never be a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute until both sides compromise over an agreement. This UN move, along with many tens of millions of dollars of increased Australian aid to the Palestinians, gives them something for nothing. It helps convince the Palestinian leadership that the way to success doesn't involve compromise and negotiation. Instead the international community will do their job for them. It is a destructive syndrome.

Then, in the Australia-UK Ministerial Meeting in January, Carr ratcheted up Australia's rhetoric on Israel. For the first time, his office briefed journalists, Canberra was describing all Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. Also, we were calling on President Barack Obama to lead a new peace effort on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

To simply call all Israeli settlements illegal is simplistic, reductionist, almost childish. It jumbles together in one category Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem, large settlement blocks envisaged under every serious negotiation as staying with Israel, and those settlements illegal under Israeli law. It fails to recognise that there has been no physical expansion of settlement territory since 2004, that settlements occupy less than 3 per cent of the West Bank, that any settlement territory kept by Israel will be matched by land given to a Palestinian state from Israel proper and that settlements have never before been an obstacle to negotiations. Australia's position is also wrong in international law. Jordan, which formerly controlled the territory, is not the sovereign power and UN Security Council resolutions require a negotiated outcome.

But why take this position at all, except to kick sand in the Israelis' eyes? China claims all of the South China Sea almost right up to the Philippines shore, yet Canberra maintains a strict neutrality. If Israel is a friend, why the gratuitous aggro?' [Emphasis added here and below]

Sheridan points to the current unrest in countries bordering Israel, and how that renders demands that Israel urgently seeks peae with the Palestinians unfair and unrealistic:

'At the moment, Syria does not exist as a nation ... its army has abandoned the border regions with Israel. Egypt is in terrible internal turmoil. Its army has effectively lost control of the vast Sinai area that borders Israel. No one can know what its future government will be like. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. The Palestinian leadership is murderously divided between the West Bank and Gaza. Surely it is intellectually fraudulent to imagine that any Israeli government could make a comprehensive peace in this context.

Underlying this is the cardinal doctrine of conventional wisdom among Guardian readers, UN habitues, European think tank staff and the like, and that is the implausible notion Israel is at the heart of Middle East disputes and the West's troubles with Islam....

Just because an idea is widely uttered at the UN doesn't mean it embodies any reality...."

The entire article is available here

When Australia Banned Menahem Begin

The reported recent discovery in a house in England of an original  letter connected with the Irgun's notorious hanging of two young British sergeants in 1947 (one of them, incidentally, was Jewish) revives memories of a horrible episode, which prompted antisemitic incidents in Britain at the time and, like the bombing of the King David Hotel the previous year, was talked of long afterwards.

It would have still been raw in the memory of people both in Britain and the Dominions in the early 1950s, when former Irgun leader Menahem Begin was prevented from entering Australia.  This seems to be a little-known footnote to Australian history, and since in the process of moving house I've come across some copies of archival documents from Canberra relating to it, I thought it would be not without interest to reproduce them here.

On 21 November 1952, the head of the Australian Legation in Tel Aviv,  Osmond Charles William Fuhrman (whom some historians regard as an antisemite), sent a memorandum to the Secretary, Department of External Affairs, Canberra, concerning Begin, whose photograph was attached:

"Subject: Menahem Beigin [sic] – Member of Parliament[,] terrorist and leader of the "Herut" party (I.Z.L.) may wish to visit Australia during the early part of 1953.

1. The Israel press has featured a story, the accuracy of which I do not doubt, that Menahem Beigin , leader of the "Herut" party[,] has been invited to participate in a conference in London of the British branch of the world movement of Revisionists.  The conference is to be held early in 1953 and it is said that at its conclusion, Beigin intends to tour Australia and New Zealand.  I do not know whether this is so, but I suggest that the Security services in Australia might be informed.  Begin is the author of a recently published book – "The Revolt", which is probably one of the most anti-British books which has ever found its way onto the world's bookstalls.

2.  The "Herut" party, of which Menahem Beigin is the leader, is a political offshoot of the outlawed Irgun Leumi terrorist organisation, and, so far as Israel [sic] politics are concerned, it stands on the extreme right and its policy is based purely on nationalism.  It demands a Jewish State which would include the whole of Palestine and Jordan.  The party claims to have neither a pro-Western nor a pro-Eastern orientation; it is indifferent to the United Nations and pledges itself, if ever put in power, to the abrogation of the United Nations partition plan.  "Herut" is regarded by the Centre and Left parties in Israel as being Fascist in character.

3.  I suggest that the appropriate Department in Australia might consider, in advance, what action should be taken if and when Beigin might apply for a visitor[']s visa to enable him to visit Australia."

Upon receipt, Department of External Affairs official Alfred Herbert Body forwarded (9 December 1952) a copy of that memorandum to the Secretary, Department of Immigration, and another to ASIO.

On 10 December 1952, L. W. Pratt, Senior Security Officer at the Australian Embassy in The Hague, sent Fuhrman, in Tel Aviv, a memorandum advising that "a security objection" pertained to twelve men listed, and that accordingly visas to Australia should not be granted.

(Those listed – presumably Displaced Persons who had gone to Israel but did not wish to remain there, and perhaps former Communists, which would have made them undesirable as far as the Australian government was concerned – were, for the historical record: Henryk Szykier, Jakub Poznanski, Polycratis Danielides, Moshe Zalcman, Nikolaus Bilek [?;  first letter smudged], Erich Rostholder, Josef Rostholder, David Teicher, Ignacy Izak Ringler, Witalis Lewenta, Andre Gluck, Hugo Fasler-Falowski.)

A further two individuals, one male, one female, were not deemed security risks, and so visas were permitted to be issued.

At the end of the memorandum Pratt advised that, following checks with the Austrian authorities, a married couple who had contravened Israeli currency law, and a male individual, were not objected to on security grounds.

Begin's case was mentioned tersely in the middle of the memorandum,  Pratt merely stating:

"The information contained in your memorandum no. 33/52 of 27.11.52 is of great interest to this office.  Mr. Beigin should not be granted a visa to Australia. We have advised all our posts to this effect."

On 13 January 1953  Fuhrman sent a cablegram marked "Confidential" to the ministries of External Affairs and Immigration as well as to the Prime Minister's Department:

'Menahem Begin [sic].

I have today, 13th January, received a letter from Begin acknowledging mine to him of 9th December and am forwarding the original to you. 

2.  Meanwhile the gist of Begin's latest letter is "Visit being sponsored and organised by the Zionist Revision of Identity [sic] Organisation of Australia".  Basic topics of the lecture would be the political and economic situation of Israel and the Prague trials implications.  Begin said he would like to visit Australia in July or August next and added that in the course [of] nearly three quarters of a year, events may take place in the West, in the East or the Middle East, which at present cannot be foreseen.  Any such new events if they occurred would be included in his lecture.

3.  Begin is on the special list of New Scotland Yard.  He is a trouble-maker and a terrorist and I would strongly advise against permitting his entry into Australia.

A scribbled memorandum to A. H. Body of External Affairs, dated 20 January and bearing the initials I.[?] M., ran:

"Watson, Imig.[,] says that their file has been passed to Mr Holt [future prime minister Harold Holt, who was at that time Minister For Immigration] with departmental recommendation that visa should not be issued.  This is in line with Mr Casey's recommendation [Richard Gardiner Casey, later Governor-General Lord Casey, at that time Minister For External Affairs]."

On the same day Body dashed off his own memorandum, for J.C.G Kevin, a member of Australia's diplomatic corps, whose involvement in this matter is unclear from the correspondence to hand:

"Begin was reported to be coming to Australia later this year and Mr. Fuhrman advised us of the background in an earlier memorandum.

2.  Later Mr. Casey was asked by a M.H.R. [a member of the federal House of Representatives] if it were the case that a visa was refused Begin.

3.  A cable was sent to Tel Aviv from which it appeared that no visa application was made, but, if it were made, Mr. Fuhrman advised against its being approved.

4.  Mr. Casey agreed that a visa should not be given Begin and asked us to advise immigration.

5.  Immigration are now considering the matter."

Across the bottom of that typed memo was subsequently handwritten:

"Immigration have recommended to their Minister against a visa."

And so Menahem Begin's planned visit to Australia was thwarted.

We might think "fair enough".

But many Australians today must wonder why their government is not similarly strict in keeping out representatives of Hizb-ut-Tahrir!

"How Will I Explain This On The Steps Of The Mosque At Lakemba?": Australian Foreign Minister Carr's Stance On Israel Condemned

Today's Sydney Daily Telegraph (12 December, Aussie time) carries an exclusive column by the prominent Labor federal politician Michael Danby, chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

Danby, at one stage of his career the only Jew in federal Parliament, is (like Foreign Minister Bob Carr, once considered friendly towards Israel) a leading figure on the Right of his party (the ALP), and has been a pro-Israel advocate since his student days.

In his column he condemns what he sees as Carr's manipulative betrayal of Israel, which, he claims involved Carr ringing around keyparty  figures to ensure that pro-Israel Prime Minister Julia Gillard (pictured, with Bibi Netanyahu) was undermined.

Writes Danby, inter alia:

"As NSW premier he [Carr, in 2003] awarded the Sydney Peace Prize to Palestinian ideologue Hanan Ashrawi. As the only major figure in the Australian Jewish community to defend his actions, I used the Voltaire argument, namely his right to say things with which others disagreed.... 

Parliament last month saw a switch in Australia's stance at the UN creation of a Palestinian state after Julia Gillard's pro-Israel position was challenged and then overturned by Carr and others....

Some caucus members worry about every Palestinian - who is, by aid dollars per capita, the most highly subsidised minority in the world, including $350 million of Australian taxpayer funds.

By contrast, poor gentle Tibet gets little sympathy. More than 80 Tibetans have burned themselves to death in the past 18 months as a result of Chinese oppression.

Tibetans launch terrorist attacks on no one. They acquire no Iranian missiles to attack Chinese cities; they strap on no suicide vests to blow up no children on school buses.

Yet the Tibetans can't get a meeting with our Foreign Minister and they don't get a dollar from the UN.

We avert our eyes when a real power like China crushes under its boot an ancient people like the Tibetans. Yet our Foreign Minister asks of the Palestinian vote at the UN: "How will I explain this on the steps of the mosque at Lakemba?"

Nor are there any caucus resolutions over the 200,000 in the living death of North Korean concentration camps or the 300,000 African Muslims of Darfur butchered by their Islamist government in Sudan.

But the ostensible, domestic motivations for our changed vote are the most troubling aspect of the debate inside the Labor Party during the final week of parliament. It is self-defeating to suggest, as was widely claimed, that voters in western Sydney (who swung against the NSW Labor Party by 30-40 per cent at the last state election) will be influenced by votes at the UN.

Corruption at the heart of both the Left and Right of NSW Labor and the clear lack of infrastructure, particularly in western Sydney, are the real turn-off in Sydney seats. Phoning around, then speaking on the matter and ultimately threatening to speak against the Prime Minister is unforgivable behaviour for any minister in any cabinet government...."

Read the entire article here (hat tip: reader Shirlee)

In a recent column in the Jerusalem Post, the internationally-known and widely respected Jewish leader Isi Leibler, for a quarter of a century the dominant figure in the Australian Jewish community until he made aliya over a dozen years ago, also condemns Bob Carr's position, contrasting it with the demonstrated pro-Israel stance of almost all Australian federal administrations (regardless of party) down the years.

Explains Leibler, with justification:

"Much of this historical bipartisanship can be attributed to a vigorous Jewish community, renowned as being one of the most vibrant Zionist communities in the Diaspora. Its leadership has never failed, to speak upand take a principled stand on behalf of Israel when appropriate."

Of Carr, he writes in part:

"On a few recent occasions, votes by Australia at the UN appeared to deviate from the norm, but this was rationalized as temporary pandering to the Arabs to solicit votes for elections to the Security Council.

The dramatic tilt against Israel was spearheaded by Foreign Minister Bob Carr who exerted enormous pressure on the Labor caucus and compelled Prime Minister Gillard to backtrack from her decision to oppose the Palestinian initiative. Had she not complied, she would have been humiliatingly defeated and possibly toppled as Prime Minister. 

Carr was vigorously supported by former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, at one time one of Israel’s greatest supporters, notorious (whilst inebriated) for having called on Israel to “nuke” the Palestinians if they failed to halt the terror. Hawke was intimately connected to Israel’s Labor leaders but after Menahem Begin was elected Prime Minister in 1977, he changed his views and today regards Israel as “intransigent”. He was supported by another veteran Labor politician, former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who since retiring from government has been consistently canvassing the Arab cause. Both fervently lobbied Labor ministers to repudiate Gillard’s policy....

Carr visited Israel in August this year meeting Israeli and Palestinian leaders including Ashrawi.

 On his return to Australia, he raised eyebrows when he dispatched a delegation to Iran to solicit votes for Australia’s UN Security Council candidature. There were also unconfirmed rumors circulating that undertakings were made to the Arabs in return for their support.

His backing of Israel during the Gaza campaign was lukewarm. In the Senate, he made the astonishing statement:  “Any response by Israel needs to be proportionate and not lead to civilian casualties. We have on more than a dozen occasions called on both sides to exercise restraint”.

Setting aside the moral equivalence inherent in this remark, he was effectively demanding that Israel – which more than any army in history goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties – take no action to defend its citizens from missile attacks.

He was even more forthcoming after the UN vote when he proclaimed “I don’t apologize for the fact that Australia has interests in the Arab world. If we had voted no, that would have been a body blow to our interests in over 20 countries. The truth is they all see this as a bedrock issue.” He also dismissed suggestions that the Palestinians intended to exploit their new observer status to initiate charges of war crimes against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

Carr’s change of policy was confirmed when he joined the European bandwagon and hauled Israel’s Ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem over the coals following Israel’s decision to build homes in the Jerusalem suburbs and adjacent areas – which the Bush Administration had agreed should remain within Israel....

 [U]nless Gillard succeeds in persuading the Labor Party caucus to change its approach, in the short term Israel should not expect support from Australia under Foreign Minister Carr. Like many of our European “friends”, Carr may continue insisting that his motivations are based upon having the Jewish state’s security at heart and trying to save Israel from itself. But when the chips are down, he will abandon us as he did at the UN General Assembly.""

A recent scene in Sydney

Leibler also notes a salient demographic factor:

"With close to 500,000 Moslems now living in Australia, many concentrated in key Labor Party electorates, their influence has impacted on a number of Labor Ministers. Combined with the vehement anti-Israeli orientation of the far left Labor factions, this enabled Carr to persuade the Cabinet to tilt its policy against Israel."

(The number of Jews in Australia is around 100,000.)

Incidentally, the results of Britain's 2011 Census were announced today.

Of potential relevance to the way politicians react to issues affecting Israel, that Census shows that there are 263,000 declared Jews – and 2.7 million Muslims.

Aussie Foreign Minister Carr Cools Prime Minister Gillard's Ardour For Israel

Here's Senator Bob Carr talking before the ceasefire was confirmed about Operation Pillar of Cloud [Defence] and also about the demos against the Israeli-owned Max Brenner outlets that occur from time to time in Australia.

But as today's Australian newspaper reports, Carr, riding roughshod over the stance of prime minister Julia Gillard, has argued strenuously for Australia to offer no opposition to the Palestinian Authority's bid later this week for observer status at the United Nations.

Some who agree with him point to demographic changes in certain constituencies, which have led politicians representing them to pay heed to Muslim opinion on the issue.  Accordingly, Australia, rather than vote against the bid along with the United States and Israel, will abstain:

'.... Several ministers and backbenchers had been warning Gillard for weeks that the position on the UN vote, slated for Friday, needed to be finalised in order to instruct the ambassador to the UN, Gary Quinlan, on what to do.

They were seized by the dramatic change in the caucus on the Israel-Palestine issue, with several factors that have been slowly building within Labor -- Israel's settlement policy, increasing violence by settlers against Palestinians and a right-wing Israeli prime minister who backed Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.

There is concern both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are stalling on a two-state solution and that the outcome of the UN vote could positively energise those discussions.

And, critically, there is the growing Muslim and Christian make-up of several key western Sydney Labor seats, which have exposed MPs to different points of view on the Middle East.

Some sections of the party suggest Victorian Labor is too close to the Israel lobby and does not fully understand the underlying changes in Sydney's outer suburbs.

However, one Victorian minister said: "How are we going to solve Labor's challenges in western Sydney by the way we vote at the UN?"

Before the cabinet meeting late on Monday, Gillard met with senior ministers for two hours to discuss the UN vote. Carr sketched out the foreign policy argument for not opposing the Palestinian motion that he believed was in Australia's interests.

Environment Minister Tony Burke, holding a seat in southwest Sydney, explained the shift in the community he had been feeling on this issue for a long time...

Before this meeting, Gillard made an extraordinary request to the NSW Right faction convenor and chief government whip, Joel Fitzgibbon. She wanted him to bind the Right behind her position. Fitzgibbon refused.Meanwhile, former prime minister Bob Hawke, a long-time ardent supporter of Israel, was arguing behind the scenes for Australia not to oppose the motion on Palestine. So had his foreign minister, Gareth Evans, who warned Labor MPs and senators not to be "on the wrong side of history"....'

Reacting to the abstention decision, the shadow Foreign Minister, Senator Julie Bishop, said:

"The Coalition is disappointed that the Government has decided to abstain from voting at the United Nations on the matter of Palestinian Observer Status.

The Coalition believes Australia should vote against this bid as we do not believe that this is the path to peace and reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Our concern is that the drive for greater recognition at the United Nations is an attempt by Palestinian leaders to enable them to bring action against Israel through the international courts.

It also risks conferring increased international status on the militant group Hamas which governs Gaza.

This action is likely to escalate and prolong the conflict, rather than lead to a resolution of disputes.

The path to peace is for the Palestinian leadership to officially recognise the right of Israel to exist and to halt the firing of rockets and mortars as part of a campaign by militants to terrorise and kill Israeli civilians.Australia has long supported the two-state solution and the right of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to live peacefully and in safety within internationally recognised borders. We urge both sides to resume negotiations towards a lasting peace in the region."

Further details on this issue are available here 

Hat tip to reader Shirlee for this link to an ABC feature about young Aussie Jews proudly preparing to make aliyah.

Australia, Israel, & Homeland Security Know-How (video)

Here's a video from Australia in which the Trade and Investment manager of the Israel Trade Commission is interviewed by the executive editor of Asia Pacific Security Magazine.

Explains the uploader:

"Richard Vesely, Manager, Trade and Investments, Israel Trade Commission introduces ISRAEL HLS 2012 Expo & Conference with a focus on Safe Cities & Critical Infrastructure. The bi-annual event includes keynote Israeli and International Speakers and a mock emergency incident under management. Richard also provides an overview of the Israel Trade Commission and Israel's advanced standing in the homeland security market in the Asia Pacific and why participating in delegations to Israel, as planned for 2013 is important for professional development.

Interview with Chris Cubbage, Executive Editor of the Asia Pacific Security Magazine, at Security 2012 Exhibition and Conference, Sydney. Produced in association with Diversified Exhibitions"

(Want something zippier? Click here)

Australian Statement On Settlements Ignores The Full Story

A few days ago, the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release concerning Israeli settlements, and quoting Foreign Minister Bob Carr, who's on record as opposing an Israeli strike on Iran:

'The Australian Government today expressed concern that Israel's latest announcement on settlements could further complicate prospects for resumed direct negotiations on an Israel-Palestinian peace.

The announcements from the Israeli Government included tenders for new housing construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank; and retrospectively legalising the status, rather than evacuating, several outposts in the West Bank. This was contrary to previous commitments from the Government.

The Australian Government has consistently called on both sides to show restraint and comply with their obligations under the Quartet's Roadmap for Peace and other previous agreements. This includes settlements because it is counter-productive to the peace process.

Australia believes in a negotiated two state solution to the conflict, and urges Israel and the Palestinian Authority to resume direct negotiations without preconditions.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr said the announcement was an unhelpful development at a time when both sides need to take action to build trust and confidence.

"These announcements will not help efforts to bring both parties back to direct negotiations, which is the only path forward to achieving a two-state solution," Senator Carr said.'

Via the antipodean news service J-Wire, Emily Gian, of the Zionist Council of Victoria, observes:

'[Senator Carr's statement] seems to be in response to a bid by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to find a way to stop the demolition of several buildings in unauthorised outposts within the West Bank and to find a legal solution to this issue.


While reiterating the Australian Government’s call for both sides to "show restraint and comply with their obligations under the Quartet’s Roadmap for Peace", FM Carr chose to specifically single out the settlements as a "counterproductive to the peace process". He continued that the Israeli Government’s announcement was "an unhelpful development at a time when both sides need to take action to build trust and confidence" and that "these announcements will not help efforts to bring both parties back to direct negotiations".


FM Carr is correct in that the issue of the settlements has been a sticking point in negotiations for many years.


The Quartet’s Roadmap, which was laid out back in 2003, stated that the Government of Israel should immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001, and consistent with the Mitchell Report, also froze all settlement activity including "natural growth of settlements". This was required to follow the implementation of Phase One of the Road Map which laid out certain requirements on the part of the Palestinians, namely that the "Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel".


We are now nine years down the track and, given the conduct of the Palestinian leadership in both Gaza and the West Bank, it should be obvious that we are no closer to an implementation of Phase One than we were back then.


There are many issues that are holding back the peace talks and that have stood in the way of this elusive peace negotiation that is in the best interest of all parties, but by focussing solely on the settlements, FM Carr and others are only looking at one part of the problem.

For example, last month PA Minister of Social Affairs Majida Al-Masri, urged for Palestinian unity between rivals Fatah and Hamas "so that we will be able to stand against the occupation, to halt its activities against our prisoners, and to turn to the struggle for the liberation of Palestine – all of Palestine".


In case some are in need of a geography lesson, the liberation of all of Palestine does not mean the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but all of Israel. If that is the stated position of a Minister of the Palestine Authority (Israel’s peace partner), then how important is resolving the issue of the settlements to the Palestinians, if at all?


The same attitude is reflected throughout Palestinian popular culture, with four songs currently being played PA-controlled television listing Israeli cities such as Haifa, Lod, Be’er Sheva, Tiberias, Sfat and Ashkelon as parts of Palestine (see more). I find the inclusion of Be’er Sheva and Ashkelon on this list particularly interesting considering Palestinian rockets are constantly aimed at these cities. But I digress. The point here is that this happens on a daily basis on Palestinian television, in mosques and in the media, and but yet Israel is consistently singled out for being the obstacle to peace.


There is also the continued issue of the glorification of Palestinian terrorists who have carried out some of the most heinous attacks against Israelis, such as the recent celebration of Dalal Mughrabi, who was responsible for the murder of 12 children and 25 adults. The Political and National Orientation Authority, an educational structure under the PA, referred to her a "person who fulfilled her obligation towards her land and homeland".


The Quartet, which met in Washington [this week] issued a statement and at least seemed to have more balance on the issues. It called on the PA to "continue to make every effort to improve law and order, to fight violent extremism, and to end incitement". Turning to Israel it "expressed its concern over ongoing settler violence and incitement in the West Bank and calls on Israel to take effective measures, including bringing perpetrators of such acts to justice". This is a more balanced approach than that which our FM here in Australia is taking.


Of course, the EU did not call on the PA to bring perpetrators of incitement to justice, but given that much of the incitement occurs in the PA media itself, such a call might have been somewhat embarrassing.


The Quartet did condemn "rocket attacks from Gaza and stressed the need for calm and security for both peoples". The Quartet knows that the rocket attacks are also extremely detrimental to the cause of peace. They should be condemned and the failure to do so should be of concern to all of us.


I have no doubt that our FM meant no harm with his statements, but I think it is vital that anyone who comments on the Middle East does so with a more nuanced approach. Blaming Israel is just going to give the Palestinians more reasons not to return to the negotiating table and renew their efforts to win UN recognition.'

For the full article, which includes links, see here